Dawn rose and revealed the fugitives. The gates of the Roman Camp were opened, an eager swarm of cavalry galloped out, and a storm of steel hid all the plains far and wide. There was no hand-to-hand fighting as yet; but already the missiles shot in advance drank blood. At one point, Cretan arrows, bidden to arrest the flight of the enemy, flew through the air; at another, the fatal force of the javelins brought death to every man whom they struck. Giving up all thought of flight, the enemy were forced to draw up their line in haste, and rested their hopes on battle. (371) Thus begins Silius Italicus's account of the Battle of Metaurus, one of six great battles described in his monstrous poem, Punica. [1] The Battle of Metaurus however, holds a special place in the history of the Second Punic War because it is, arguably, the turning point of the conflict. Indeed, both the Romans and the Carthaginians "rested their hopes on battle." INTRODUCTION And thus began an independent study paper I wrote in college on that very same topic. The paper was discovered during a much-delayed and much-needed cleaning and organizing of a closet, and it was with no little sense of nostalgia that I re-read the amateur effort. Fond memories of afternoons spent in the stacks, researching accounts of the battle and of typing the paper on a weighty, electric Smith-Corona came flooding back. It was with no little sense of relief too, that during this trip down college memory lane, I discovered the topic for my next submission to MWAN. Re-reading the comments of the two professors who graded the effort, I decided that with this version, I would not commit the same errors. It seems that while my 30-page paper showed some promise and real grasp of res militaria rarely shown by an underclassman, I had no real thesis. In addition, I had written enough for two or even three papers. Ironically, for a student of military history, I had made the cardinal error of dividing my forces in the attempt to address each "front" of the subject. [2] For the purposes of this narrative then, I will not be looking at the campaign leading up to the battle. I will not be following the forced-marches of Nero and his handpicked troops before and immediately following the engagement. Nor will I be considering the particulars of Roman politics and the effects of same on military operations. As intriguing and relevant as these topics are to the subject at hand, I believe each deserves separate treatment. Stated simply, (much to the delayed delight of my college professors, I am quite certain) the concentration of this project is the battle itself. I am interested in looking specifically at the contest between Hasdrubal's forces and the Consular armies of Rome on the field of Metaurus that June morning in 207 B.C. [3] SOURCES In addition to my lack of focus with respect to a thesis, both professors also expressed some concern about the utilization of source materials. Reviewing the works cited page now, I can readily agree with the assessment. Harold Lamb's text, Hannibal: One Man Aqainst Rome, was dismissed as a popularization. Several other sources were called into question due to their date. For example, "The Story of Carthage," by one Alfred J. Church, was used in the body of the paper. This work, appearing in the book The Story of Nations, was published in 1898! I did not make a notation for the translation of Livy that was consulted. Volume IV of The History of Rome was interpreted by Reverend Canon Roberts. Livy was also referenced in the only work that was not discredited by the professors. Brian Caven made much use of the Roman historian in his text, The Punic Wars. (St. Martin's Press, 1980) It was noted however, that Caven's work was a secondary source. One professor wondered why I had not utilized the better reviewed Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War, by J. F. Lazenby. As this scholarly work was available in 1978, there was really no reason why it should not have made the Works Cited page. Well, perhaps there are two reasons. First, the stacks at my institution of higher learning were not as complete as they could have been with regard to the most recent work on ancient history; specifically that which dealt with the contests between Rome and Carthage. Second and more to the point, I was an ignorant and sometimes lazy underclassman who did not take full advantage of the inter-library loan services available to me. (I find it somewhat ironic that Lazenby's text would become a main source for my article, Considering Cannae: The Evolution of an Ancients Wargame Report, which appeared in THE COURIER, No. 79.) The text by Lazenby fulfills a similar role for this present project. The book Hannibal, by Ernie Bradford (1981), was also used as a reference. In brief comparison, the Bradford work seems more of a narrative - a recapitulation of the work of Livy - than it does a history. The Lazenby text offers a more critical treatment of the primary sources; pointing out contradictions in those narratives as well as suggesting that certain items reported as facts, were just not the case. [4] Turning to a search of the Internet, one finds very little. Or, at least I found very little. Using the key words: Metaurus, Battle of, 207 B.C. and Order of Battle, I was able to turn up a number of "matches" but nothing very concrete. That is to remark, I did not find a clear-cut listing of what Roman and allied legions were present on the field, their strengths for that day and for that matter, their morale rating. The same holds true for the Carthaginian host. To be sure, there are "suggestions" of numbers, but nothing that could be taken as indisputable fact. I was however, able to view and subsequently print The History of Rome by Livy, Book 27, from www.anceintlanguages.org/sum. It is a "nice" site in that the English translation is laid out next to the original Latin. And yet, one cannot escape the historical license that Livy seems to have taken with this account. [5] There was another web site, http://www.standin.se.fifteen04a.htm, which provided a "complete" narrative of the Battle of the Metaurus, B.C. 207. This narrative was excerpted from Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World ... according to Edward Sheperd Creasy. Quotation marks are placed around the word complete, as at more than several points in the narrative, ellipses are found. In addition, there were references or comparisons made between Hannibal and Napoleon, a Roman commander and Wellington and then, between Nero's marches and those made by another commander centuries later. While interesting from a trivia perspective, I am not quite sure how these references or comparisons fit into the subject. The search for more recently published work on the battle led me, once again, to the environs of Borders Books & Music. And once again, the store was out of stock of the items that may have helped in my research. Both Bagnall and Goldsworthy have published texts under the title, The Punic Wars. Reviews read thus far suggest that Bagnall offers more of a general reader's version of the conflict, while Goldsworthy makes a more scholarly effort. Admittedly, I run the risk of opening myself up to "attack" on the following point. The pressure of time and lack of funds do not permit a leisurely read of these newer texts. And so, Bagnall and Goldsworthy remain on the shelf. In my defense however, I have to wonder what new evidence has come to light in recent years regarding the "specifics" of the Battle of Metaurus? That is to ask, "Is there a new book from Livy that details the battle more fully? Is there a recently discovered narrative from Polybius, complete with maps and counts of dead, wounded, missing and captured? Furthermore, to what extent might Bagnall and Goldsworthy simply "revise" the work of scholars before them? This is not to accuse them of unoriginal thinking, but it is to acknowledge that ultimately, one cannot truly "know the specifics of that day on the field of Metaurus. Yes, there was a battle and thousands of men were slain. Yes, the Romans won and Hasdrubal lost his life in the contest. And yes, the battle marked a real turning point in the Second Punic War. But, if we narrow the focus to that of an Ancients enthusiast, interested in reconstructing the battle as accurately as possible, then we are faced with a number of things that are unknown and will remain so. It is only through educated guesswork (I can think of no other phrase more appropriate) that one could even begin to re-create the field of battle on that day in June, 207 B.C. Modeling Metaurus Reconstructing Hasdrubal's Defeat in the Second Punic War Historical Background Orders of Battle Historical Commentary and Dispositions Detailed Orders of Battle Back to MWAN # 121 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2003 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com