Number of legions at Zama

[Nick the Noodle]

Obviously, don't know how to either post or edit yet.

Fortunately, Polybius gives us all the information we need to know about the numbers at Zama.

Explicitly, he states that Hannibals front line of mercenaries is 12000.  Further, his army is a maximum of 40000.

Polybius is a member of the Scipio household, and certainly would not print anything that would diminish his employer, or his family.  Further, he can also be considered reliable, the most reliable source of this period.

That said, if Scipio's Hastati had been outnumbered by these mercenaries, he would have said so.  In fact he mentions that Roman discipline and arms eventually beat mercenary speed and skill, implying numbers were about equal.  12000 Hastati means 12000 Velites, 12000 Principes and 6000 Triari, using Polybius book 6 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...us/6*.html)

Of Hannibal's 40000, around 4000 are usually considered cavalry, thus 3 lines of 12000 infantry are considered likely.  Hannibal's mercenaries are said to have been of 4 different ethnicities, 2 of which usually provided light infantry.  What this means is that Hannibal had about 30000 heavy foot, the same as Scipio.

The Hastati eventually defeat Hannibals front line, which falls back and stated to fight his second.  Whether actually true or not, casualties are greatest during the rout, not in actual combat.  When both the mercenaries and local levy fall back, and form on the edges of Hannibal's veterans, we are still looking at about 30000 foot each.  They have time to do this, because Scipio also has to reform his line.  Once again, Polybius confirms this stating the final infantry combat has about the same number of troops on both sides.  The outcome is therefore determined by Scipio's returning cavalry.

My theory is based solely on Polybius, and ignores less reliable sources like Appian.

[Steven James]

Nick wrote:

Obviously, don't know how to either post or edit yet.

 

It takes some getting use to.

 

Nick wrote:

Fortunately, Polybius gives us all the information we need to know about the numbers at Zama.

 

Unfortunately, Polybius does not. Polybius is very short on numbers.

 

Nick wrote:

Polybius is a member of the Scipio household, and certainly would not print anything that would diminish his employer, or his family. Further, he can also be considered reliable, the most reliable source of this period.

 

This is the standard mentality of academics for so long now, it is their religion. I call this approach, that is the grading of ancient historians based on the unfounded reliability spectrum as the greatest downfall of academia. It stinks of ignorance. There has not been one feasibility study conducted that proves Polybius’ as the most reliable historian. It is all hearsay.

 

Nick wrote:

That said, if Scipio's Hastati had been outnumbered by these mercenaries, he would have said so. In fact he mentions that Roman discipline and arms eventually beat mercenary speed and skill, implying numbers were about equal.

 

You do understand that this is conjecture and that opinions are not fact.

 

Nick wrote:

12000 Hastati means 12000 Velites, 12000 Principes and 6000 Triari, using Polybius book 6

 

You mean 1,200 hastati, 1,200 princeps and 600 triarii. What if there was 1,800 hastati to a Roman legion?

 

Nick wrote:

My theory is based solely on Polybius, and ignores less reliable sources like Appian.

 

Well that is sad, and an limited approach that can only produce limited results.

 

Nick, so as to save me writing out the same material, he is my link to my paper on Publius Scipio’s army and fleet of 204 BC. It also shows Appian’s casualty figures for Hannibal’s army and where they were derived from.

 

https://www.academia.edu/43836283/THE_AR...IGN_204_BC

 

[Nick the Noodle]

Thanks for the reply and paper. I'll read it when I get a chance.

[Nick the Noodle]

Okay, read the paper, although I'm not convinced about the Pythagorean String Theory.

First of all, you quoted that Livy and Appian both used 7000 volunteers that sailed from Italy to Sicily, and 16000 foot and 1600 horse sailed from Sicily to Africa, as if they are quoting the same unknown master source.  Livy states he does not know, while I would suggest Appian used Livy as a preferred source.  Therefore, the latter is not reliable, and his numbers are about as useful as his description of the battle.

16000 foot is interesting, in that it matches exactly the number of foot used by the invading Romans during the 1st Punic War, which of course, they lost.  This battle was lost through lack of cavalry, while Scipio won through his superior number of cavalry, almost a metaphor or parable.  Of course, despite inevitable losses during a campaign, Scipio still is stated to have c50% more foot at Zama than he initially left with, before being reinforced.  Therefore, whether he left with 16000 or more is moot, because Scipio was able to add additional legionaries.

1600 cavalry is interesting, in that it can reflect more than one attribute to the invading force.  First of all, a standard consular army would have 2x200 cavalry for the 2 Roman Legions, and 2x600 cavalry for the Ala.  However, the infantry number is 800 short in this scenario, highly unlikely.  Further, numbers of cavalry per legion is likely to be 300 at this time, ie 1 noble for every 10 legionaries.
I would suggest that the ratio between 1600 cav and 16000 foot, that between Roman and Italian horse and legionaries, hides the numbers of velites.  It also hides the Ala completely.  Sicilians are not Romans or Italians, and while Scipio may have been able to conscript Sicilian foot, he obviously had difficulty recruiting the nobles.  The fact that 300 units of complete cavalry kit was acquired, also proves cavalry per legion was 300, not 200.

As for your numbers in a legion, Polybius explicitly states the proportions differ from yours.  Polybius states the Triari always numbered 600, while the rest were divided equally between Velites, Hastati and Princeps.  This means a standard legion would have 1200 Velites, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Princeps and 600 Triari.  A larger 6000 man legion would have 1800 Velites, 1800 Hastati, 1800 Princeps and still 600 Triari.

[Mark Hygate]

.........................
As for your numbers in a legion, Polybius explicitly states the proportions differ from yours.  Polybius states the Triari always numbered 600, while the rest were divided equally between Velites, Hastati and Princeps.  This means a standard legion would have 1200 Velites, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Princeps and 600 Triari.  A larger 6000 man legion would have 1800 Velites, 1800 Hastati, 1800 Princeps and still 600 Triari.

Hi Nick,

I finally hope to post here, when I get off my lazy a***, my interpretation of the Polybian/Mid-republic legion composition and probable tactics (as the first part of my larger work), but I would certainly like to offer a correction to that above.

It seems that many previous researchers have mis-read (unless I have indeed myself) Polybius Bk6 and it's been compounded over the years.  For Polybius explicitly does not detail the number of Velites.  There are indeed: 1200 Hastati; 1200 Principes; and, always and only, 600 Triarii - which adds to 3000.  But then one has to account for the: 60 Centurions; 60 Optios; and 60 Signifers as well - which leaves 1020 unaccounted for from the, smaller, 'standard' Legion.  Now, the Velites are divided proportionately, so I suggest that there are exactly 1000 (so 20 per century) and the remaining 20 are most likely to be Cornicens.  This is a troop type missing from Polybius' description, but we are all, I believe, fairly sure they existed, the trumpet calls are mentioned by dear old 'P' and it's a most sensible number.

The above is why, it seems, and Polybius does himself in Bk6, many refer to a legion of 4000 men, because that's how many infantry there are - and then the 200 supernumaries.  So 4000 and 4200 are correct in the same context.

The larger/enhanced legion adds 800 additional men, which are indeed Hastati/Principes (noting that they are the same troop type) and Velites in proportion once more; and thus that means 600 of the former and 200 of the latter to total 5000.

It also strikes me as more than likely that some ancient authors use a figure of 6000 men per legion because they multiply 60 centuries by 100, which is the number that a century became known by at the time they wrote.  I'm also fairly sure that when Livy writes of a 5200 legion it's because he is also adding '10 centuries' to the standard 4200 when writing about a 'larger' legion.

The same 'legion' therefore, I believe, has been written as 4000, 4200, 5000, 5200 & 6000 depending on context, without any actual changes on the Ancient Romans' part!

I too am very sceptical about Stevens numerical-Pythagorean linkages, but that's because I prefer a simpler solution.  His shear volume of research is impressive, however, and it's not impossible that he is right.  The simple fact is that we still know relatively little actual fact or physical evidence...

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Mark

I would like Steven to be right, but the evidence does not appear to support his view.

Polybius book 6.20.9 definitely states 4200 actual infantry for a standard legion, while book 6.21.9 states 600 Triari, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Princeps, and the rest (1200) are velites. 6.21.9 also states that larger legions keep 600 Triari, but the other three now enlarged elements are kept proportionally equal.

[Steven James]

Nick wrote:

Okay, read the paper, although I'm not convinced about the Pythagorean String Theory.

 

When I showed my Pythagorean research to Sheldon Cooper, he was utterly devastated that string theory had been proven in 513 BC, and I mean utterly devastated enough to believe he must return his Nobel Prize and cancel his science show (but still keep the one about the flags). On a brighter note, many Pythagorean scholars are greatly impressed with my Pythagorean research.

 

Nick wrote:

First of all, you quoted that Livy and Appian both used 7000 volunteers that sailed from Italy to Sicily, and 16000 foot and 1600 horse sailed from Sicily to Africa, as if they are quoting the same unknown master source. Livy states he does not know, while I would suggest Appian used Livy as a preferred source. Therefore, the latter is not reliable, and his numbers are about as useful as his description of the battle.

 

None of the above has made sense. Livy does state that there were 7,000 volunteers. My paper argues that Livy’s chronology is wrong. Scipio sailed from Italy to Sicily with over 16,000 men and required 3,000 men from the 10,000 in Sicily, leaving Sicily with 7,000 men, which later was returned to 10,000 men with 3,000 reinforcements.

 

You recently posted on Historum “The problem with dismissing Polybius's figure, is that he can no longer be considered reliable. At present, he is considered the most reliable author of this period, and it would be a shame to cast all his work into doubt, whether though error or design on his part.”

 

https://historum.com/threads/the-battle-...ts.186242/

 

Here is my research on Polybius’ Carthaginian army numbers at Utica. And yes, I am positive you will automatically dismiss this.

 

Polybius gives the size of the Carthaginian army at 93,000 men, with Syphax commanding 60,000 men (50,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry), and Hasdrubal 33,000 men (30,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry).

 

Infantry              Cavalry                    Total

Syphax          50000 infantry        10000 cavalry           60000 men

Hasdrubal     30000 infantry          3000 cavalry           33000 men

Total            80000 infantry      13000 cavalry          93000 men

 

The difference between Hasdrubal’s army and Syphax’s army as given by Polybius amounts to 27,000 men (20,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry).

 

Infantry                 Cavalry                    Total

Syphax               50000 infantry        10000 cavalry           60000 men

Hasdrubal          30000 infantry          3000 cavalry           33000 men

Difference       20000 infantry        7000 cavalry          27000 men

 

The difference between Polybius’ figures for Hasdrubal and Syphax’ armies is the exact number of infantry (about 20,000 men) and 7,000 cavalry as given by Appian for Hasdrubal’s army. With the removal of the 2,400 triarii exiles, Publius Scipio’s infantry is reduced to 19,200 infantry, which can approximate to Appian’s claim of ‘about 20,000 infantry for Hasdrubal. The figure of 7,000 cavalry for Hasdrubal is large for a Carthaginian army, which suggests the 7,000 Carthaginian cavalry could be Publius Scipio’s 7,000 volunteers as given by Appian and Livy.

 

So how did Polybius or his source arrive at Syphax having an army of 60,000 men? The answer can be found in Appian’s narrative. Scattered throughout Appian’s account of the many skirmishers and Carthaginian troop movements preceding the battle of Utica, and also including the battle of Utica, that detail the number of Carthaginian infantry, cavalry, slaves, Carthaginians killed, Carthaginians that escaped, Carthaginian prisoners and the Carthaginian recruits levied after the battle. These various figures, when counted, amount to 50,200 infantry and 9,700 cavalry, which has been rounded by Polybius to 50,000 infantry and ‘about’ 10,000 cavalry.

 

Syphax’s Infantry

  6000 infantry (Appian Punic War 9)

  5000 slaves (Appian Punic War 9)

20000 infantry (Appian) Punic War 13)

  5000 dead (Appian Punic War 15)

  1800 prisoners (Appian Punic War 15)

  2400 prisoners (Appian Punic War 23)

  8000 infantry reinforcements (Appian Punic War 24)

  2000 infantry (Polybius 14 6 3)

50200 men (rounded to 50,000 infantry)

 

Syphax’s Cavalry

  600 cavalry (Appian Punic War 9)

7000 cavalry (Appian Punic War 13)

1000 cavalry (Appian Punic War 14)

  600 cavalry surrender (Appian Punic War 23)

  500 cavalry escaped (Appian Punic War 24)

9700 men (rounded to about 10,000 cavalry)

 

Polybius’ figure of 93,000 men for the Carthaginian army has been arrived at by counting the Carthaginian slaves, the Carthaginians killed and captured before, during the battle, and after the battle of Utica as belonging to Syphax, plus Hasdrubal’s 30,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. Appian allocates the Roman causalities at 100 men. For the Carthaginians, Appian provides the following figures:

 

30000 men killed

  2400 men captured

   600 horses captured

  33000 men and horses

 

Appian’s 33,000 men and horses is the exact number of infantry and cavalry for Hasdrubal’s army (30,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry) as provided by Polybius. Livy gives the following casualties for the Carthaginian army at 50,200 men and horses:

 

40000 men killed

  5000 men captured

  2000 infantry escape

    500 cavalry escape

  2700 horses captured

50200 men and horses

      11 Carthaginian senators captured

       8 elephants killed

       6 elephants captured

 

Livy’s 50,200 men and horses is the exact number of infantry that has been allocated to Syphax. When combining Appian’s figure of 33,000 men and horses with Livy’s figure of 50,200 men and horses, this produces a total of 83,000 men and horses, which is missing the 10,000 cavalry allocated to Syphax as recorded by Polybius.

 

Infantry              Cavalry                    Total

Syphax          50000 infantry          missing                   50000 men

Hasdrubal     30000 infantry        3000 cavalry             33000 men

Total            80000 infantry      3000 cavalry            83000 men

 

The number of elephants as given by Livy amounts to 14 elephants (8 killed and 6 elephants captured). Appian’s total of 140 elephants has been arrived at by multiplying the 14 elephants by 10. Here Appian appears to be following the same source responsible for exaggerating the Carthaginian elephant losses during the First Punic War (the siege of Agrigentum in 262 BC, and Panormus in 250 BC).

 

Mark wrote:

I too am very sceptical about Steven’s numerical-Pythagorean linkages, but that's because I prefer a simpler solution.

 

I’m always surprised how people can make judgments about the Pythagorean system without fully examining my research is beyond me. I had one character email me, who has never seen anything I have written Pythagoras except what I have written on this forum, and then tell me how it doesn’t work. Basically, it did not work with his preconceived ideas of how it should work.

 

Those that have examined my research, especially Pythagorean scholars have no doubt about its validity. The evidence is overwhelming. Just recently I have found the source of where Pythagoras obtained his ideas.

 

Many on RAT cannot accept a Pythagorean connection because it does not tie in with their sensibilities….sensibilities I must add that have never been fully questioned. I think people’s comfort zones are being rattled. However, being approved by RAT is immaterial to me. It is a forum and not a recognized peer review body. I have a body of people who review my research, and if it was at fault, they would have no hesitation in letting me know. Better to be found a fool before publishing, than after.

 

Did I seek to prove Rome was a Pythagorean system? The answer is no. I had no idea or concept this is what I would stumble on. I did do something anyone could have done, but never did, and that was to divide all the centuries in the property classes of the Servian constitution by the two centuries of musicians. I noticed that there was a mathematical link between Dionysius’ comment that the Roman army was 20,000 men and that there was 200 musicians. The rest is history, and personally, I think many are just plain jealous of what I have discovered. (and wait for it).

 

Mark wrote:

His shear volume of research is impressive, however, and it's not impossible that he is right. The simple fact is that we still know relatively little actual fact or physical evidence...

 

Ah, Mark, comments like “we still know relatively little actual fact or physical evidence...,” is the road traveled to defeatism. You are creating your own road blocks. If you believe there is a lack of evidence, then that will be your experience (your reality).

[Mark Hygate]

Polybius book 6.20.9 definitely states 4200 actual infantry for a standard legion, while book 6.21.9 states 600 Triari, 1200 Hastati, 1200 Princeps, and the rest (1200) are velites.  6.21.9 also states that larger legions keep 600 Triari, but the other three now enlarged elements are kept proportionally equal.

Bk6.20 says 4200 'men', not infantry, certainly in the translation in my hand just now - which fits.

Bk6.21 details the numbers as you do - but adds that they add to 4000! - so implies that the velites are indeed 1000.

Bk6.24 details the 180 men selected from the 4200, but, of course, this would more obviously be done before the rest were so divided as we and Polybius both do.

I should add that there should be 300 Roman Cavalry per Roman Legion and not 200; and seemingly 900 per Allied Legion (or a total of 600 per legion).

If the '16000' at Zama are supposed to be a full-strength Polybian standard Consular Army then it would be represented as either 16000 or 16800 and with a total of 2400 Cavalry - assuming the cavalry are at full strength; something the Romans are not always seemingly able to achieve during the Punic Wars, but which is no surprise.

[Steven James]

Mark wrote:

If the '16000' at Zama are supposed to be a full-strength Polybian standard Consular Army then it would be represented as either 16000 or 16800 and with a total of 2400 Cavalry - assuming the cavalry are at full strength; something the Romans are not always seemingly able to achieve during the Punic Wars, but which is no surprise.

 

Do people actually believe the ancient historians were utilizing such detailed records that include the casualty figures? I have found nothing to support this. Even the Roman replacement system, as can be found in Livy’s campaigns of 192 BC, to the Third Macedonian War, of which there are dozens and dozens of examples, just follow the Roman standardized system of replacement. Livy does say these troops were replacing the older troops. This should not be interpreted to be the triarii, but the oldest troops in each property class of which there are five property classes to a legion.

 

Mark wrote:

It also strikes me as more than likely that some ancient authors use a figure of 6000 men per legion because they multiply 60 centuries by 100, which is the number that a century became known by at the time they wrote.

 

There are a few examples of this happening, but not all. As to Livy’s figure of 6,200 infantry at Zama, I have written that this also includes the 70 centurions, 70 optiones, 70 artificers, 70 musicians and 540 cavalry. I have found many examples of the infantry for a legion also including the cavalry. At Zama, I state that each legion had 5,400 infantry, a claim that Livy makes for the size of the legions at Magnesia (quina milia et quadringenos). So the 5,400 man legion pops up again.

 

In my paper on Scipio’s army and fleet, for anyone that has read it, I do address all the numbers given by various ancient historians and show how they are all intertwined. It is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but an understanding of their methods. I do not nor have I cherry picked the numbers to valid my point of view. And yet, both you and Nick, to arrive at your conclusions, are cherry picking. Not once do you then explain the differing numbers given by other ancient historians. Nick spends more time and energy in justifying why everyone but Polybius should be ignored, rather than trying to understand them. You both do this to maintain deeply held views that only Polybius is reliable. However, when it suits your case, you have no qualms in labeling some of Polybius figures that do not agree with you narrative as being incorrect. You both just bash squares into round holes.

 

A legion has 1,200 velites. However, if 20 velites are allocated to each century, as Mark has commented, and of which I fully agree, then if 600 triarii (10 centuries each of 60 triarii), were allocated to guarding the camp, and those 200 velites attached to the triarii were also allocated to guarding the camp, then the legion is left with 1,000 velites. So maybe the differing numbers are all about doctrine.

 

And speaking of doctrine, everyone seems stuck on a consul having four legions of 5,000 men. Well does he on every occasion? What if he decided due to necessity, to change his four legions of 5,000 men to five legions of 4,000 men? Has anyone besides myself considered this option?

 

The Romans have a lot of military doctrines that unfortunately, have confused many an ancient historian.

 

Ok, I provided proof of Polybius’ use of numbers for Utica. Every time I post evidence it gets ignored. Why is that? Are you Mark, willing to reply to my Utica research?

 

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Mark.
You must be reading a different Polybius Book 6.20.8/9. It is clear to me, that Polybius is only talking about Velites, Hastati, Princeps and Triari, ie actual infantry and not non combatants.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...us/6*.html

"When they have chosen the number determined on — that is when the strength of each legion is brought up to four thousand two hundred, or in times of exceptional danger to five thousand — the old system was to choose the cavalry after the four thousand two hundred infantry, but they now choose them first, the censor selecting them according to their wealth; and three hundred are assigned to each legion."

Book 6.21.9 does not state 4000 more men, but if the legion is greater than 4000:

"They divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites. If the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same."

---

Hi Steven.

Yes I do only rely on Polybius for my view on Zama, and numbers. I consider him the most reliable historian available. I might be wrong, but I currently find your methodology for counting troops not without concern.

[Steven James]

Nick wrote:

Yes I do only rely on Polybius for my view on Zama, and numbers. I consider him the most reliable historian available. I might be wrong, but I currently find your methodology for counting troops not without concern.

 

Then can you explain in my Utica numbers example where I have gone wrong? Have I counted incorrectly?

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Steven.

The paper I downloaded, at your suggestion, does not mention Utica, unless I missed it?

[Steven James]

Hi Steven.

The paper I downloaded, at your suggestion, does not mention Utica, unless I missed it?

It is shown in posting 54 of this thread, which is now four postings back.

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Steven.

I assume post 52?

Syphax's army, at c60k is too large. Engels in his book on the logistics of the Macedonian army categorically proves that field armies cannot be stronger than 50k.

[Nick the Noodle]

I'll retract my last comment. Syphax's army was in winter quarters, and not a mobile field force.

I'll have a look at details later, but using Appian to confirm Polybius seems tenuous at best. The obvious example is that Appian states 50k in Hannibals army at Zama, while Polybius states 40k.