"You know how to win, Hannibal, but you don't know how to use a victory."
Yeeah... John III Sobieski of Poland should have heard that too. Won the battle of Vienna against largest Turkish army, but forgot to ask the Kaiser to sweeten the saving deal.
@therockana I understood :) Just helping you figure out what language it was. It's a funny sounding language in my opinion, but I suppose the Swedish says exactly the same about mine lol.
@crackshack2 lolwut?? I am Norwegian lol... and what you just said came straight out of some sort translating program. If you want to know what you just said REALLY is in norwegain here it is: "Du er homo! Norsk er bedre!" I knew the subs were swedish since after all... Norway is Swedens neighbors. I understand very little swedish when I hear it, but it is way easier to read it. I understand English way better than swedish lol.
@crackshack2 Oh, are you studying norwegian? If so, it's the first time I've ever heard someone do lol. No one cares about little Norway :) You almost got that sentence right, but it's an O at the start og "Hvordan" not A ;)
Well, first of all, he did not have siege weapons. Second of all, his army could not just sit around doing nothing, since they had to live off the land. So Hannibal did win over the Gallic tribes of the north and some Italian cities in the south, but all the Latin city-states stayed loyal to Rome, so if Hannibal was to avoid having his army starve to death, they had to move either to the north or the south of the country, not to stay in Latium.
He knew how to fight but when it came to follow through or finishing up Hannibal sucked. Great strategist but he didnt know jack about what happens after the fight.
they in fact did send what haniball asked for but it was not as quick as they should of done the delays were terrible by that time more legions had been raised
@CrimsonGuard1992 He was lacking in good siege equipment and logistically, it would have been a formidable challenge. However, one could make an argument that he should have at least laid waste to the outskirts of Rome and maybe try to take Ostia.
wait doesnt rome has a hell load of slaves?couldnt they easily put together a huge force of militia just by arming those slaves and sending them into battle?
@ulongkoror a slave army vs a heavily armed army with calvery would be inviting another massacre. plus half of them would run off on the way to the battle. and half of them would run off during the battle. and you dont want a massive army of slaves that hate you armed and marching around your land, hannibal could've traded them their freedom or something in exchange for them joining him. it's just a massive cluster fuck of problems bro, wars not numbers, that was the whole point of cannae
@gongtatoot and they couldn't hold the lines against the elephants, or do anything other than some retarded braveheart charge, where the elephants would just mush them up. and they couldn't beat heavy calvary. and they would almost definately just run off. you could beat a pretty big army of retards with a small army of men with a solid strategy, but you can't catch all these dudes running off in different directions the second they leave the gates. and coming back pissed off.
in the end, its the carthaginian government responsible for its own destruction, not rome. Hannibal was but a general, he couldnt work miracles. without the help and support from his own people he was powerless
Hannibal choosing not to continue his atk was smart. His men were depleted and he can could have always came back later. He shoiuld have left Rome with a couple thousand troops and came back later.
@VayMatt That or block the city of supplies or go and get more men from Carthage to build a really large army that could take a city. Asking for siege engines like the ones Alexander The Great had wouldn't have been a bad idea either. Otherwise, his decision after Cannae was logical since he can't march his army right after and like other great cities, he fought and won the way he was taught but Rome decided to press with a new strategy that Athens only tried briefly.
The Romans and the Persians led armies of numbers, lead by a few thousands skilled leaders. They numbered in the 100's of thousands. And let's not forget the Persians client armies (the Turkic people, the Indians and the Northern Arabs)- but these men were skilled warriors as well, fighting for the highest bidder.
The tactics of men like Khalid ibn al Walid made it possibly for 15-25 thousand Arabs to defeat the 100's of thousands of Persian soldiers on the way to Tehran.
@Arabman666 There were no "Muslims" until Muhammad began preaching to the various Christian "heretic" groups who took religious guidance from gospels other than those approved by the Pope - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. This is the birth of Islam, in the 6th century, long after the fall of Rome - therefore, Romans did not fight muslims; although Byzantines did, much later on. I think you are confusing race with religion.
I don't want to have a religious discussion with you. The first Muslims groups were Pagans and Jews. The last were Christians, well into the start of Muhammad's prophet-hood.
As for Rome, Rome is Byzantine... and that is what the Arabs historically refer to the Empire as, Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike. It should be clear what I meant, as I used Byzantine earlier in my discussion with the person I replied to. I used Rome bcus it's shorter and we have limited letters.
The Romans and Persians had been fighting for years before the Muslims ever rose. They were battle-hardened as well. In fact, the first battle was a "interference battle" where the Muslim army intercepted the Persians and the Romans on their way to meet each other in Arabia (as it was a center stage for most of their battles)- although yes, the Muslims were experienced, but greatly out-armed and out-funded.
The Persians never really had a general like Hannibal. The Persians were very similar to Rome in their tactics: Throw a shit load of soldiers out on the battle-field, and win.
The Only general that comes to mind that is probably greater than any other, is Khalid Ibn al Walid. He basically invaded both Rome, and Persia, at the same time with an army of about 25,000 people, defeating an excess of 1 million Persians + Romans.
@Arabman666 someone who knows military history.... people talk up napoleon, alexander, frederick, genghis etc. But they seem to forget all these people had technology or numbers or better trained / equipped troops along with a great general. He was one of the few who always had less troops, his troops were bedouins and not professional soldiers, and technology wise he was far behind yet he managed to never lose a single battle simply due to brilliant tactics.
Khalid ibn al walid led an army of untrained Bedouins, not professional soldiers, off to fight the Byzantines and the Persians- and in both cases being totally victorious. I imagine their skills were no better than Hannibals men
When it comes down to it, an Army of mercenaries or slaves (mercenaries in the case of Hannibal, slaves in the case of Persia, and assembly line soldiers in the case of Rome) can not withstand an Army emotionally and morally invested in the battles it fights.
@1997Christiano DO you see black people in the world because i haven't i have seen brown colored people though you idiot it is written he was brown with brown african features and modern day lebanon is much different from carthage
Wel, for one, Hannibal was one of the most brilliant military minds the world has ever known. Yet, he could not conquer Rome because he did not have the backing of the government. However, the Celts, who were slightly weaker than Carthage in terms or military might, were able to lay siege to Rome and sack it. It just proves that in history, you can have the greatest general to lead your army. If the people are not willing, then you might as well have lost.
How STUPID and SELFISH were those Carthaginian Senators?
"What have you to show for your campaign?"
Dude, Hannibal just wiped out an entire generation of Roman soldiers. What did you want us to show you... your mother's smelly ass?
I've never heard of a government abandoning a campaign that's on the verge of crushing an archenemy. That's like if the US suddenly disarmed its entire nuclear arsenal in the 80s. Or if Russia suddenly withdrew from the gates of Berlin.
Somewhat similar to Rome the senate was led by a couple "noble" families that really pulled the strings. Carthage had not really supported the war to begin with. Hannibal's pro Roman war political party was outmaneuvered by a character named Hanno who was probably trying to secure his own fortunes and power. The "government" was more of a political competition between families so under that context its easy to see how intrigue could lead to this outcome for Barca.
Hannibal was an astute tactician. While the battle of Cannae was an utter disaster for Rome and caused much panic Hannibal's army also suffered serious losses (many thousands dead). Even if Hannibal's army was at full strength he would've known a direct assault on Rome would have taken considerable resources that he just didn't have. So no Hannibal realistically could not have expected to successfully take Rome.
From a Serbs mouth speaks the words Cowards from Carthage for not reinforcing Hannibal cowards treason Hanibal was a genius a hero, i hate cowards more then enemy
Because ethnically cleansing yours and surrounding nations, destroying all other cultures in your own border with the full support of most of the (former) Yugoslavian army together with extra Serbian militia and having stupid ideas of making Serbia as big as it was under Stefan Dusan isn't cowardly, completely ludicrous and not to forget plain stupid?
Just sayin'
It ranks about as high as Rumania's claims on Macedonia on the stupidity meter.
Here's the problem: Carthage was never a military power. It was, first and foremost, a merchant empire. They would rather trade and make money than fight. Hannibal was an anomaly, an aggressive expansionist who never had much support back home. Rome was, on the other hand, the ancient equivalent of a full-on, fascist military junta that loved war and glorified it, and had full support of the people and economy back home. Despite appalling losses, Rome was never going to capitulate.
@themegamunkey123 extremely militaristic,nationalistic,in a way quite xenophobic with a quite "us against the rest of the world"attitude,what else? they seem to have an aversion to anything deemed "foreign"
If I were Mago I would've just disobeyed the Senate and gone back to Italy. Fuck corrupt bureaucrats having jurisdiction over a war they have no idea how to fight.
The Council of Elders were wrought in their own corruption and greed. Such pathetic mewling infants who proclaim themselves leaders, always write death for the history of their nation.
7 YEARS !!!!!!! with nothing sent.... WOW......I'm glad they lost.....Hannibal should have taken his army to carthage and set seige to it...conquer it....then proclaim himself king.....then back to rome to finish them off.... he had 7 years to do it.....
@endlesswaltzhaha Carthage sent A LOT of reinforcements, they just didn't send EVERYTHING they had, this movie completely mis-portraits that. Carthage had to defend several new conquered colonies and vassal states on top of having a lot of trouble with civil unrest, it's not like they had troops just chillin.
@andrinho ....they did just have troops... just chillin....what they gathered for the battle of zama could have been thrown into the italian peninsula...years beforehand....on top of that they should have sent agents in to the northern tribes and get that area to revolt.....while at the same time they should have dispatched an army to macedon to help out there for an invasion west in to rome.....all this while hannibal was already there.....SHAME to the council of carthrage....
@endlesswaltzhaha "thrown into the Italian peninsula"? You make it sound like they had a smooth way to do that. Rome had heavy control over the Mediterranean after the first punic war. The Carthaginians would have to make it over the Pyrenees and Alps once again, I remind you that Hannibal lost about 50% of his original forces just to get to Italy (they would lose even more if being leaded by a lower rank officer). Could you show me the source for the "troops chillin" issue?
This part of the documentary was not very historically accurate. The Barcids were in control of Carthage. The reason more men and supplies were not sent to Rome was because it was not needed. Hannibal was holding down the fort with his Gallic and Italian allies. But Spain and Sardinia was under sustained Roman attack. Not to mention the Libyans were revolting. So the resources and manpower were diverted elsewhere. And still Rome took all except parts of Italy.
@DifangDuana No it is correct. Hannibal was holding down the fort by a thread. He needed the reinforcements. The revolt in Libya was no major threat or significant importance, it could have waited. The Roman attack was not sustained as of yet in this part of the documentary nor Roman for that matter but paid tribes. They were defeated because Hannibal's Brother here paid them more to switch sides. At this time Macedon decided to go to war with Rome.
@randomusernamemygod If the Reinforcements went straight to Italy they could have taken the entire country and surrounded Rome or took it. Roman Armies that were left would have had to abandon all campaigns and return home cut off from orders from home, friendly towns, supplies and manpower, heading towards their enemy reinforcing themselves with their backs against even more enemies, Iberia, Carthage, Macedon and the Gallic tribes effectivally routing them.
@Kulmataklaus Alexander was always better reinforced with replacement infantry and calvary than Hannibal. Otherwise, if Hannibal had more support than his own mercenary army, he could have taken Rome.
I understand why the Carthaginian Senate might have wanted to avoid a war originally, but you have to ask why they were so obstructionist once they were in the middle of it. There's no going back to the way things were. Didn't they understand the stakes? It's so frustrating!
@dardo1201 Guagamela may have been larger scale but the Persian army was routed instead of being trapped and wiped out so completely like the Roman army at Cannae. Without a senator like Fabius, Rome might have believed that all was lost and given up. Only by learning from Fabius' tactics and Hannibal's successes could Rome recover and ultimately win the 2nd Punic War.
The Persian Empire wasn't as stable as the Roman Republic and was already destined to fall.
if was me i just take out that big mouth carthage council n kill him n take over carthage amry n conquer the ancient world is my owr conquest or something it to bad hannibal did not think about that instead being general for the carthage council who betray him at end if war
hannibals decision was foolish not to go to rome, he knew he had insufficient men but by not destroying rome it then recovered and destroyed carthage... i wanted to see a carthaginian empire rather then a roman one
@tecna64 Why would you want a carthagenian empire?The romans incorporated the best of greece,egypt,and carthage and laid the ground for the world we live today.
they are two thing why hannibal loss the fucking carthage council it all they fault for making hannibal lose the war against roman an not support him and he did not have siege warfare at the time to take down the gate of rome too
I want to go back in time and freaking torch that senator at 6:32. Fucking dumb shit just like George Bush. He's attacking where its not even necessary. Spain?? wtf just like how George sent the Army to Iraq when we could've destroyed Al Qaeda by now.
@joeratti if I was one like hannibal yes. with a snap of my finger. But i think hannibal lost because he betrayed his father's oath. He is an enemy of rome so he should'nt give mercy.
I don't know about Bush, but by attacking Spain they kept Hannibal from getting help and supplies from there. So Hannibal was stuck in Italy and unable to beseige Rome
@asep5 you mean diversify Carthiginian forces to split the opponents and force cartharge to recall Hannibal, taking him out of Italy and restoring Roman Dignity...HOw is that bad?
@asep5 they feared ahnnible they were scared that he would take there power with the army they supplied him with and then make it an empire not a repulbic they did not know hannibles intentiones
in iraq, George bush's idea was to show that we are no force to be beckoned with, and that when you attack the heart of the United States we will fight back and strip you down. we are the greatest military force out there, and george bush showed the world that in iraq.
@peytonsbigbro George bush is not a fucking general LOL. Hes a puppet if anything, that doesn't even deserve comparison to the likes of Hannibal in any regard. Typical Yanks want to flaunt their world prowess but lets remember how long you have been a world power ; 90 odd years merely a blip in history. Defeating Iraq showed off the USA as the greatest military force ? LOL Iraq was not even a major force in the middle east. "Attack at the heart" The war was unprovoked
@asep5 we did have a reason for going into iraq.. russia, france, and another country (i forgot which) was selling pharmaceutical drugs to saddam hussein our cia agents told bush that these drugs could be used for weapons of mass destruction (note that i said COULD be used) even though we dont have proff he was going to do that saddam hussein refused to let us search and due to the previous gulf war we had the right to search at any point if we suspect he may have these wepeons..
@asep5 Spain was enemy territory. The invasion of Spain deprived Hannibal of reinforcements, and since none were coming from Carthage he had to rely mostly on what he had. If Hannibal had been able to receive reinforcements the war might have gone differently. By the way, Rome was in decline for longer than the USA has even existed. It has been more than 1500 years since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Our civilization has nothing to do with theirs.
@InvisibleCloudKing No but we have made many of the same mistakes the Ancient Roman Republic/Empire have made, and many of our politicians are greedy and arrogant like Varro.
@InvisibleCloudKing Why?..... History repeats itself does it not? it's very reasonable to compare the two. In many ways we are like the modern romans,
the roman like us are: hardcore patriots, warmongers, Military civilization(we rely a lot, almost too much on our military much like the Romans did.), the obvious one: an Republic(only difference is Rome did not stay one for long.) Both like the Eagle as a symbol. To get irritated by people comparing the two is not very logical.
@MrUnclepeanuts Maybe. But I believe we are a lot more innovative then the Romans ever were. They never got beyond the use of slave labor. Hero of Alexandria invented a steam engine in the first century AD. Isn't it amazing that no one followed up on it until the 1600s? If there is any lesson to be learned it is that we should not get stuck in a rut. If there are any lessons to be learned it is that we should throw the Christians to the lions and support the sciences.
@asep5 Yeah, that guy at 6:32 was just a greedy little wannabe rival in politics of Hannibal, called Hanno. It happens all the time, mindless fucks that spoil someones rolling thunder in a pathetic attempt to steal it. Hannibal would have destroyed the Romans, but the gay politicians conned him, and ultimately removed any hope of winning the 2nd Punic War without even knowing it. For all the ego of that guy, he could not see what he was doing to his own people - dooming them to be defeated.
Hannibal didn't have the option of laying siege to Rome because he had little support from Carthage; specifically the supply of siege equipment such as the onager.
@starsfury Yes but Rome's populace was in panic, if he had marched on rome and tried any sort of charge, it's people would have tried in panic too prolly escape the city and thus let him in. This is what ment that "hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use it".
but you dont always need all those fancy weapons to seige a city.genghis khan took over Beijing basicly by surronding the city,stop supplies from going in and out,and wait for the garrison and citizens to starve to death.what do the mongols know about sieging?nothing.but everyone needs to eat so if you cut that out,the enemy would have no choice but to surrender or get owned
@ulongkoror Good point. However, Rome had a system whereby they could feed themselves indefinetly if under siege, smallholdings within the city walls for example. In fact, it was the Romans who used attritional tactics on Hannibal after Cannae, because they realised they couldn't beat him on open ground, but also knew Hannibal's forces were isolated and weakening. But there's always a way if the motivation is great enough, who knows what was on Hannibal's mind? The fascination of history...
While Hannibal lacked the siege engines to take Rome. I always wondered why Hannibal didn't mine under Rome's walls and collapse them. Thus not needing any siege engines.
i am taking abou the whole world.they did not conquer east asia or most of africa etc. europeans act like their they are the only ones on the earth and there point of view only counts,so yes they conquered thier world not anybody else
The Chinese did pretty much same thing. They sent out ships to explore the world and they reached as far as Mecca. After finding no one more advanced then themselves, they burnt the maps and had the captains of the ships killed.
rome military was not the most advanced military in the ancient world.they did not even had steel weapons for an example and their iron was not the best..western historians kept saying stuff like this and just don't tell the truth about other empires like in africa or asia.
Of course Rome wasn't the most advanced nation on Earth at the time. Any college professor will tell you that. It's not whether historians lie about it or not, it's the individuals ability to seek those answers.
They did conquer the mediterranean world. In antiquity that was a world in itself. Probably 1/3 of the entire world population lived under the roman banner. Quite a feat.
rome was the strongest at the time of hannibal but persia was the strongest at the time of alexander.if u have a historian friend ask him which taktics were beather
I have to agree there i have a cousin and afew friends that has an overtly Romantic view off rome
it is good to have one or more historical idols BUT NOT raise them to godhood exept maybe for alexander who by contemporary scholars was percieved as a god.
But as seen here he made his greatest misstake by underestamating the roman fanaticism wich is actually a rolemodel for the so-called demokracy´s of the modern world.
@28jul1821 Carthage should've backed Hannibal! He was over in Italy risking his neck for his country, and they didn't even help him when he needed it?! Bullshit!
And to think Carthage was SO CLOSE! To winning the war, that a bunch of jealous dumb asses had to ruin it.
crackshack2 5 days ago
"You know how to win, Hannibal, but you don't know how to use a victory."
Yeeah... John III Sobieski of Poland should have heard that too. Won the battle of Vienna against largest Turkish army, but forgot to ask the Kaiser to sweeten the saving deal.
Kershtarel 1 month ago
8:56 did I see "slut" in the subtitles?
therockana 2 months ago
@therockana It is swedish subtitles and "slut" on swedish means "stop" ;)
jonnacdo 1 month ago
@jonnacdo lolz... yeah i understand... was just kidding.... didnt know it's Swedish though.. was trying to figure out what language was that....
therockana 1 month ago
@therockana I understood :) Just helping you figure out what language it was. It's a funny sounding language in my opinion, but I suppose the Swedish says exactly the same about mine lol.
jonnacdo 1 month ago
@jonnacdo what language do you speak, apart from English?
therockana 1 month ago
@therockana Norwegian :P Swedens neighbours.
jonnacdo 1 month ago
@jonnacdo
the subtitles are in norwegian?!
crackshack2 5 days ago
@crackshack2 No Swedish ;)
jonnacdo 4 days ago
@jonnacdo
DU GAY! NORSK ER BETTER!
crackshack2 4 days ago
@crackshack2 lolwut?? I am Norwegian lol... and what you just said came straight out of some sort translating program. If you want to know what you just said REALLY is in norwegain here it is: "Du er homo! Norsk er bedre!" I knew the subs were swedish since after all... Norway is Swedens neighbors. I understand very little swedish when I hear it, but it is way easier to read it. I understand English way better than swedish lol.
jonnacdo 4 days ago
@jonnacdo
Yea thats what I said so I didnt know what better or gay is in norwegian im still on unit 2 lol!
crackshack2 4 days ago
@jonnacdo Why are we fighting?! lets be friends!
Hei! Hvardan har du det?
crackshack2 4 days ago
@crackshack2 Oh, are you studying norwegian? If so, it's the first time I've ever heard someone do lol. No one cares about little Norway :) You almost got that sentence right, but it's an O at the start og "Hvordan" not A ;)
jonnacdo 4 days ago
@jonnacdo
Yup! some of my friends are norsk so i'm learning norwegian! damnit! I screwed up! nooo
crackshack2 4 days ago
@crackshack2 wow, then I am impressed. Where are you from? Since you have norwegian friends and all.
jonnacdo 4 days ago
Comment removed
xRemRooodx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnacdo "Slut" = "end" "over" "closing" it's Swedish end has alot of meanings.
xRemRooodx 1 month ago
@therockana "Slut" = "end" "over" "closing" it's Swedish end has alot of meanings.
xRemRooodx 1 month ago
@xRemRooodx Correct
jonnacdo 1 month ago
so Hannibal actually felt compassion? and that was his mistake? hmm...
therockana 2 months ago
scipio africanus never lost a battle. one of the few generals who never lost a single battle
smithryansmith 3 months ago 5
"Victory greater then that of Alexander or any hero who walked this earth before me...."...and any hero who has walked afterwards.(Probably)
Skiveron 4 months ago
Hanno the Great... BLECH! Hanno the Fool, more like.
Never, ever, EVER, trust a politician.
EmperorDude1990 5 months ago
Carthaginians with English accents heh heh. This is a cool documentary though.
AirAssault7 5 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992
Well, first of all, he did not have siege weapons. Second of all, his army could not just sit around doing nothing, since they had to live off the land. So Hannibal did win over the Gallic tribes of the north and some Italian cities in the south, but all the Latin city-states stayed loyal to Rome, so if Hannibal was to avoid having his army starve to death, they had to move either to the north or the south of the country, not to stay in Latium.
DifangDuana 5 months ago
He knew how to fight but when it came to follow through or finishing up Hannibal sucked. Great strategist but he didnt know jack about what happens after the fight.
Pimpintology 6 months ago
TUNISIAN HERO <3
shwepps92 6 months ago
@shwepps92 And i guess that makes Belisarius a Turkish hero.
MrGilles1990 6 months ago
they in fact did send what haniball asked for but it was not as quick as they should of done the delays were terrible by that time more legions had been raised
this from Hanno
panzermort 6 months ago
. He says he has conquered all his enemies, and
yet he wants us to send him more soldiers. He has reduced all
Italy--the most fertile country in the world--to subjection, and
reigns over it at Capua, and yet he calls upon us for corn. And then,
to crown all, he sends us bushels of gold rings as a specimen of the
riches he has obtained by plunder, and accompanies the offering with a
demand for new supplies of money.
panzermort 6 months ago
Couldn't Hannibal at least besieged Rome and starved them out? What was stopping him?
CrimsonGuard1992 7 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Not enough troops or supplies.
MrGilles1990 6 months ago
Comment removed
DifangDuana 5 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 He was lacking in good siege equipment and logistically, it would have been a formidable challenge. However, one could make an argument that he should have at least laid waste to the outskirts of Rome and maybe try to take Ostia.
somewhere6 2 months ago
actually hannibal wanted to destroy rome but the wall around it persuaded him not to
seminoleboy96 7 months ago
wait doesnt rome has a hell load of slaves?couldnt they easily put together a huge force of militia just by arming those slaves and sending them into battle?
ulongkoror 8 months ago
@ulongkoror if they send the slaves to battle then who will plow the fields and make food?
ABRARKHANISM 7 months ago
@ABRARKHANISM
well is it better to miss one harvest and have to buy food from elsewhere,or see your country get destroyed?
ulongkoror 7 months ago
@ulongkoror the slave could turn on them
doctor1451 7 months ago
@ulongkoror a slave army vs a heavily armed army with calvery would be inviting another massacre. plus half of them would run off on the way to the battle. and half of them would run off during the battle. and you dont want a massive army of slaves that hate you armed and marching around your land, hannibal could've traded them their freedom or something in exchange for them joining him. it's just a massive cluster fuck of problems bro, wars not numbers, that was the whole point of cannae
gongtatoot 6 months ago
@gongtatoot and they couldn't hold the lines against the elephants, or do anything other than some retarded braveheart charge, where the elephants would just mush them up. and they couldn't beat heavy calvary. and they would almost definately just run off. you could beat a pretty big army of retards with a small army of men with a solid strategy, but you can't catch all these dudes running off in different directions the second they leave the gates. and coming back pissed off.
gongtatoot 6 months ago
i will fight for rome
slyrader1 9 months ago
the guy from the senate who didnt allow the sending of reinforcement got what he had coming for him, which is Rome owning Carthage.
killerzombie163 10 months ago
lol theyr just as corrupt as the corrupt bastards they hate xD
sirnosmirc 10 months ago
I actually didn't know that Carthage was a Republic XD
JwZTheBoss 10 months ago
in the end, its the carthaginian government responsible for its own destruction, not rome. Hannibal was but a general, he couldnt work miracles. without the help and support from his own people he was powerless
zazenzach 10 months ago
Hannibal choosing not to continue his atk was smart. His men were depleted and he can could have always came back later. He shoiuld have left Rome with a couple thousand troops and came back later.
VayMatt 11 months ago
@VayMatt That or block the city of supplies or go and get more men from Carthage to build a really large army that could take a city. Asking for siege engines like the ones Alexander The Great had wouldn't have been a bad idea either. Otherwise, his decision after Cannae was logical since he can't march his army right after and like other great cities, he fought and won the way he was taught but Rome decided to press with a new strategy that Athens only tried briefly.
3baxcb 10 months ago
@NanKingRaddish
The Romans and the Persians led armies of numbers, lead by a few thousands skilled leaders. They numbered in the 100's of thousands. And let's not forget the Persians client armies (the Turkic people, the Indians and the Northern Arabs)- but these men were skilled warriors as well, fighting for the highest bidder.
The tactics of men like Khalid ibn al Walid made it possibly for 15-25 thousand Arabs to defeat the 100's of thousands of Persian soldiers on the way to Tehran.
Arabman666 11 months ago
@Arabman666 There were no "Muslims" until Muhammad began preaching to the various Christian "heretic" groups who took religious guidance from gospels other than those approved by the Pope - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. This is the birth of Islam, in the 6th century, long after the fall of Rome - therefore, Romans did not fight muslims; although Byzantines did, much later on. I think you are confusing race with religion.
18RandyAndy 11 months ago
@18RandyAndy
Randy
I don't want to have a religious discussion with you. The first Muslims groups were Pagans and Jews. The last were Christians, well into the start of Muhammad's prophet-hood.
As for Rome, Rome is Byzantine... and that is what the Arabs historically refer to the Empire as, Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike. It should be clear what I meant, as I used Byzantine earlier in my discussion with the person I replied to. I used Rome bcus it's shorter and we have limited letters.
Arabman666 11 months ago
@NanKingRaddish
The Romans and Persians had been fighting for years before the Muslims ever rose. They were battle-hardened as well. In fact, the first battle was a "interference battle" where the Muslim army intercepted the Persians and the Romans on their way to meet each other in Arabia (as it was a center stage for most of their battles)- although yes, the Muslims were experienced, but greatly out-armed and out-funded.
That's when soldier moral kicks in.
Arabman666 11 months ago
this Hannibal reminds me a lot about a persian king or general
darthraven178 1 year ago
@darthraven178
The Persians never really had a general like Hannibal. The Persians were very similar to Rome in their tactics: Throw a shit load of soldiers out on the battle-field, and win.
The Only general that comes to mind that is probably greater than any other, is Khalid Ibn al Walid. He basically invaded both Rome, and Persia, at the same time with an army of about 25,000 people, defeating an excess of 1 million Persians + Romans.
Arabman666 1 year ago
@Arabman666 someone who knows military history.... people talk up napoleon, alexander, frederick, genghis etc. But they seem to forget all these people had technology or numbers or better trained / equipped troops along with a great general. He was one of the few who always had less troops, his troops were bedouins and not professional soldiers, and technology wise he was far behind yet he managed to never lose a single battle simply due to brilliant tactics.
evilbunz 1 year ago
@evilbunz
Khalid ibn al walid led an army of untrained Bedouins, not professional soldiers, off to fight the Byzantines and the Persians- and in both cases being totally victorious. I imagine their skills were no better than Hannibals men
When it comes down to it, an Army of mercenaries or slaves (mercenaries in the case of Hannibal, slaves in the case of Persia, and assembly line soldiers in the case of Rome) can not withstand an Army emotionally and morally invested in the battles it fights.
Arabman666 1 year ago
Hannibal is Lebanese. Phoenician, not some African guy. Phoenicians are brown not black. Go to modern day Lebanon, you'll see how the people look
1997Christiano 1 year ago
@1997Christiano DO you see black people in the world because i haven't i have seen brown colored people though you idiot it is written he was brown with brown african features and modern day lebanon is much different from carthage
Whoizcasper 9 months ago
Comment removed
FilipH86 1 year ago
Wel, for one, Hannibal was one of the most brilliant military minds the world has ever known. Yet, he could not conquer Rome because he did not have the backing of the government. However, the Celts, who were slightly weaker than Carthage in terms or military might, were able to lay siege to Rome and sack it. It just proves that in history, you can have the greatest general to lead your army. If the people are not willing, then you might as well have lost.
MrStrawhatlegend 1 year ago
Hannibal accomplished more militarily in 3 years than America has in 11. That's all kinds of depressing.
originalarmo 1 year ago
How STUPID and SELFISH were those Carthaginian Senators?
"What have you to show for your campaign?"
Dude, Hannibal just wiped out an entire generation of Roman soldiers. What did you want us to show you... your mother's smelly ass?
I've never heard of a government abandoning a campaign that's on the verge of crushing an archenemy. That's like if the US suddenly disarmed its entire nuclear arsenal in the 80s. Or if Russia suddenly withdrew from the gates of Berlin.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago
@PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD
Somewhat similar to Rome the senate was led by a couple "noble" families that really pulled the strings. Carthage had not really supported the war to begin with. Hannibal's pro Roman war political party was outmaneuvered by a character named Hanno who was probably trying to secure his own fortunes and power. The "government" was more of a political competition between families so under that context its easy to see how intrigue could lead to this outcome for Barca.
RythymNblues 1 year ago
@RythymNblues So was it fair to say that the only option Hannibal had was to not lay siege to Rome?
MrStrawhatlegend 1 year ago
@MrStrawhatlegend
Hannibal was an astute tactician. While the battle of Cannae was an utter disaster for Rome and caused much panic Hannibal's army also suffered serious losses (many thousands dead). Even if Hannibal's army was at full strength he would've known a direct assault on Rome would have taken considerable resources that he just didn't have. So no Hannibal realistically could not have expected to successfully take Rome.
RythymNblues 1 year ago
@RythymNblues Yet the Celts were able conquer Rome centuries later.
MrStrawhatlegend 1 year ago
@MrStrawhatlegend
What is the point your making?
RythymNblues 1 year ago
From a Serbs mouth speaks the words Cowards from Carthage for not reinforcing Hannibal cowards treason Hanibal was a genius a hero, i hate cowards more then enemy
03Srbija 1 year ago
@03Srbija
Because ethnically cleansing yours and surrounding nations, destroying all other cultures in your own border with the full support of most of the (former) Yugoslavian army together with extra Serbian militia and having stupid ideas of making Serbia as big as it was under Stefan Dusan isn't cowardly, completely ludicrous and not to forget plain stupid?
Just sayin'
It ranks about as high as Rumania's claims on Macedonia on the stupidity meter.
soulripper31 1 year ago
Woah! So many bodies! Carrion birds willl fest for a long time...
ThePunisher19925V2 1 year ago
4:35
for some reason,i expected him to shout"WE ARE SPARTANS!!!"
ulongkoror 1 year ago
Comment removed
sexyloser1128 1 year ago
Here's the problem: Carthage was never a military power. It was, first and foremost, a merchant empire. They would rather trade and make money than fight. Hannibal was an anomaly, an aggressive expansionist who never had much support back home. Rome was, on the other hand, the ancient equivalent of a full-on, fascist military junta that loved war and glorified it, and had full support of the people and economy back home. Despite appalling losses, Rome was never going to capitulate.
Ishkur23 1 year ago 2
@Ishkur23 astute observation.Pretty much spot on.Rome= cross between nazi Germany and America
landocalrision 1 year ago 2
@landocalrision how do you come to that conclusion?
themegamunkey123 9 months ago
@themegamunkey123 extremely militaristic,nationalistic,in a way quite xenophobic with a quite "us against the rest of the world"attitude,what else? they seem to have an aversion to anything deemed "foreign"
landocalrision 9 months ago
"It is sense! The gods don't need those weapons, we do!"
MandoPadill 1 year ago 15
@MandoPadill Pragmatism always wins.
Kelly14UK 1 year ago
@MandoPadill
Lolz, Fabius owned that retard so bad. Silly religious people.
Andy5674 8 months ago
If I were Mago I would've just disobeyed the Senate and gone back to Italy. Fuck corrupt bureaucrats having jurisdiction over a war they have no idea how to fight.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
the senate or council or government or whatever,of carthage,looks more like an underground gang of merchants lol
ulongkoror 1 year ago
The Council of Elders were wrought in their own corruption and greed. Such pathetic mewling infants who proclaim themselves leaders, always write death for the history of their nation.
GeneralSuvarov 1 year ago
7 YEARS !!!!!!! with nothing sent.... WOW......I'm glad they lost.....Hannibal should have taken his army to carthage and set seige to it...conquer it....then proclaim himself king.....then back to rome to finish them off.... he had 7 years to do it.....
endlesswaltzhaha 1 year ago 22
@endlesswaltzhaha Not a bad idea!
starsfury 1 year ago
@endlesswaltzhaha Carthage sent A LOT of reinforcements, they just didn't send EVERYTHING they had, this movie completely mis-portraits that. Carthage had to defend several new conquered colonies and vassal states on top of having a lot of trouble with civil unrest, it's not like they had troops just chillin.
andrinho 1 year ago
@andrinho ....they did just have troops... just chillin....what they gathered for the battle of zama could have been thrown into the italian peninsula...years beforehand....on top of that they should have sent agents in to the northern tribes and get that area to revolt.....while at the same time they should have dispatched an army to macedon to help out there for an invasion west in to rome.....all this while hannibal was already there.....SHAME to the council of carthrage....
endlesswaltzhaha 1 year ago
@endlesswaltzhaha "thrown into the Italian peninsula"? You make it sound like they had a smooth way to do that. Rome had heavy control over the Mediterranean after the first punic war. The Carthaginians would have to make it over the Pyrenees and Alps once again, I remind you that Hannibal lost about 50% of his original forces just to get to Italy (they would lose even more if being leaded by a lower rank officer). Could you show me the source for the "troops chillin" issue?
andrinho 1 year ago
@andrinho
actually, Carthage didn't fight. They paid mercenaries to fight for them.
And Rome destroyed the reinforcements in Spain, including killing Hannibal's brother.
tioedong 1 year ago
@endlesswaltzhaha
lazy bastard ;P
Fokosmok 9 months ago
@endlesswaltzhaha yout a fucking idiot !
osub 8 months ago
@osub A statement caused you to use foul language....observe your choice of words and reflect on your position in life.
endlesswaltzhaha 8 months ago 7
@endlesswaltzhaha Fuck, Shit, piss, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. You square tightass. lol
CadaverSplatter 1 month ago
@endlesswaltzhaha
This part of the documentary was not very historically accurate. The Barcids were in control of Carthage. The reason more men and supplies were not sent to Rome was because it was not needed. Hannibal was holding down the fort with his Gallic and Italian allies. But Spain and Sardinia was under sustained Roman attack. Not to mention the Libyans were revolting. So the resources and manpower were diverted elsewhere. And still Rome took all except parts of Italy.
DifangDuana 5 months ago
@DifangDuana No it is correct. Hannibal was holding down the fort by a thread. He needed the reinforcements. The revolt in Libya was no major threat or significant importance, it could have waited. The Roman attack was not sustained as of yet in this part of the documentary nor Roman for that matter but paid tribes. They were defeated because Hannibal's Brother here paid them more to switch sides. At this time Macedon decided to go to war with Rome.
randomusernamemygod 1 month ago
@randomusernamemygod If the Reinforcements went straight to Italy they could have taken the entire country and surrounded Rome or took it. Roman Armies that were left would have had to abandon all campaigns and return home cut off from orders from home, friendly towns, supplies and manpower, heading towards their enemy reinforcing themselves with their backs against even more enemies, Iberia, Carthage, Macedon and the Gallic tribes effectivally routing them.
randomusernamemygod 1 month ago
I would like to see the phrase "Greater military victory than anybody had every archieved" debaited.
A single great triumph, yes.
I still have Alexander in a league above him.
Kulmataklaus 1 year ago
@Kulmataklaus Alexander was always better reinforced with replacement infantry and calvary than Hannibal. Otherwise, if Hannibal had more support than his own mercenary army, he could have taken Rome.
3baxcb 1 year ago
I understand why the Carthaginian Senate might have wanted to avoid a war originally, but you have to ask why they were so obstructionist once they were in the middle of it. There's no going back to the way things were. Didn't they understand the stakes? It's so frustrating!
UnoriginallyInclined 1 year ago
It wasn't Rome who defeated Hannibal, however it is clear that his own senate are held responsible for his downfall
xFrazeMc 1 year ago 2
Greatest battlefield victory of all time ? wasn't gualgamela bigger then this one ?
dardo1201 1 year ago
@dardo1201 Guagamela may have been larger scale but the Persian army was routed instead of being trapped and wiped out so completely like the Roman army at Cannae. Without a senator like Fabius, Rome might have believed that all was lost and given up. Only by learning from Fabius' tactics and Hannibal's successes could Rome recover and ultimately win the 2nd Punic War.
The Persian Empire wasn't as stable as the Roman Republic and was already destined to fall.
3baxcb 1 year ago
if was me i just take out that big mouth carthage council n kill him n take over carthage amry n conquer the ancient world is my owr conquest or something it to bad hannibal did not think about that instead being general for the carthage council who betray him at end if war
hateUhuman 1 year ago
hannibals decision was foolish not to go to rome, he knew he had insufficient men but by not destroying rome it then recovered and destroyed carthage... i wanted to see a carthaginian empire rather then a roman one
tecna64 1 year ago
@tecna64 Why would you want a carthagenian empire?The romans incorporated the best of greece,egypt,and carthage and laid the ground for the world we live today.
carlrball 1 year ago
they are two thing why hannibal loss the fucking carthage council it all they fault for making hannibal lose the war against roman an not support him and he did not have siege warfare at the time to take down the gate of rome too
hateUhuman 1 year ago
VICTIMS ...
88Thyra 1 year ago
I want to go back in time and freaking torch that senator at 6:32. Fucking dumb shit just like George Bush. He's attacking where its not even necessary. Spain?? wtf just like how George sent the Army to Iraq when we could've destroyed Al Qaeda by now.
asep5 2 years ago 22
I know right, ike he says 'what have you got to show for it' WTF we have got Rome on its KNEES!!! :$
AvengefulAngel 2 years ago 4
@asep5 wow you must be some military genius. that simple huh
joeratti 1 year ago
@joeratti if I was one like hannibal yes. with a snap of my finger. But i think hannibal lost because he betrayed his father's oath. He is an enemy of rome so he should'nt give mercy.
asep5 1 year ago
@asep5 I'll go with you and bring a can of gasoline for that Carthagian
senator. He betrays his country out of envy and rivalry with the
Barca family.
rangerbobcat 1 year ago
@rangerbobcat fuck that they should hang him the the streets of carthage.
I'll just pop him with an ak
asep5 1 year ago
@asep5
I don't know about Bush, but by attacking Spain they kept Hannibal from getting help and supplies from there. So Hannibal was stuck in Italy and unable to beseige Rome
tioedong 1 year ago
@tioedong no i'm talking about Hannibal stopping when he has his enemy on his knees. Like george bush.
asep5 1 year ago
@asep5 It's like they WANTED to lose the war and die en masse. I look forward to seeing the Roman massacre of these idiots reenacted.
kirby28645 1 year ago
@asep5 you mean diversify Carthiginian forces to split the opponents and force cartharge to recall Hannibal, taking him out of Italy and restoring Roman Dignity...HOw is that bad?
Rukanormoonbringer 1 year ago
@asep5 they feared ahnnible they were scared that he would take there power with the army they supplied him with and then make it an empire not a repulbic they did not know hannibles intentiones
MegaEminemD12 1 year ago
Comment removed
peytonsbigbro 1 year ago
@asep5 every GREAT leader has a draw back..
in iraq, George bush's idea was to show that we are no force to be beckoned with, and that when you attack the heart of the United States we will fight back and strip you down. we are the greatest military force out there, and george bush showed the world that in iraq.
but now with the president we have,
the idea is flushed down the toilet
peytonsbigbro 1 year ago
@peytonsbigbro u must be some dip shit redneck that think war is a game and just a show off parade.
If George dickhead bush didn't go into iraq we wouldn't be in this recession.
We would've capture Bin Ladin. And Obama is trying to clean up the George Bush's shit!
asep5 1 year ago
@peytonsbigbro George bush is not a fucking general LOL. Hes a puppet if anything, that doesn't even deserve comparison to the likes of Hannibal in any regard. Typical Yanks want to flaunt their world prowess but lets remember how long you have been a world power ; 90 odd years merely a blip in history. Defeating Iraq showed off the USA as the greatest military force ? LOL Iraq was not even a major force in the middle east. "Attack at the heart" The war was unprovoked
Pomaori 11 months ago
@asep5 What a stupid fucking comment. Where is exactly would you direct an army to destroy a multi-national global organization like Al Qaeda ?
Pomaori 11 months ago
@asep5 we did have a reason for going into iraq.. russia, france, and another country (i forgot which) was selling pharmaceutical drugs to saddam hussein our cia agents told bush that these drugs could be used for weapons of mass destruction (note that i said COULD be used) even though we dont have proff he was going to do that saddam hussein refused to let us search and due to the previous gulf war we had the right to search at any point if we suspect he may have these wepeons..
JDV808 11 months ago
@asep5 Spain was enemy territory. The invasion of Spain deprived Hannibal of reinforcements, and since none were coming from Carthage he had to rely mostly on what he had. If Hannibal had been able to receive reinforcements the war might have gone differently. By the way, Rome was in decline for longer than the USA has even existed. It has been more than 1500 years since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Our civilization has nothing to do with theirs.
InvisibleCloudKing 11 months ago
@InvisibleCloudKing No but we have made many of the same mistakes the Ancient Roman Republic/Empire have made, and many of our politicians are greedy and arrogant like Varro.
MrUnclepeanuts 10 months ago
@MrUnclepeanuts Of course. They are politicians. But I am sick of USA/Rome comparisons, especially politically motivated ones like the above comment.
InvisibleCloudKing 10 months ago
@InvisibleCloudKing Why?..... History repeats itself does it not? it's very reasonable to compare the two. In many ways we are like the modern romans,
the roman like us are: hardcore patriots, warmongers, Military civilization(we rely a lot, almost too much on our military much like the Romans did.), the obvious one: an Republic(only difference is Rome did not stay one for long.) Both like the Eagle as a symbol. To get irritated by people comparing the two is not very logical.
MrUnclepeanuts 10 months ago
@MrUnclepeanuts Maybe. But I believe we are a lot more innovative then the Romans ever were. They never got beyond the use of slave labor. Hero of Alexandria invented a steam engine in the first century AD. Isn't it amazing that no one followed up on it until the 1600s? If there is any lesson to be learned it is that we should not get stuck in a rut. If there are any lessons to be learned it is that we should throw the Christians to the lions and support the sciences.
InvisibleCloudKing 10 months ago
@asep5 Yeah, that guy at 6:32 was just a greedy little wannabe rival in politics of Hannibal, called Hanno. It happens all the time, mindless fucks that spoil someones rolling thunder in a pathetic attempt to steal it. Hannibal would have destroyed the Romans, but the gay politicians conned him, and ultimately removed any hope of winning the 2nd Punic War without even knowing it. For all the ego of that guy, he could not see what he was doing to his own people - dooming them to be defeated.
ThePalaeontologist 10 months ago
Hannibal didn't have the option of laying siege to Rome because he had little support from Carthage; specifically the supply of siege equipment such as the onager.
starsfury 2 years ago 36
@starsfury Yes but Rome's populace was in panic, if he had marched on rome and tried any sort of charge, it's people would have tried in panic too prolly escape the city and thus let him in. This is what ment that "hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use it".
blabloempa 1 year ago
@starsfury
but you dont always need all those fancy weapons to seige a city.genghis khan took over Beijing basicly by surronding the city,stop supplies from going in and out,and wait for the garrison and citizens to starve to death.what do the mongols know about sieging?nothing.but everyone needs to eat so if you cut that out,the enemy would have no choice but to surrender or get owned
ulongkoror 1 year ago
@ulongkoror Good point. However, Rome had a system whereby they could feed themselves indefinetly if under siege, smallholdings within the city walls for example. In fact, it was the Romans who used attritional tactics on Hannibal after Cannae, because they realised they couldn't beat him on open ground, but also knew Hannibal's forces were isolated and weakening. But there's always a way if the motivation is great enough, who knows what was on Hannibal's mind? The fascination of history...
starsfury 1 year ago
@starsfury Onagers are for inavasion not sieging.
andrinho 1 year ago
@andrinho
Onagers are a siege weapon.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@starsfury
While Hannibal lacked the siege engines to take Rome. I always wondered why Hannibal didn't mine under Rome's walls and collapse them. Thus not needing any siege engines.
sexyloser1128 1 year ago
@starsfury and @asep5 Goes to show how politicians fuck things up eh?
PaRrOtReScUeWoTr 10 months ago
Comment removed
MindUrBizzness 2 years ago
sacking Rome would not be such a bad idea. But its more logistical reasons that Hannibal did not attack
FearAcademy 2 years ago 6
@FearAcademy Right, plus Rome could've put up one helluva fight if under siege. It would be like the Greeks trying to get into Troy.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 Yeah, the fear of that probably contributed to Hannibal's decision not to attack Rome.
starsfury 1 year ago
@starsfury Right
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
was the guy who was fighting and commanding the infantry at the front Varro? i wonder how he survived.
taketaketakeshi1988 2 years ago 3
the Carthagenian senator was a fool! Carthage was wiped out from the face of the earth by Rome at the end.
superquino 2 years ago 6
@superquino just one stupid choice. He was a military genius but a bad politician. Hannibal's nickname is the father of strategy.
asep5 2 years ago 4
Still, Alexander was more awesome.
crashoveryu 2 years ago 2
Agreed.
gapingmaw20 2 years ago
Fabius Maximus Rule
xbouxix 2 years ago 4
I think Fabius was an idiot personally.
gapingmaw20 2 years ago
I just wonder what were these Carthaginian "elders" planning for 14 years? Maybe peace with Romans?!
yudzin88 2 years ago
i am taking abou the whole world.they did not conquer east asia or most of africa etc. europeans act like their they are the only ones on the earth and there point of view only counts,so yes they conquered thier world not anybody else
cell455 2 years ago
The Chinese did pretty much same thing. They sent out ships to explore the world and they reached as far as Mecca. After finding no one more advanced then themselves, they burnt the maps and had the captains of the ships killed.
gapingmaw20 2 years ago
By the time off Alexander the persian empire was declining still strong but weakening dramatically for each decade!
TheShadowwolf88 2 years ago
rome military was not the most advanced military in the ancient world.they did not even had steel weapons for an example and their iron was not the best..western historians kept saying stuff like this and just don't tell the truth about other empires like in africa or asia.
cell455 2 years ago
True the carthaginians was afterall merchants and would have had access to the very best weapons-teknology off the time!
TheShadowwolf88 2 years ago
Of course Rome wasn't the most advanced nation on Earth at the time. Any college professor will tell you that. It's not whether historians lie about it or not, it's the individuals ability to seek those answers.
gapingmaw20 2 years ago
rome did not conquer the world.did it conquer china or the mayans or axumite for example?no.we have to stop saying such incorrect stuff.
cell455 2 years ago
@cell455
They did conquer the mediterranean world. In antiquity that was a world in itself. Probably 1/3 of the entire world population lived under the roman banner. Quite a feat.
lucius1976 2 years ago
They conquerd the world they knew and they were the strongest power of their time.
Therefore they conquerd the world
THANK YOU
Oldcartoons571 1 year ago
rome was the strongest at the time of hannibal but persia was the strongest at the time of alexander.if u have a historian friend ask him which taktics were beather
archelalus 2 years ago
omg idiots they refused to send supplies they asked for it no wonder rome destroyed the shit out of their city rome
you have to take action when the opportunity is there
28jul1821 2 years ago
FUCK ROME
greatbydesign33 2 years ago
I have to agree there i have a cousin and afew friends that has an overtly Romantic view off rome
it is good to have one or more historical idols BUT NOT raise them to godhood exept maybe for alexander who by contemporary scholars was percieved as a god.
But as seen here he made his greatest misstake by underestamating the roman fanaticism wich is actually a rolemodel for the so-called demokracy´s of the modern world.
TheShadowwolf88 2 years ago
@greatbydesign33 fuck it and DAMN it
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@28jul1821 Carthage should've backed Hannibal! He was over in Italy risking his neck for his country, and they didn't even help him when he needed it?! Bullshit!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago