Revisiting Zama

[Paralus]

Why do you interpret the embellishment or falsification of the battle of Zama to have taken place between during the lifetime of those that served during Scipio Africanus’ campaign? First, when did Polybius become main stream with the Roman people? Who introduced Polybius to the Roman people? Was it Diodorus? Was the embellishment of Zama begun with the writings of Publius Scipio Africanus son?

Firstly, I do not assume the battle has been embellished or falsified. I believe this battle took place something in the manner in which the various sources render it.

On the matter of Polybios, the date of publication of his history is, and shall remain, a matter of debate given ISBNs and copyright did not exist at the time! What can be said is that the original history terminated at Pydna and that, after the sack of Corinth (and Carthage), Polybios recommenced or continued his history (the early books show signs of revision as well). It is no great stretch to see a good part of Polybios' work begun during his exile in Rome. He'd access to the Scipionic circle and much else - including Massinissa who he claims to have known and spoken with. While we nowadays associate such works being published completed, such wasn't always the case in ancient times (Diodoros, Livy for example). It is pure guesswork to pick a date for any of his books unfortunately.

There is no reason, speaking of Diodoros, to suppose Polybios' work was introduced to the Romans by Diodoros as that work had been in circulation for a century. Although one of Polybios' reasons for writing was to explain why Greece fell to Rome, that does not mean it was solely aimed at a Greek audience or that it would take a Greek (or other) to "introduce" Polybios to Rome. It's just as likely his work circulated as widely in Rome as elsewhere.
 

Goodness Michael, Roman history is full of contradictory stories about the same event. No just one, but many, many such accounts, and putting aside the history of the kings, many of these contradictory accounts are found from the beginning of the republic to the fall of Carthage in 146 BC. And where there are contradictory events, there is error or fabrication.

No one - including myself - argues that there are not contradictory stories or details within stories about the same subject/action. One need only look at the different traditions regarding the legions raised for Cannae or Scipio's forces which left Sicily. That often stems from different views of the original sources as much as corruption of such stories over time. Appian's "heroic" combat likely stems from the Greeks in Hannibal's camp for example (Sosylos for example). I would argue that is different than inventing an entirely new tradition out of whole cloth.