Slitherine

Here is the brigde.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=50.57902,7.2 ... 009999&t=k

So where is Zama? We know where Rome is, though I don't know where many of the battlefield which Roman legions fought are.
What Alesia looks like after 2000 years?

If you happen to know where these famous battlefield is or make some good guess or just pure speculation, please.

Near carthage, in modern day Algeria, on the promontory midway between the Strait of Gibraltar and Egypt. Here is a link to a map:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/2pw_3_map.gif

Last I heard, the exact location was still undecided. There's some speculation that Scipio may have intentionally mis-stated the location by 20-30 miles for political reasons (he may have been acting somewhat outside his orders). Even if it is where it is claimed to be, that still leaves a couple of miles of leeway as to the actual site.

thank you, fatetriarrii, honvedseg

I found this site.
http://www.unc.edu/awmc/downloads/rve_04_1Lrg.jpg

So it's not somewhere near the coast. Somewhere near the river which name is unkown right now.
And there are Roman colonial city Carthage near Tunis.

Climate does change over the years, and river changes thier course, but this map really help to locate the battlefield.
So with a bit furhter trying, maybe the area where Zama could be localized?

Zama isn't the only battle of this era that's vague.

About 20 years ago, I actually did a certain amount of formal research on the period of the Punic wars.

The part that I am remembering now is how controversial Cannae is.

I got 5 different authors from the library, 2 ancient and 3 modern.

From these 5 sources I gleaned 3 significantly different accounts of the battle, and two very different descriptions of the battlefield.

Now the battlefield itself is problematic; the terrain today is enormously changed from the closing years of the 3rd century BC.

But the only part of the battle itself that all historians (more or less) agree on is the deployment of Hannibal's centre, and the general progress of the battle there.

Well, that and the outcome; a decisive carthaginian victory, and a roman army of ~80,000 destroyed.

Anyhow, my point is that the whole subject of ancient battles is tricky, and Titus Livius was a bald-faced liar

The one thing you need to keep in mind when reading any of the ancient accounts of major events is that the details were generally distorted and "enlarged" to make for a more entertaining story. The actual facts were often secondary to the underlying plot or moral of the story, or the praising of some individual, who "incidentally" might have contributed to the author's personal finances or current public station or office. Many of the accounts were not put to paper for years, and were frequently penned by those who were not at the scene, relying on the testimony of someone who may or may not have had any part in the events. To make things worse, one author often drew his account from an earlier writer, and embellished the story even further. Historical accuracy was hardly even a consideration in many of the works.

Those rare accounts actually written by the participants, such as Gaius Julius' book "The Gallic Wars", are still subject to debate as to their reliability in many points, since politics apparently played a large role in what was said or left unsaid.

As for calling one prominent historian a "bald-faced liar", one of the distinctive characteristics of a Roman citizen, as opposed to a slave or foreigner, was that Romans were always clean-shaven. The "bald-faced" remark would have been seen as a compliment. Besides, he would most likely have viewed his own works as having "improved on reality", much like our own "fictionalized" TV dramas "based on a real event".

Tora

I did a series of battle guides for IGN at the end of last year to promote Legion Arena. Zama was one of the battles featured.

Here is the link, you can also view the other battles from here as well

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/646/646177p1.html

Regards
JDM

I'm really impressed with you alls knowlegde, and substantial public relation efforts.

So, I 'm now searching other famous battlefields in Roman campaign. (It's hard to watch and discern where river and road and ralwayis from satelite imagery of North Africa with rough resolution.)

I'Ve heard there are monuments in Marathon and wiki is really huge help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_marathon

Another thing that makes it challenging is different names for battles.

Pyrrhus' final battle against the romans is called Malventum in the game, and that is certainly not incorrect, but the same battle is often refrred to as Beneventum.

Similarly, Alexander's final battle against the persians is sometimes called Arbela, and sometimes Gaugamela.

In a more modern example, from the War Between the States, the two battles at Manassas Junction are called Bull Run by the yankees.

And Honvedseg, sorry, Livy was just a flat-out liar. It is from Livy that we get this business of the Republic having begun immediately after the ousting of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. But that's not true, and Livy knew it wasn't true. There were several more Etruscan kings in Rome after the Tarquins, including Lars Porsena.

Possum, I was born and learned about the civil war in Illinois (the north) and you are wrong.

The battle at Bull run is called Manasas by the south, not vice-versa

possum wrote:
In a more modern example, from the War Between the States, the two battles at Manassas Junction are called Bull Run by the yankees.

Bro, you mis-read what I wrote, go look again

No, I corrected you. The south is wrong, as the battles true name is Battle of Bull Run, as anyone raised in Illinois would know. So therefore, the battle of Bull Run is mis-labeled the battle of Manasas.

Uh, how the hell can something have a true name?

Is it the French and Indian war, or the 7 years war?

I suppose you could label most things by who won, but both the british and the americans won the french and indian war, really... being on the same side in that one.

Ahem, in many cases, there is no "true name," as that is a stupid, retarded idea I invented so I could crack a rather bad joke. But in this case, there is. And that "true name" is Bull Run.

Ahem, avoiding the temptation to get into a north/south spat here.....

This is just a typical example.

Maassas Junction was the nearest landmark to the battle, therefore the CSA called it by geographical location.

Bull Run comes from the fact that at the first battle, a bull literally got loose between the lines before the battle commenced, and ran around a while before somebody shot it.

So the USA called it after a memorable event.

Either way is equally legitmate, though I might be tempted to argue that geographical location is a more objective and scholarly approach

Yes, but if your first assumption (there is no "real" or "true" name) I would not be able to make a joke and start a pointless, laughable debate. And if your second point was true (that geography trumps wacky events I admit were interesting, as I did not know about that before this) than I would be wrong.

As neither situation is desirable to me, and therefore the world, you must be incorrect.

Fate, your Xfire sig says you're playing "Lord of the R", and it cuts off there, because you're using the mini-sig. Lord of the Rings? What game is that, and what genre?

Well, I am not playing anymore as of now, as the game keeps minimizing (so I barely have time to make 1 click ) and crashes when I try to play skirmish. It is an RTS, and not too bad, but it is alot of mouse-clicking. I don't normally play it, but a mod ("modification") I like just got updated, so I was trying to play it. didn't work, though

Perhaps The Battle of Bull Running Around And Then Getting Shot Not Very Far From Manassas would be a workable compromise?

If only because you guys will lose breath saying it, and therefore not be able to come up with a decent counter-argument.

How about "Battle were Manassan Prize Sprinting Bull Dies" ?

and the name is copyrighted, with the usage-price so high that repetition of the name is effectively out-lawed. It shall further just be called:

"That"