Hannibal was no doubt one of the greatest generals the world has ever seen, but he was on the brink of losing out when Fabius Maximus started applying his guerilla tactics, and had the Romans not lost their patience with Fabius, Hannibal would have lost the war in Italy a lot earlier. His victory at Cannae was more a result of Roman impatience and arrogance than of his own superiority although he exploited his enenmy's errors in judging the situation appropriately in brilliant fashion.
@StellandBlood: I seriously doubt that. Even if Carthage had sent him a further 20,000 or 30,000 troops, they would have either been inexperienced soldiers or mercenaries who only fight for money. Even with an army of 70,000 or 80,000 troops, Hannibal never had a chance to put Rome under siege and either starve the city into surrender or conquer it. He had no engineers, no war engines, his supply lines were too long and too easy to interrupt. - cont'd
After Cannae,Rome was on its knees,and totally demoralized,Hannibal had to siege Rome,which he perfectly could and strangely he did not,even if he couldn´t conquer the city,as Rome had more than enough men to defend it,he would have forced it to starve,and in time to set out a offensives to break the siege,reinforcements,from Carthage would have been decisive,not to help him in the siege of Rome,but to secure remaining Italy,preventing armies from emerging on its rearguard.
It is true that Hannibal might not have been able to take Rome by Siege, but the real crux is he never tried. Scipio didn't have the man power to take Carthage either, but he knew the best way to secure a surrender was to make them think he would if they didn't capitulate.Don't forget Hannibal was also able to call upon Gaelic troops as well as some Spanish reinforcements. His 2 big mistakes were 1 Not marching on Rome and 2 Not going to Spain to stop Scipio. That's what cost him the war.
@gaiusscipio Even if Hannibal had tried to besiege Rome, sieges were tricky things, and it's more than likely he would've lost. Example when besieging a enemy you naturally need to outnumber them and whatever number he could gather, the Romans would have more. Since this were their country and they were fighting for their nation. Not to mention Rome had control of the sea and they could easily resupply themselves and could outlast Hannibal and his army if he besiege them.
@Lightingwarrior Read my comment again mate. My contention is this; Hannibal expected the Roman's to sue for terms. If he had threatened to lay siege it would have greatly increased his chances of getting a surrender
@gaiusscipio Unlikely since think about it, after losing 16 legions (150,000 men) the Romans refused to surrender when Hannibal offered them the chance. Even though any other nation would have surrendered after a disaster like Cannae, which was what Hannibal thought. To the Romans this was a fight to the death they had no intention of surrendering. If Hannibal had marched on Rome, the Romans would've fortified themselves and prepared for a siege and outlasted Hannibal, who knew this
@Lightingwarrior None more than I would like to think that the Romans would have held steadfast. But who is to say what their true reaction would have been if Hannibal had marched immediately on the city following the moral shattering loss they had just suffered. By not doing so Hannibal gave the Romans time to strengthen their resolve.
@gaiusscipio Prehaps, but it's just as likely that they would have held out until the end, just like th Carthagians did when Rome attack them fifty years later. Since like I said earlier, to the Romans this was a battle to the death and the Romans were as stubborn as hell and Rome was a very well defended city. If Hannibal had even attempted to besiege them the Romans, it would've failed and this would've improved Roman moral, showing that Hannibal was not unbeatable.
@gaiusscipio Personally I think after the battle of Cannae Hannibal was in a no win situation, the Romans refused to fight him anymore and he didn't have enough men and suppiles to win a siege. Not to mention his army was primarily built on fighting pitch battles not to fight in long drawn out siege.
But who's to say? that is why this decision is so debatable, people like you think he should have tried while others like me believe he would have failed had he tried regardless.
@Lightingwarrior Actually as my name might suggest I am glad he didn't try. However, what I am really trying to get at is that Scipio would have tried had the roles been reversed. And that in my mind is one of the things that marks him out as the greater general. Scipio would have felt it better to press his advantage even if he might fail than to just hope for the best as Hannibal did
@gaiusscipio Personally I think Hannibal is the better General, since much of the tactics Scipio used, he learned from Hannibal. But I will agree Scipio would most likely attack, but that was mainly because Scipio was more driven, and that in itself is not always a good thing since just because you have an advantage doesn't mean you'll win and if you lose, your defeat would be made all the worse. Besides Hannibal didn't want to destroy Rome he simply wanted to beat it.
@Lightingwarrior You know people keep using that argument, which always prompts me to ask; If I learn Chess from watching you play and then I beat you using your own "tactics", then who is the poorer player? Me for copying and improving on your strategy or you for failing to see what I was doing and beating me. The better general would have 1. Seen that Spain was the key to the war. 2. That seizing an advantage no matter how perilous is better than doing nothing
@Lightingwarrior By the way I like what you said "just because you have an advantage doesn't mean you'll win and if you lose, your defeat would be made all the worse." Kinda like what happened to Hannibal wasn't it?
@gaiusscipio Hannibal didn't think they would play the same move he did, since think about it, if you had an enemy army in your own territory who destroyed your best armies. Would you really send your remaining armies somewhere else and allow the enemy to have their way in your country. Generally most nations would have called back their force to try and get rid of the enemy. Beside by the time Hannibal realized what the Romans were doing it was too late for him to stop them.
@gaiusscipio Even if he saw what the Romans were doing in time, if he went back to defend spain, he would have lost everything he gained in Italy, which he eventually did before he was called back. Hence Hannibal was in a no win situation after Cannae, besiege Rome and fail to take it, go back to defend Spain and lose what he gained in Italy, stay in Italy and eventually lose Spain and Carthage. Plus unlike Scipio, Hannibal didn't have his goverment behind him and supporting.
@craziii3 Pretty much, but there was also the fact that he underesimated the Roman's reslove. To him this was a battle to prove the Carthage was superior to Rome, to the Roman's this was a battle to the death, where they would win or they would be destroyed.
@gaiusscipio As for your finally remark, yes, which is why I said it, Hannibal had the advanage for a while, but when he finally lost, it spelled the end of Carthage as a major power, which was why his one great defeat was so bad. Things like that have played out many times throughout history.
@puchy110 Yes but you're still not explaining your statement clearly enough. You said "the reason Rome won the second punic war is because Rome's Italian allies didn't all defect to Hannibal". That's too broad a statement, the Italian allies were just one aspect of a multifaceted issue. Syphax (despite a brief alliance to Scipio) became and remained a loyal ally to Carthage, like several other allied territories in North Africa and Spain, yet that didn't produce a Carthaginian victory.
@gaiusscipio ok, u got a point there, but what I'm saying is that hannibal relied on Rome's Italian allies to replenish numbers in his ranks. The point I'm trying to get across is that Hannibal didn't think he had the manpower to take Rome, which historians agree. Hannibal, as in classic Cathaginian tradition would draw mercenaries from conquered territories, but the lack of allies defecting equals less mercinaries
@TheBlackbeltfighter The Romans were conquerers, conquerers kill, loot, plunder, they cant be good. The only conquerer in human history that is close to good is probable Alexander the Great, the dude from Macedon that united the Greeks and conquered the known world, spreading the great Greek culture, language, literature and around the world...
@SilenceCallsTheMovie I respect alexander for what he accomplished in his life.But was he close to good? i don't think so. He massacred thousands of innocent people in the city of Tyrus.Only because they resisted against alexanders annexation.He also killed thousands of tribesman who resisted against him. Recently there is a growing focus on the negative aspects of Alexander, its a mistake to think that Alexandert the great": was a young, charismatic conqueror
@NLPaganBlood Technically to be fair, he was only acting in the way that was common in that time, since many other leaders before Alexander did the same kind of thing, since if you didn't show to be ruthless, you would be held up with long sieges and rebellions. Hence to secure the lands you conquered and prevent rebellion, you had to put the fear of god into the people, where news would spread of what you did and people would be more likely to surrender, it worked for the Mongols.
@SilenceCallsTheMovie Who only wanted to bring greek culture and literature into the known world. Those who did not unconditionally surrendered, didn't have to count on his mercy.
@NLPaganBlood The Greek culture does not need war to be spread around the world. Look at the western way of life today. Our society and everyday life, ideals,democracy, logic, are all inspired by the Greeks, without war. Alexander, though a Greek, was still a ruthless conquerer. He demanded the submission of other nations to the Greek culture. He did not offer it. Culture, democracy, and all the things the greeks have to offer, should not be forced into a nation but smoothly given to it.
@SilenceCallsTheMovie nope im white. doesnt change the fact he was the first humanitarian and one of the only people to treat the jews kindly and not try and murder them
@Battelfield2video lol are u kidding me.. in israel the canaanites wanted to kill them, when they went to europe the catholics tried to blame the black death on them and then thre were mass murders in russia and germany. im not sure if people do but goverments sure as hell dont like them i mean look at ww2
@TheBlackbeltfighter Don't formulate your opinion based solely on a Dramatized TV version of history. There more to the story than what's here and there are far more accurate accounts; Read Polybius and Livy to get a better handle on what happened. (One might argue that it's still one sided, but it's the only records we have)
Don't talk about the history of other nations and claim one is better than the other.GET OUT of the United States Chinese! if you're going to call the history of a nation a snowball fight!
Can you not comprehend basic English? 'GET OUT' 'Chinese'???? My Puritan English ancestors were here in America since 1635. Few families of European descent have been in the US longer than mine. Oh and if you dare impune my patriotism, I am a veteran with 22 years in the Navy. WTF have you done? You ignorant insignificant little Tea Party Turd. You know squat about the history of your own country. Never mind about the rest of the world.
Anybody can claim to be anything. Yes, i do know squat about history : ) You speak like the typical Chinese Communist : ) Do not be so arrogant to judge my knowledge of History you uncultured moron...
@Kelly14UK Look up the Taiping rebellion. it was going on when th US Civil was was going on and it made Antietam look like a snowball fight. Your Charles Gordon took over from the American Frederick Townshend Ward leading the Ever Victorious Army. 20,000,000 dead.
man east or west,every great empire fell because they got cocky and didnt take barbarians seriously enough and got their ass kicked under the leadership of corrupt and sometimes,even useless generals and politicians
what happened to rome was like exactly what happened to the chinese when the mongols invaded.they were like"those little nomads from a handful of sand,challenging our imperial empire?hahahaha" then got owned
No the Song Empire actually allied with the Mongols against the Jurchens. It wasnt until Kublai Khan that the Song Empire was conquered. The Jin Dynasty held out against Mongol onslaught for years and the Mongols faced many setbacks.
@ibtnm25 I know! i love that episode too. But it got a lot of flac from die hard Christie fans who thought that the changes the director made to the overall theme of the novel were...unnecessary. Heck, i thought the episode was great plot wise; and the director could have taken it even farther but he chose to leave the viewer hanging on a lot of points. That episode and this docudrama show some real acting talent in Tristan i.e. Varro/Despard i wish i could see him in more films and series.
@HistoryLover1550 As Maharbal said, "Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it." That said, Hannibal went to defeat Rome, not grind it into the ground. That would have made the Carthaginians just as bad as the Romans, in his mind. He didn't want that. He was the better man.
@NCWC2 Yeah, that's why he treated the people of Saguntum with such kindness, huh? Don't kid yourself, these were brutal times ... the Carthagenians were no less brutal than the Romans.
Hannibal was a general, a very gifted one, I'll give you that, but he wasn't a saint.
@antred11 Saguntum was an enemy that continually attacked Carthage's holdings in Spain. He had good reason to attack it. And I never suggested that Hannibal was a saint. I said he was a man, one with morales and honor and certainly more than the Romans had.
Longus's talk of Hannibal as a barbarian shows how Rome's nationalistic attitude towards non-Romans could have been their downfall. I think the same lesson applies today
@englishfrenchgerman ,truth be told.Carthage killed their own infants by strangulation and then burned them for sacrifice to their gods..This custom revolted the Romans.
no he wasn't. Varro was a fool. Fabius knew that after Trebia and Trasmene, defeating Hannibal in a direct military context would be suicide for the legions. Avoiding conflict against a smart oppenent is not being foolish. Its actually using your god damn brain.
Incompetent, impatient, selfish politicians / generals have always been the curse of great nations. Rome especially suffered from a whole bunch of them at times.
I believe a lot of this was caused because of how the ranking system is general was laid out? Aristocrates were born to lead, and hardly any rank was gained by deeds, but rather by age and wealth.
I could be wrong too, I am not very familiar with Roman Generals.
Hannibal lost an eye due to conjunctivitis, which is not usually so serious and can often clear up by itself untreated. Perhaps the cure was worse than the disease.
at 2:56 did anyone else see the dead guy smiling? 0______o
ronaldolover0311 4 days ago
Hannibal was no doubt one of the greatest generals the world has ever seen, but he was on the brink of losing out when Fabius Maximus started applying his guerilla tactics, and had the Romans not lost their patience with Fabius, Hannibal would have lost the war in Italy a lot earlier. His victory at Cannae was more a result of Roman impatience and arrogance than of his own superiority although he exploited his enenmy's errors in judging the situation appropriately in brilliant fashion.
CryingFreeman123 2 weeks ago
@CryingFreeman123
Had Hannibal minimal reinforcements from Carthage,he would have won.
StellandBlood 2 weeks ago
@StellandBlood: I seriously doubt that. Even if Carthage had sent him a further 20,000 or 30,000 troops, they would have either been inexperienced soldiers or mercenaries who only fight for money. Even with an army of 70,000 or 80,000 troops, Hannibal never had a chance to put Rome under siege and either starve the city into surrender or conquer it. He had no engineers, no war engines, his supply lines were too long and too easy to interrupt. - cont'd
CryingFreeman123 2 weeks ago
@CryingFreeman123
After Cannae,Rome was on its knees,and totally demoralized,Hannibal had to siege Rome,which he perfectly could and strangely he did not,even if he couldn´t conquer the city,as Rome had more than enough men to defend it,he would have forced it to starve,and in time to set out a offensives to break the siege,reinforcements,from Carthage would have been decisive,not to help him in the siege of Rome,but to secure remaining Italy,preventing armies from emerging on its rearguard.
StellandBlood 2 weeks ago
Was the Roman senate seats round, square or rectangle?
MrBsct 1 month ago
we will cut off his supply line that will either starve his troops or just piss him off
VampireNewl 2 months ago
Good Doc but no mention of General Bigus Dicus?
sushanalone 2 months ago
It is true that Hannibal might not have been able to take Rome by Siege, but the real crux is he never tried. Scipio didn't have the man power to take Carthage either, but he knew the best way to secure a surrender was to make them think he would if they didn't capitulate.Don't forget Hannibal was also able to call upon Gaelic troops as well as some Spanish reinforcements. His 2 big mistakes were 1 Not marching on Rome and 2 Not going to Spain to stop Scipio. That's what cost him the war.
gaiusscipio 2 months ago
@gaiusscipio Even if Hannibal had tried to besiege Rome, sieges were tricky things, and it's more than likely he would've lost. Example when besieging a enemy you naturally need to outnumber them and whatever number he could gather, the Romans would have more. Since this were their country and they were fighting for their nation. Not to mention Rome had control of the sea and they could easily resupply themselves and could outlast Hannibal and his army if he besiege them.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
Comment removed
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior Read my comment again mate. My contention is this; Hannibal expected the Roman's to sue for terms. If he had threatened to lay siege it would have greatly increased his chances of getting a surrender
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Unlikely since think about it, after losing 16 legions (150,000 men) the Romans refused to surrender when Hannibal offered them the chance. Even though any other nation would have surrendered after a disaster like Cannae, which was what Hannibal thought. To the Romans this was a fight to the death they had no intention of surrendering. If Hannibal had marched on Rome, the Romans would've fortified themselves and prepared for a siege and outlasted Hannibal, who knew this
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior None more than I would like to think that the Romans would have held steadfast. But who is to say what their true reaction would have been if Hannibal had marched immediately on the city following the moral shattering loss they had just suffered. By not doing so Hannibal gave the Romans time to strengthen their resolve.
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Prehaps, but it's just as likely that they would have held out until the end, just like th Carthagians did when Rome attack them fifty years later. Since like I said earlier, to the Romans this was a battle to the death and the Romans were as stubborn as hell and Rome was a very well defended city. If Hannibal had even attempted to besiege them the Romans, it would've failed and this would've improved Roman moral, showing that Hannibal was not unbeatable.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Personally I think after the battle of Cannae Hannibal was in a no win situation, the Romans refused to fight him anymore and he didn't have enough men and suppiles to win a siege. Not to mention his army was primarily built on fighting pitch battles not to fight in long drawn out siege.
But who's to say? that is why this decision is so debatable, people like you think he should have tried while others like me believe he would have failed had he tried regardless.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior Actually as my name might suggest I am glad he didn't try. However, what I am really trying to get at is that Scipio would have tried had the roles been reversed. And that in my mind is one of the things that marks him out as the greater general. Scipio would have felt it better to press his advantage even if he might fail than to just hope for the best as Hannibal did
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Personally I think Hannibal is the better General, since much of the tactics Scipio used, he learned from Hannibal. But I will agree Scipio would most likely attack, but that was mainly because Scipio was more driven, and that in itself is not always a good thing since just because you have an advantage doesn't mean you'll win and if you lose, your defeat would be made all the worse. Besides Hannibal didn't want to destroy Rome he simply wanted to beat it.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior You know people keep using that argument, which always prompts me to ask; If I learn Chess from watching you play and then I beat you using your own "tactics", then who is the poorer player? Me for copying and improving on your strategy or you for failing to see what I was doing and beating me. The better general would have 1. Seen that Spain was the key to the war. 2. That seizing an advantage no matter how perilous is better than doing nothing
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior By the way I like what you said "just because you have an advantage doesn't mean you'll win and if you lose, your defeat would be made all the worse." Kinda like what happened to Hannibal wasn't it?
gaiusscipio 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Hannibal didn't think they would play the same move he did, since think about it, if you had an enemy army in your own territory who destroyed your best armies. Would you really send your remaining armies somewhere else and allow the enemy to have their way in your country. Generally most nations would have called back their force to try and get rid of the enemy. Beside by the time Hannibal realized what the Romans were doing it was too late for him to stop them.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@gaiusscipio Even if he saw what the Romans were doing in time, if he went back to defend spain, he would have lost everything he gained in Italy, which he eventually did before he was called back. Hence Hannibal was in a no win situation after Cannae, besiege Rome and fail to take it, go back to defend Spain and lose what he gained in Italy, stay in Italy and eventually lose Spain and Carthage. Plus unlike Scipio, Hannibal didn't have his goverment behind him and supporting.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior the main point was that he had no support. too bad.
craziii3 3 weeks ago
@craziii3 Pretty much, but there was also the fact that he underesimated the Roman's reslove. To him this was a battle to prove the Carthage was superior to Rome, to the Roman's this was a battle to the death, where they would win or they would be destroyed.
Lightingwarrior 3 weeks ago
@gaiusscipio As for your finally remark, yes, which is why I said it, Hannibal had the advanage for a while, but when he finally lost, it spelled the end of Carthage as a major power, which was why his one great defeat was so bad. Things like that have played out many times throughout history.
Lightingwarrior 1 month ago
@Lightingwarrior Nice debate :)
xOrangeTiger007x 3 weeks ago
there is no room to be "good" if your a leader and conqueor
GordonMc100 6 months ago
the reason Rome won the second punic war is because Rome's Italian allies didn't all defect to Hannibal
puchy110 6 months ago
@puchy110 So by not defecting, Hannibal's army was magically defeated?
gaiusscipio 3 months ago
@gaiusscipio well, when the Italian allies defected to Hannibal, they replenished manpower that he lost over the course of his campaign
puchy110 3 months ago
@puchy110 Yes but you're still not explaining your statement clearly enough. You said "the reason Rome won the second punic war is because Rome's Italian allies didn't all defect to Hannibal". That's too broad a statement, the Italian allies were just one aspect of a multifaceted issue. Syphax (despite a brief alliance to Scipio) became and remained a loyal ally to Carthage, like several other allied territories in North Africa and Spain, yet that didn't produce a Carthaginian victory.
gaiusscipio 3 months ago
@gaiusscipio ok, u got a point there, but what I'm saying is that hannibal relied on Rome's Italian allies to replenish numbers in his ranks. The point I'm trying to get across is that Hannibal didn't think he had the manpower to take Rome, which historians agree. Hannibal, as in classic Cathaginian tradition would draw mercenaries from conquered territories, but the lack of allies defecting equals less mercinaries
puchy110 2 months ago
scipio africanus was 17 years old when he rescued his father, why do they have a 35 year old playing this part? lol
Jonzelaya1 6 months ago
@Jonzelaya1 I'm guessing the same reason that they had a 40 year old playing 25 year old Hannibal
puchy110 6 months ago
this was typical of Roman generals who basically were armed with more arrogance and contempt of their enemies than actual ability and skill
truvianni 7 months ago
7:17 - omg, his eyelashes are sooo long! <3
Sorry, had to say it :D
Long live the memory of the greatest general ever, Hannibal Barca!
Bzibzianka 8 months ago 5
@Bzibzianka Haniibal was great I agree and a brillent tactian, but personally I think Alexander was better
Lightingwarrior 3 weeks ago
Hannibal might have won the battle but the Romans won the war.
tacotony24 10 months ago
i always thought rome were good guys but now i have a new prespective.......... CARTHAGE GO KICK ROMES ASS!!!!!!!!!
TheBlackbeltfighter 11 months ago
@TheBlackbeltfighter The Romans were conquerers, conquerers kill, loot, plunder, they cant be good. The only conquerer in human history that is close to good is probable Alexander the Great, the dude from Macedon that united the Greeks and conquered the known world, spreading the great Greek culture, language, literature and around the world...
SilenceCallsTheMovie 11 months ago
@SilenceCallsTheMovie I respect alexander for what he accomplished in his life.But was he close to good? i don't think so. He massacred thousands of innocent people in the city of Tyrus.Only because they resisted against alexanders annexation.He also killed thousands of tribesman who resisted against him. Recently there is a growing focus on the negative aspects of Alexander, its a mistake to think that Alexandert the great": was a young, charismatic conqueror
NLPaganBlood 10 months ago
@NLPaganBlood Technically to be fair, he was only acting in the way that was common in that time, since many other leaders before Alexander did the same kind of thing, since if you didn't show to be ruthless, you would be held up with long sieges and rebellions. Hence to secure the lands you conquered and prevent rebellion, you had to put the fear of god into the people, where news would spread of what you did and people would be more likely to surrender, it worked for the Mongols.
Lightingwarrior 3 weeks ago
@SilenceCallsTheMovie Who only wanted to bring greek culture and literature into the known world. Those who did not unconditionally surrendered, didn't have to count on his mercy.
NLPaganBlood 10 months ago
@NLPaganBlood The Greek culture does not need war to be spread around the world. Look at the western way of life today. Our society and everyday life, ideals,democracy, logic, are all inspired by the Greeks, without war. Alexander, though a Greek, was still a ruthless conquerer. He demanded the submission of other nations to the Greek culture. He did not offer it. Culture, democracy, and all the things the greeks have to offer, should not be forced into a nation but smoothly given to it.
SilenceCallsTheMovie 10 months ago
@SilenceCallsTheMovie lol the only good conqueror was Cyrus the Great
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@seminoleboy96 let me guess, you a persian?? hahahaha
SilenceCallsTheMovie 6 months ago
@SilenceCallsTheMovie nope im white. doesnt change the fact he was the first humanitarian and one of the only people to treat the jews kindly and not try and murder them
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@seminoleboy96 your a jew im guessing
gorygremlin13 6 months ago
@seminoleboy96 okey if I under stand you right ever one wans to kill jews? oO
sry but not many want to kill jews
Haniball wasnt the first
Battelfield2video 6 months ago
@Battelfield2video lol are u kidding me.. in israel the canaanites wanted to kill them, when they went to europe the catholics tried to blame the black death on them and then thre were mass murders in russia and germany. im not sure if people do but goverments sure as hell dont like them i mean look at ww2
seminoleboy96 6 months ago
@TheBlackbeltfighter Don't formulate your opinion based solely on a Dramatized TV version of history. There more to the story than what's here and there are far more accurate accounts; Read Polybius and Livy to get a better handle on what happened. (One might argue that it's still one sided, but it's the only records we have)
gaiusscipio 3 months ago
They Should also called on the Armies Commanded by "Bigus Dickus"LOL.
beachbootybum1 1 year ago
@beachbootybum1 and his wife "Bigus titus"
PrivateLsd 11 months ago
@PrivateLsd Well since she would be his wife, she should have had feminine suffix (a) not masculine(us), therefore "Biga Tita".
SloveintzWend 10 months ago
03:00 By this point he claims to have killed 40,000 Romans? That's an entire football stadium.
Kelly14UK 1 year ago 11
@Kelly14UK
40,000 is alot?man you never learned Chinese history then lol
ulongkoror 1 year ago
@ulongkoror Tell me more. Gimme a battle I can Wiki. Cheers : )
Kelly14UK 1 year ago
@Kelly14UK Look up the Taiping rebellion. it was going on when th US Civil was was going on and it made Antietam look like a snowball fight.
mthatcher61 1 year ago
@mthatcher61
Don't talk about the history of other nations and claim one is better than the other.GET OUT of the United States Chinese! if you're going to call the history of a nation a snowball fight!
rtstitan 11 months ago
Can you not comprehend basic English? 'GET OUT' 'Chinese'???? My Puritan English ancestors were here in America since 1635. Few families of European descent have been in the US longer than mine. Oh and if you dare impune my patriotism, I am a veteran with 22 years in the Navy. WTF have you done? You ignorant insignificant little Tea Party Turd. You know squat about the history of your own country. Never mind about the rest of the world.
mthatcher61 9 months ago
@mthatcher61
Anybody can claim to be anything. Yes, i do know squat about history : ) You speak like the typical Chinese Communist : ) Do not be so arrogant to judge my knowledge of History you uncultured moron...
rtstitan 9 months ago
@Kelly14UK Look up the Taiping rebellion. it was going on when th US Civil was was going on and it made Antietam look like a snowball fight. Your Charles Gordon took over from the American Frederick Townshend Ward leading the Ever Victorious Army. 20,000,000 dead.
mthatcher61 1 year ago
The guy who plays Fabian is an awesome actor. I think I've seen him somewhere else as well, but I can't place it. Was he in star treck?
fluff125 1 year ago
the voice over this is the actor who playd pompy in the series rome!
slaneslau 1 year ago
the cold carthagininians were warmed with roman blood
lion3p0 1 year ago
@lion3p0 Shut up Stupid Roman. Your people were warmed in part 6. The best part.
1997Christiano 1 year ago
@ antred11
You forgot corrupt and greedy.
xxSilverPhinxx 1 year ago
Hannibal still scared the Romans even after his death, his victories against them haunted them forever.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Could someone tell me the name of the actor of the roman "military dictator"?
I saw him do a work as Rudolf Hess in another document.
He does his part relatively well though.
Kulmataklaus 1 year ago
@Kulmataklaus Ben Cross is his name. He is most famous for his part in Chariots of Fire.
NCWC2 1 year ago
I like Hannibal for giving the romans had time.
9meno 1 year ago
@9meno You can argue that if there was no Hannibal, Rome may have never expanded to the extent it did during and after the 2nd Punic War.
3baxcb 1 year ago
@pootiet12345 anything out of rome was considered barbaric which was of course ignorant on the romans behalf
BBxTerra 1 year ago
man east or west,every great empire fell because they got cocky and didnt take barbarians seriously enough and got their ass kicked under the leadership of corrupt and sometimes,even useless generals and politicians
what happened to rome was like exactly what happened to the chinese when the mongols invaded.they were like"those little nomads from a handful of sand,challenging our imperial empire?hahahaha" then got owned
ulongkoror 1 year ago
@ulongkoror
No the Song Empire actually allied with the Mongols against the Jurchens. It wasnt until Kublai Khan that the Song Empire was conquered. The Jin Dynasty held out against Mongol onslaught for years and the Mongols faced many setbacks.
immortal117 1 year ago 3
hannibal lost an eye i think he should replace it the sharingan eye
edgaruo 1 year ago
@ibtnm25 I know! i love that episode too. But it got a lot of flac from die hard Christie fans who thought that the changes the director made to the overall theme of the novel were...unnecessary. Heck, i thought the episode was great plot wise; and the director could have taken it even farther but he chose to leave the viewer hanging on a lot of points. That episode and this docudrama show some real acting talent in Tristan i.e. Varro/Despard i wish i could see him in more films and series.
Remobit1 1 year ago
He should´ve been attacked Rome when in reach, he lacked the gutts when most needed
alonelychild 1 year ago
@alonelychild
He was JUDACED by POLY TIK or politicians. Politicians are the black curse of the world.
HANNIBALbengal 1 year ago
@alonelychild He really should've burned Rome down.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 As Maharbal said, "Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it." That said, Hannibal went to defeat Rome, not grind it into the ground. That would have made the Carthaginians just as bad as the Romans, in his mind. He didn't want that. He was the better man.
NCWC2 1 year ago
@NCWC2 Yeah, that's why he treated the people of Saguntum with such kindness, huh? Don't kid yourself, these were brutal times ... the Carthagenians were no less brutal than the Romans.
Hannibal was a general, a very gifted one, I'll give you that, but he wasn't a saint.
antred11 1 year ago
@antred11 Saguntum was an enemy that continually attacked Carthage's holdings in Spain. He had good reason to attack it. And I never suggested that Hannibal was a saint. I said he was a man, one with morales and honor and certainly more than the Romans had.
NCWC2 1 year ago
@NCWC2 Your right, Hannibal was a noble man even to his defeated enemies.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Damn Hannibal lost an eye and still was fighting like a true warrior amazing
blacklion105 1 year ago 2
Longus's talk of Hannibal as a barbarian shows how Rome's nationalistic attitude towards non-Romans could have been their downfall. I think the same lesson applies today
englishfrenchgerman 1 year ago
@englishfrenchgerman ,truth be told.Carthage killed their own infants by strangulation and then burned them for sacrifice to their gods..This custom revolted the Romans.
daehoidareht 1 year ago
Hannibal and Varro- the actors- star in a great Poirot episode.
ibtnm25 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fabius was a fool.
gapingmaw20 2 years ago
no he wasn't. Varro was a fool. Fabius knew that after Trebia and Trasmene, defeating Hannibal in a direct military context would be suicide for the legions. Avoiding conflict against a smart oppenent is not being foolish. Its actually using your god damn brain.
Koguryeo19 2 years ago
@gapingmaw20 The fabian strategy was what defeated Hannibal dumb ass. Generals still use it today.
asep5 1 year ago
@asep5 Hannibal should've been more clever and get a hold of Scipio's battle plans, then he would've been victorius at Zama.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 yea, but he didn't have the force.
he had inexperienced low morale african soldiers.
he lost a lot of his heavy gaul infantry and his numidian cav.
his elephants were the main reason they lost.
asep5 1 year ago
@asep5 U r right
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Excellent film ! Hollywood needs to make a great movie like this.....based on Hannibal Barca
CELIBERICO 2 years ago 12
Rome had good generals too but sometimes
money talks and merit walks
TheWELSHGUARD 2 years ago 5
I just realised, this has two star trek actors in. Alexander Siddig, and the guy that plays Fabius Maximus played Spock's father in Star Trek.
TheDarkFrontier 2 years ago 5
GREAT ACTING
jpenoch1 2 years ago 5
I Thought he lost his eye from the frost while sleeping on the ground in the alpes WTF
galidorn1 2 years ago 2
He lost his eye through infection, I believe he was traveling through a marsh and a bug stung his eye.
Plato86 2 years ago 2
were the northern tribes the gauls?
Pantera8787 2 years ago 7
Some would have been, others would have been a hybrid culture. He picked up Gauls in southern Gaul too.
Colleptic 2 years ago 8
Incompetent, impatient, selfish politicians / generals have always been the curse of great nations. Rome especially suffered from a whole bunch of them at times.
antred11 3 years ago 54
@antred11
if rome didnt become an imperial policy it would have crumbled from internal weakness, IG these were the bureaucrats that fought eachother
tecna64 1 year ago
@antred11
I believe a lot of this was caused because of how the ranking system is general was laid out? Aristocrates were born to lead, and hardly any rank was gained by deeds, but rather by age and wealth.
I could be wrong too, I am not very familiar with Roman Generals.
Kulmataklaus 1 year ago
@antred11 Rome, the epitome of conspiracy and backstabbing.
NCWC2 1 year ago
@NCWC2 The most decadent and savage civilization of all time.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@antred11 They were the worst.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@antred11 they had reasons to be proud,just like Napoleon. :3
unurautare2 8 months ago
@unurautare2 yes he was the one Victor Hugo called "The Little Napoleon"
truvianni 7 months ago
Hannibal lost an eye due to conjunctivitis, which is not usually so serious and can often clear up by itself untreated. Perhaps the cure was worse than the disease.
Hendrikdevuile 3 years ago 41
@Hendrikdevuile
in those days when it looked like that they simply cut it out... simple as that
tecna64 1 year ago
@Hendrikdevuile Thank God for modern medicine.
NCWC2 1 year ago
@Hendrikdevuile
Interesting comment! I never thought of it that way .
rtstitan 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude u like love the 2nd punic war
theluandmegshow 3 years ago
huh?
whowantsabighug 3 years ago