Hannibal - Rome's Worst Nightmare Part 4

[WolfWildTunisia]

I WISH I LIVED THERE

[HavokMakerX]

8:04 Barbaric Trollface

[klasco1991]

I wonder how much of history would of been different if Rome was defeated, its amazing how many losses the romes took but still didn't give in.

[HolyCow4343]

thank you for uploading great video such as this... :) really appreciate historical movie rather than spiderman, xmen ect.. they are not true and meant not to be watch.. it only makes children fool in history... and those who don't study history are doom to repeat it..

[VampireNewl]

5:32 becuase of how long the camera stayed on the horse i thought they were trying to tell me that the horse was spying on them. Sometimes i suprise even my self

[ghaidouda]

hANNIBAL THE GREAT TUNISIAN LEADER:)) the courage of my people make me proud! and VIVa la revolucion!!!!!

[puchy110]

Hannibal had the men, the leadership, and the allies to defeat Rome, but I think his biggest mistake was to cross the alps that cost him half his army, if he had done to the Roman costal guard what he did to the Romans in Italy, he might've conqured Rome

[TheVaughan5]

@puchy110 According to history, Hannibal was in a position to take Rome after their army was wiped out at Cannae but it will forever remain a mystery as to why he did not take the opportunitiy after his amazing victory.

[puchy110]

@TheVaughan5 well he felt that he didn't have the manpower to take Rome, 'cause Rome still had Italian allies from which it could draw manpower from

[lusulpher]

@TheVaughan5 Carhtage did not want Hannibal to be a political leader...Mystery has been solved quite a while. Simple political maneuvering. He spent 16 years with no reinforcements...

[Aram64]

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all time, beacause he was the one to start using a lot of tricks and trap his enemys using their weeknesses. Hannibal greatest of all time !!!

[Trafener]

If only these two cities had allied instead of fought, the world would be so different now.

[califiamoors]

@Trafener how so?

[gamegeek2]

He probably wore a beautiful metal muscled cuirass, not leather. Deserving of his status and glory!

[truvianni]

@gamegeek2 I do not think so because Hannibal did try to live like his men eating the same food and sharing their discomforts so perhaps he might not have

[SPQR35715]

I like how after he has two men fight to the death to prove a point Hannibal says Carthaginians arent barbarians. I also like how he tells his men who are for the most part mercenaries or soldiers whose homelands have been conquered by Carthage to fight for Carthage, to reclaim what is theirs. And I also like how he states that a Roman fights because he is ordered to, well in this case he fights because he is defending his homeland.

[basscataz]

dr bashir!

[Fokosmok]

that Twat invade Rome and said WE FIGHT FOR LIVe lol ahaha

[Vexille1983]

...(cont) Rome on the other hand, had previously established colonies of citizens across Italy, while periodically granting degrees of Roman citizenship, or "Latin Rights" to allied Italian states. This was why Rome had more "citizens". And many of the citizens in Rome's armies before the First Century BCE were yeoman farmers, who had a stake in defending the Republic. Carthage's citizens were few, but their fiscal resources were great, hence the mercenaries and conscripts in their armies.

[Vexille1983]

If Hannibal destroyed Rome as he set out to do, it would not have followed that Carthage would have precisely mirrored Rome's success. Carthage was a commercial maratime Republic. Like most city-state republics of its time, it had a small citizen body, even while the number of residents in that city would number in the 100,000's. Carthage's empire was really a protection racket of colonies, allies and vassals, all ruled by a small oligarchy in Carthage (cont).....

[TheAntiochus]

"WE FIGHT FOR CARTHAGE!!!!!!!!!" *CHEER*, Then he just walks off like a G.

[ulongkoror]

dont know why,but the way hannibal and his men talks,kind of reminded me of shakespeare.............

[3baxcb]

Despite decades of interaction with Celts and CeltIberians, it's amusing to see the Carthaginian officers look a little disgusted at seeing the Celt show some severed Roman heads. Celts believed the head held the power or soul of a person and gladly took them as occasional trophies.

[lion3p0]

i love hiow they look at him when he says we should head back, they're like WTF!!!!

[3baxcb]

@lion3p0 They probably think afterwards "I'd rather stay and fight then go through Alps again!".

[TheRomanRuler]

Its annoyng when there is swedish texts, im all a time reading those, accident, and the speak start to sound swedish too!

[Anstraxe]

WOW... There are so many Bulgarian actors in this movie...

[projections]

Hannibal reminds me of Osama.

[88Thyra]

@projections You truly are a retard . The Carthiginians were more like modern Spaniards , than modern Kenyans . BTW , Hannibal actually achieved something outside the realm of entitlements , Affirmative Action achievment rewards , Obama was a C student . Funny how after 50 yrs of hand-outs , job entitlement , and anti-white hiring practice , the only Change has been a drastic rise in the rates of Black-on-White crime .. FBI stats. ,not mine .

[jamaicanification]

@88Thyra so tell me, why are we talking about obama here????????

[ulongkoror]

@88Thyra

what the hell are you going on about,talking about obama in a video for hannibal????

didnt even understand what the hell you were trying to express but if you are gonna compare a european general in 200 BC to a black USA president in 2010 then cant be anything intelligent

[fmoa]

@88Thyra carthaginians were more like modern spaniards..LOL..what a bunch of bullshit,is that from european history of the world..last i heard,the carthaginians were phoenicians..they not black n they not european..carthaginians were of phoenician stock of people that originate from middel east..historians says anicient carthaginians resemble syrians n other middle eastern people..they not spaniard mate,actually hannibal conquered spain.

[Moods921]

@88Thyra hannibal was a phenocian meaning he was just as Semitic as Akkadians,Arameans,Arabs,Hebre­ws,Assyrians and etc! stop changing and stealing our Semitic culture and just enjoy ur own for goodness sake!

[tuotonicknight]

imagin the world without rivalry?!!

[ltflak]

Lol, a roman helmet used to drink booze

[JimiB1984]

Hannibal gave the Romans a scare, he used new tactics and because of that Scipio devised some of his own. Having a worthy adversary brings the best out in people, and Rome got the kick up the back side they needed. This is why the ruled the Mediteranean for the next 600 years, because they never under estimated any opponent.

[ColonelMarksman]

The speech emphasizes that battles, even wars, can be lost or won on morale alone. Battle frenzy is extremely powerful; the Bezerkers for example.

[TheHistoryForum]

he taught the Romans a lesson

[pgamer4life]

not only did he teach the romans a lesson he also sparked the hatred that the romans needed to become an empire...so hannibal is the reason rome controled the mediteranean for the next 600 years lol

[crashoveryu]

Romans taught him a school.

[bagys101]

hey aren't Italians suppose to be darker?

[fabriva00]

@bagys101

1) northern Italy was inhabited by Gauls, who were blonde

2) Also romans had generally a blonde skin, maybe coming from a Baltic tribe

3) Darker people were in southern Italy, particularly among the non-Greek population

[bagys101]

yes but northern Italy is less inhabited then south Italy . witch makes darker the majority.

[fabriva00]

@bagys101

I see nomore the point of the discussion

[bagys101]

good man

[MyCrownOfWorms]

so tell us, oh wise one, what is wrong about this. also, ever think it's "one sided" because it's from Hannibals perspective?

[3baxcb]

@MyCrownOfWorms Funny to mention Hannibal's perspective as most of what was written from him first came from the Romans who oddly showed less of an axe to grind than with Atilla. Perhaps because they never battled with an enemy who was so close to subduing them.

[bashir252]

i know i said that in the first 2 bideos

[LivingCrusader]

Hannibal was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known, or ever will know. Those who demean and denounce him are just bitter that they can never surpass or measure up to him.

[HistoryLover1550]

@LivingCrusader He outshined them all!

[Whoizcasper]

@LivingCrusader You mean the guy that got Humiliated by scipio? sounds like the greatest to me not saying he wasn't a military genius but greatest i think not

[glaxko2]

@LivingCrusader I disagree. He led a costly warpath that accomplished nothing but a mention in the history books

[comradeDRR]

if i stood before the alps in the beginning of winter i would have turned i know i would. that shows the difference between me and Hannibal.

[morgenshmorgan]

He rather looks a bit like Hugh Laurie. Not much, but just a bit to remind.

[sondreus24]

i think it was the stomach

[northkoreanwar]

ok?? how old are you exactly

[toxicwaste26]

what a whore

[tecna64]

so, you find it SEXY if a dudes nuts drop off from a blow of an axe?

sick disturbed sex thoughts you got then

[londonsunao]

they made Hannibal looks like Chris Cornell

[badmashabhi]

more like Hugh Laurie

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

Funny, Hannibal said his men fought for Carthage and a definite purpose, although most of them were mercenaries, who only fought for pay.

[BenSTA09]

that was down the line keep in mind he was there for years

[englishfrenchgerman]

Hannibal: the greatest enemy of Rome until Attila the Hun. Ig he had received the crucial backing he needed from the Carthaginian Council, it wouldn't have been the Roman Empire, it would have been the Carthaginian Empire

[HistoryLover1550]

@englishfrenchgerman totally!

[SayNoToTheism]

@englishfrenchgerman Could thing they didn't back him.

[mskidi]

@englishfrenchgerman no it wouldnt.romes domination was based on much more than a single genius general.the fact that he didnt receive backing is a proof of that.so is the fact that the romans did not propose peace even after the multiple defeats hanibbal caused.plus from a population stand of point rome was the only great mediteranean power with more than one million military reserves

[englishfrenchgerman]

@mskidi The problem with making a guess like this is that Carthage never got a chance to really stretch its wings. What if Rome had been defeated? There would have been a power vaccum and other empires would have risen, one of them being Carthage. They could have conquered all of Iberia, and then moved into Gaul and eventually Britain. With Italy under their rule, Greece and the Middle East wouldn't have been out of their reach. Carthaginian dominance in Europe might have happened.

[mskidi]

@englishfrenchgerman when alexanders generals told him that he shouldnt fight on the first line he replied that his death wouldnt make much of a difference because while the greeks could maintain discipline and battle formation without a leader the persians resided tottaly on their leader.without this military genius carthage lost all the wars it fought with rome,it even lost one with him at zama.its a matter of general mentality that makes the difference.

[Whoizcasper]

@englishfrenchgerman If he had Taken rome it doesn't mean he would have made an empire you forget rome is only 1 major city there were thousands of troops elsewhere around italy and europe they would have reclaimed it in no time. still though it would have been a moral victory

[unurautare2]

@englishfrenchgerman I don't think so because no Empire ever has achieved what Romans did. Romans had a mindset for warfare and a very advanced culture which they used to assimilate the tribes of Europe and their empire managed to expand to 3 continents(Europe,Asia and Africa) and they lasted ~2200 years from the birth of Rome to the fall of Constantinopol.

[englishfrenchgerman]

@unurautare2 Carthage initiated the first two Punic Wars and carved out an empire in north Africa and Iberia. They had a mindset for warfare and conquest. As for the advanced civilisation, they had that too. Carthage's navy, at the height of its power, was second to none. As I've said before, the problem is that the world never really got to find out what Carthage was truly capable of, so I think it's entirely possible they could have matched Rome's achievements.

[unurautare2]

@englishfrenchgerman That's just speculation as no empire before or after managed to be as fancy as Rome. And let's face it,it was very good that the Romans won,at least in the perspective that they stopped the savage barbarians of Eurasia and North Africa from doing human sacrifices as a religious practice(although Romans had sometimes death-battles as spectacle I don't consider it as bad).

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman I disagree, if you look at Carthage's expansion in the mediterranean it is largely superficial mainly concerned with economic gains not longterm occupation/assimilation as with the romans. I don't think the Carthaginians had a mindset for war, that might be the reason why Carthaginian armies were largley recruited from foreign mercenaries. Continued...

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman Continued...The Carthaginian navy was seriously mauled a few times by the much less experienced Roman navy during the First Punic War. And I don't really think the Carthaginians had an advanced civilisation, their entire political system was based on greed and corruption. And their infant sacrificing habit was pretty creepy as well. I don't think Carthage could have matched Rome's acheivements or ever defeated them in a war.

[englishfrenchgerman]

@SPQR35715 In the aftermath of Cannae Hannibal, and by extension Carthage, controlled every city in Italy except Rome. If Hannibal had received reinforcements from Carthage, he could have taken Rome. Even the Romans acknowledged that and thats why Hannibal remained a constant figure of threat in the Roman psyche for more than half a millenium after Hannibal's death. And as for economic gains, Britain and Gaul had precious metals, which was why the Romans invaded them. Continued...

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman the most of Italy Hannibal was never able to control was Magna Grecia, and this only tenuously. The Roman confederation proved too strong for Hannibal, by sacrificing 70,000 men at Cannae Rome had demonstrated to her Italian allies that she would protect them. And I dont think Hannibal ever could have taken Rome, Hannibal had no siege train, taking a minor city like Saguntum was a challenge for his army so I dont think he could have taken a massive city like rome.

[truvianni]

@SPQR35715 you are right in that I can add that even if he had taken Rome keeping it would also have been very difficult

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman BTW Carthage did send Hannibal reinforcements, but either they didn't make much of a difference or they were defeated before they linked up with Hannibal eg Battle of the Metaurus River. The only land battle won by Roman forces against Carthaginian forces in mainland Italy during the second Punic War

[englishfrenchgerman]

@SPQR35715 Continued... So I don't see any reason why Carthage, with Italy under their control would not have expanded into the Celtic world. And, if we continue to assume that what Carthage sought from an empire was economic gain, Greece and the Middle East were fabulously wealthy, controlling trade from as far away as China and India. With North Africa and Western Europe under their control, Carthage would have been well-placed and very able to invade and conquer Greece and the Middle East.

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman I dont think Carthage would have been able to conquer Greece, or the Celtic world, and economically for Carthage wouldn't it make more sense just to continue trading with said cultures? Economic gain is assured and you don't have to fund a campaign and subsequent occupation. If you look at the Carthaginian presence in say Sardinia or Corsica all they ever did was establish trade posts on the outer rims of the islands to trade with the natives.

[truvianni]

@SPQR35715 you point out the basis difference between these 2 societies Carthagenians were merchants and Romans were farmers

[SPQR35715]

@englishfrenchgerman Carthage was never geared, economically, psychologically, or socially for conquest on the scale at which rome achieved it.

[truvianni]

@SPQR35715 this is basically due to the peace treaty they accepted after the 1st Punic war that forced them to get rid of their navy which to a nation of merchants was a disaster Rome being more about agriculture was not so much in need of ships but it is funny because Rome also did not finish Carthage after the 2nd Punic War but the 3rd which was more a siege than a war

[truvianni]

@englishfrenchgerman true but it is said that Carthaginian council feared Hannibal becoming too strong as much as they did the Romans

[aviles1323]

@englishfrenchgerman attila the hun fought rome at its weakest so no hannibal gets more credit

[MirkotheGreat]

Hannibal, one of the greatest military minds to have ever set foot on this planet!

[londonsunao]

Historians call him

"THE FATHER OF STRATEGY"

[SLRL1A1]

Bollocks! He failed, he lost, he was beaten.

[MrHelgason]

meby he lost but he dead as a free man.

[HistoryLover1550]

@MrHelgason Just like Spartacus

[LivingCrusader]

At least he is remembered long after his death, which is more than you or I will know on this earth.

[deil321]

awesome! Hannibal was a great leader.

[sweAndreasFilm]

@deil321 Carthage will stand upp once again!!!