"ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones" - Scipio Africanus, His story is so sad : / , one of the greatest generals of all time exiled from his own land....
Is it that all Hannibal videos are plagued with race-releted comments? I looked for something curious, but here too - Africans, Whites, Blacks... Let's discuss the elephants, ok?
@arsviatticae I´m also very annoyed by the racist commentaries made by certain
individuals here. The real Scandal however is that YOU TUBE is taking
no immediate action against it notwithstanding that freedom of speech has been
abused here on a number of occasions. I would rather like to discuss the Punic Wars in a sensible manner and therefore compliment arsviatticae on his voice of reason.
@Taraphir the only way freedom of speech can be abused on YouTube, is if YouTube was preventing someone from voicing his opinion. Otherwise I see now way freedom of speech can be abused. This is the nature of freedom of speech: if you disagree with someones comment, then don't read it.
@daralhikma1999 Oh fair enough, you seem to have some knowledge in this area so I'll concede to your judgement, my specialisation is Roman not Carthaginian :)
@LionEntity The name Africa comes after the Afri Tribe in the North, and Africa wasn't a name for the whole Continent, but only for a area around modern Tunisia.
Hannibal never relied on elephants for victory. His triumphs at Cannae etc were down to his cavalry (mainly Numidian, who at Zama were fighting for Rome.) He hoped to win at Zama by weight of infantry.
the carthage cavalry eliminated the both flanks of the roman army and then just sorounded them and just slaughtered them... but if what i read is true i think that 20.000 men managed to escape or they just let them go...
lol, i know i talk to much but i just love ancient military info
I don't know why, but in almost all movies, battles end up like this. Armies seem all disciplined before they clush, but as the battle begins their soldiers start fighting one-on-one and it all becomes a bloody mess. It looks like directors are more concerned with showing the tragedy and brutality of war, and kinda putting the viewer inside that mess, rather than recreating battle tactics and techniques realistically, and showing off the awesomeness of a well organized army.
well the war was not over that fast! the elephants maybe died but 50 000 men? died as quickly? No no no wrong.... Scipio lost many men but the Hannibal general lost all his men and fled himself? coward! If i would be him i would fight to the dead for my people! and btw poor elephants! :(
Some people think it was around 9 AD, but sparingly used for a few decades yet! Mail armour was in fact still used more throughout the Imperial period I believe, though I may be wrong, my knowledge is more on the Republic than the Empire!
I'm afraid that the Roman infantry is grossly inaccurate here. The shields, spears, swords, helmets, and armour are all wrong. And they didn't spread out and fight man-to-man as they are doing here; both the Carthaginians and Romans fought in lines.
They don't look too bad too me, the shields look like the oval scutums of the Republic, and the heavy infantry are wearing chain-mail, and some pectorales - the helmets appear to be of a montefortino type.
@kivati It's hard to see because it all moves so fast. On closer inspection, the helmets are OK, they are the montefortino type, but the armour is terrible - they are wearing breastplates, not used by anyone except generals and tribunes. I think at this period they were already using pila, not the hasta shown here. The scutums are OK for this period too, but the swords look fake. The worst part is the way they fight; not in lines, but all fighting man-to-man.
yeah, I didn't watch it to the end, those breastplates were pretty bad, haha. I didn't comment on the swords, a bit too fast for my eyesight. Pila were in use then too, but hell, at least they're not wearing Lorica Segmentata!
@kivati I know, horrible! How many movies do you see where they aren't fighting like that? Gladiator, The Eagle, they all have them fighting this way. No tactics, just hope that you have you more men and they are more skilled. Lame.
I'm a bit surprised Hannibal persisted with the elephants at Zama. Having first used them about twenty years before, it must have crossed his mind that someone would have figured out a deadly way to counter them in the meantime.
No more strange than the commanders in Medieval wars using heavy cavalry charges didn't understand their enemies would found out a way to use long pikes to effectively counter their attacks. It's a very simple idea after all.
Even in the Napoleonic wars cavalry charges were virtually suicide against formations of pikes and muscets, yet they were tried.
Well, Scipio learned from him. Rome adapted quickly and learned. This was one of the prime reasons Rome became the dominanat power come the next 5 centuries. Their greed and arrogance was their undoing above all.
That's mainly how I see it, too. Scipio put everything into being ready for that one battle with Hannibal. He had a bunch of specific counter-measures for dealing with the threat posed by the elephants - e.g., using horns to scare the elephants, and having his troops create lanes to shepherd them away harmlessly when they charged or rampaged. What suprises me, though, is that Hannibal appeared not to anticipate anything like that.
So I think it strange that he didn't try some drastic innovation at Zama - on the reasonable and cautious assumptions that sixteen years using the same elephant tactics might render them a bit predictable, and that he may be facing a new and determined adversary who'd had him in his sights for a long time and was wise to his every trick. It all seems very un-Hannibal like.
@rockhammer85 maybe he just gave up-even if he did win at zama, the best he would have gained would have been better terms of surrender, the carthaganian council would have had enough power to blame the defeat on hannibal nd have him executed
But in the end, I admit I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it. What I said is more intuition than anything. I'm sure the great Hannibal had good reasons for using the tactics he did. I just wish he'd shared them with us!
@ShowYourWorking not if you knew how to use them. look at alexander's campaigns and cannae. they were really very useful, and typically people were accustomed enough to them not to panic.
@mcyees1 know how much that would cost? they were typically strong enough on their own. and they weren't a main weapon. They were a secondary weapon which could be decisive if used appropriately.
@ShowYourWorking They are physically just a little stronger than horses, but because of their large size and slightly better durability, they are a good addition to any force as they create fear upon enemies.
If I were Hannibal I would have organized the elephants to the flanks much like a regular force of cavalry would be, and I would march right into the Romans. When they make a move with their cavalry, I will crush them with the elephants, then cut in from their flanks in a single charge that will devastate both their cavalry and their infantry.
Their army wasn't professional, but they fought as well drilled, close formation units - they may have been a citizen militia, but it was a heavily militarized society, and should not be underestimated.
On formations, it's thought that people would actually fight for only a few minutes, then the lines would separate to allow tired troops to be swapped over and both opposing sides would just shout insults at each other for a few minutes, then resume!
It's always man to man when you use swords. So of course Roman soldiers were trained in close combat, which parts to aim for, how to get your guy off balance, etc. But always, as you suggest, as part of a well-oiled and massive machine.
BTW, who narrates this? It's someone who played a part in the ROME TV series, from the sound of it.
@deino117 Yes was the actor who played Pompei Magnus in the ROME series...Caesar's rival and former friend...the one who ended up having his head cut off in Egypt
so unreal, scipio never beat hannibal, and never was out numbered, another commander beated him but with hannibal tired, cuted of suplies and destroyed army, so fucking bad
@eserayotw Of course he defeated Hannibal, dumbass!! And here Hannibal was not short of supplies, because he was fighting in Africa, not in Italy. Besides his army was bigger and had 80 elephants (when he invaded Italy he had only 37).
And Scipio was a great general,he never lost a battle, he conquered all of carthage´s territories in Hispania, and he defeated Hannibal at Zama. Inform yourself before writing.
Hannibal's army was bigger, but not by much - and certainly not where it counted, in cavalry. Hannibal had a decent Infantry core of between 12-20,000 veterans, but the rest were pretty much scares-crows. Scipio didn't face that tough opposition compared to Hannibal - certainly not in Spain, and when he did go up against a decent general at Zama, when he had the better quality army and more cavalry, only managed to win it after it had been touch and go!
@kivati You are unfair with Scipio. Of course Hannibal was better general. Crossing the Alps in winter and defeating the romans 4 in a row, and conquering southern italy, was a great feat. But Scipio learned Hannibal´s tactics, defeated numerically superior enemis in Hispania, and finally defated Hannibal. If Hannibal only lost because of the numidian cavalry, then you are implying that he only defeated the romans in Italy because of them, which is false. Scipio was a great general.
Oh no, Scipio was a genius, don't get me wrong, his battles in Spain revealed complicated tactical manoeuvrings, and great strategic skill. Hannibal's victories in Italy had a bit more ingenuity involved - his infantry usually always engaged the Roman's best troops (though some managed to cut their way out of his traps) but Scipio did not manage to encircle the Carthaginians until Africa and he failed to tie down the enemies best troops at both Baecula and Illipa.
Also, I didn't say it was just Scipio's cavalry that won it. Scipio's cavalry was the decisive arm in the battle of course, but Scipio also had better infantry than most of Hannibal's army, but even they struggled against Hannibal's veterans. Hannibal's victories in Italy were very much helped by his heavy cavalry made up of Celts and Iberians mostly - up to about 6000 of them and of course his Numidians. Cavalry were an integral part of Hannibal's tactics.
@kivati Yes, you´re right. I don´t know why this debate started. The other guy said Hannibal wasn´t defeated by Scipio, and I just pointed the obvius fact that he was. Hannibal was a better general, undoubtedly, by Scipio was a worthy rival.
Considering the quality of their troops, roman infantry was superior to the carthaginians, numidian cavalry was better than the roman´s, and the carthaginians also had elephants (80 in Zama). I would say forces were pretty even in Zama.
@1999521 hannibal lost because he wasn't supplied with reinfocements... if a second army would of left carthage after cannae and landed in italy rome would have been sacked. but they didn;t help him and they got pwned
History is full of if's. In war they don't have the luxury of wisdom in hindsight. Had there not been an unusual amount of heavy rain (turning the roads into quagmire) Napoleon would have had a lot more artillery in Waterloo 1815
Hannibal himself knew the invasion of Rome was a risky gamble and that he needed the Romans to constantly screw up (which they weren't known of doing). He knew however that the survival of Carthage was at stake so he had no other options.
@neddhu Yes, that´s probably correct. Some historians speculate that the romans were so demoralised after Cannae that if Hannibal had laid siege to the city, they would have given in. But we will never know.
Bear in mind that Carthage did send Hasdrubal with a big army in 207, but they were crushed in Mataurus.
@1999521 yeap but they wasted almost 10 years after that demoralising victory. that was the time to strike with another army of reinforcement. in ten years ROME turned the tide of the war , hannibal being constantly harrased in italy his allies punished (CAPUA par ex) in HISPANIA scipio crushed the cartaginians. So it was not hannibal that lost the war but the folks that ruled carthage and didn;t recognized an oportunity to become rulers of the mediterana.
@neddhu Yes, I pretty much agree with you on that. In any case I´m glad the romans won the war, but I think they did wrong with the carthaginians in 146 bc.
This is ridiculous, the Roman army did not fight this way, man to man in a confusing mess like barbarians. They had solid, well organized and synchronized formations, which they would not break. This movie is a joke.
@oriomenoni Contrary to popular belief Roman's could adapt, which is what made them great. Against enemies that aren't very strategic they'll make formations but they will adapt against other foes.
@oriomenoni If you are using your enemies tactics to defeat them,you cannot use your regular formations!! Thats why some can be great leaders and commanders and the rest follow orders!
Everyone who thinks they did fight man to man in singular duels does not know the history of the Roman army at all. Soldiers were trained for years to fight in formations and discipline was rigid.
The man to man duels style of fighting only became used in the last decades of the empire, when the Roman armies were composed in most part of barbarian soldiers who were not trained, and kept their way of fighting (unordered mass and man to man duels)
@oriomenoni You're both right and wrong... Yes: They did fight in the formation I guess you're talking about, I don't know the name of it. But after a while they fought man to man combat as it looks in all the movies (althiugh a little bit less heroic ^^) But in general, they were trained to fight in a line with their shield against the enemy etc. But they were ferocious warrioirs in man on man combat too.
@oriomenoni actually the romans didn't fight like that until a lot later in history, after carthage fell. They had legions of sorts, but they're troops were just citizenry mainly up till this point and then changes began to take place. Also, formation of the romans was maintained till a point, but did collapse during a battle, or not so clear to see the formation was kept. What worked well for rome, was usually the short sword, there ability to take ideas, and to attack those not united.
@KurdishKlansman You and the other guys who speak of man to man fights don't know the military history, I am sorry to have to say that but that's ignorance. Please inform yourself, probably the best way to do it is to join some _serious_ scientific historical re-enactment group like Legio I Italica or Legio X Gemina (google for their web sites). And forget about hollywood movies, they are full of errors and inventions, they are completely unreliable.
Please focus on what i am saying. I didn't say Romans didn't fight in formations. What i said was that even if you fight in formations, you still face one man, your going to focus on one guy with your spear, not 10 as you engage.
@oriomenoni That's Hollyweir...uhm....Hollywood for you. Greek Hoplites and Roman Legions fought in tight disciplined formations. For them to fight in loose formations, (they were ALWAYS outnumbered) would be suicidal for them. I agree with you that man-to-man forms of combat ONLY began at the late stages of the empire (400+ AD).
Well, according to Gregory Daly (Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War), if there was single combat between individuals, it usually happened when the lines parted after several minutes fighting to change over exhausted fighters. When that was happening, the parted enemy lines would just shout insults at each other, catch their breaths, and in this gap was room for any individual combats.
@oriomenoni And thats where you are wrong. NOBODY fought like this, Battles from the brooding forests of Germany to the vast plains of China were ALWAYS a mass body of men fighting as a unit pushing each other like some sort of Hooligan Soccer riot with swords. That mass man to man duels you see there is just a STUDIO TECHNICALITY to ease and facilitate on-screen fighting. Check Braveheart for another example
@oriomenoni Well, you're wrong. Romans fought that way since Marius, before that they drafted their army from the peasantry and the soldiers received minimal training. They didn't even have uniforms - they had to puchase their equipment themselves. They were assembled in three waves according to age and experience (behind the first line of slingers): the Hastati (freshly drafted youth in their twenties, with poor quality weapons),
then the Principes (man in their thirties with more experience and better financial status, so they could afford better equipment) and finally the Triarii (older veterans with the most experience, usually kept in reserve).
They charged the enemy in waves, but did not withdraw the tired soldiers like they did in the times after Marius: always sent in the next group to help the previous one and increase the pressure on the enemy.
Keeping formation depended on experience: veterans were more likely to hold the line, but raw recruits have broken more easily - like in the battle near the River Trebia, where Hannibal's forces quickly broke through the lines of the Romans and drove them into the water, while the veterans held their ground in a square formation around the wounded in the middle of the battlefield, causing great casualties to the Carthaginian army.
In some of the earlier battles with Hannibal this type of battle may have occurred due to his breaking apart the Roman ranks, formations with his tactics as... then the Romans lack their key strength. Your completely right for this battle though. This battle, they would have used order and formation to defeat Hannibal ie the anti elephant corridors.
To say simply, if Romans are fighting man to man, something has gone badly wrong, and their losing xD
@oriomenoni Not even "barbarians" fough man to man always is more than obvious than Germanic that fough in Roman army were trained in Roman Models and alouthg Roman Army change in its history in Late Roman Empire it was different from Republican Days it was still a Professional force even if was made up mainly by Germanic also Germanic themselfs had tactics formanations and discipline lets remember the Anglo Saxon Shieldwall for one
@oriomenoni Someone doesn't know anything about war, and tries to reconcile this with historical knowledge. Mate, YOU are the one who does not know what he'se talking about.
@oriomenoni i agree with everything, but you have to reflect in the point that john keegan made in "the face of battle", no matter how organized is your army, the fight will be decided hundreds of thousands of single combats. In reflection, today we know that for the gladio to work properly, the roman legions could not be as tightly packed as we used to suppose. This video is far of from reality, but not as far as you think.
@oriomenoni Actually no one ever fought as shown in films etc... the man to man duels are pure fantasy, from earliest times until the invention of smokeless gunpowder at the turn of the 19th Century armies fought in lines of men, ancient Celts fought this way, the men in their prime made up the front ranks, the young inexperienced ones behind them and the veterans at the rear keeping them in place (not an un-ordered mass at all), these tactics were used by the Saxons etc onwards.
I thought Hannibal was just a guy with a big army and Scipio beat him and then told the writers who recorded the war to say he was a great general so that he would get credit for destroying a great general? thank you history channel.
Another big factical mistake. Roman hastati and prinicipes carrying regular spears? No way, in this time, the Polybius´ reform was established. The purpose of this reform was, beside others, that these soldiers (hastati and principes) changed spears (from Camillus´ reform) to pila (one light and heavy)
"Carthaginians wearing turbans?! is this serious History? the same way, ancient Berbers were represented wearing modern Arabic garments and, more interestingly, speaking modern Arabic in the Hollywood movie "The Gladiator" "
well punic is close relative to arabic, but i doubt they could find speakers of it, or even compose a dialogue in an extinct language.
other than that, carthage looked more like rome or athens instead of any arab medival city. same goes for culture.
@amet1980 Islam probably didnt even exist back then and they still didnt leave the Arabic peninsula as they needed to invade Asia minor and Egypt first... BBC fails again with its propaganda!
THE ROMAN EMPIRE DOMINATED THE WHOLE WORLD, THEY GOT THE GERMANS , ENGLISH ALL THE BARBARIANS AND YES NOT ALL THE SCANDINAVIANS , BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROFITABLE, ROME LOOK FOR POWER AND CONTROL,LIKE EUROPE ALWAYS HAS SINCE
@GABRIELVICTORIUS yeh so what was that huge wall that formed scotland oh wait yeh the last of the britons hanging out killing romans... there were no english welsh and scotts then just britons...
@iamwooddude actually they were Celts, hailing from modern day Scotland, and Woads, Hailing from modern day Wales and northern england. not Britons, the Britons didn't exist until late in the 11th Century. The woads and Celts were at war as much with each other as they were the romans.
I would have armoured the Elephants with silk and made them push carts with spikes :) Then the Romans would have trouble, as for getting out of the way, well they should have followed the elephants and went into their gaps...
Carthagians are just more like greeks... but wilder than the originals.
So, no Turban. :D
History facts : Carthagian are from phenicia. Romans are from Troie, but they said hello to Carthagians and they came in the latium.... about 50 kings later, Remus & Romulus were born. (Sorry for my english if they're mistakes.)
@Welldonenoob Romans were just a blend of greeks (presents in south Italy) and differents italic tribes (latins,samnites,etruscans, lucanians, etc ...). They never came from Troy. It's just the legend of the foundation of Rome by Remus and Romulus who came from the battle of Troy.
It made me sad to see that elephant hit with all those javelins.. Makes me want to play Rome Total War and add a "Gaia" faction that can control animals.. Lion infantry, Elephant warriors, zebra cavalry, cheetah skirmishers.
@6hobnob9 I wonder if any army of that time could have realistically taken on Rome itself. I mean, there were probably about 1.000.000 people living in the city.
@ejpbruel alexandria a natural protected city, had over one million when 10 000 arabs took it.
the religious disputes between copts and byzantines and the sassanids/byzantines wars . had played greater role than the arab army.
rome as athens were sucked by herulis,(few thousands men).they were unarmed citizens cities dependent on the imperial army. spartans on the other hand withstood romans,goths,arabs,turks for 2000 years,even when they lost battles cause they were armed citizens.
if i where hannibal i will equip my war elephant with armour and a attacking blade on its side the frontal leg armour and a box that 4 man can carried on the back with archer on spike men that would be more effective!!!!
WOA. i play this in a game. xD ROME TOTAL WAR BARBARIAN INVASION. but in my game. i won. i played as hannibal. i used the element of suprise. i have puttten calvary under my enmies army to charge when they are near my main army.
I dont understand why most of the Historical movies, and documantary films are almost always representing Rome as the enemy, the evil empire/ republic for example: The Galic Wars - Battle at Alesia form the gauls point of view, here the Punic wars - from the Carthagenian point of view. Rome was the greatest European Empire keep that in mind. Ok so the Carthagenians were equaly civilized as the romans, but the celts (gauls and britons) and goths, thats a different story. Al hail Rome!!! S.P.Q.R
Carthaginians wearing turbans?! is this serious History? the same way, ancient Berbers were represented wearing modern Arabic garments and, more interestingly, speaking modern Arabic in the Hollywood movie "The Gladiator" !
Define "turban". Wikipedia says its a cloth hat designed to keep your head cool in hot climates. Global warming aside, the climate in north africa has not changed with the culture and religion. Why wouldnt carthaginians wear turbans? Not for the religious reasons some people today do, but just because its a logical thing to wear.
@OliByGolly1 actualy you can use "persian" and "iranian" interchangebly you fucktard! trust me... seriously... just last night your mother was moaning " aahhhh.... fuck me harder with that big persian dick of yours.... oh yeah..... i want your iranian cum so bad.... aaahhhhh"
"ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones" - Scipio Africanus, His story is so sad : / , one of the greatest generals of all time exiled from his own land....
draken02 2 weeks ago
HEY NEGROS AND SNOWMEN,HE WAS SEMITIC,LIKE ALL OTHER CARTHAGINIANS,SO YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH YOUR ABSURD RACIST COMMENTS!!!
moonkick360 3 weeks ago
Scipio beat Hannibal,but history knows Hannibal more.(same exemple:crassus vs spartacus).Well Romans isn´t popular.
Androklos7190 3 weeks ago
Is it that all Hannibal videos are plagued with race-releted comments? I looked for something curious, but here too - Africans, Whites, Blacks... Let's discuss the elephants, ok?
arsviatticae 1 month ago
@arsviatticae I´m also very annoyed by the racist commentaries made by certain
individuals here. The real Scandal however is that YOU TUBE is taking
no immediate action against it notwithstanding that freedom of speech has been
abused here on a number of occasions. I would rather like to discuss the Punic Wars in a sensible manner and therefore compliment arsviatticae on his voice of reason.
Taraphir 1 month ago
@Taraphir the only way freedom of speech can be abused on YouTube, is if YouTube was preventing someone from voicing his opinion. Otherwise I see now way freedom of speech can be abused. This is the nature of freedom of speech: if you disagree with someones comment, then don't read it.
3dwardcullen69 1 month ago
Hannibal had the advantage that the Romans were very predictable.
Until Scipio Africanus arrived all Consular Army had their weight in the
Center and literally invited Flanking Moves. The Carthaginian in my
opinion was a good but not exceptional General. In fact the Romans
made it to easy for him. They had the means to crush him early
in the conflict but did not make proper use of them.
Taraphir 2 months ago
whos playing hanibal today o and by the way ,,,,top off the morning to ye
okeoak 2 months ago
@daralhikma1999 Oh fair enough, you seem to have some knowledge in this area so I'll concede to your judgement, my specialisation is Roman not Carthaginian :)
Kiwis4life 2 months ago
@blueboy921 hehe.
boss180888 3 months ago
Oh yeah! I have a top comment =D
gerian001 3 months ago
Africa was named after Scipio Africanus after he defeated Hannibal's army....is that correct?
LionEntity 3 months ago
@LionEntity No it's the opposite, Africanus means conqueror of Africa
hhyloc 2 months ago
@hhyloc oh ok...thank u for the correction! so, where does the name "Africa" come from?
LionEntity 2 months ago
@LionEntity The name Africa comes after the Afri Tribe in the North, and Africa wasn't a name for the whole Continent, but only for a area around modern Tunisia.
AlessioScipioDePalma 2 months ago
poor hannibal
08071987 4 months ago
I like carthage
TaiwanRule 4 months ago 11
I wanna play Rome total war after seeing this
SUNSET7900 4 months ago 2
Rome Total War: Real Life Edition
MultiSuperCraft 4 months ago
If this was filmed with real elephants, I dont think Greenpeace would've approved
sebbekung123 4 months ago
"War is a question of opinion."
Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor pf France
TSAR373 5 months ago
oh great, now we got experts quoting quotes from a game, yeah your real amazing
KulakxFilms 5 months ago
Wat is the name of the song on the begin.
Florens2000 5 months ago
Hannibal needed one slightly capable commander in order to destroy him.
Scipio was too capable , he prevailed outnumbered doing exactly the same to Hannibal as he did it to his father
Napoleontas 5 months ago
I would of painted 'GET SUM' on the feet of the elephants :3
mikehazza 5 months ago
Hastati kill him at the end.
arr5612 5 months ago
Gotta say... Elephants are good actors!
holysoks1 5 months ago
nice work
casparholmmehri2011 5 months ago
Hannibal lost, because he lacked cavalry
capenati 6 months ago
Hannibal never relied on elephants for victory. His triumphs at Cannae etc were down to his cavalry (mainly Numidian, who at Zama were fighting for Rome.) He hoped to win at Zama by weight of infantry.
MrHekkus 6 months ago
@MrHekkus
His infantry played a large part in that too!
kivati 6 months ago
@kivati
Point taken. But what I meant was that without cavalry superiority, the victory at Cannae would have been impossible.
MrHekkus 6 months ago
@MrHekkus
your right,
the carthage cavalry eliminated the both flanks of the roman army and then just sorounded them and just slaughtered them... but if what i read is true i think that 20.000 men managed to escape or they just let them go...
lol, i know i talk to much but i just love ancient military info
: -)
TheElite96 6 months ago
@TheElite96 Yea, I heard a lot escaped; I think by breaking through the front of the Carthaginian formation.
You don't talk too much; I love ancient history too, though I find Classical Greece more interesting than Rome.
MrHekkus 6 months ago
I don't know why, but in almost all movies, battles end up like this. Armies seem all disciplined before they clush, but as the battle begins their soldiers start fighting one-on-one and it all becomes a bloody mess. It looks like directors are more concerned with showing the tragedy and brutality of war, and kinda putting the viewer inside that mess, rather than recreating battle tactics and techniques realistically, and showing off the awesomeness of a well organized army.
MorteIncarnata 6 months ago
The Romans don't fight like that they always stab their enemy in the head and they have short swords...
stjohnvillas 7 months ago
well the war was not over that fast! the elephants maybe died but 50 000 men? died as quickly? No no no wrong.... Scipio lost many men but the Hannibal general lost all his men and fled himself? coward! If i would be him i would fight to the dead for my people! and btw poor elephants! :(
UlfJohnny 7 months ago
@UlfJohnny "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious."
Sun Tzu
gerian001 6 months ago 21
@gerian001
rome total war
blueboy921 3 months ago
@gerian001 Haha thats right!
UlfJohnny 2 months ago
i hate Scipio Hanibal havs to win
whitenigga783 7 months ago
Совершеннейший бред. Визуальный ряд вообще противоречит всему, что человечество знает о военной истории.
LeutenantDIMAN 7 months ago
@ShowYourWorking elephants were used against cavalry because horses can't stand the smell of elephants
yordi193 7 months ago
@yordi193
Which could be countered by getting your horses used to the smell of the animals!
kivati 7 months ago
does anyone know what this whole bbc series is called?
emperorfrance 7 months ago
poor elephants :(
TalonMercenary 8 months ago
0:18 - The most stupid hats ever worn by an army!
JozefKPilsudski 8 months ago
I feel like reacting this on rome total war
DrDeathStudios 8 months ago
That's a lie I heard they sounded trumpets which scared the elephants
mutsnuts1989 8 months ago
hey!!! in 0:29 there jumbo!!!! the flying elephant or is it..... ummmmmmmmmmm whats its name...... ah????? or stuff it!
cuddyman2 8 months ago
Hey that man in 0:22 was my great great great many more great grand uncle.... so thats were he got to. hmmmmmmmmmm my mum might be intrested....
cuddyman2 8 months ago
rome just owned hannibal...
Chanak02 8 months ago
bottom line it's television, with a director who may or may not have a history degree, and actors who just do their job, act...
warsilver99 8 months ago
Some people think it was around 9 AD, but sparingly used for a few decades yet! Mail armour was in fact still used more throughout the Imperial period I believe, though I may be wrong, my knowledge is more on the Republic than the Empire!
kivati 8 months ago
I'm afraid that the Roman infantry is grossly inaccurate here. The shields, spears, swords, helmets, and armour are all wrong. And they didn't spread out and fight man-to-man as they are doing here; both the Carthaginians and Romans fought in lines.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy
They don't look too bad too me, the shields look like the oval scutums of the Republic, and the heavy infantry are wearing chain-mail, and some pectorales - the helmets appear to be of a montefortino type.
kivati 8 months ago
@kivati It's hard to see because it all moves so fast. On closer inspection, the helmets are OK, they are the montefortino type, but the armour is terrible - they are wearing breastplates, not used by anyone except generals and tribunes. I think at this period they were already using pila, not the hasta shown here. The scutums are OK for this period too, but the swords look fake. The worst part is the way they fight; not in lines, but all fighting man-to-man.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy
yeah, I didn't watch it to the end, those breastplates were pretty bad, haha. I didn't comment on the swords, a bit too fast for my eyesight. Pila were in use then too, but hell, at least they're not wearing Lorica Segmentata!
kivati 8 months ago
@kivati Yes, that stuff didn't come around until, when, 0 AD?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy : The worst part is the way they fight; not in lines, but all fighting man-to-man.
Agreed mate, the sad effect of Hollywood!
kivati 8 months ago
@kivati I know, horrible! How many movies do you see where they aren't fighting like that? Gladiator, The Eagle, they all have them fighting this way. No tactics, just hope that you have you more men and they are more skilled. Lame.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
Agmen quadratum ordinem restaurare, agmen quadratum victoriam renovare!
Enri2411 8 months ago
rome total war
potrock123 9 months ago 59
I'm a bit surprised Hannibal persisted with the elephants at Zama. Having first used them about twenty years before, it must have crossed his mind that someone would have figured out a deadly way to counter them in the meantime.
rockhammer85 9 months ago
@rockhammer85
No more strange than the commanders in Medieval wars using heavy cavalry charges didn't understand their enemies would found out a way to use long pikes to effectively counter their attacks. It's a very simple idea after all.
Even in the Napoleonic wars cavalry charges were virtually suicide against formations of pikes and muscets, yet they were tried.
McLarenMercedes 7 months ago
@McLarenMercedes
Yeah, but none of those guys were the brilliant Hannibal. I figure he just got burned out...
rockhammer85 6 months ago
@rockhammer85
Well, Scipio learned from him. Rome adapted quickly and learned. This was one of the prime reasons Rome became the dominanat power come the next 5 centuries. Their greed and arrogance was their undoing above all.
McLarenMercedes 6 months ago
@McLarenMercedes
That's mainly how I see it, too. Scipio put everything into being ready for that one battle with Hannibal. He had a bunch of specific counter-measures for dealing with the threat posed by the elephants - e.g., using horns to scare the elephants, and having his troops create lanes to shepherd them away harmlessly when they charged or rampaged. What suprises me, though, is that Hannibal appeared not to anticipate anything like that.
rockhammer85 6 months ago
@McLarenMercedes
So I think it strange that he didn't try some drastic innovation at Zama - on the reasonable and cautious assumptions that sixteen years using the same elephant tactics might render them a bit predictable, and that he may be facing a new and determined adversary who'd had him in his sights for a long time and was wise to his every trick. It all seems very un-Hannibal like.
rockhammer85 6 months ago
@rockhammer85 maybe he just gave up-even if he did win at zama, the best he would have gained would have been better terms of surrender, the carthaganian council would have had enough power to blame the defeat on hannibal nd have him executed
funnyguyagency 6 months ago
@rockhammer85
For the majority of his career he didn't use elephants.
kivati 6 months ago
@McLarenMercedes
But in the end, I admit I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it. What I said is more intuition than anything. I'm sure the great Hannibal had good reasons for using the tactics he did. I just wish he'd shared them with us!
rockhammer85 6 months ago
@ShowYourWorking not if you knew how to use them. look at alexander's campaigns and cannae. they were really very useful, and typically people were accustomed enough to them not to panic.
BrittanyPalmerShow 9 months ago
nice...dont bother armoring your elephants which were your main weapon
mcyees1 9 months ago
@mcyees1 know how much that would cost? they were typically strong enough on their own. and they weren't a main weapon. They were a secondary weapon which could be decisive if used appropriately.
BrittanyPalmerShow 9 months ago
@ShowYourWorking They are physically just a little stronger than horses, but because of their large size and slightly better durability, they are a good addition to any force as they create fear upon enemies.
halogamer77 9 months ago
Hannibal knew how to gain a victory,but not how to use it - Maharbal
nestcuni 9 months ago
@nestcuni
He knew how to use his victory - allies began to turn to him after Cannae and was exactly what he needed. He just needed more of them!
kivati 9 months ago
If I were Hannibal I would have organized the elephants to the flanks much like a regular force of cavalry would be, and I would march right into the Romans. When they make a move with their cavalry, I will crush them with the elephants, then cut in from their flanks in a single charge that will devastate both their cavalry and their infantry.
halogamer77 9 months ago
que filme é esse
bocaguararapes1 9 months ago
Their army wasn't professional, but they fought as well drilled, close formation units - they may have been a citizen militia, but it was a heavily militarized society, and should not be underestimated.
On formations, it's thought that people would actually fight for only a few minutes, then the lines would separate to allow tired troops to be swapped over and both opposing sides would just shout insults at each other for a few minutes, then resume!
kivati 10 months ago
Comment removed
kivati 10 months ago
In the end, Scipio was better (eventhough Hannibal was great)...because he beat Hannibal at his own game and Hannibal couldn't stop it.
dessert57 10 months ago
hìhì_pãsst_hïèr_nèt_réiñ_àbâ_ich_biñ_só_êïnsám_will_jémänd_mìt_mîá_schrëibén
CutauuTarraae44 10 months ago
It's always man to man when you use swords. So of course Roman soldiers were trained in close combat, which parts to aim for, how to get your guy off balance, etc. But always, as you suggest, as part of a well-oiled and massive machine.
BTW, who narrates this? It's someone who played a part in the ROME TV series, from the sound of it.
deino117 10 months ago
@deino117 Yes was the actor who played Pompei Magnus in the ROME series...Caesar's rival and former friend...the one who ended up having his head cut off in Egypt
dessert57 10 months ago
@deino117
Pompey narrates it.
kivati 10 months ago
So many historians here...I feel honoured to be in their presence...... :3
SHK1187 10 months ago
The Roman army won many battles through the discipline. No one emerged from the ranks. No one fought alone but always toghether as a big single unit
Coldfire75 10 months ago
Hail to Europa, she always wins.
TheBrewskiBaby 11 months ago
so unreal, scipio never beat hannibal, and never was out numbered, another commander beated him but with hannibal tired, cuted of suplies and destroyed army, so fucking bad
eserayotw 11 months ago
@eserayotw read please!
alexmenkl22 11 months ago
@eserayotw Of course he defeated Hannibal, dumbass!! And here Hannibal was not short of supplies, because he was fighting in Africa, not in Italy. Besides his army was bigger and had 80 elephants (when he invaded Italy he had only 37).
And Scipio was a great general,he never lost a battle, he conquered all of carthage´s territories in Hispania, and he defeated Hannibal at Zama. Inform yourself before writing.
1999521 10 months ago
@1999521
Hannibal's army was bigger, but not by much - and certainly not where it counted, in cavalry. Hannibal had a decent Infantry core of between 12-20,000 veterans, but the rest were pretty much scares-crows. Scipio didn't face that tough opposition compared to Hannibal - certainly not in Spain, and when he did go up against a decent general at Zama, when he had the better quality army and more cavalry, only managed to win it after it had been touch and go!
kivati 10 months ago
@kivati You are unfair with Scipio. Of course Hannibal was better general. Crossing the Alps in winter and defeating the romans 4 in a row, and conquering southern italy, was a great feat. But Scipio learned Hannibal´s tactics, defeated numerically superior enemis in Hispania, and finally defated Hannibal. If Hannibal only lost because of the numidian cavalry, then you are implying that he only defeated the romans in Italy because of them, which is false. Scipio was a great general.
1999521 10 months ago
@1999521
Oh no, Scipio was a genius, don't get me wrong, his battles in Spain revealed complicated tactical manoeuvrings, and great strategic skill. Hannibal's victories in Italy had a bit more ingenuity involved - his infantry usually always engaged the Roman's best troops (though some managed to cut their way out of his traps) but Scipio did not manage to encircle the Carthaginians until Africa and he failed to tie down the enemies best troops at both Baecula and Illipa.
kivati 10 months ago
@1999521
Also, I didn't say it was just Scipio's cavalry that won it. Scipio's cavalry was the decisive arm in the battle of course, but Scipio also had better infantry than most of Hannibal's army, but even they struggled against Hannibal's veterans. Hannibal's victories in Italy were very much helped by his heavy cavalry made up of Celts and Iberians mostly - up to about 6000 of them and of course his Numidians. Cavalry were an integral part of Hannibal's tactics.
kivati 10 months ago
@kivati Yes, you´re right. I don´t know why this debate started. The other guy said Hannibal wasn´t defeated by Scipio, and I just pointed the obvius fact that he was. Hannibal was a better general, undoubtedly, by Scipio was a worthy rival.
Considering the quality of their troops, roman infantry was superior to the carthaginians, numidian cavalry was better than the roman´s, and the carthaginians also had elephants (80 in Zama). I would say forces were pretty even in Zama.
1999521 9 months ago
@1999521 hannibal lost because he wasn't supplied with reinfocements... if a second army would of left carthage after cannae and landed in italy rome would have been sacked. but they didn;t help him and they got pwned
neddhu 5 months ago
@neddhu
History is full of if's. In war they don't have the luxury of wisdom in hindsight. Had there not been an unusual amount of heavy rain (turning the roads into quagmire) Napoleon would have had a lot more artillery in Waterloo 1815
Hannibal himself knew the invasion of Rome was a risky gamble and that he needed the Romans to constantly screw up (which they weren't known of doing). He knew however that the survival of Carthage was at stake so he had no other options.
McLarenMercedes 5 months ago
@neddhu Yes, that´s probably correct. Some historians speculate that the romans were so demoralised after Cannae that if Hannibal had laid siege to the city, they would have given in. But we will never know.
Bear in mind that Carthage did send Hasdrubal with a big army in 207, but they were crushed in Mataurus.
1999521 4 months ago
@1999521 yeap but they wasted almost 10 years after that demoralising victory. that was the time to strike with another army of reinforcement. in ten years ROME turned the tide of the war , hannibal being constantly harrased in italy his allies punished (CAPUA par ex) in HISPANIA scipio crushed the cartaginians. So it was not hannibal that lost the war but the folks that ruled carthage and didn;t recognized an oportunity to become rulers of the mediterana.
neddhu 4 months ago
@neddhu Yes, I pretty much agree with you on that. In any case I´m glad the romans won the war, but I think they did wrong with the carthaginians in 146 bc.
1999521 4 months ago
Scipio, what a lad
AxisOfIguana 11 months ago
This is ridiculous, the Roman army did not fight this way, man to man in a confusing mess like barbarians. They had solid, well organized and synchronized formations, which they would not break. This movie is a joke.
oriomenoni 11 months ago
@oriomenoni Contrary to popular belief Roman's could adapt, which is what made them great. Against enemies that aren't very strategic they'll make formations but they will adapt against other foes.
TheGreatNoodleWolf 11 months ago
@oriomenoni If you are using your enemies tactics to defeat them,you cannot use your regular formations!! Thats why some can be great leaders and commanders and the rest follow orders!
Skin828 11 months ago
@Skin828
They did not fight like this, period.
Everyone who thinks they did fight man to man in singular duels does not know the history of the Roman army at all. Soldiers were trained for years to fight in formations and discipline was rigid.
The man to man duels style of fighting only became used in the last decades of the empire, when the Roman armies were composed in most part of barbarian soldiers who were not trained, and kept their way of fighting (unordered mass and man to man duels)
oriomenoni 11 months ago 80
@oriomenoni You're both right and wrong... Yes: They did fight in the formation I guess you're talking about, I don't know the name of it. But after a while they fought man to man combat as it looks in all the movies (althiugh a little bit less heroic ^^) But in general, they were trained to fight in a line with their shield against the enemy etc. But they were ferocious warrioirs in man on man combat too.
1994Linander 11 months ago
@oriomenoni actually the romans didn't fight like that until a lot later in history, after carthage fell. They had legions of sorts, but they're troops were just citizenry mainly up till this point and then changes began to take place. Also, formation of the romans was maintained till a point, but did collapse during a battle, or not so clear to see the formation was kept. What worked well for rome, was usually the short sword, there ability to take ideas, and to attack those not united.
TiberJai 10 months ago
Comment removed
kivati 10 months ago
@oriomenoni It was a still a man to man... since you always faced one guy at a time, not the entire band.
KurdishKlansman 10 months ago
Comment removed
oriomenoni 10 months ago
@KurdishKlansman You and the other guys who speak of man to man fights don't know the military history, I am sorry to have to say that but that's ignorance. Please inform yourself, probably the best way to do it is to join some _serious_ scientific historical re-enactment group like Legio I Italica or Legio X Gemina (google for their web sites). And forget about hollywood movies, they are full of errors and inventions, they are completely unreliable.
oriomenoni 10 months ago
@oriomenoni
Please focus on what i am saying. I didn't say Romans didn't fight in formations. What i said was that even if you fight in formations, you still face one man, your going to focus on one guy with your spear, not 10 as you engage.
KurdishKlansman 10 months ago
But yes... i guess modern police riots are the closest thing to ancient battles you could come.
KurdishKlansman 10 months ago
@oriomenoni right, that's true
ruggeroist 10 months ago
@oriomenoni That's Hollyweir...uhm....Hollywood for you. Greek Hoplites and Roman Legions fought in tight disciplined formations. For them to fight in loose formations, (they were ALWAYS outnumbered) would be suicidal for them. I agree with you that man-to-man forms of combat ONLY began at the late stages of the empire (400+ AD).
Francozilla 10 months ago
@oriomenoni Your acting like organizing men to fight against other men merely for conquest isn't barbaric
PurestLogic 9 months ago
@oriomenoni
Well, according to Gregory Daly (Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War), if there was single combat between individuals, it usually happened when the lines parted after several minutes fighting to change over exhausted fighters. When that was happening, the parted enemy lines would just shout insults at each other, catch their breaths, and in this gap was room for any individual combats.
kivati 8 months ago
@oriomenoni And thats where you are wrong. NOBODY fought like this, Battles from the brooding forests of Germany to the vast plains of China were ALWAYS a mass body of men fighting as a unit pushing each other like some sort of Hooligan Soccer riot with swords. That mass man to man duels you see there is just a STUDIO TECHNICALITY to ease and facilitate on-screen fighting. Check Braveheart for another example
Siluriuskaeso 8 months ago
@oriomenoni Well, you're wrong. Romans fought that way since Marius, before that they drafted their army from the peasantry and the soldiers received minimal training. They didn't even have uniforms - they had to puchase their equipment themselves. They were assembled in three waves according to age and experience (behind the first line of slingers): the Hastati (freshly drafted youth in their twenties, with poor quality weapons),
revisionist3500 7 months ago
then the Principes (man in their thirties with more experience and better financial status, so they could afford better equipment) and finally the Triarii (older veterans with the most experience, usually kept in reserve).
They charged the enemy in waves, but did not withdraw the tired soldiers like they did in the times after Marius: always sent in the next group to help the previous one and increase the pressure on the enemy.
revisionist3500 7 months ago
Keeping formation depended on experience: veterans were more likely to hold the line, but raw recruits have broken more easily - like in the battle near the River Trebia, where Hannibal's forces quickly broke through the lines of the Romans and drove them into the water, while the veterans held their ground in a square formation around the wounded in the middle of the battlefield, causing great casualties to the Carthaginian army.
revisionist3500 7 months ago
@revisionist3500
That's why the raw recruits were usually in the middle, with veterans at the front and back.
kivati 7 months ago
@oriomenoni
Very true, it is artistic licence.
In some of the earlier battles with Hannibal this type of battle may have occurred due to his breaking apart the Roman ranks, formations with his tactics as... then the Romans lack their key strength. Your completely right for this battle though. This battle, they would have used order and formation to defeat Hannibal ie the anti elephant corridors.
To say simply, if Romans are fighting man to man, something has gone badly wrong, and their losing xD
Comando96 7 months ago
@oriomenoni Not even "barbarians" fough man to man always is more than obvious than Germanic that fough in Roman army were trained in Roman Models and alouthg Roman Army change in its history in Late Roman Empire it was different from Republican Days it was still a Professional force even if was made up mainly by Germanic also Germanic themselfs had tactics formanations and discipline lets remember the Anglo Saxon Shieldwall for one
ImperialGuard9001 7 months ago
@oriomenoni Thats true! Roman arms do not fight like that, they fight in style!
UlfJohnny 7 months ago
@oriomenoni Someone doesn't know anything about war, and tries to reconcile this with historical knowledge. Mate, YOU are the one who does not know what he'se talking about.
murmurrrr 7 months ago
@oriomenoni i agree with everything, but you have to reflect in the point that john keegan made in "the face of battle", no matter how organized is your army, the fight will be decided hundreds of thousands of single combats. In reflection, today we know that for the gladio to work properly, the roman legions could not be as tightly packed as we used to suppose. This video is far of from reality, but not as far as you think.
oberg15 6 months ago
@oriomenoni Actually no one ever fought as shown in films etc... the man to man duels are pure fantasy, from earliest times until the invention of smokeless gunpowder at the turn of the 19th Century armies fought in lines of men, ancient Celts fought this way, the men in their prime made up the front ranks, the young inexperienced ones behind them and the veterans at the rear keeping them in place (not an un-ordered mass at all), these tactics were used by the Saxons etc onwards.
CJLinton 6 months ago
@CJLinton
WRONG.
PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD DO IT NOW AND HAVE MOST LIKELY DONE IT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS LOLOLOLOL
holysoks1 5 months ago
has anyone ever watched that old program where this man has a board and like a CGI army on the board and he explains there tactics and stuff
TheiTouchGuys 11 months ago
1:38 that looks so real ah
secaymal 1 year ago
Hannibal should be one of "the greats".
avengerizer16 1 year ago
@avengerizer16 The measure of a truly great general, is best measured by the quality of the generals he defeated.
Scipio Africanus
Hasdrubal Barca, Mago Barca, Hasdrubal Gisco, Hannibal Barca
Hannibal Barca
Publius Scipio, Gaius Flaminius, Gaius Varro, Marcus Marcellus
With the exception of Scipio's father who was a competent general, the rest were just jokes.
Hannibal was brilliant, no doubt about that. But Scipio now that's a great general
gaiusscipio 11 months ago
and that is why you should use different tactics in every battle... or the enemy will copy you
Taffy11000 1 year ago
I thought Hannibal was just a guy with a big army and Scipio beat him and then told the writers who recorded the war to say he was a great general so that he would get credit for destroying a great general? thank you history channel.
SparkMan527 1 year ago
Another big factical mistake. Roman hastati and prinicipes carrying regular spears? No way, in this time, the Polybius´ reform was established. The purpose of this reform was, beside others, that these soldiers (hastati and principes) changed spears (from Camillus´ reform) to pila (one light and heavy)
AnTarxamon 1 year ago
The pronunciation of Scipio as 'skippy-oh' is diabolical and I am offended!
Scipio (Sip-e-oh) Rules!!
zimarie121 1 year ago
i love the way the romans in battle just stand there completely silent while all other tribes and civilisation at the time screamed their heads off
sirstarwars 1 year ago
@sirstarwars thats romans for ya
JUGO49 1 year ago
"Carthaginians wearing turbans?! is this serious History? the same way, ancient Berbers were represented wearing modern Arabic garments and, more interestingly, speaking modern Arabic in the Hollywood movie "The Gladiator" "
well punic is close relative to arabic, but i doubt they could find speakers of it, or even compose a dialogue in an extinct language.
other than that, carthage looked more like rome or athens instead of any arab medival city. same goes for culture.
amet1980 1 year ago
@amet1980 Islam probably didnt even exist back then and they still didnt leave the Arabic peninsula as they needed to invade Asia minor and Egypt first... BBC fails again with its propaganda!
Skin828 11 months ago
FOR THE SENATE AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE!
TheBritain66 1 year ago
THE ROMAN EMPIRE DOMINATED THE WHOLE WORLD, THEY GOT THE GERMANS , ENGLISH ALL THE BARBARIANS AND YES NOT ALL THE SCANDINAVIANS , BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROFITABLE, ROME LOOK FOR POWER AND CONTROL,LIKE EUROPE ALWAYS HAS SINCE
GABRIELVICTORIUS 1 year ago
@GABRIELVICTORIUS yeh so what was that huge wall that formed scotland oh wait yeh the last of the britons hanging out killing romans... there were no english welsh and scotts then just britons...
iamwooddude 1 year ago
@iamwooddude actually they were Celts, hailing from modern day Scotland, and Woads, Hailing from modern day Wales and northern england. not Britons, the Britons didn't exist until late in the 11th Century. The woads and Celts were at war as much with each other as they were the romans.
ThatMetalGamerGuy 1 year ago
@GABRIELVICTORIUS so many flaws...
ZamolxisGebeleizis 1 year ago
Both were Mediterranean.. none germanic primitive apes......... :)
moigranespiritu 1 year ago
behold, world war 4.
jamesman1996 1 year ago
I would have armoured the Elephants with silk and made them push carts with spikes :) Then the Romans would have trouble, as for getting out of the way, well they should have followed the elephants and went into their gaps...
leegeorgeson 1 year ago
Carthagians are just more like greeks... but wilder than the originals.
So, no Turban. :D
History facts : Carthagian are from phenicia. Romans are from Troie, but they said hello to Carthagians and they came in the latium.... about 50 kings later, Remus & Romulus were born. (Sorry for my english if they're mistakes.)
Welldonenoob 1 year ago
@Welldonenoob Romans were just a blend of greeks (presents in south Italy) and differents italic tribes (latins,samnites,etruscans, lucanians, etc ...). They never came from Troy. It's just the legend of the foundation of Rome by Remus and Romulus who came from the battle of Troy.
praetorianus72 1 year ago
It made me sad to see that elephant hit with all those javelins.. Makes me want to play Rome Total War and add a "Gaia" faction that can control animals.. Lion infantry, Elephant warriors, zebra cavalry, cheetah skirmishers.
belmontsmild 1 year ago
AVE ROMA MAXIMA OPTIMAE...SALVE MARS STRYDER.
BigAl4250 1 year ago
WRONG!hannibal had the choice to destroy rome but he didn't
gameplayer117 1 year ago
@gameplayer117 it was carthaginian old mans council who did the bad decision of not to devastate rome
wancarlo06 1 year ago
@gameplayer117 WRONG! He didn't have enough men to destroy Rome. His army wasn't THAT big. If he'd besieged Rome he'd have been defeated in Italy.
6hobnob9 1 year ago
@6hobnob9 I wonder if any army of that time could have realistically taken on Rome itself. I mean, there were probably about 1.000.000 people living in the city.
ejpbruel 1 year ago
@ejpbruel alexandria a natural protected city, had over one million when 10 000 arabs took it.
the religious disputes between copts and byzantines and the sassanids/byzantines wars . had played greater role than the arab army.
rome as athens were sucked by herulis,(few thousands men).they were unarmed citizens cities dependent on the imperial army. spartans on the other hand withstood romans,goths,arabs,turks for 2000 years,even when they lost battles cause they were armed citizens.
amet1980 1 year ago
No elephants were hurt in the making of this, right? :o
biggieboy2510 1 year ago
This filmography is terrible.
Ilikemustard 1 year ago
wisdom and intelligence vs courage and honor..
hassenbts 1 year ago
dont fight the same enemy to often, or else they will learn your ways of war, and destroy you.- Napoleon Bonaparte
maximfornow 1 year ago
if i where hannibal i will equip my war elephant with armour and a attacking blade on its side the frontal leg armour and a box that 4 man can carried on the back with archer on spike men that would be more effective!!!!
carlogwapo1234 1 year ago
WOA. i play this in a game. xD ROME TOTAL WAR BARBARIAN INVASION. but in my game. i won. i played as hannibal. i used the element of suprise. i have puttten calvary under my enmies army to charge when they are near my main army.
lokositful 1 year ago
The war was over. Rome had won.
ItaMick 1 year ago
no no, fidel castro save the globe hahahhahahahhahahahahah
KristijanLeonidas 1 year ago
I dont understand why most of the Historical movies, and documantary films are almost always representing Rome as the enemy, the evil empire/ republic for example: The Galic Wars - Battle at Alesia form the gauls point of view, here the Punic wars - from the Carthagenian point of view. Rome was the greatest European Empire keep that in mind. Ok so the Carthagenians were equaly civilized as the romans, but the celts (gauls and britons) and goths, thats a different story. Al hail Rome!!! S.P.Q.R
Vahki100 1 year ago
Carthaginians wearing turbans?! is this serious History? the same way, ancient Berbers were represented wearing modern Arabic garments and, more interestingly, speaking modern Arabic in the Hollywood movie "The Gladiator" !
kamelryke31 1 year ago 22
@kamelryke31
Define "turban". Wikipedia says its a cloth hat designed to keep your head cool in hot climates. Global warming aside, the climate in north africa has not changed with the culture and religion. Why wouldnt carthaginians wear turbans? Not for the religious reasons some people today do, but just because its a logical thing to wear.
BBC > Hollywood. Youre right about gladiator.
Qyburnator 1 year ago
@kamelryke31 its called ignorance! and as a persian I understand exactly what you mean.
persianparsal 1 year ago 9
@persianparsal Theres no such place as persia anymore?
Just Iran?Dumbass.
OliByGolly1 10 months ago
@OliByGolly1 actualy you can use "persian" and "iranian" interchangebly you fucktard! trust me... seriously... just last night your mother was moaning " aahhhh.... fuck me harder with that big persian dick of yours.... oh yeah..... i want your iranian cum so bad.... aaahhhhh"
and then I gave her an orgasm! so fuck you!
persianparsal 10 months ago