People talk about how Romans made great contribution to history.
Imagine how far we'd be already had Carthage's technology was not loss. If they have fully equipped bathroom back then, by this time, I suppose we could be in space.
Then again, ever after the Romans, they're other people who burn down all those knowledge written.
Apparently, people back then like to reinvent the wheel again and again,
@shinybaka It's not so simple, a civilisation isn't just its building or its urbanization (the speciality of antic civilizations), technology is a wide subject. Middle-age weren't as primitive as people often think, we lost much but some discoveries, little by little changed everything when europe, finally, start to build great structures again. The society was more mature, in antiquity people were children.
Oh and some civilisations never lost their knowledge from antiquity, like China.
@richie7778 Yes there was. Greece never was an empire and after Alexander the Great died, his empire was broken and the European section never was that strong. Greece was made of city states. Not ideal to face the might of an expending empire like Rome. Now, the difference between Rome and the Persia is that Persia preferred diplomacy and corruption. Rome was brutal. It gave no chances for Greece to win. Rome was lucky to survive and I wonder what the world would be if Carthage won.
i read that carthaginians worshipped canaanite idols and practiced ritual murder of children. i like to think that it is for this reason that carthage was destroyed and why God favoured rome
@iorixs At that time, it is more the gods. You think that Rome wasn't decadent? Rome politics was more about murder than any country of our time. Rome has a far more bloody history. By the way, the legend of the creation of Rome says that Romulus killed his brother Remus to lead the city and give it its name. Not exactly that civilized.
@SarukiKni so the story goes. but we are never told about the vestal virgins who were considered fundamental to the continuance of rome in their morality, purity, innocence and honesty. i like to think that rome was successful for a time because it adhered to principles of justice and honor, people would commit suicide rather than face disgrace. nowadays honor is considered a burden and a barrier to having a good time at the newest sodomite puke rave party. but rome become too barbaric and fell
@iorixs Ah then yes I agree with you. The real decadent part of Rome was at first the imperial family. However after the construction of the Colosseum, Rome shifted from culture and art to barbarism. True, they still had great things to contribute and many still worked by the honor system which I try my best to follow. The Colosseum, as formidable as it may be, really marked the turning point of the slow decay of Rome.
Rome was great militarily, yet it was cruel,decadent, broke promises, stole others wealth and adopted their cultures. They made some great contributions to history, not much intellectually though.
@TheAlexagius Agreed! Carthage would've introduced neighbooring nations to the advantages of open trade and peace, it would've been a rich commercial empire!
i hate romans they had a great empire but they were stuk up greedy aristocrats and there rules were no one could rules unless they were happy and i was happy when rome was ruined by barbarians because they deserved that for what they did to carthage
I admire the Romans for their engineering achievements, but they were brutal and cruel to the less fortunate people of their society. I'm not sure if Carthage was any better in that regard, but I think Rome's brutality was their ultimate undoing. I think we can learn a lesson from this in our own societies.
viva carthage! i was just luck that rome won the wars!( e.g. the fist punic war when the romans found a carthagenian warship and copied it! or the fact that only because of the missing support of the city carthage hannibal couldn´t attack rome) carthage demonstrated its power and its superior strengths in cannae and near the river ticinus)! carthage won and beat the romans and its pride! The carthagenian armee was the best in this time! viva CARTHAGE!!!!
Luck may win a battle, maybe even a war, but not three wars in a row. The fact is that Hannibal lacked the know-how or resolve to siege Rome, he had no link to a Navy to blockade Ostia or other Roman ports. True, Cannae was a painful lesson, but Rome neither forgot nor forgave her injuries. I suspect that not unlike Alexander crossing the Gedrosian desert, Hannibal's crossing the Alps was bold, but ultimately foolish in that it cost too many men, animals and supplies.
To @kev3d : Luck has absolutely nothing to do with victory. The Barca Family was always feuding with the Carthaginian Nobles who ruled Carthage. Continued Success Militarily & Financially eventually gained Hannibal too many enemies back home, ergo Carthage was un-willing to make as many sacrifices that Rome was willing to make. Carthage hired mercenaries for their armies. Rome had
citizen-soldiers. Without Naval Supremacy, Carthage was eventually doomed .
Well yes, luck does play a part. Armies have been compromised by bad weather, disease, sudden deaths of capable commanders etc. One might say it was luck that washed a Carthaginian quinquereme on a Roman shore. Luck, for lack of a better word, plays a very important role.
Further, It is true that Carthage utilized mercenaries, but so did Rome, particularly in the Battle of Zama, where Scipio employed Numidian cavalry. Scipio also made key alliances with tribes in Spain.
To kev3d: There is no such thing as "coincidence", and/or "Luck". Napolean Bonaparte when promoting Competent Officers
who, like himself, displayed an eye for military logistics, minutae, & charisma
would always ask others: " Is He Lucky?"
This was Napolean's way of objectively receiving realistic appraisals from lower classed infantrymen who were not as capable of stategic evaluation, as The more intelligent Officers.
The reason why Numidian Cavlary joined Rome was because of their previous rebeillion against Carthage. Spain only joined Rome after Their enemies of The Barca Family & Carthage were defeated by Rome. It took some time for Rome to finally conquer The Iberian Peninsula as a whole.
Rome had a habit of using Foreign Mercenary Armies as Canon Foder in Rome's beginning with Terms which were mostly favorable to Rome, & Not to Rome's Allies with the explicit understanding that Rome's Allies always
acted under the Authority & Discretion of Rome. Not Vice-Versa.
After The Battle of Cannae One of Hannibal's Officers told him: " Hannibal you know how to gain victory, but you don't know how to use it." Hannibal knew he lacked enough Allies & Resources to maintain a succesful seige of Rome. Scipio knew unlike other Roman Senators & Consuls, that Hannibal was acting under His Orders & Under His Allegiance to The City of Carthage.
Hannibal was no Emperor with absolute authority to weld, un-like later Roman Emporers who replaced Roman Republic authority previously held by elected patrician senators. Cathage later "sold-out" Hannibal & The Barca Family by claiming they did not know, nor authorize Hannibal's campains
How is this any different from what I have already said?
But I still maintain "luck" plays a role. It can win battles and, occasionally, a war, but not a series of wars in the light of a well trained, well supplied army.
None of which I dispute. The fact of the matter is Rome used mercenaries as did most armies of the time. Part of Scipio's strategy was to treat the spanish tribes with respect, which the Barcas had neglected.
Call it what you will, but when a confederate guard unknowingly shot Stonewall Jackson, it cost Lee one of his best generals. Had it been a little brighter out, perhaps it wouldn't have happened, but it did due to specific circumstances unrelated to the logistics themselves. Napoleon also had a debilitating case or Hemorrhoids at Waterloo, it might not have made a difference in the end, but it certainly didn't help.
Hard to believe that idiots like you can be fanboys for a city-state that hasn't been around for more than 2000 years, but I guess you go to show you can.
Carthage fell to Rome Carthage could never destroy Rome armies and navies were too strong not even Carthage's walls could hold so Rome took it over i despise Roman enemies i love Rome
I love Rome as much as almost any man alive, but Carthage was unjustly persecuted after the Second Punic War. Loving Rome doesn't mean saying every single thing it did was great. Look at some of the things Caligula did. Those actions are hard to defend by any standards, past or present.
Rome won for a reason... Carthage did not have a strong military, it was never really a strong military power as it relied on mercenaries. Besides, Rome would face a similar fate in about a thousand years...
waw 450.000 killed :O
BaHaEzZz 6 months ago
THIS IS LEBANON !!!!! !!!!!!!
GivenchyParisFr 9 months ago
Comment removed
GivenchyParisFr 9 months ago
People talk about how Romans made great contribution to history.
Imagine how far we'd be already had Carthage's technology was not loss. If they have fully equipped bathroom back then, by this time, I suppose we could be in space.
Then again, ever after the Romans, they're other people who burn down all those knowledge written.
Apparently, people back then like to reinvent the wheel again and again,
shinybaka 10 months ago
@shinybaka It's not so simple, a civilisation isn't just its building or its urbanization (the speciality of antic civilizations), technology is a wide subject. Middle-age weren't as primitive as people often think, we lost much but some discoveries, little by little changed everything when europe, finally, start to build great structures again. The society was more mature, in antiquity people were children.
Oh and some civilisations never lost their knowledge from antiquity, like China.
xenotypos 4 months ago
@richie7778 Yes there was. Greece never was an empire and after Alexander the Great died, his empire was broken and the European section never was that strong. Greece was made of city states. Not ideal to face the might of an expending empire like Rome. Now, the difference between Rome and the Persia is that Persia preferred diplomacy and corruption. Rome was brutal. It gave no chances for Greece to win. Rome was lucky to survive and I wonder what the world would be if Carthage won.
SarukiKnight 1 year ago
i read that carthaginians worshipped canaanite idols and practiced ritual murder of children. i like to think that it is for this reason that carthage was destroyed and why God favoured rome
iorixs 1 year ago
@iorixs At that time, it is more the gods. You think that Rome wasn't decadent? Rome politics was more about murder than any country of our time. Rome has a far more bloody history. By the way, the legend of the creation of Rome says that Romulus killed his brother Remus to lead the city and give it its name. Not exactly that civilized.
SarukiKnight 1 year ago
@SarukiKni so the story goes. but we are never told about the vestal virgins who were considered fundamental to the continuance of rome in their morality, purity, innocence and honesty. i like to think that rome was successful for a time because it adhered to principles of justice and honor, people would commit suicide rather than face disgrace. nowadays honor is considered a burden and a barrier to having a good time at the newest sodomite puke rave party. but rome become too barbaric and fell
iorixs 1 year ago
@iorixs Ah then yes I agree with you. The real decadent part of Rome was at first the imperial family. However after the construction of the Colosseum, Rome shifted from culture and art to barbarism. True, they still had great things to contribute and many still worked by the honor system which I try my best to follow. The Colosseum, as formidable as it may be, really marked the turning point of the slow decay of Rome.
SarukiKnight 1 year ago
Rome was great militarily, yet it was cruel,decadent, broke promises, stole others wealth and adopted their cultures. They made some great contributions to history, not much intellectually though.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Carthage should've known Rome would eventually get in and should've had an escape tunnel like in the movie Troy or another descreet way to escape.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Death to Rome!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
I wished carthage had won as they were more pacifist and focused more on economy better than romes "barbaric" totalitarian ism empire
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
@TheAlexagius Agreed! Carthage would've introduced neighbooring nations to the advantages of open trade and peace, it would've been a rich commercial empire!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Comment removed
hichak 1 year ago
fuck rome
hichak 1 year ago
peter weller needs to narrate another show. hes fukin fantastic.
zazenzach 1 year ago
screw the romans
tonsyidibe 1 year ago
Peter Weller was a terrible choice for this series. He has zero legitimacy, and comes across in a very contrived, false manner.
lupischuckle 1 year ago
I disagree... Rome didn't really give too much to the world. They were really good copycats though.
MsEmmazing 1 year ago
@MsEmmazing
Only an uninformed fool would claim that Rome did not influence the modern world more than ANY other society.
Marchochias 1 year ago 2
@MsEmmazing
you are right!!!!!!
DFX500 1 year ago
the bold "expert" is an unprofessional idiot with his casual remarks
wildhias 1 year ago
i hate romans they had a great empire but they were stuk up greedy aristocrats and there rules were no one could rules unless they were happy and i was happy when rome was ruined by barbarians because they deserved that for what they did to carthage
elitegreenjacket 2 years ago
phew.... fantastic documentary, peter wellers' narration made it come it live again. brilliant series!
brightspark495 2 years ago
How did they war for 7 days straight? When did they sleep?
Also where were all these people shitting back then? Were they shitting in sea? Or in a bush?
Also.. um, rome, carthage. Um. I dunno. They shoulda co-operated. Maybe they were scared of mixing races or sumthin.
mongoose100989 2 years ago
Meh..Its like saying U.S and USSR should have co-operated...
When a general is lead by "Eternal hatred" there is nothing you can do to stop a war.
maddympkv 2 years ago
I admire the Romans for their engineering achievements, but they were brutal and cruel to the less fortunate people of their society. I'm not sure if Carthage was any better in that regard, but I think Rome's brutality was their ultimate undoing. I think we can learn a lesson from this in our own societies.
johndeerishere 2 years ago
ROMA VICTOR!
texaspoep 2 years ago
lol Rome total war
MrLawgasm 2 years ago 2
Carthage wasnt a barbaric waring nation, all it wanted was more wealth and to keep its colonies scattered and safe
whowantsabighug 2 years ago 5
At the cost of all the other people in the Mediterranean...
Nonamearisto 2 years ago
viva carthage! i was just luck that rome won the wars!( e.g. the fist punic war when the romans found a carthagenian warship and copied it! or the fact that only because of the missing support of the city carthage hannibal couldn´t attack rome) carthage demonstrated its power and its superior strengths in cannae and near the river ticinus)! carthage won and beat the romans and its pride! The carthagenian armee was the best in this time! viva CARTHAGE!!!!
DFX500 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You sound like a retarded Russian.
XKS99 2 years ago
LOOOOL! Schöne Grüße aus Deutschland du Lutscher :-D
DFX500 2 years ago
Luck may win a battle, maybe even a war, but not three wars in a row. The fact is that Hannibal lacked the know-how or resolve to siege Rome, he had no link to a Navy to blockade Ostia or other Roman ports. True, Cannae was a painful lesson, but Rome neither forgot nor forgave her injuries. I suspect that not unlike Alexander crossing the Gedrosian desert, Hannibal's crossing the Alps was bold, but ultimately foolish in that it cost too many men, animals and supplies.
kev3d 2 years ago 2
To @kev3d : Luck has absolutely nothing to do with victory. The Barca Family was always feuding with the Carthaginian Nobles who ruled Carthage. Continued Success Militarily & Financially eventually gained Hannibal too many enemies back home, ergo Carthage was un-willing to make as many sacrifices that Rome was willing to make. Carthage hired mercenaries for their armies. Rome had
citizen-soldiers. Without Naval Supremacy, Carthage was eventually doomed .
GILR8 2 years ago
Well yes, luck does play a part. Armies have been compromised by bad weather, disease, sudden deaths of capable commanders etc. One might say it was luck that washed a Carthaginian quinquereme on a Roman shore. Luck, for lack of a better word, plays a very important role.
Further, It is true that Carthage utilized mercenaries, but so did Rome, particularly in the Battle of Zama, where Scipio employed Numidian cavalry. Scipio also made key alliances with tribes in Spain.
kev3d 2 years ago
To kev3d: There is no such thing as "coincidence", and/or "Luck". Napolean Bonaparte when promoting Competent Officers
who, like himself, displayed an eye for military logistics, minutae, & charisma
would always ask others: " Is He Lucky?"
This was Napolean's way of objectively receiving realistic appraisals from lower classed infantrymen who were not as capable of stategic evaluation, as The more intelligent Officers.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
The reason why Numidian Cavlary joined Rome was because of their previous rebeillion against Carthage. Spain only joined Rome after Their enemies of The Barca Family & Carthage were defeated by Rome. It took some time for Rome to finally conquer The Iberian Peninsula as a whole.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
Rome had a habit of using Foreign Mercenary Armies as Canon Foder in Rome's beginning with Terms which were mostly favorable to Rome, & Not to Rome's Allies with the explicit understanding that Rome's Allies always
acted under the Authority & Discretion of Rome. Not Vice-Versa.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
It was only later in Rome's History when during Rome's Decline that Rome's Mercenary Armies demanded & received more favorable terms & treaties.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
Militiary Professionals study Logistics. Amatuers study only Battle Tactics.
The Roman Consul known as
Fabian "The Delayer?", recognized un-like his fellow Romans that Hannibal
could'nt Win, so long as Rome made it
as difficult as possible for Hannibal to resupply His Army, & Prevent Carthaginian Supremacy of The Sea.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
Luck had nothing to do with Rome having
Both Greek, Phoenician, & other foreign
Professional Mariners (Mercenary and/or Slave) as Sea Captains, Pilots, & ShipWrights.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
The Carthaginian Nobles who ruled Carthage simply would not give Hannibal, out of envy/jealousy, spite, and/or fear.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
After The Battle of Cannae One of Hannibal's Officers told him: " Hannibal you know how to gain victory, but you don't know how to use it." Hannibal knew he lacked enough Allies & Resources to maintain a succesful seige of Rome. Scipio knew unlike other Roman Senators & Consuls, that Hannibal was acting under His Orders & Under His Allegiance to The City of Carthage.
GILR8 2 years ago
To kev3d:
Hannibal was no Emperor with absolute authority to weld, un-like later Roman Emporers who replaced Roman Republic authority previously held by elected patrician senators. Cathage later "sold-out" Hannibal & The Barca Family by claiming they did not know, nor authorize Hannibal's campains
against Rome.
GILR8 2 years ago
How is this any different from what I have already said?
But I still maintain "luck" plays a role. It can win battles and, occasionally, a war, but not a series of wars in the light of a well trained, well supplied army.
kev3d 2 years ago
None of which I dispute. The fact of the matter is Rome used mercenaries as did most armies of the time. Part of Scipio's strategy was to treat the spanish tribes with respect, which the Barcas had neglected.
kev3d 2 years ago
Or it was Napoleon's way of asking "Is he lucky?"
Call it what you will, but when a confederate guard unknowingly shot Stonewall Jackson, it cost Lee one of his best generals. Had it been a little brighter out, perhaps it wouldn't have happened, but it did due to specific circumstances unrelated to the logistics themselves. Napoleon also had a debilitating case or Hemorrhoids at Waterloo, it might not have made a difference in the end, but it certainly didn't help.
kev3d 2 years ago
@DFX500
Luck that Rome won 3 out of 3 Punic Wars?
Hard to believe that idiots like you can be fanboys for a city-state that hasn't been around for more than 2000 years, but I guess you go to show you can.
Marchochias 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Marchochias
it´s hard to believe that you offend somebody just because of an article he wrote.
at first you should have a larger understanding of military technology and its meaning for warfare! then we can discuss the facts.
by the way MsEmmazing is right.
screw the romans, these unimaginative tyrants.
rome is an abscess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D
DFX500 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Marchochias
@Marchochias
it´s hard to believe that you offend somebody just because of an article he wrote.
at first you should have a larger understanding of military technology and its meaning for warfare! then we can discuss the facts.
by the way MsEmmazing is right.
screw the romans, these unimaginative tyrants.
rome is an abscess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D
DFX500 1 year ago
@DFX500 romans r like the luckiest people in history, credit them though they took advantage of their luck
muf321 1 year ago
Peter Weller tells it like it was!
Rome despite it's brutality gave much to the world.
SPQR62 3 years ago 17
Carthage fell to Rome Carthage could never destroy Rome armies and navies were too strong not even Carthage's walls could hold so Rome took it over i despise Roman enemies i love Rome
romanlegion55 3 years ago
I love Rome as much as almost any man alive, but Carthage was unjustly persecuted after the Second Punic War. Loving Rome doesn't mean saying every single thing it did was great. Look at some of the things Caligula did. Those actions are hard to defend by any standards, past or present.
HoundofOdin 2 years ago 2
It reminds me of Troy.
MithraisAugustus 3 years ago
the leader of the romans quoted the destruction of troy from homer
whowantsabighug 3 years ago 3
Correction:
Romans claimed noble lineage & descent from from Troy via Virgil's "Aeneid", as well as Ancient Ancestral Emnity & Hatred for Carthage.
Virgil borrowed a lot of what was then known from Homer's Illiad & Oddesy
as a reference & back story recognized by readers as a transition from Troy to The Aeneid,& finally to Ancient Rome.
GILR8 2 years ago
Rome won for a reason... Carthage did not have a strong military, it was never really a strong military power as it relied on mercenaries. Besides, Rome would face a similar fate in about a thousand years...
shiningIvory 3 years ago 5
The older I get the more I despise Rome.
Airea85 3 years ago 5
yea but rome should have fell not great carthage
ardicat 3 years ago
God, Peter Weller is friggin' awesome.
goisles 3 years ago 6