Zama 202 BC: Scipio crushes Hannibal in North Africa (Campaign, 299)

The almost legendary match-up between the Roman General Scipio and the Carthaginian General Hannibal gets the Osprey Campaign Series treatment in "Zama 202 B.C.". Author Mir Bahmanyar provides an extended narrative of the rivalry between Carthage and Rome, the Punic Wars, and the leaders themselves before getting to the actual battle. The historical record is somewhat fragmentary on the details; the author has done a remarkable job filling in the gaps with good research and reasoned speculation.This book is lavishly illustrated, even by Osprey standards, with period and modern illustrations, photographs, and some excellent battle diagrams. Particular attention is paid to the details of combat in the period. The result is a very readable and detailed book despite its short length of less than 100 pages. Highly recommended as an introduction to the topic.

This is a modest sized book that explains a lot about the history leading up to the defeat of Hannibal by Scipio as well as the battle itself. It is lavishly illustrated. It is not clear the relevance to the history of many of the pieces of art that are illustrated. However, there are many illustrations of the Roman army legionnaires as well as the tactics used by Scipio and Hannibal. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know how Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 BCE.

Readable and enjoyable account of the battle. Maps add significantly to the understanding.

Excellent account of one of the best battles fought by the Romans during the struggle of power against Cartague, the explanation and disposition of forces are well explained. Easy to read

Many of the paintings add nothing to the text. Much of the text is repetitive reflecting the paucity of ancient sources, but I did not need to hear Polybius’ comment about 2.75 meters between legionaries quite so many times. Would recommend one of the many books about Scorpio or the Punic wars instead.

If you like ancient military history, then you will enjoy this book about the critical battle of Zama when Rome defeated Carthage.

Not familiar with the author but pleasantly surprised plus more great work from the prolific Peter Dennis.

This book adds another title to Osprey's growing campaign series.

This is a very welcome addition to the Osprey Campaign series and the author, with skill and good judgement, has tackled the problem of the fact the actual battle took place within three wars that was fought between the Empires of Rome and Carthage. Due to the title being of only 96 pages in length, it must be clear to anyone that coverage of the 1st and 3rd Punic Wars obviously had to be reduced, in order to offer as much space and information as possible on the actual battle which took place during the 2nd Punic War. The author has succeeded in this admirably.Zama 202BC is divided into Origins of the Campaign, Chronology, Opposing Commanders, Opposing Plans, Opposing Forces, the Battle of Zama, Aftermath, Further Reading and Index. The various sections compliment and support each other and offer a vital insight as to who was doing the fighting, why, and what happened before, during the battle and after the battle. You could not ask for anything more, other than a more detailed Further Reading section, although to offer an extended source and reading section would possibly result in reducing the actual account of the battle. The desire for more sources is just my complaint of all Osprey titles, and not one aimed at the authors.The 1st and 2nd Wars between Rome and Carthage are briefly discussed, but even so, offer a very useful and vital background to the reason the battle took place. The Roman and Carthaginian armies and their allies are described with some detail, as are their weapons and tactics. These are aided by excellent illustrations and prints, many in colour, of maps, locations, battle formations, phases of battle and action scenes.This is a well thought out book that not only covers the actual battle, but also offers and highlights the problem concerning sources. The information and ancient sources the author bases his account on, are offered throughout the narrative, along with that of modern historians. The author also shows the problems relating to the sources, in that, as with all historical sources, they differ and are often written by the victors, in this case, the Romans. Also highlighted is the fact that it wasn't just a battle between the Romans and the Carthaginians, since both sides relied heavily on their allies or mercenaries who fought with them. However, I disagree with the author's suggestion (page 89) that the battle could be considered as a victory by the Africans under the Numidian commander Masinissa, because they lost more men. Neither the Romans under Scipio or the Africans under Masinissa could have won the battle without each other and the winning tactics were more likely due to a plan discussed and agreed beforehand by both of them. It was an allied victory and had either the Romans or their allies failed in the allocated roles, then it may well have resulted in a Carthaginian victory. But Scipio was the overall commander and he knew what he wanted his African allies to do, which they did perfectly.Overall, the author's account clearly describes how hard the battle was, how victory could have gone to either side, and importantly, how Scipio managed to combat and match Hannibal's tactics and the threat of his use of elephants, in overcoming one of Rome's greatest enemies. This title is well recommended.

It's said of Hannibal, who threatened the forces of Rome, but not the city itself since he lacked the equipment for siege, that he was the only enemy that Rome ever feared. This was the 3rd Century BCE, 218-202 BCE. His greatest military success, one, however, that is said to have disgusted even him, was at Cannae in modern Calabria. The figure of Roman losses here, 50,000 troops, seems improbable, but they were massive. Hannibal's methods, a form of pincer movement, are still studied today and were most recently employed in the First Gulf War. The Roman commander Scipio, however, adapted these to his own purposes in his invasion of modern Tunisia, Hannibal's home state, and was successful in gaining victory at Zama. This book is recommended for its display in rich colour of the various stages of the battle of Zama. Anyone thinking of a military career should consult it. Hannibal himself escaped that field. What became of him remains disputed..

This Osprey Campaign title is about the last campaign and the last battle of the Second Punic War, which ended with Hannibal’s defeat at Zama in North Africa.Overall, this is a good and interesting title. It is supported by a nice set of three double-page plates showing the beginning, the middle and the climax of the battle. The one on the beginning of the battle shows the Punic half-trained elephants in action, and how the Romans and the Velites in particular, countered them. The rather impressive second one shows the infantry clash between the Roman hastate and the second line of the Carthaginians made up of Liby-Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and the remnants of the frontline mercenaries. The third double-page plate, which is just as impressive, shows Hannibal’s veterans and third line clashing with the Roman line.The battle’s description and the immediate context is also rather good.One particularly valuable point is to show how desperate the situation had become for Carthage. This is because all that Hannibal could hope for at this stage in case of victory was somewhat more favourable terms from the Romans. Even this may have been somewhat uncertain, to the extent that Carthage had lost its Spanish Empire, had failed to reconquer Sicily and had recalled Hannibal from Italy, so that Rome was clearly winning. The author does however show that Scipio lacked siege engines and that a siege of the strongly fortified Carthage by Scipio would have been just as difficult to conduct (as shown by the Third Punic War) as would have been a siege of Rome by Hannibal.Another valuable point is the description of the various phases of this close-run battle. Particularly interesting is the gamble that Hannibal took in seeking this battle despite his inferiority in cavalry and having, with the exception of his veterans from Italy, less battle-hardened troops. One little uncertainty, however, is regarding the respective numbers and troop types on each side, with the author believing that the third line made up of Hannibal’s veterans was significantly smaller than the two first although one of the main sources for the battle states that Hannibal deployed his troops in three equal lines. However, the author’s explanation regarding the presence and deployment of a large number of Numidian infantry, and the heavy casualties that they sustained, are largely convincing.A further point is that Hannibal’s gamble almost succeeded. Scipio managed to neutralise the elephants but both Hannibal’s first and second line put up a good fight. The gruelling slogging match seems to have been little by little turning to the advantage of Hannibal’s veterans when the Romano-Numidian cavalry returned to the battlefield, attacked the Carthaginians in the rear and destroyed their army.There are however some glitches and imperfections. The first section providing context (Origins of the campaign) is – unsurprisingly perhaps – the book’s weakest. It seeks to summarise and compresses in less than a dozen pages the First Punic War, the Truce less War (against Carthage’s mercenaries) and the Second Punic War, a period of more than sixty years. As a result, the author tends to cut corners at times, with the risk of oversimplifying. One example of this is the statement that “each of these three conflicts (i.e. the Three Punic Wars) was instigated and won by Rome. Rome did win all three wars. It clearly did instigate the First and Third Wars. However, the extent to which it instigated the second war is less clear and much more debatable.By and large, however, the author nevertheless does a rather good job even for this section, given the very limited space devoted to it. One valuable piece is the section showing the respective human resources that Rome and Carthage could draw upon from, respectively, Italy and North Africa. Much less interesting, however, are the various reproduction of 19th century paintings related to the Punic Wars because they have little historical value. A final little glitch relates to the rather limited bibliography. It was for instance a pity that Richard Miles’ excellent history of Carthage (Carthage must be Destroyed) somehow did not manage to make it into the selection. Four strong stars all the same.

Great

Excellent