The kidnapping of Scipio

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Do we know exactly when and how he fell into the hands of Antiochus III ?

How the primary sources differ ? What modern historians has to say about it ?

[Primus Pilus]

Do we know exactly when and how he fell into the hands of Antiochus III ?

How the primary sources differ ? What modern historians has to say about it ?

 

Livy's account is perhaps the best in my opinion because he admits quite readily that the details are a bit sketchy. That in itself makes it oddly more believable to me.

 

Here's his account... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Liv...livy.hist.37.34

 

Attalus.org has the full list of related source materials on it... http://attalus.org/bc2/year191.html#8

 

The most prominent story among them all seems to be that he was captured at sea in Greece.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Livy's account is perhaps the best in my opinion because he admits quite readily that the details are a bit sketchy. That in itself makes it oddly more believable to me.

 

Here's his account... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Liv...livy.hist.37.34

 

Attalus.org has the full list of related source materials on it... http://attalus.org/bc2/year191.html#8

 

The most prominent story among them all seems to be that he was captured at sea in Greece.

 

 

Thanks PP, I agree that the more sketchy the detailes, the more believable they are . So, let say he was captured at sea (Aegean), how come that such an important fact as the capture of the son of the great Scipio, faded (I hope that is the word) ? I mean, did the Roman historians were influenced by the Scipionic circle to erase the fact ?

[Primus Pilus]

Livy's account is perhaps the best in my opinion because he admits quite readily that the details are a bit sketchy. That in itself makes it oddly more believable to me.

 

Here's his account... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Liv...livy.hist.37.34

 

Attalus.org has the full list of related source materials on it... http://attalus.org/bc2/year191.html#8

 

The most prominent story among them all seems to be that he was captured at sea in Greece.

 

 

Thanks PP, I agree that the more sketchy the detailes, the more believable they are . So, let say he was captured at sea (Aegean), how come that such an important fact as the capture of the son of the great Scipio, faded (I hope that is the word) ? I mean, did the Roman historians were influenced by the Scipionic circle to erase the fact ?

 

I wouldn't think so, I mean they all did record the event, even though they treated it as a rather minor one. Polybius, who was most certainly in the Scipione camp as a friend and advisor to Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (Minor), also relayed the account, though it too is lacking in detail. It's very interesting that Polybius, a man who would've undoubtedly known the entire story (having actually been a tutor to Africanus Minor as a child) reported such limited information. Perhaps it was a source of embarrassment to Africanus... especially in later years as his military reputation and political clout was growing. Although, in the defense of Polybius his book 21 which relays the information does happen to fragmented.

 

Unfortunately, Plutarch's biographies of the two men in question, Scipio Africanus and Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, are both lost. Perhaps that in itself could make one raise an inquisitive eyebrow. In any case since a great deal of our information on great names in Roman history was recorded by Plutarch, we are missing two key and possibly richly detailed accounts. As I think about it further... Cassius Dio's account in question is also in a very fragmented book. Of course, he and Plutarch were writing centuries later so I don't know why there would have been any great conspiracy to attempt to hide this hostage affair at that point in history.

 

As a related aside. I find also find it interesting that on the contrary, Caesar (and those around him) chose to widely publicize his own youthful hostage incident.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I am convinced. The material is very fragmented but the fact is well recorded . Non the less, it seems that ancient historians have tried not to do with it (bad English, bad) a big issue .

Caeser used his case to promote his special personality, the Scipio's did not used it and that is the the whole issue - There is the possibilty that something bad for them went on . But again, we don't know what went on so we can just speculate (maybe Scipio did negotiated with Antiochus about his son, a very shamful thing for a "true" Roman) .