Roman won by tactics and strategy that is the reason why Romans are superior in terms of military and they have a discipline army or what we called professional army. They can easily adapt to the changes. "Even how GOOD your General there is always be a failure"
@seminoleboy96 I agree. It just ticks me off sometimes that the Romans thought all the greatest generals from the ancient world were Roman. There were many others who superbly outclassed their Roman counterparts and superceded them, Hannibal of Carthage foremost. I also lamented the sacking of Carthage at the hands of the Romans; the Romans claimed they were so civilized and yet they did some of the most barbaric and savage things when sacking cities.
@macmm7 i know the romans werent good. for some reason we westerners like them because they influenced us so much but they werent that great. and another example of a roman general being beat by a so called savage would be Vercingetorix. A very skilled general of gaul who dreamed of a united gaul. He actually beat julius caesar a couple times actually humiliating him. the only reason julius won was that he surrounded him and he couldnt communicate with his troops.
@seminoleboy96 Yes, that is true, and it was truly sad. Much of the rich Gallic culture was lost once it became a Roman province. Caesar was an amature at best during that campaign, overtly ambitious and reckless. He won at Alesia simply because of Roman ordinance superiority. He had Vercingetorix cornered and that was checkmate for the Gauls, however, if Caesar's army had been destroyed in that campaign, Rome would have simply raised another. Imperial rome was the end to all free nations imo.
@macmm7 romans didnt call themselves savage but they were pretty savage the only true not savage power in the ancient world was persia. im glad somebody else knows vercingtorix. :) Rome had numbers and technology gauls had spirit and sheer will. though u cant win without weapons. the simply won because the romans were better trained
@macmm7 Tut, tut I am always surprised when I hear people use this argument. "Scipio copied Hannibal". Really and if I learn to play chess by watching someone and then beat them, that makes me a poor player? If someone is using your own tactics and you are incapable of defeating them, then who is the poorer general?
"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."
There would be know Scipio if it wasnt for a great general of all generals like Hannibal Barca. Rome was so embarrassed of the beatin of him they tried erasing his name from history but didnt happend America used his tac tics against Iraq u kant erase what is embedded on the mind of all people. Hannibal was General of all Generals from Africa.. Long live the truth about Hannibal Barca...
@peytonsbigbro Didn't an armed force to through Mogadishu before...and got ambushed? Getting out of that city was the smartest thing to do, lest one is grind down in urban warfare.
How many had Hannibal killed at this point? How many top Roman troops were left after that victory at Cannae ( ? when 65,000 Romans died) ? Why didn't he just take the city and slaughter the whole lot of them?
@Noodles37UK in ancient warfare it is generally considered that if u are going to besiege a city u should outnumber teh defenders 3 to 1, hannibal never reached that ratio, thats y he needed reinenforcements
@muf321 Thanks. I was watching a brilliant docu drama called The Crusades- The Crescent and the Cross. Richard pulled back from Jerusalem at the last minute. He knew taking it would tax them too much, then they'd have to defend it. Common sense before glory!
@TheDiscoveryCH well theres only so many tactics involved in a siege assault the romans just need to stay on their walls and shot arrows/boiling oil. so hannibal can beat them in the field but he needed more troops to capture rome, reinforcements carthage for some unknown reason was not willing to provide.
@muf321 Thats not the reason why Hannibal failed to lay siege. Capturing Rome would of been of no strategical advantage - the Roman people were not going to submit to Hannibal regardless of whether or not he took control of Rome i.e. hearts and minds.
@Pomaori really, capturine rome was of no strategical importance.........capture rome and the war is over, hannibal would have won, that was his main goal
Ironic that the Senate denied reinforcements for Hannibal to win the war, thinking they could dictate the course of the war, and yet when the reputations of arrogant bureaucrats was on the line they screamed for his help.
you know,is kind of risky for hannibal to just stand there in the open,what if a roman cavalry throws a spear and kills him?would be pretty damn fail lol
So when Hannibal's spies were caught, the Romans just went,
"Come come. Let us give you a private tour. See here? These were your allies! Now go back to Hannibal with this information so we can kick him in the balls with this!"
This clearly shows that most senators are corrupt aristocrats who only care about themselves. When Hanno refused to send resources and troops to Hannibal, he could have basically said "Hey, let's have our greatest general trapped in Italy and let's wait for the Romans to come and kill us"
will it the fucking council owr fault for lossing the war an for not helping hannibal on his campaign against rome that the end of age carthage empire
Romans looked like Arabs, they were darkish, they had curly hair, dark eyes, they were not blond, Romans were focused on the east and south they hated the "Blond, white Barbarians of the North" as the Gauls and Germans
@MocroMuslim. Clean-shaven, well-dressed, daily bathed Arab-looking Romans, to boot!!! They also did something most modern caucasian would find not a little confusing: They so absorbed the ppl of North Africa (Carthage, Egypt, Cyrenaica, etc. into their society [not all as slaves, but as permanent "guest-workers", especially if they were skilled, which many were]).
The Nodics were considered soooo stupid they were used as nothing more than beasts of burden and pleasure curiosities!!!
Dear Atoman, the North-Africans also absorbed and enslaved many Romans, it is even known that Berbers used to what the Romans did to the Berbers, they used to capture Romans and give them to lions and leopards, but anyway thanks for your comment, many Romans also used to assimilate into the Berber Race
@MocroMuslim. True, as you said. No contradictins here, friend. The popular view among many caucasians around the world is that the Romans, whose ancestors originated from the Turkish region, are of the same racial strain as Nordics. Of course this is the Anglo's BIG LIE!!! True, like many conquered ppls Britian (whose inhabitatants really didn't have a name for their island,) were first mass exterminated, AND AFTERWARDS, assimilated into what passed as civilization.The Anles were aboriginies!
@MocroMuslim everyone wishes their own race populated the world. according to many black people the whole world is descendant of blacks in africa. the majority of roman and greek artwork depict their people as mostly white
I think that the race point is kind of interesting. The conquerors of a territory often keep marriage within their own race (and yes, Alexander is an interesting exception so don't bring it up), so I think the discussion of races within empires is interesting. For example, did the carthaginians look like arabs or north africans? Did the patricians of Rome look like italians or were they mixed? And so on.
This is a bit off, Hannibal's army had a very large veteran core, at least 15,000 Libyan spears. Heavy infantry that was every bit as good as Scipio legionaires.
...So really "Colleptic", The term "Latin" is a "loaded proposition" Like english-which is a confusing hodge-podge with not even a complete generating conjugative verb cycle(can you believe some jerks have had the audacity to list english as a "romance" language? Unreal.) Latin could have many "roots" including the languages spoken by the trojan ancestors of the Romans. (I mean, dig it: If their pagan pantheon was a blend of Trojan and Greek and African, why can't Latin have been affected)?
(..To continue) in actuality a very precise and time-honored tool of control by an enemy who was brought to heel(as far as Constantinople was concerned) whom otherwise could not be defeated. As I've said earlier, MIND CONTROL is the key to an enslaved population. And as was cited earlier, the Romans were not only masters of martial strategy, but also they learned and adopted from their hated enemies the Greeks and Persians the science of linguistics in controling the thoughts of their chattel.
This debate should be expanded. It is germaine to the topic of Hannibal\Rome.
As you all well know, Western History is distorted for contemporary political gain( and is assured to be re-edited and "revisioned" again as the winds of change blows-{Indeed, IT BLOWS}). "Latin" as we've come to know it, has been manipulated for centuries, on the heels of conquest. Best example is the cyrillic alaphabet given to the maruading Rus by the Orthodox Greeks as a peace offering, In actuality(Cont'd...)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To "Ikillserbs4fun" ( Gee, man. Can't you find more wholesome ways to have fun)?
Otherwise to the msg. you sent me(and the more thoughtful response I sent you), No, of couse the Trojans\Romans did not speak Latin. They invented it round about 100B.C. to control their Italian subjects as these mostly unciivlized aboriginies did not have a common, or linua franca. Language, and the control of it is power itself. In the same way religion can manipulate; The Romans were unparalelled.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Romans did not invent Latin, sorry. Latin was brought to that area from 800BC to 900BC through migrating tribes. Rome would develop "in" it and form the classical Latin, were as, the regular tribes would still speak their forms of Latin for sometime to come.
The reason Hannibal didn't advance on Rome was that he couldn't have defeated the city itself. The Roman garrison was sufficient to defend against the Carthaginians, as they had little or no competence in siege warfare. This was shown subsequently in Hannibal's actions against the other cities on the Italian peninsular. You need to read a deeper account of Hannibal to understand. Try 'Hannibal - One Man Against Rome.'
Nor did Scipio have the strength to take Carthage after Zama. But unlike Hannibal the chess master Scipio the card shark used his victories to attack the psyche his foe. In marching his battered army on Carthage Scipio did what Hannibal failed to do.
Sorry for the clutter people, but there is one last thing on ethnicity in Roman culture. After Octavian's final crushing of Egypt, the economy of that country(grain and maritime trade, mostly)
quickly collasped as virtually everything not nailed down was diverted to Rome.
That meant the Egyptians became destitute and utlimately had no choice but "go where the money was"!
In time the ETHNIC group in the city and the penisula were Egyptians!! a similar uprooting befell the Carthargians.
The Romans had especial vitriol against the Greeks who, lead by the Emperor AGANEMMNON( he was not just king)defeated their Trojan ancestors into near-annihilation; They never forgot this lesson even though they appeared to have adopted Hellenistic and Spartan ways, the Greeks early on described as wolves in sheep clothing.
That's why the Romans subjugated the Greeks, made them administer their empire for1,000-yrs. and didn't admit them into the senate until long after Caligula's purges!
...Furthermore, the when the Trojan refugees settled on the Italian pensula and became Romans, they found themselves foreigners(and cultural aliens) among those tribes.
Later, when they shrewdley admitted new "talent" among these same tribes to agrandize themselves economically & militarily, they took pains to make certain that their patrican class' blood was not sullied.
Correction here: The nordic strain among the romans came centuries after the "Pax Romana". Remember people, the world's civilization were super-duper rascist than today. Who you were among the patrician class was who your father, grand father, great grand, etc.
This may suprise you but this was one of the many reasons JULIUS CAESAR was killed over. He sold entry into the senate and knighthood fo the plebs. He also fathered a non-roman child by the foreigner CLEOPATRA, Queen that she was!
No, they were not. Roman patricians had Nordic origins and while most ordinary Italians were the descendents of Etruscans, there was a huge admixture between them and Germanic tribes. So while most of them weren't blonde with blue eyes, they were certainly a Mediterranean people.
No Romans were very brown, they had curly hair, they resembled the Numidans, and also the Etruscans came from Turkey, look it up,
I mean this western approach of the history, is false, Romans were a Middle-Eastern Civilization, the blond guys with bue eyes, these were the Germans,
Honestly there is no definitive source, so nothing is sure about their origin, anyway being them mostly of blond and red hair I suppose thier north-european origin is more probable.
The black-haired people were few and had the prefix -Nigro in the name.
the romans of then were more exotic looking than your average italian of today.
the italians of today have become lighter through the centuries. they have become mixed with the german and gallic tribes (many of them slaves). after the fall of rome many more migrated into italy from the north.
Caesar and Augustus had blue eyes and blonde hair, Sulla had blue eyes and red hair, and why the people with black hair used the prefix -nigro if the most of them Romans had black hair?
Did you see the statues: do they look like Arabs?
It's simpy a matter of common sense: if the Arab or the African people want to boast some great ancestry, they should search elsewhere, you can live even if you are not a descendant of the Romans.
@fabriva00 This is one of the most idiotic posts I have read, statues? Really? Look at a "statue" of Philip the Arab it looks exactly like any Roman general. Romans bred with Germanic tribes which is what made some "blone".
The soldiers who lost to Hannibal were exiled to Sicily for life, pretty tragic all around...
lusulpher 2 weeks ago
the politicians always ruin everything won by generals... FUCK POLITICIANS!!!
HolyCow4343 1 month ago 2
Ceasar fought a army 4 times his and u call it luck that he won at alesia?
bliviken 2 months ago
i thought the ornaments on the togas were purple not red.
tonsyidibe 4 months ago
Rome pulls armies out of her arse. Really.
Cayden1986 4 months ago
Roman won by tactics and strategy that is the reason why Romans are superior in terms of military and they have a discipline army or what we called professional army. They can easily adapt to the changes. "Even how GOOD your General there is always be a failure"
ironblade91 6 months ago
VICI!!! VICI!!!! VICI!!!
CrimsonGuard1992 6 months ago
If Carthage had Rome's senate we'd be looking at a different result
skyminex 6 months ago
sadly its the babys that suffer
slyrader1 8 months ago
Scipio was never more brilliant than Hannibal, nor even close. Unless MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO, is the standard of measure.
macmm7 8 months ago
@macmm7 you know them both?
unurautare2 8 months ago
@macmm7 scipio was a great general whos enginuity rivaled hannibal. he was no hannibal but still
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@seminoleboy96 I agree. It just ticks me off sometimes that the Romans thought all the greatest generals from the ancient world were Roman. There were many others who superbly outclassed their Roman counterparts and superceded them, Hannibal of Carthage foremost. I also lamented the sacking of Carthage at the hands of the Romans; the Romans claimed they were so civilized and yet they did some of the most barbaric and savage things when sacking cities.
macmm7 6 months ago
@macmm7 i know the romans werent good. for some reason we westerners like them because they influenced us so much but they werent that great. and another example of a roman general being beat by a so called savage would be Vercingetorix. A very skilled general of gaul who dreamed of a united gaul. He actually beat julius caesar a couple times actually humiliating him. the only reason julius won was that he surrounded him and he couldnt communicate with his troops.
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@seminoleboy96 Yes, that is true, and it was truly sad. Much of the rich Gallic culture was lost once it became a Roman province. Caesar was an amature at best during that campaign, overtly ambitious and reckless. He won at Alesia simply because of Roman ordinance superiority. He had Vercingetorix cornered and that was checkmate for the Gauls, however, if Caesar's army had been destroyed in that campaign, Rome would have simply raised another. Imperial rome was the end to all free nations imo.
macmm7 6 months ago
@macmm7 romans didnt call themselves savage but they were pretty savage the only true not savage power in the ancient world was persia. im glad somebody else knows vercingtorix. :) Rome had numbers and technology gauls had spirit and sheer will. though u cant win without weapons. the simply won because the romans were better trained
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@macmm7 Tut, tut I am always surprised when I hear people use this argument. "Scipio copied Hannibal". Really and if I learn to play chess by watching someone and then beat them, that makes me a poor player? If someone is using your own tactics and you are incapable of defeating them, then who is the poorer general?
gaiusscipio 3 months ago 3
They would follow you to their deaths!
Hellothasauras 9 months ago
"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."
-Yoda
PhluXx1 9 months ago
There would be know Scipio if it wasnt for a great general of all generals like Hannibal Barca. Rome was so embarrassed of the beatin of him they tried erasing his name from history but didnt happend America used his tac tics against Iraq u kant erase what is embedded on the mind of all people. Hannibal was General of all Generals from Africa.. Long live the truth about Hannibal Barca...
nitetrain42 10 months ago
we need more military leaders like Scipio. non of this bs let the civilians live.
they didnt allow ours to live in 9/11
or the military out post in Pres. Ronald's time.
we should be allowed to burn cites like Mogadishu to the ground for what they did.
peytonsbigbro 1 year ago
@peytonsbigbro not everyone in afghainstan supports the talibans...
quezcatol 1 year ago
@peytonsbigbro Fuck you are one massive dumb ass
Pomaori 11 months ago
@peytonsbigbro Didn't an armed force to through Mogadishu before...and got ambushed? Getting out of that city was the smartest thing to do, lest one is grind down in urban warfare.
3baxcb 10 months ago
Well that's based it, The Elders are knobs =)
JohnoSuper 1 year ago 2
Just imagine how different history would have been if Hannibal had managed to take Rome.
Emongelsirroh 1 year ago
Scipio was like Hannibal 2.0 ... an upgraded version of Hannibal who was not only very capable tactically but also decisive strategically.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago 8
@PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD yeah sure...what if hannibal had 70.000 men and numidian cavarly in zama ?
spoukas 4 months ago
dude, Scipio was a genius :D
jabames 1 year ago
4:36 is that Hannibals brothers head?
ThePunisher19925V2 1 year ago
@ThePunisher19925V2 Afraid the poor guy bought it. Yes.
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
How many had Hannibal killed at this point? How many top Roman troops were left after that victory at Cannae ( ? when 65,000 Romans died) ? Why didn't he just take the city and slaughter the whole lot of them?
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
@Noodles37UK in ancient warfare it is generally considered that if u are going to besiege a city u should outnumber teh defenders 3 to 1, hannibal never reached that ratio, thats y he needed reinenforcements
muf321 1 year ago
@muf321 Thanks. I was watching a brilliant docu drama called The Crusades- The Crescent and the Cross. Richard pulled back from Jerusalem at the last minute. He knew taking it would tax them too much, then they'd have to defend it. Common sense before glory!
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
@muf321 true but hanniballs tactics where pretty good so even if they outnumberd them he still wins
TheDiscoveryCH 1 year ago
@TheDiscoveryCH well theres only so many tactics involved in a siege assault the romans just need to stay on their walls and shot arrows/boiling oil. so hannibal can beat them in the field but he needed more troops to capture rome, reinforcements carthage for some unknown reason was not willing to provide.
muf321 1 year ago
@muf321 Thats not the reason why Hannibal failed to lay siege. Capturing Rome would of been of no strategical advantage - the Roman people were not going to submit to Hannibal regardless of whether or not he took control of Rome i.e. hearts and minds.
Pomaori 11 months ago
@Pomaori really, capturine rome was of no strategical importance.........capture rome and the war is over, hannibal would have won, that was his main goal
muf321 11 months ago
@muf321 You cant capture and occupy Rome thats impossible
Pomaori 10 months ago
Scipio was bullshit compared to Hannibal. It's no comparison what so ever. Scipio was pampered and Hannibal had no support.
illMantic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it looks that carthage got what it deserve for their ignorance.
spikeargentina 1 year ago
Ironic that the Senate denied reinforcements for Hannibal to win the war, thinking they could dictate the course of the war, and yet when the reputations of arrogant bureaucrats was on the line they screamed for his help.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@TheDarkFrontier That's politics for you...
MrROTCcadet 1 year ago
4:13
you know,is kind of risky for hannibal to just stand there in the open,what if a roman cavalry throws a spear and kills him?would be pretty damn fail lol
ulongkoror 1 year ago
damn this doc realy shows how politicians are a liability to national security of any nation
XLnotsofunny 1 year ago
many a war has been lost because of stupid politicians
followernumber1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
many a war has been lost because of stupid politicians
followernumber1 1 year ago
So when Hannibal's spies were caught, the Romans just went,
"Come come. Let us give you a private tour. See here? These were your allies! Now go back to Hannibal with this information so we can kick him in the balls with this!"
Str4t0sPh3rE 1 year ago
I believe Hannibals motives might have been pure, but they were not right or good.
Just like Scipio says he wasn't Hannibals creation, but something that he forced to exist applies just as well to Hannibal and his father.
Kulmataklaus 1 year ago
Comment removed
Chenzhenhui 1 year ago
@Chenzhenhui
good point never thought of that
kobenbagreat 1 year ago
@Chenzhenhui yes
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@Chenzhenhui
On the contrary,Scipio was named Africanus("African") for his victory in Africa.
MihalisVarkouzis 1 year ago
Comment removed
BBxTerra 1 year ago
"No country has benefited from continuous war!" Sun Tzu
Anstraxe 1 year ago 3
They would follow you brother. They would follow you to their deaths.
Hellothasauras 1 year ago
@Hellothasauras Hannibal should've appealed with Carthage's allies and provinces for troops and supplies if his own country wouldn't do crap for him.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Why the hell was Hanno nicknamed "the Great"?
jzep1993 1 year ago
@jzep1993 It was because he helped Carthage expand in North Africa, while Hamilcar focused on Hispania.
csjbo1990 1 year ago
This clearly shows that most senators are corrupt aristocrats who only care about themselves. When Hanno refused to send resources and troops to Hannibal, he could have basically said "Hey, let's have our greatest general trapped in Italy and let's wait for the Romans to come and kill us"
AqworldsWiki 1 year ago 3
Why is it always night in Carthage in this movie?
somedude221 1 year ago
@somedude221 Because the sun knows Hannibal is more deserving of its light then senators who don't give aid to their generals who fight for them.
summers1 1 year ago
@summers1 Amen, brother.
NCWC2 1 year ago
will it the fucking council owr fault for lossing the war an for not helping hannibal on his campaign against rome that the end of age carthage empire
hateUhuman 1 year ago
What a bunch of loosers, why didn´t they attack Rome when they´ve got the chance?
alonelychild 1 year ago
Romans are the real barbarians, simple as...
Hellothasauras 1 year ago 2
this is gay man carthage deserved to win but stuck up romans still got destroyed by barbarians :)
elitegreenjacket 1 year ago 4
Romans looked like Arabs, they were darkish, they had curly hair, dark eyes, they were not blond, Romans were focused on the east and south they hated the "Blond, white Barbarians of the North" as the Gauls and Germans
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim. Clean-shaven, well-dressed, daily bathed Arab-looking Romans, to boot!!! They also did something most modern caucasian would find not a little confusing: They so absorbed the ppl of North Africa (Carthage, Egypt, Cyrenaica, etc. into their society [not all as slaves, but as permanent "guest-workers", especially if they were skilled, which many were]).
The Nodics were considered soooo stupid they were used as nothing more than beasts of burden and pleasure curiosities!!!
Atomank68 2 years ago
Dear Atoman, the North-Africans also absorbed and enslaved many Romans, it is even known that Berbers used to what the Romans did to the Berbers, they used to capture Romans and give them to lions and leopards, but anyway thanks for your comment, many Romans also used to assimilate into the Berber Race
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim. True, as you said. No contradictins here, friend. The popular view among many caucasians around the world is that the Romans, whose ancestors originated from the Turkish region, are of the same racial strain as Nordics. Of course this is the Anglo's BIG LIE!!! True, like many conquered ppls Britian (whose inhabitatants really didn't have a name for their island,) were first mass exterminated, AND AFTERWARDS, assimilated into what passed as civilization.The Anles were aboriginies!
Atomank68 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim
it's false, but I can't see the point of the discussion.
fabriva00 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim everyone wishes their own race populated the world. according to many black people the whole world is descendant of blacks in africa. the majority of roman and greek artwork depict their people as mostly white
joeratti 1 year ago
Can you please stop that stupid race-shit? The romans were a multinational people and no specific race, just as the Germans and the Carthaginians.
Pourleduc 2 years ago
@Pourleduc. No, they weren't! the Trojans did come from Turkey. And Brad Pitt is a bleach-blond!!!
Atomank68 2 years ago
@Pourleduc
I think that the race point is kind of interesting. The conquerors of a territory often keep marriage within their own race (and yes, Alexander is an interesting exception so don't bring it up), so I think the discussion of races within empires is interesting. For example, did the carthaginians look like arabs or north africans? Did the patricians of Rome look like italians or were they mixed? And so on.
chiggevara 2 years ago
This is a bit off, Hannibal's army had a very large veteran core, at least 15,000 Libyan spears. Heavy infantry that was every bit as good as Scipio legionaires.
rekke41 2 years ago
...So was Michael Jackson, and he was a mess all round!
Atomank68 2 years ago
This British Documentary are very beautiful.
Tokkei 2 years ago 41
@Tokkei They are awesome peices of art, sources of fact and story telling.
Hellothasauras 1 year ago
...So really "Colleptic", The term "Latin" is a "loaded proposition" Like english-which is a confusing hodge-podge with not even a complete generating conjugative verb cycle(can you believe some jerks have had the audacity to list english as a "romance" language? Unreal.) Latin could have many "roots" including the languages spoken by the trojan ancestors of the Romans. (I mean, dig it: If their pagan pantheon was a blend of Trojan and Greek and African, why can't Latin have been affected)?
Atomank68 2 years ago
(..To continue) in actuality a very precise and time-honored tool of control by an enemy who was brought to heel(as far as Constantinople was concerned) whom otherwise could not be defeated. As I've said earlier, MIND CONTROL is the key to an enslaved population. And as was cited earlier, the Romans were not only masters of martial strategy, but also they learned and adopted from their hated enemies the Greeks and Persians the science of linguistics in controling the thoughts of their chattel.
Atomank68 2 years ago
This debate should be expanded. It is germaine to the topic of Hannibal\Rome.
As you all well know, Western History is distorted for contemporary political gain( and is assured to be re-edited and "revisioned" again as the winds of change blows-{Indeed, IT BLOWS}). "Latin" as we've come to know it, has been manipulated for centuries, on the heels of conquest. Best example is the cyrillic alaphabet given to the maruading Rus by the Orthodox Greeks as a peace offering, In actuality(Cont'd...)
Atomank68 2 years ago
Comment removed
Atomank68 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To "Ikillserbs4fun" ( Gee, man. Can't you find more wholesome ways to have fun)?
Otherwise to the msg. you sent me(and the more thoughtful response I sent you), No, of couse the Trojans\Romans did not speak Latin. They invented it round about 100B.C. to control their Italian subjects as these mostly unciivlized aboriginies did not have a common, or linua franca. Language, and the control of it is power itself. In the same way religion can manipulate; The Romans were unparalelled.
Atomank68 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Romans did not invent Latin, sorry. Latin was brought to that area from 800BC to 900BC through migrating tribes. Rome would develop "in" it and form the classical Latin, were as, the regular tribes would still speak their forms of Latin for sometime to come.
Duenos inscription, 600BC look it up.
Colleptic 2 years ago
Hannibal, in every sense has made Scipio his best student in warfare.
avatarspirit57 2 years ago 45
@avatarspirit57
"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
ltflak 1 year ago 16
@ltflak
Hannibal was born too early to learn that. :-P
CroGamer002 1 month ago in playlist More videos from beregorn90
The reason Hannibal didn't advance on Rome was that he couldn't have defeated the city itself. The Roman garrison was sufficient to defend against the Carthaginians, as they had little or no competence in siege warfare. This was shown subsequently in Hannibal's actions against the other cities on the Italian peninsular. You need to read a deeper account of Hannibal to understand. Try 'Hannibal - One Man Against Rome.'
guygardnerharris 2 years ago
Nor did Scipio have the strength to take Carthage after Zama. But unlike Hannibal the chess master Scipio the card shark used his victories to attack the psyche his foe. In marching his battered army on Carthage Scipio did what Hannibal failed to do.
rekke41 2 years ago
Sorry for the clutter people, but there is one last thing on ethnicity in Roman culture. After Octavian's final crushing of Egypt, the economy of that country(grain and maritime trade, mostly)
quickly collasped as virtually everything not nailed down was diverted to Rome.
That meant the Egyptians became destitute and utlimately had no choice but "go where the money was"!
In time the ETHNIC group in the city and the penisula were Egyptians!! a similar uprooting befell the Carthargians.
Atomank68 2 years ago
The Romans had especial vitriol against the Greeks who, lead by the Emperor AGANEMMNON( he was not just king)defeated their Trojan ancestors into near-annihilation; They never forgot this lesson even though they appeared to have adopted Hellenistic and Spartan ways, the Greeks early on described as wolves in sheep clothing.
That's why the Romans subjugated the Greeks, made them administer their empire for1,000-yrs. and didn't admit them into the senate until long after Caligula's purges!
Atomank68 2 years ago
...Furthermore, the when the Trojan refugees settled on the Italian pensula and became Romans, they found themselves foreigners(and cultural aliens) among those tribes.
Later, when they shrewdley admitted new "talent" among these same tribes to agrandize themselves economically & militarily, they took pains to make certain that their patrican class' blood was not sullied.
Atomank68 2 years ago
Correction here: The nordic strain among the romans came centuries after the "Pax Romana". Remember people, the world's civilization were super-duper rascist than today. Who you were among the patrician class was who your father, grand father, great grand, etc.
This may suprise you but this was one of the many reasons JULIUS CAESAR was killed over. He sold entry into the senate and knighthood fo the plebs. He also fathered a non-roman child by the foreigner CLEOPATRA, Queen that she was!
Atomank68 2 years ago
That Council was filled with a bunch of dumbasses...
Borderose 2 years ago
Hannibal was very smart, if the people listened to him than this would not have had happened
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim And Carthage probably would've survived to fight another war or fortify itself against Roman invasion.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
I don't understand why they portray romans as blond people with blue eyes, I mean even romans came from turkey???
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
No, they were not. Roman patricians had Nordic origins and while most ordinary Italians were the descendents of Etruscans, there was a huge admixture between them and Germanic tribes. So while most of them weren't blonde with blue eyes, they were certainly a Mediterranean people.
AemiliaPaulla 2 years ago
No Romans were very brown, they had curly hair, they resembled the Numidans, and also the Etruscans came from Turkey, look it up,
I mean this western approach of the history, is false, Romans were a Middle-Eastern Civilization, the blond guys with bue eyes, these were the Germans,
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim
romans came from a baltic tribe, and were mainly blonde
fabriva00 2 years ago
@fabriva
No Romans originated in Turkey
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim
Honestly there is no definitive source, so nothing is sure about their origin, anyway being them mostly of blond and red hair I suppose thier north-european origin is more probable.
The black-haired people were few and had the prefix -Nigro in the name.
fabriva00 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim. They are all origin of Eva and Adam ;P
DonChilenito 2 years ago
thats only IF the legend of the Anead was true which there is no basis for
johnnyreb1025 2 years ago
No Romans originated in the east, Romans hated Germanic and Gallic Tribes
MocroMuslim 2 years ago
@MocroMuslim
everything must be proved, do you have something apart your personal belief ?
fabriva00 2 years ago
@fabriva00
the romans of then were more exotic looking than your average italian of today.
the italians of today have become lighter through the centuries. they have become mixed with the german and gallic tribes (many of them slaves). after the fall of rome many more migrated into italy from the north.
bushman77 2 years ago
@bushman77
as you wish...
fabriva00 2 years ago
@fabriva00
thats all you have to say? atleast tell me why am wrong.
bushman77 2 years ago
@bushman77
Caesar and Augustus had blue eyes and blonde hair, Sulla had blue eyes and red hair, and why the people with black hair used the prefix -nigro if the most of them Romans had black hair?
Did you see the statues: do they look like Arabs?
It's simpy a matter of common sense: if the Arab or the African people want to boast some great ancestry, they should search elsewhere, you can live even if you are not a descendant of the Romans.
fabriva00 2 years ago
@fabriva00
i think you've been watching too much hollywood movies my friend.
where did you get your sources from please tell me, so that i can verify it myself.
bushman77 2 years ago
@bushman77
I could cite: "Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch", although the statues speak on their own.
fabriva00 2 years ago
@fabriva00 This is one of the most idiotic posts I have read, statues? Really? Look at a "statue" of Philip the Arab it looks exactly like any Roman general. Romans bred with Germanic tribes which is what made some "blone".
projections 1 year ago
@projections
maybe you prefer the abstract art :-)
fabriva00 1 year ago
ugh go Hanible i wish he made rome history before its real death
frostbite0995 3 years ago
is thiis the last 1?
theluandmegshow 3 years ago
why does it say, "We're sorry, this video is no longer available. Please,please, make it available.
athameem13 3 years ago
Is that the end?
nirabarsenal 3 years ago
If there is more...kepp them comming!!!
These vids are awsome!!
truthforchrist 3 years ago
Nice one.
tpjpower 3 years ago