Tricked into battle - Hannibal - BBC

[Albanian2Be]

Destroy those freaking barbarians,jeez I hate western scum,can't trust them

[zerker12568901]

Barbarians just like killing people lol

[zofistar]

Is it just me or the actor whos playing Hannibal looks like Hugh Laurie? :D

[frozenfisherman]

is hannibal hugh laury =O?

[BobbyMan21]

what is this series?? where can i watch al of it?

[RazorCell7]

@BobbyMan21 Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare

[pazderka]

the gauls chief speaks modern bulgarian thats funny

[Devokonstai]

@pazderka rly? what's he saying?

[AlizeCiz]

Why is an indian playing hannibal?

[Jagged85]

@AlizeCiz

Alexander Siddig is not Indian. His father is Sudanese and mother is English. He has a North-African and/or Semitic appearance, making him suitable for the role of Hannibal.

[francsturz]

What a fake: the leader of those barbaric, savage tribes who Hannibal pays speaks in a Slavic language! There were no Slavic people in that zone at that time; and certainly not in Italy. Where was Yugoslavia Slavic people arrived from East in the 7-8 century, but Hannibal never went in that zone, not to mention that he lived 800 years earlier. I didn't expect from BBC to such a historical fake, just for the sake of "representation" a barbarian speaker, they used a harsh Slavonic language.

[kaelim888]

Maybe there was an initial migration from western Europe, or let's say western Gaul, to eastern Europe. Before like you say, Yugoslavian Slavs moved west in 7th-8th century. So the slavic language came from the west maybe, then to the east?

Or maybe the BBC just cocked up.

[rosamirafly]

@francsturz I'm glad someone else has noticed it - I agree 100%! It's totally inaccurate historically! And it's not the first time I noticed in English / American productions, whenever they want to represent a "barbarian" camp, they use Slavic languages -or sth that at least sounds similar. Talk about not spreading hatred in the world... I love BBC documents, but here I was really disappointed :((

[rosamirafly]

@francsturz

And what an irony - English, so proudly spoken by Hannibal and all Roman characters - has barbaric origins, since it is a Germanic language. I would understand if all characters in the movie spoke English - it's a modern day documentary and English is an international language... but the distinction between English and Slavic?? I know I'm repeating myself but it's an outrage :(

The director of this movie should try Latin, see if he can pronounce one word of it correctly :(

[cahtush]

hannibal could have taken rome if he wasent delayd by the sarmartians in italy giving rome time

[Hallvardkristoffer99]

he could have taken rome, if just the carthaginians had trusted him and sent more troops and food. So rome should be glad the cathage bosses was so stupid and did not sent soldiers.

The romans was lucky many times. They were not so superior as someone say

[AodArmyOfDestructio]

but they were superior because they wernt stupid like carthaginins

[darkdanu89]

@Hallvardkristoffer99

The carthaginian senators were afraid they would lose their power once the main enemy, Rome, was destroyed. And maybe they were right, maybe Hannibal would have started a carthaginian civil war after that, just like Caesar did after he conquered Gaul.

So it wasnt because of stupidity, it was because of the senators greed, love of power and the fear of losing it.

[The3WcBros]

He traveled very far to Rome, but turned back. That ended up being the biggest mistake probally ever in history.

[FiasaPower]

Why didn't Hannibal crushed Rome after Cannae ? Rome was kneeling ...

[torongill80]

Because even after Cannae, the roman army was superior in numbers. Hannibal simply could not afford to lay siege. His greatest advantages - mobility, better tactics, superior cavalry, would be negated. Also, taking Rome would require a frontal charge, storming of the city, a normal siege based on starving the besieged wouldn't work - Rome was supplied by sea. And if Hannibal chose to lay siege, he would starve.

[GetenGeten]

Good response, my droog.

[lucius1976]

@torongill80

Rome does not lie directly at sea. It is somewhat inland. Only connection is the quite small river tiber. If someone had surrounded rome it could NOT been supplied by sea.

[ThamMalaysia]

That was Hannibal's greatest mistake, not to capitalize on his victory at Cannae and go straight for Rome. A preemptive strike was his best chance of victory, just as Maharbal, his cavalry commander, had urged, regardless of whether he had the siege equipment. Why go all the way across the Alps, lose more than half your army, only to languish in the countryside for the next 15 years ? What was his objective in the first place, if not to take Rome ?

[ThamMalaysia]

That was Hannibal's greatest mistake, not to capitalize on his victory at Cannae and go straight for Rome. A preemptive strike was his best chance of victory, just as Maharbal, his cavalry commander, had urged, regardless of whether he had the siege equipment. Why go all the way across the Alps, lose more than half your army, only to languish in the countryside for the next 15 years ? What was his objective in the first place, if not to take Rome ?

[3baxcb]

@ThamMalaysia Siege equipment was essential in those times to take a walled city like Rome. Otherwise, the best trained army of the time cannot take a city with a frontal assault which would be costly at best and in hostile territory very dangerous to do. Hannibal may have had more sense of the situation after Cannae than Maharbal.

[ThamMalaysia]

@3baxcb

If that was the case, why go thru all the trouble

and loss of men, crossing the Alps, to invade

Rome then ?

For what, in the end ? Languish in the countryside

for 15 years, having his army cut down from

40,000 after Cannae, to 15,000 ?

[ThamMalaysia]

And if he couldn't take Rome with 40,000 men in 216, what makes him think he can he could in 207, with 45,000 (his remaining 15,000 plus Hasdrubal's 30,000, even if he had managed to join up) ? Hasdrubal's men wouldn't have made any difference, even if he had defeated the Romans at Metaurus, and join up with Hannibal thereafter. He had no siege equipment in any case. And he would have less than 30,000 for sure, after losses at Metaurus. Basically, back to square one right after Cannae.

[DazedSpy2]

@torongill80 also hannibal lacked proper seige equipment.

[WolfytheWolf5667]

@torongill80

Not to mention his "soldiers" were a bunch of dirty, filthy Carthaginians carrying diseases all the way from their disgusting country. I mean, they're all filthy and have diseases, so if Hannibal invaded, the entirety of Rome would die.

[sushanalone]

@torongill80 Hannibal requested reinforcements form Carthage but they were refused due to jealousy and a weak attempt to reinforce new carthage. If he would have been re supplied he would have taken Rome. Instead the Carthaginian senate reinforced spain with its troops.

[magnvsmarcvs]

@torongill80 Rome wasn t supplied by sea but the Ostian port that was north of the city , than the goods were transported by road or river Tiber

[Korianne75]

not enough soldiers

[BIB16bear]

because he hadn't enough men or resurses (the other leaders in cannae wouldnt give him more supplies)

[99655555]

theres a saying, hannibal knew how to gain a vitcory , but did not know how to use it.

[N0MerCy12]

Thats just to screw his reputation hes know for the worlds smartest general in history now move on .....

[99655555]

i would prefer sun tzu or saladin , or alexander

[Suppressingfire]

AVE IMPERATOR!!! Rome fought against many worthy enemies & triumphed, & was the best army in the world for a 1000 years, thats why its so great. ROMA INVICTA!!!

[Vexille1983]

While the Roman Legions at the time were largely recruited from the propertied classes, nobles and wealthy merchants providing cavalry, farmers and artisans provided heavy infantry, and urban poor either providing light infantry, or sometimes drafted to replace dead or invalidated heavy infantry, such as after Cannae. The client city-states of Italy, the Socii, would provide similar contingents to back up the four legions of the early Republican Era.

[dukeofcanada]

Rome' army at the time was one of the most formidable military forces of the era, unmatched by most nations. Just look to Phyrros of Epirus, he will testify that the romans were no pushovers.

I think that Rome had the advantage in numbers, especially since hannibals army was reduced heavily while crossing the alps

[sondreus24]

the carthage army were mostly mercenaries.

the roman army were mostly forced recruits,

which is best ???

[HenryLet]

Roma army werent forced recruits. The fought because they deeply believe in the cause of the might of Rome. The were free men who wanted the glory of Rome and extend its empire in order also to have new territories to rule and to farm. Each soldier who fight in the Roman Army, got a piece of land to farm and to raise his family after the was was over and victory assured.

[Shundra]

The soldier who fight in the Roman Army didn't got a piece of land at this time. This was instigated by Julius cesar some century after Hannibal war.

[sidwills]

The Roman army were not forced recruits, they were drawn from specific wealthy classes and willingly bought all their own equipment. They fought to protect Rome as and when required, then returned home between campaigns to their wives and business. Although they weren't a professional army at this time they were loyal to Rome and believed in what they were doing. Gaius Marius reformed the Roman army years later into the professional full time legions

[pscucailin]

Actually many of the Roman Italian "socii" were bound into service by treaties forced by Roman arms.

[Galuadan]

Yes,and 50%of Romes army were foreign

[pscucailin]

Nah against Hannibal they were almost all Italian.

[KingoftheGods123]

most of hannibals army was foreign aswell

[lucasscott3]

Hannibal didnt fight with his men in the battle, it is historically incorrect.

[Tayvar]

if Gauls was kill Hannibal in this ambush. it have save so many Roman and Gaul lives, from ambushs and flanking of Hannibal. I guess Gauls are to weak.

[fratutube]

The translator probably is roman spy.

Chief of Gauls: It isn't much. I can barely fill my hand.

Translator: He sais he likes what we've given him.

.........

Chiev of Gauls: Rome though, will give me more if I betray you.

Translator: He even offered to guide us through himself.

(The Chief is bulgarian actor and can understand him perfectly.)

[DazedSpy2]

@fratutube thats blatantly not what happened you faggot

[joelmafonso]

the barbarian rules

[whowantsabighug]

fucking gauls

[azizou961]

Yes logical indeed.. Cheers!

[PhilipineMan]

I already know but anyway though his regular plan was to invade Rome through Tuscany but because there navy was still recovering from the first Punic war it would be impossible to do so.

[azizou961]

escfromsam thanks a lot for the detailed explanation, I truly think that your reasoning is true and it's good to meet a person who loves ancient strategy and ancient civilization like I do...

Thanks again and have a good day!

[Superhrnet01]

Was this an expansionary mission into Gaul or something? I don't know much about Hannibal fighting these kinds of people before his campaigns against Rome.

[PhilipineMan]

No.

They couldn't reach Rome by sea so they gone through Spain, Gaul & The Alps.

[azizou961]

So the gauls fought Hannibal... Why?? They know that's his army just passing throught their lands and that he's heading for the Romans.. Or could it be that these Gauls were loyal to Rome??

[PhilipineMan]

As seen in this footage the Carthaginians had to pay the Gauls to lead them through there country and so this made them think that they will find much more.

Some Gauls went with Hannibal on his campaign against Rome too you know.

[jwd1701]

Cool clips

[Norguy77]

Stubid Barbarions but nice movie =)