Livy's Account Of The Spanish Campign 214-211

[Hamilcar Barca]

When these supplies reached Spain, the town of Iliturgi, which had gone over to the Romans, was being attacked by three Carthaginian armies under Hasdrubal, Mago, and Hannibal, the son of Bomilcar. Between these three camps the Scipios forced their way into the town after hard fighting and heavy losses. They brought with them a quantity of corn, of which there was a great scarcity, and encouraged the townsfolk to defend their walls with the same courage that they saw the Roman army display when fighting on their behalf. Then they advanced to attack the largest of the three camps, of which Hasdrubal was in command. The other two commanders and their armies saw that the decisive struggle would be fought there and they hastened to its support. As soon as they had emerged from their camps the fighting began. There were 60,000 of the enemy engaged that day and about 16,000 Romans. And yet the victory was such a crushing one that the Romans slew more than their own number of the enemy, made prisoners of more than 3000, captured somewhat less than 1000 horses, 59 military standards, 7 elephants, 5 having been killed in the battle, and got possession of the three camps - all in that one day. After the siege of Iliturgi was thus raised, the Carthaginian armies marched to attack Intibili. They had repaired their losses out of that province which, above all others, was eager for fighting, if only plunder and money were to be got out of it, and which, too, abounded in young men. A pitched battle was again fought with the same result for both sides. Over 13,000 of the enemy were killed, more than 2000 made prisoners, 42 standards and 9 elephants were also taken. And now nearly all the tribes of Spain went over to Rome, and the successes gained in Spain that summer were far greater than those in Italy.

 

 

 

The Carthaginians commenced an attack upon Illiturgis, owing to the presence of a Roman garrison there, and it looked as if they would certainly reduce it by famine. Cn. Scipio went to the assistance of the besieged with a legion in light marching order, and fighting his way between the two Carthaginian camps, entered the town after inflicting heavy losses upon the besiegers. The following day he made a sortie and was equally successful. Above 12,000 men were killed in the two battles and more than a thousand were made prisoners; thirty-six standards were also captured. In this way the siege of Illiturgis was raised. Their next move was to Bigerra - also in alliance with Rome - which they proceeded to attack, but on Cn. Scipio's appearance they retired without striking a blow.

 

[24.42]The Carthaginian camp was next shifted to Munda, and the Romans instantly followed them. Here a pitched battle was fought for four hours and the Romans were winning a splendid victory when the signal was given to retire. Cn. Scipio was wounded in the thigh with a javelin and the soldiers round him were in great fear lest the wound should prove fatal. There was not the smallest doubt that if that delay had not occurred the Carthaginian camp could have been captured that same day, for the men and the elephants, too, had been driven back to their lines, and thirty-nine of the latter had been transfixed by the heavy Roman javelins. It is stated that 12,000 men were killed in this battle and about 3000 made prisoners, whilst fifty-seven standards were taken. From there the Carthaginians retreated to Auringis, the Romans following them up slowly and allowing them no time to recover from their defeats. There another battle was fought, and Scipio was carried into the field on a litter. The victory was decisive, though not half as many of the enemy were killed as on the previous occasion, for there were fewer left to fight. But the Spaniards have a natural instinct for repairing the losses in war, and when Mago was sent by his brother to raise troops, they very soon filled up the gaps in the army and encouraged their generals to try another battle. Though they were mostly fresh soldiers, yet as they had to defend a cause which had been repeatedly worsted in so short a time, they fought with the same spirit and the same result as those before them had done. More than 8000 men were killed, not less than 1000 made prisoners, and fifty-eight standards were captured.

 

 

I need feedback here. In more cases than not, the period of 214-211 in Spain is written off as a series of minor, uneventful engagements, generally not worth commenting on. However, Livy makes reference to a series of battles fought over this time which involved hugely outnumbered Roman armies inflicting high casualties on the forces of Hasdrubal, Mago and Gisgo. None of the other ancients make reference to such large figures. Does anyone else think the battles and losses recorded here are plausible? Or is it simply more of Livy's fictional, patriotic ramblings, designed to act as a counterbalance to the series of Roman disasters in Italy.

[Primus Pilus]

With Livy, we always need to stop and think... his numbers aren't always realistic, and perhaps his description of an event may be a little slanted, but I've never seen any reason to believe he would report complete fiction. (Not including the earliest history of Rome, which was anyone's guess even in Livy's time) The events of the Second Punic War would've been reasonably known to him and to other writers, so the events he described surely happened. Fortunately, in the case of the Punic Wars, Livy probably drew heavily from Polybius' work, which is generally considered among the more scholarly of Roman Historians.

 

Unfortunately, there is so much lost ancient literature regarding this period. Polybius' entire account of those years is lost, (though likely preserved in part by Livy). The work of Dio Cassius is fragmented, and that period is also mostly lost, and so on and so forth.

[Felix Marcellus]

A Brevet Lieutenant Colonel named Theodore Ayrault Dodge wrote books about Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander. In his book on Caesar he draws much from Polybius and Livy. He tends to go with Polybius because as the above poster mentioned, Livy drew a lot from Polybius. Livy tended also to be biased towards the Roman side. The numbers for the enemy above may be fairly accurate. But the numbers for the Romans are low. He more than likely was not counting auxiliaries and other light troops in the numbers. The numbers for the casualties may be accurate. It was typical in the battles of antiquity for the winner to lose very few soldiers while inflicting incredible losses on the loser. This happens because it is very tough to kill people in a tight, cohesive formation. Once a formation breaks and runs, they're easily ran down and destroyed. I highly recommend reading Theodore Ayrault Dodge's works. They were written in the 1890's but are better than anything I've read since his time. He visited the sites of the battles and uses his own experience as a soldier who had to march formations over all manner of terrain to draw the conclusions in his books. He also explains in detail what source he got information from and why he choses one source over another. YOu might want to read Quintus Curtius as well. Though Polybius is still better than he as an historian. Dodge uses Curtius in his books as well.

[Hamilcar Barca]

I'm not doubting that these events took place, what I am doubting is the increadibly high number of enemy killed, yet the battles themselves are not described in any detail. Basicly what I asking is if you were going to report on these events, would you include the casualty figures given?

 

In his book on Caesar he draws much from Polybius and Livy.

 

 

You must mean someone else, Polybius lived 100 years before Caesar showed up and Livy's books from this era have not survived.

[pompeius magnus]

Well Livy usually corrects the numbers from previous sources, however his new numbers are still probably exageratted.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Livy has made many exaggerations such as this. The war in Italy after Cannae is filled with them. It is doubtful that all these major battles happened with those high numbers. Then again. It was Rome's most costly war. Also, Carthage was able to come up with some rather big armies in Spain but 60,000?

[Felix Marcellus]

I'm not doubting that these events took place, what I am doubting is the increadibly high number of enemy killed, yet the battles themselves are not described in any detail. Basicly what I asking is if you were going to report on these events, would you include the casualty figures given?

 

In his book on Caesar he draws much from Polybius and Livy.

 

 

You must mean someone else, Polybius lived 100 years before Caesar showed up and Livy's books from this era have not survived.

 

You are right. I apologize. I'm just here to learn. I read all three books about Alexander, Hannibal and JC one after the other. He mentions many of his sources multiple times and in all three books. And apparently I'm easily confused. Forgive me. Either way. Theodore Ayrault Dodge's books on these great Captains are very good. Long and drawn out in places, but still well worth the read. Check him out. YOu won't find any great details of the battles you seek in his books. What you will see is consistency in casualty reporting in the battles of antiquity. I probably wouldn't include specific casualty figures. I would probably say something general like... "The Romans losses were insignificant while the Carthaginian casualties reduced their numbers by a third." Getting wrapped around numbers like this is an exercise in futility. You can ask 100 historians how many people died in a given battle and get 100 different answers.