At the Battle of Zama, was the Roman army more "native" than the Carthaginian?

score:9

Accepted answer

The exact amounts of forces that took part in this battle seem to be unknown or at least controversial. My opinion bases on the lecture of 10 pages of discussion at the main Polish historical board.

In overall, it's safe to say that the the answer is yes, most of the Roman soldiers "Roman" and most of Hannibal's soldiers were mercenaries. Even if it would be more adequate to replace mercenaries with allies.

But I don't claim that it was the reason for winning the battle, which is much more complicated thing.

The following quotes come from Appian's History of Rome.

Hannibal:

He speedily put in battle array about 50,000 men and eighty elephants. He placed the elephants in the front line at intervals, in order to strike terror into the enemy's ranks. Next to them he placed the third part of his army, composed of Celts and Ligurians, and mixed with them everywhere Moorish and Balearic archers and slingers. Behind these was his second line, composed of Carthaginians and Africans. The third line consisted of Italians who had followed him from their own country, in whom he placed the greatest confidence, since they had the most to apprehend from defeat. The cavalry were placed on the wings. In this way Hannibal arranged his forces.

Scipio:

[Β§41] [202] [Proconsul Publius Cornelius] had about 23,000 foot and 1,500 Italian and Roman horse. He had as allies Massinissa with a large number of Numidian horse, and another prince, named Dacamas, with 1,600 horse.

This way we can assume that Hannibal had three separate armies that didn't know each other and didn't have previous experience in cooperating together. One of them being Magon's army, containing Celts, Ligures and other tribes, the second Africans (Libyans and Carthaginians) and the third army in which Hannibal believed the most - veterans from Italy. Also half of his cavalry were Numidians.

At the same time, Scipio's army were mainly Roman and Italian soldiers, strengthened by forces of Masinissa who wanted to take revenge on Carthaginians for supporting his opponent on the way to take over the power in Numidia.

Upvote:0

One of the most troubling things about the Carthaginian army at Zama was the fact that Hannibal's "veteran" troops from his Italian campaigns were non-Carthaginians. And the Carthaginians in his army though enthusiastic and well-trained, were non-veterans who were basically enrolled for this one battle. There was a third group, non-veteran mercenaries from Spain. Thus, the Carthaginians did not have anything of a "home court" advantage that one might expect.

The Romans on the other side, were "native sons" (to Rome), and mostly veterans of campaigns against Hannibal in Italy, or other Carthaginians in Spain. There was one group of non-Romans who were even more "native" than them to North Africa, where the battle was fought. These were the Numidians, from a country bordering Carthage, whose cavalry decided the day. Although not Roman, their country in fact had the most to gain from a Roman victory (specifically Carthaginian territory). It's possible that another group of cavalry with less at stake would have failed to win the battle for the Romans, allowing the Carthaginians to win.

Upvote:5

The Romans used mercenary Numidian cavalry at Zama, and they were more effective than the "Native Sons" in the Roman cavalry, so the assertion is false.

Scipio was a better general, statesman and politician than Hannibal. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it.

More post

Search Posts

Related post