Come on guys, if you all like RTW then start playing it online. no one goes online so i dont play online on it any more :( when i go on it there are only about 20 people on it.
I am glad Hannibal is remembered for the great commander that he is, and very glad he was not captured and taken to Rome as a prisoner; considering what they did to Vercingetorix (Gaulish chief)
@mo7217 Not always. Alexander the great was the best ever and he didn´t lose a single battle. Genghis Khan only lost some battles early in his career but after that he smashed his enemies. Caesar lost some little battles but won the most important ones.
But the tragic fate of Hannibal and Napoleon only makes their legend bigger.
@1999521 i know that, but hannibal was invincible beforehand, similarily with Napoleon (with exeptions), it could have gone either way, but they lost. am i correct in saying that Khan and Alexander did not parr off against great generals like Hannibal and Napoleon did? as in Napoleon's case he fought Wellesly, an equally great general and so on. dont get me wrong, Alexander, Ceasar and Genghis are brilliant.
@mo7217 Well, certainly that question is difficult. IMO Alexander was the best of all, and this fact was recongnised by every great general after him. As a conqueror, he was the best because he conquered more territory than Hannibal, or Caesar (Khan conquered more, but he had more time, dying at the age of 80),and, interesting fact, Alexander never lost.
Of course, I agree that he never had a serious match, but the size of the persian army made it up.
@1999521 i agree with you on all accounts but one, the persian army cannot be used as substitue to balance a poor general. the persians in every battle massively outnumbered their enemies, and still lost. like thermopyle and marathon, the greeks won due to the terrible quality of the persian army. Alexander's army was better than that of the greeks, and so makes the persian numberes even more negligable. Hannibal fought a well drilled and diciplined army, and crushed it outnumberd same with Nap.
@mo7217 I agree with you on Napoleon and Hannibal, but I think your underestimating Alexander´s genius. It´s true that Darius was a bad general, but Memnon of Rhodes and Porus were, at least, good generals. And you have to bear in mind the persians had many greek soldiers in their armies, also elephants and scythed chariots.
Regarding Hannibal, he was undoubtedly the second best. IMO, he losses points because he lost in Zama, and couldn´t take rome after Cannae. But it´s debatable.
@1999521 i never underestimated Alexander, if it semed so then dissregard that. i am a big fan of Alexander, but i just like the circumstance and "bad ass" attitude of Hannibal, having Crushed rome heavily outnumbered. the same goes for Napoleon, when he single handedly defeated all of Europe and its coalitions. I don't despise any of them, but i just like some more than others, simply personal preferance.
@mo7217 Yeah brother, I understand your position, and it´s very respectable. Surely, Alexander had a very important advantage that Hannibal lacked: he was king. And Napoleon had to face several super powers(although he had some allies), while Alexander only faced one. And Nap committed some serious mistakes.
But I think it´s still a subjective decision. It was nice talking to someone who likes military history like me :)
@DarkFilmDirector Yes, I said that in my rpevious message. He also suffered a serious defeat against Vercingetorix in Gergovia. But this defeats are exceptions, and after them he won stunning victories (Alesia, Pharsalus). And won the wars.
Bear in mind that when he lost, he always was seriously outnumbered.
The reason Hannibal could not take Rome was deceptively simple: he had not brought any siege engines with him! When, several years later, his brother marched over the Alps with an army and siege engines in an attempt to reinforce Hannibal and make it possible to take Rome, a Roman army intercepted and annihilated him. This was the first significant victory for Rome in the war, and not only doomed Hannibal to failure, but was also the war's turning point.
This is not how the battle was... Hannibals infantry flanked them on the sides like in a 90 degree angle, then the mercenaries, gauls etc attacked in front... Romans could just go backwards. Then the Cavalry charged in behind and killed the Romans. THey were totally LOCKED in! ( the cavalry had to charge then retreat and charge again for 4 hours before they were all dead ( excepy 11,000 which they took prisoners)
Fear GOD who hath power to cast you into HELL(Luke 12:5)! Fear God and depart from evil(Proverbs 3:7)! God is ANGRY with the wicked everyday(Psalm 7:11)! Jesus Christ is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, there is NO OTHER WAY to be saved(John 14:6)! For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved(John 3:17)! TURN FROM YOUR SINS AND SUBMIT 2 THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST NOW! DON'T BOAST OF HAVING TOMORROW! Proverbs 27:1
@Shroshoe Cannae is the last batte hardly lost by Romans until the end of the Empire. Hannibal was a great general, probably the greatest, but as one of his liutenants said: "You know how to win, but you don't want". Hannibal was defeated some year after Cannae in his own land by another great general: Scipione l'Africano. He was able to turn against Hannibal his own tactics.
Great video by the way zoso. Even though you only used Principes and no Hastati and no Gallic soldiers and Greek/Roman deserters soldiers for the Carthiginians. I like the 28 Days Later music theme you used. Went very well with the video.
Yes, this is a mod called Rome Total Realism. And you must have the original Rome Total War installed if you want to play the mod.
Go to google and look up Rome Total Realism and go to the twcenter (dot) net forum. Best Total War forum in my opinion. There you can find literally hundreds of mods for Rome Total War and the other TW games.
The Council of carthage made one huge misstake, not sending reinforcements to Italy mainland. They sent it instead to Sicily and Iberia (Spain) and the war was lost.
what a retarded comment... 'the Romans and Hannibal couldn't stand up to Alexander."
that's like saying Napoleon Bonaparte couldn't stand up to Julius Caesar, or Frederick Barbarossa couldn't stand up to Achilles and Agamemnon.
try comparing apples to apples maybe? Hannibal and Alexander's armies fought in different eras... they never fought the same opponents, so any comparisons are pointless speculation.
Agreed, not to mention the 150yrs of improvements in iron weapons manufacture. The Greek swords were so poor in comparison to the Roman that they often broke on first contact. The Seleucid Phalanx was far better than the Alexander version, as it had a century to learn adapt and improve, and it still didnt stand up to Roman republican Maniples.
Also the fact Hannibal had the full support of his men (except some of the Numidians) and Alexander eventually lost his men's support. And the fact that the Macedonians and Greeks were practically useless without him when it came to empires. Hannibal was a one of a kind leader. Alexander was good make no mistake, but his overconfidence led to many mistakes. It wasn't really Hannibal's fault Carthage lost. Rome was just to eager to wipe them out.
of course it wasn't Hannibal's fault, if anything he gave Carthage a chance to breath. it was the Carthaginian politicians that where responsible because they refused to support Hannibal's campaign in Italy fearing that he was becoming too popular which would undermine their own positions and power over carthage. in one hand they had the right to fear that but on the other hand Rome was a bigger enemy to carthage than Hannibal.
True. Well eventually they did send Hastrubal out with a suporting army of course, but he was caught between two Roman armies and massacred. Wasn't really his fault either. Just was outmanuevered.
Ya it wasnt Hannibal's fault it was Carthage's fault. They would not support him even after the battle of Cannae, and even though Hannibal came back to Africa to aid Carthage when the Romans came, Carthage still didn't fully support Hannibal... Now, had they waiten till the Romans were near the city of Carthage, and given Hannibal all of its soldiers, then Hannibal might have pulled through and if he had lost they would be close enough to Carthage to retreat back inside and defend inside the wal
Well they sent a force to Italy under his brother's command, but they became trapped in between two Roman armies and killed. What you said happened. Scipio had a better army and the Numidians support and half Hannibal's were new recruits.The battle was a bit like Cannae and Hannibal did make it to Carthage. Scipio arrived and said he didn't want him dead. Hannibal left an impression on him. However it wasn't long before Hannibal had to flee due to the Senate wanting his death and soon died sadly
It was partially the fault of Hannibal I think because he should have struck directly at Rome after this victory. I agree with all you said otherwise though.
Hannibal couldn't have attacked Rome. Pitched battles are very different from sieges, and as an attacker you need to outnumber by at least 3 to 2. Hannibal needed Carthages support butCarthage worried that by showing support to Hannibal, Rome would strike directly at Carthage. Unfortunately, either way, they were going to attack North Africa.
@dafansler Carthage had no sense of national identity. That's why I don't think Rome defeat Hannibal. I believe instead that the Roman system defeat the Carthaginian system.
At about 7:48 the poster of the video suggests that Rome could have Organized a breakout,and saved the battle. I disagree the Roman army was pressed together,and could not lift their swords effectively. Hard to organize something when your being disemboweled,and your buddy is getting his nuts cut off! It's easy to say such when your just watching a monitor in the comfort of your home.
Scipio used Hannibal way of do war. Without Cannae there is no Zama, both generals were more than great.
We could say that Scipio was the student than overhelm his master. But with Hannibal did in Cannae was just amazing, and in Zama, Hannibal wasnt in the best conditions for battle something similar to what happened to Napoleon in Waterloo.
Fully agree with Bonaparte. Scipio's win at Zama must rank equally with Hannibal's at Cannae. Scipio's army dealt embarrassingly easily with the elephants, which is a bonus compared to what Hannibal did at Cannae, which was fairly simple. If both consuls weren't idiots at Cannae, the Romans could have won or at least forced a stalemate - if only the triarii were on the flanks and not in the centre. The principes and hastati would've been enough to win there or fight to a draw
Wemust remember that Hanibal nearly won Cannae. Had the Roman cavalry not returned in time Scipio's army would have routed. hannibal also didnt have the qaulity of troops he required and was used to in Italy. He didnt have an Gallic and Italian allies with him. Instead he had raw conscripts the Carthaganian Senate provided him, supplimented by his own veterans.
you must have upgraded the Iberian Light Infantry to stand as long as they did against the Principes without routing...I always use Scutari to simulate the Celto-Iberian levies in the center..then book them with upgraded Libyan Heavy Infantry
the actual problem occurs when you try to make it so that the Carthaginian infantry lose at first then get even with the libyans and finally win with the cavalry strike.
Make the Iberian Infantry too strong and the Romans will rout relaively quickly.
Make the Iberian INfantry too weak and the center routs too quickly.
It's a fine balance that has to be maintained at all times, such as in this movie.
did you make this video and place all the units or is this recorded campaign level...if you made it...very skillfuly done i enjoyed it...lol....hard to believe this is a videogame
i think this battle is hannibals shining moment. I don't think any other general could've pulled of the kind of victory that hannibal did. Even though Scipio did beat him, i think if you compare Zama to Cannae, its like the difference between a Mace and a Katana. one is precise, and the other was a blugening match.
Zama was a brilliant victory. Scipio used the perfect combination of tactics and field strategy to outmanuever the greatest general of his day. He routed Hannibal's elephants and cavalry, and then attacked him from front and rear to win. If anything it was more brilliant than Cannae, since he was facing a great general with an excellent battle plan.
im inclined to disagree. I don't think the macedonian phalanx would've stood a very high chance of success against a well equiped and supplied Roman Legion. Alexander no doubt is the superior commander, but it doesn't matter how good you are, if your troops are slaughtered whole sale, it means diddly squat.
If rome tried to face alexander they would have lost.The phalanx can hold for a certain period and the only way the romans won was when the Macedonian left wasn't in formation. Alexander's well formed phalanx is a formidible wall when all in rank. look into history and you will realize that the romans were owned when they attacked a phalanx from the front. A lexander also had supperior cavalry and would sweep the romans from the field fool.
nhunter you are the one that needs to read in fact the roman legions marked the end of the macedonian phalanx as the dominant military tactical formation with a roman victory at the battle of Pydna I think you need to read more instead of basing your arguments on a video game.
dude, im not basing this of a video game! at the battle between rome and macedon, cynosephelae the battle was lost because they got behind the macedonian phalanx. From the front the phalanx held down teh romans. Anyone who knows anything about history also knowx there was a difference between Alexander's phalanx and PhilipV's!
No there wasn't in fact many of Alexander's phlangites were veterans of phillip's army. Btw Phillip was the one to evolve the phalanx from using 8ft spears to 21ft spears.
the phalanx had evolded oifcourse but my point is alexander also had the finest cavalry in the world as well has hypaspits which could stand up to a roman, besides it was not legionnaires who invaded but hastati, princepes, and triarii which couldn't break a phalanx from the front, if you look at the battles they fought the romans only won when they flanked, hypaspits prevent that, or when the phalanx broke up over uneven ground and alexander was 2 smart 4 that.
Alexander also had the thracian light infantry and peltasts and most of all the agrianian warriors. Hellenistic Macedonia usually lacked them after Thrace broke up. With them a polybian manipular legion could have been disrupted in their advance. And the phalanx might have been very good as a spear wall, but in hand to hand combat, with that small shield and less armour than the alexandrian one, they didn't stand a chance.
When I said 218 at the beginning, I was simply trying to set the stage for the Second Punic War, that's where my descriptions start. I made sure to put 216 at the start of the actual battle ate 1:46.
as you hate geschaft the Romans sent to you exactly as in real. I always make it a long snake. Why do the Romans so that the Carthaginian Center attack.
The revolution point of Cannae battle is the manoever of the infantry. The moon-like formation which face the front to the Romans is the bait (we can easily see that it's an completely defensive which can defends on all sides). But when the Romans come close, infantry at the center go back quickly, at the flank go black slightly. The moon-like formation which face forward now face backward and the Romans don't know they have fallen in the trap. Cavalry will be useless without that <_____<
nice vid.. however the river on the right side of the romans is missing, instead there are some trees. Now Varro chose this battleground exactly because it was an open area with no place for hannibal to hide surprises. but except for that, I liked the video.
if anyone wants to see where this footage is from, its the History Channel's "Decisive Victories of the Ancient World" a must see for any military history enthusiast
im not sure what EB is LOL. well i tried relism i didnt like it much because you cant really get the plate lirica segmentas lol. the game is before the reformatino of marius lol.
Europa Barbarorum. Which is another mod you wont like if you want lorica segmentata. LS as it is refered to did not come into any sort of widespread use until the some time first centuary AD which puts it out of Rome total Realism and Europa barbarorum's time frame. Thus making thier inclusion ahistorical.
RTR ends 14AD i think so does EB so there is little point in wasting a unit space for a soldier that would only appear briefly in the game at best.
varro and pauluss where the 2 consels for that year and where given the biggest roman army ever assembled pauluss had the right idea to find better ground for his cav to be at a disavantige but varro to the likeing of the senite preferred to fight qiuckjly and win by using his numbers.every day one of the 2 consels would take commanded of the army varro waited till his tern then attacked pauluss was killed in the first cav charge and varro was routed during the third the romans were defeated
hasdrubal and mago were told by political rival but head of the senite hanno the great to reinforce spain while mago stayed hasdrubal went to help hannibal he was about half way to rome when he meet scipio there was a huge battle altho a gr8 commander hasdrubal was outwitted and in the missed of the battle when it was 2 late hasdrubal had realised what had happend and it was 2 late so he charged the romans and was killed with this victory scipio ensured none would come to hannibals aid
The unit u guys are talking about is the RTR Pricipes units . Congrats on the video and the mod both are very well made !
One thing that not enlights me is why carthage didnt reinforce Hannibal thru spain (rome controlled the sea). They should have more resources at the time then rome , even with the rising of roman power . Indeed the only way to defeat hannibal was to fight like him .. and thats a piece of hystory ..
Carthage did hannibals brother came through spain with 60,000 men and 100 elephants but he was cut off by scipio and the romans defeated hannibals brother
The reason Carthage did not reinforce Hannibal was the fact that his political rival, Hanno the Great, lead the Carthaginian Senate. It was HIS decision to give aid to Spain, rather, than to Hannibal in Italy.
Third from what i'd read Hannibal's formation was a crescent - but facing towards the Romans , not away from it (convex not concave and gradually was pushed from convex to concave by the Romans pushing back the Gauls and Spaniards in the centre until it became concave - and after the Romans were surrounded some 10 or 20 thousand out of the 80,000 did cut their way out through Hannibal's centre and escaped.
Second Varro's legions were mostly totally inexperienced raw recruits (most of the Roman veterans had been killed by Hannibal at Trasimene and the Trebbia) while Hannibal's were mostly veterans of Spain and earlier Italian battles. So while Hannibal's plan was certainly brilliant it's likely he had the advantage that his troops were experienced and well trained enough to carry out these manouvres while Varro's were only really capable of frontal assault.
Varro may have drawn up the legions in such depth because there simply wasn't room between the river and the hills/coast to deploy 80,000 men in the normal depth and not just as a gamble to break Hannibal's centre quickly (though that was probably his best - if unlikely - hope of victory).
yes but he tactically put his weaker african infantry in the center cuz he knew they were gonna fall back then he put his alberian spearmen at the sides and cavalry atacked the back
i agree with nikly...caesar commanded the best army in the world when he fought the gauls...however hannibal had to lead the carthaginians (who were more traders than warriors) against the roman armies, and still couldn't be beaten
Actually, at first, Hannibal and his father, Hamilcar's, armies were about 85% Mercenaries, and then they had their troops. Carthaginian society was a lot like Spartan Society. And later, when he passed over the Alps, he (Hannibal) recruited the Gauls along with the Spanish. He destroyed the Romans in Italy, never loosing a sing battle on Italian soil. When Scipio attacked Carthage, however, he was forced to retreat. Hannibal's army was superior to the Rome's at the time.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont believe that the romans send a principes only Army into the battle.
There should be more Hastati than Prinicipes in this battle, because this army was fast recrtuted and the romans lost many older soldiers in the battles before ;).
to true it has bout double the amout of cities in it and changed the look of the units to more realistic and adds more units. And it streches the map to western India so the Seleucids have a massive empire to start. Rome is one faction and starts off with only 3 cities and Pyrrhus of Eiprus is on the southern coast ready to gobble u up. U can play as any faction in the game to start with
I learned something today. Dats why that quote said "Hannibal know how to gain victory, but he don't know how to use it." the romans gotten very lucky
Come on guys, if you all like RTW then start playing it online. no one goes online so i dont play online on it any more :( when i go on it there are only about 20 people on it.
EFC4L1F3 2 months ago
@EFC4L1F3 There only 20 people becouse Prince Of Macedon destroyed them! LOL He is the best!
allforable 2 weeks ago
Mo they lose because it's their LAST engagement
cascocat 2 months ago
I am glad Hannibal is remembered for the great commander that he is, and very glad he was not captured and taken to Rome as a prisoner; considering what they did to Vercingetorix (Gaulish chief)
TalonMercenary 8 months ago
Why do great generals always loose their last engagements? Like Nannibal and napoleon? Considering their past.
mo7217 8 months ago
@mo7217 Not always. Alexander the great was the best ever and he didn´t lose a single battle. Genghis Khan only lost some battles early in his career but after that he smashed his enemies. Caesar lost some little battles but won the most important ones.
But the tragic fate of Hannibal and Napoleon only makes their legend bigger.
1999521 7 months ago
@1999521 i know that, but hannibal was invincible beforehand, similarily with Napoleon (with exeptions), it could have gone either way, but they lost. am i correct in saying that Khan and Alexander did not parr off against great generals like Hannibal and Napoleon did? as in Napoleon's case he fought Wellesly, an equally great general and so on. dont get me wrong, Alexander, Ceasar and Genghis are brilliant.
mo7217 7 months ago
@mo7217 Well, certainly that question is difficult. IMO Alexander was the best of all, and this fact was recongnised by every great general after him. As a conqueror, he was the best because he conquered more territory than Hannibal, or Caesar (Khan conquered more, but he had more time, dying at the age of 80),and, interesting fact, Alexander never lost.
Of course, I agree that he never had a serious match, but the size of the persian army made it up.
1999521 7 months ago
@1999521 i agree with you on all accounts but one, the persian army cannot be used as substitue to balance a poor general. the persians in every battle massively outnumbered their enemies, and still lost. like thermopyle and marathon, the greeks won due to the terrible quality of the persian army. Alexander's army was better than that of the greeks, and so makes the persian numberes even more negligable. Hannibal fought a well drilled and diciplined army, and crushed it outnumberd same with Nap.
mo7217 7 months ago
@mo7217 I agree with you on Napoleon and Hannibal, but I think your underestimating Alexander´s genius. It´s true that Darius was a bad general, but Memnon of Rhodes and Porus were, at least, good generals. And you have to bear in mind the persians had many greek soldiers in their armies, also elephants and scythed chariots.
Regarding Hannibal, he was undoubtedly the second best. IMO, he losses points because he lost in Zama, and couldn´t take rome after Cannae. But it´s debatable.
1999521 7 months ago
@1999521 i never underestimated Alexander, if it semed so then dissregard that. i am a big fan of Alexander, but i just like the circumstance and "bad ass" attitude of Hannibal, having Crushed rome heavily outnumbered. the same goes for Napoleon, when he single handedly defeated all of Europe and its coalitions. I don't despise any of them, but i just like some more than others, simply personal preferance.
mo7217 7 months ago
@mo7217 Yeah brother, I understand your position, and it´s very respectable. Surely, Alexander had a very important advantage that Hannibal lacked: he was king. And Napoleon had to face several super powers(although he had some allies), while Alexander only faced one. And Nap committed some serious mistakes.
But I think it´s still a subjective decision. It was nice talking to someone who likes military history like me :)
1999521 6 months ago
@1999521 Caesar was outmaneuvered several times by Pompei early in the civil war.
DarkFilmDirector 7 months ago
@DarkFilmDirector Yes, I said that in my rpevious message. He also suffered a serious defeat against Vercingetorix in Gergovia. But this defeats are exceptions, and after them he won stunning victories (Alesia, Pharsalus). And won the wars.
Bear in mind that when he lost, he always was seriously outnumbered.
1999521 7 months ago
the music is great! where did you get it from?
jimmanzie1 11 months ago
this a rtw mod?
OmfgGamez 11 months ago
Dude Shadow of the Colossus music ftw!!!
drpwninator 11 months ago
Great music! Is this from RTR?
j00d00d 1 year ago
The reason Hannibal could not take Rome was deceptively simple: he had not brought any siege engines with him! When, several years later, his brother marched over the Alps with an army and siege engines in an attempt to reinforce Hannibal and make it possible to take Rome, a Roman army intercepted and annihilated him. This was the first significant victory for Rome in the war, and not only doomed Hannibal to failure, but was also the war's turning point.
SPQRules 1 year ago
Do you think Hannibal would enjoy playing Rome Total War?
armatageshanks66 1 year ago 4
@armatageshanks66 .He probably would find it confusing at first,
Theres the modern world to get to grips with first.
And real leaders march with their men and have to get food water for the troops raise morale etc.
Interesting question though.
Its my bet he would be totally briliant lol.
Is this music from "28 days later "at the start wher london is deserted?
Slightly different version to the film?
zenoist2 1 year ago
@armatageshanks66 Play it? Hannibal lived it! And tens of thousands of Romans died in it!
3baxcb 10 months ago
What music is being used in this vid?? I really liked the one with the guitar and drums.
ImThePutz 1 year ago
@ImThePutz I reckon its the same song as used in the film "28 days later"
Cillan Murphy is walking around a dead and deserted London at the start.
Sounds like a slightly different version though.
Look up 28 days later anyway.
zenoist2 1 year ago
This is not how the battle was... Hannibals infantry flanked them on the sides like in a 90 degree angle, then the mercenaries, gauls etc attacked in front... Romans could just go backwards. Then the Cavalry charged in behind and killed the Romans. THey were totally LOCKED in! ( the cavalry had to charge then retreat and charge again for 4 hours before they were all dead ( excepy 11,000 which they took prisoners)
2kydawe 1 year ago
4:35
Jumping horses.. WOOOOOO!!! :P
Legolasas26 1 year ago
I love it when a plan comes together.
73hd99w 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fear GOD who hath power to cast you into HELL(Luke 12:5)! Fear God and depart from evil(Proverbs 3:7)! God is ANGRY with the wicked everyday(Psalm 7:11)! Jesus Christ is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, there is NO OTHER WAY to be saved(John 14:6)! For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved(John 3:17)! TURN FROM YOUR SINS AND SUBMIT 2 THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST NOW! DON'T BOAST OF HAVING TOMORROW! Proverbs 27:1
over9000christian 1 year ago
crazy fact: Hannibal killed 70,000 Roman troops in a battlefield the size of Central Park in 6 hours now that's annihilation
gabarens 1 year ago
You did a Great Job! 5 stars!!
ALECSF15 1 year ago
so,the romans got owned in 3 battles with advantages?wow,I dont belive romans anymore,they appearantly cant figure out hannibals tactics
Shroshoe 1 year ago
hannible was brilliant strategist
dsettleascii 1 year ago
@Shroshoe Cannae is the last batte hardly lost by Romans until the end of the Empire. Hannibal was a great general, probably the greatest, but as one of his liutenants said: "You know how to win, but you don't want". Hannibal was defeated some year after Cannae in his own land by another great general: Scipione l'Africano. He was able to turn against Hannibal his own tactics.
EorlTheKing 1 year ago
but the romans get raped :(
Olekander 1 year ago
atleast they finnaly pillaged carthage
Shroshoe 1 year ago
@Shroshoe What a great day that was :).
Olekander 1 year ago
It is a perfect depiction...no flaws with the story I guess.
chokobytes 1 year ago
Great video by the way zoso. Even though you only used Principes and no Hastati and no Gallic soldiers and Greek/Roman deserters soldiers for the Carthiginians. I like the 28 Days Later music theme you used. Went very well with the video.
isamarine 1 year ago
hi guys i have a question.
1. how many free space (gb.) uses RTW or RTR.
2. is RTR a mod and if i want it to have first i got to get RTW?
3. where i can find it to download?
degtinesytes 2 years ago
It's like 3-5 GB if i recall correctly.
Yes, this is a mod called Rome Total Realism. And you must have the original Rome Total War installed if you want to play the mod.
Go to google and look up Rome Total Realism and go to the twcenter (dot) net forum. Best Total War forum in my opinion. There you can find literally hundreds of mods for Rome Total War and the other TW games.
isamarine 1 year ago
@isamarine thanks man
degtinesytes 1 year ago
this is weird yet awesome
Mrshockdude1 2 years ago
In the real battle didn't the Carthaginian cavalry attack only one flank? Or am I thinking of a different battle?
brokencasket 2 years ago 3
i think it was that the african mercenaries took out the flanks, the cavalry circled round the back
oniontaker2 2 years ago 3
yes and on the other where been numidian cavlary
Plinije1 2 years ago
they drove of the roman cavalry
rapidarrow4 2 years ago
Is this SPQR mod or EB???
212commandercody 2 years ago
can't everyone just get along :D:D
zoneforgamers 2 years ago
lol is the shadow of the colossus as background music?
XxChromeRavenxX 2 years ago
good work, nice video!
KawaKasper 2 years ago
Dude- this was awesome! I think this was a good kick in the pants to finish my Combat Mission Shock Force vid. Thanks!
falsebottom 2 years ago
how much soldiers did u use in the game 4000 really please tell
Hamzooz1195 2 years ago
I recognized the music from Shadow of the Colossus immediately, loved that game.
Truth118 2 years ago 2
great game and i think the second song is from 28 days later
ozoneboy7574 2 years ago
holy fck, that horse jumped high at 4:28
kelborn24 2 years ago
The Council of carthage made one huge misstake, not sending reinforcements to Italy mainland. They sent it instead to Sicily and Iberia (Spain) and the war was lost.
jakobthenpp 2 years ago
i had to write an essay on this, and it really helped...thanks
paigeswift54321 2 years ago
what a retarded comment... 'the Romans and Hannibal couldn't stand up to Alexander."
that's like saying Napoleon Bonaparte couldn't stand up to Julius Caesar, or Frederick Barbarossa couldn't stand up to Achilles and Agamemnon.
try comparing apples to apples maybe? Hannibal and Alexander's armies fought in different eras... they never fought the same opponents, so any comparisons are pointless speculation.
vjd55 2 years ago
Agreed, not to mention the 150yrs of improvements in iron weapons manufacture. The Greek swords were so poor in comparison to the Roman that they often broke on first contact. The Seleucid Phalanx was far better than the Alexander version, as it had a century to learn adapt and improve, and it still didnt stand up to Roman republican Maniples.
LouisPlume 2 years ago
excellent comment
drogoth25 2 years ago
Also the fact Hannibal had the full support of his men (except some of the Numidians) and Alexander eventually lost his men's support. And the fact that the Macedonians and Greeks were practically useless without him when it came to empires. Hannibal was a one of a kind leader. Alexander was good make no mistake, but his overconfidence led to many mistakes. It wasn't really Hannibal's fault Carthage lost. Rome was just to eager to wipe them out.
balrog13571 2 years ago
of course it wasn't Hannibal's fault, if anything he gave Carthage a chance to breath. it was the Carthaginian politicians that where responsible because they refused to support Hannibal's campaign in Italy fearing that he was becoming too popular which would undermine their own positions and power over carthage. in one hand they had the right to fear that but on the other hand Rome was a bigger enemy to carthage than Hannibal.
revankader 2 years ago
True. Well eventually they did send Hastrubal out with a suporting army of course, but he was caught between two Roman armies and massacred. Wasn't really his fault either. Just was outmanuevered.
balrog13571 2 years ago
Ya it wasnt Hannibal's fault it was Carthage's fault. They would not support him even after the battle of Cannae, and even though Hannibal came back to Africa to aid Carthage when the Romans came, Carthage still didn't fully support Hannibal... Now, had they waiten till the Romans were near the city of Carthage, and given Hannibal all of its soldiers, then Hannibal might have pulled through and if he had lost they would be close enough to Carthage to retreat back inside and defend inside the wal
dafansler 2 years ago 12
Well they sent a force to Italy under his brother's command, but they became trapped in between two Roman armies and killed. What you said happened. Scipio had a better army and the Numidians support and half Hannibal's were new recruits.The battle was a bit like Cannae and Hannibal did make it to Carthage. Scipio arrived and said he didn't want him dead. Hannibal left an impression on him. However it wasn't long before Hannibal had to flee due to the Senate wanting his death and soon died sadly
balrog13571 2 years ago
It was partially the fault of Hannibal I think because he should have struck directly at Rome after this victory. I agree with all you said otherwise though.
GodwinCarpenter 2 years ago
Hannibal couldn't have attacked Rome. Pitched battles are very different from sieges, and as an attacker you need to outnumber by at least 3 to 2. Hannibal needed Carthages support butCarthage worried that by showing support to Hannibal, Rome would strike directly at Carthage. Unfortunately, either way, they were going to attack North Africa.
EmperorHarold 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong what you say is absolutly correct, it is only in retrospect that we can say he should have attacked Rome.
GodwinCarpenter 2 years ago
@dafansler Carthage had no sense of national identity. That's why I don't think Rome defeat Hannibal. I believe instead that the Roman system defeat the Carthaginian system.
petion2010 1 year ago
@dafansler The world would have been different if Carthage did support Hannibal.
2kydawe 1 year ago
@dafansler Masinissa of Numidia betrayed Hannibal, that's why he lost at Zama.
GuitarDestroyer77777 17 hours ago
ugly battle, with ugly units. And nooby video, Units witch banners hahahaha...
PlautusLeonard 2 years ago
At about 7:48 the poster of the video suggests that Rome could have Organized a breakout,and saved the battle. I disagree the Roman army was pressed together,and could not lift their swords effectively. Hard to organize something when your being disemboweled,and your buddy is getting his nuts cut off! It's easy to say such when your just watching a monitor in the comfort of your home.
Nubias 2 years ago
looks like a fun game
nice video
5/5
Wordup94 3 years ago
Scipio used Hannibal way of do war. Without Cannae there is no Zama, both generals were more than great.
We could say that Scipio was the student than overhelm his master. But with Hannibal did in Cannae was just amazing, and in Zama, Hannibal wasnt in the best conditions for battle something similar to what happened to Napoleon in Waterloo.
Sirsesshaku 3 years ago
Fully agree with Bonaparte. Scipio's win at Zama must rank equally with Hannibal's at Cannae. Scipio's army dealt embarrassingly easily with the elephants, which is a bonus compared to what Hannibal did at Cannae, which was fairly simple. If both consuls weren't idiots at Cannae, the Romans could have won or at least forced a stalemate - if only the triarii were on the flanks and not in the centre. The principes and hastati would've been enough to win there or fight to a draw
DimboTel 3 years ago
Wemust remember that Hanibal nearly won Cannae. Had the Roman cavalry not returned in time Scipio's army would have routed. hannibal also didnt have the qaulity of troops he required and was used to in Italy. He didnt have an Gallic and Italian allies with him. Instead he had raw conscripts the Carthaganian Senate provided him, supplimented by his own veterans.
dukeofcanada 3 years ago
i think u mean zama.
blaisejones 3 years ago
hannibal did win cannae
whowantsabighug 3 years ago
you must have upgraded the Iberian Light Infantry to stand as long as they did against the Principes without routing...I always use Scutari to simulate the Celto-Iberian levies in the center..then book them with upgraded Libyan Heavy Infantry
malevolentintellect 3 years ago
the actual problem occurs when you try to make it so that the Carthaginian infantry lose at first then get even with the libyans and finally win with the cavalry strike.
Make the Iberian Infantry too strong and the Romans will rout relaively quickly.
Make the Iberian INfantry too weak and the center routs too quickly.
It's a fine balance that has to be maintained at all times, such as in this movie.
countryfan8 3 years ago
Hannibal was simply brilliant.
LordVoldemort1987 3 years ago 15
agreed full-heartedly
countryfan8 3 years ago
did you make this video and place all the units or is this recorded campaign level...if you made it...very skillfuly done i enjoyed it...lol....hard to believe this is a videogame
spykiller13 3 years ago
is this Rome total war?
Geoboss1000 3 years ago
it's a mod on RTW, yes.
RmonSP 3 years ago
What mod is it?
findus3d 3 years ago
Rome Total Realism
countryfan8 3 years ago
i think this battle is hannibals shining moment. I don't think any other general could've pulled of the kind of victory that hannibal did. Even though Scipio did beat him, i think if you compare Zama to Cannae, its like the difference between a Mace and a Katana. one is precise, and the other was a blugening match.
Harrisfan010 3 years ago
Zama was a brilliant victory. Scipio used the perfect combination of tactics and field strategy to outmanuever the greatest general of his day. He routed Hannibal's elephants and cavalry, and then attacked him from front and rear to win. If anything it was more brilliant than Cannae, since he was facing a great general with an excellent battle plan.
01bonaparte06 3 years ago
Alexander the great could have pulled this off easy. The romans couldn't stand up against him and niether could hannibal.
nhunter713 3 years ago
im inclined to disagree. I don't think the macedonian phalanx would've stood a very high chance of success against a well equiped and supplied Roman Legion. Alexander no doubt is the superior commander, but it doesn't matter how good you are, if your troops are slaughtered whole sale, it means diddly squat.
Harrisfan010 2 years ago 4
If rome tried to face alexander they would have lost.The phalanx can hold for a certain period and the only way the romans won was when the Macedonian left wasn't in formation. Alexander's well formed phalanx is a formidible wall when all in rank. look into history and you will realize that the romans were owned when they attacked a phalanx from the front. A lexander also had supperior cavalry and would sweep the romans from the field fool.
nhunter713 2 years ago
nhunter you are the one that needs to read in fact the roman legions marked the end of the macedonian phalanx as the dominant military tactical formation with a roman victory at the battle of Pydna I think you need to read more instead of basing your arguments on a video game.
tlatoani3 2 years ago
dude, im not basing this of a video game! at the battle between rome and macedon, cynosephelae the battle was lost because they got behind the macedonian phalanx. From the front the phalanx held down teh romans. Anyone who knows anything about history also knowx there was a difference between Alexander's phalanx and PhilipV's!
nhunter713 2 years ago
No there wasn't in fact many of Alexander's phlangites were veterans of phillip's army. Btw Phillip was the one to evolve the phalanx from using 8ft spears to 21ft spears.
Antiochus45 2 years ago
philipII was Alexander's father put phillip V was the last king of Macedon.
nhunter713 2 years ago
actually andriscus wa the last 'king' of macedon
bonaparte60 2 years ago
yes but he had no power and his kingdom was already crumbling, there were also a lot of andriscuses
nhunter713 2 years ago
What does that have to do with anything all i was trying to explain was the evolution of the phalanx
Antiochus45 2 years ago
the phalanx had evolded oifcourse but my point is alexander also had the finest cavalry in the world as well has hypaspits which could stand up to a roman, besides it was not legionnaires who invaded but hastati, princepes, and triarii which couldn't break a phalanx from the front, if you look at the battles they fought the romans only won when they flanked, hypaspits prevent that, or when the phalanx broke up over uneven ground and alexander was 2 smart 4 that.
nhunter713 2 years ago
Alexander also had the thracian light infantry and peltasts and most of all the agrianian warriors. Hellenistic Macedonia usually lacked them after Thrace broke up. With them a polybian manipular legion could have been disrupted in their advance. And the phalanx might have been very good as a spear wall, but in hand to hand combat, with that small shield and less armour than the alexandrian one, they didn't stand a chance.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
good job!
InfidelFromHell 3 years ago
History is fascinating. I wish i took more of an interest in it at school.
The rise and fall of the roman empire is amazing, and makes Iraq/Afghanistan look like a picnic in comparison.
crazymoo56 3 years ago
yeah but back then half a war could be one battle :P
redsplash168 3 years ago
Just think, more romans died at cannae than americans died throught the entire vietnam war. It was a massacre
gimile75 3 years ago 5
NOT TRUE OVER 100,000 AMERICAINS DIED FOOL and romasn lost around 79000
nhunter713 3 years ago
Shadow of the Colosus music = win! Great video.
Unwardil 3 years ago
great video but the battle was in 216bc not 218bc
GenCeasar 3 years ago 2
When I said 218 at the beginning, I was simply trying to set the stage for the Second Punic War, that's where my descriptions start. I made sure to put 216 at the start of the actual battle ate 1:46.
zoso820 3 years ago 5
@GenCeasar właśnie kurwa:D
MarcinekAlSid 1 year ago
amazing video man
thanks
KyleRandalls 3 years ago
soundtrack is from shadow of the colossus video game
alainaiso 3 years ago
where are the hastati and triarii? looks like only principes. anyways, good movie.
blaisejones 3 years ago
as you hate geschaft the Romans sent to you exactly as in real. I always make it a long snake. Why do the Romans so that the Carthaginian Center attack.
OsmanRTW 3 years ago
wow this battle must have been really hard to reenact. awesome job
kuroiya88 3 years ago 4
The revolution point of Cannae battle is the manoever of the infantry. The moon-like formation which face the front to the Romans is the bait (we can easily see that it's an completely defensive which can defends on all sides). But when the Romans come close, infantry at the center go back quickly, at the flank go black slightly. The moon-like formation which face forward now face backward and the Romans don't know they have fallen in the trap. Cavalry will be useless without that <_____<
Katene13 3 years ago
cannae was a crushing victory however indecisive
tempest705 3 years ago 4
nice vid.. however the river on the right side of the romans is missing, instead there are some trees. Now Varro chose this battleground exactly because it was an open area with no place for hannibal to hide surprises. but except for that, I liked the video.
Bjarkson 3 years ago
if anyone wants to see where this footage is from, its the History Channel's "Decisive Victories of the Ancient World" a must see for any military history enthusiast
batman311 3 years ago 2
Thanx man!
makeavelyck 3 years ago
battle of cannae was 216 b.c.
batman311 3 years ago
HAnnibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it.
jcgilbert 3 years ago
Simply amazing! Brilliant!
Mehow80 3 years ago
hannibal had an army big enough, but he lacked siege equipment and engineers
tempest705 3 years ago
Hsnnibal by some accounts never really wanted to destroy rome just humiliate rome and make rome powerless
tempest705 3 years ago
Is in Rome-Total War Realism Mod this battle in Historic battles ???
OsmanRTW 3 years ago
ow ok I only thought that one that i mentioned was more known for people but I didn't know that so thumbs up
mikeyboy777777 3 years ago
just to make it historical correct hamilkar barca said to his son hannibal barca to never give the romans a moment of rest
mikeyboy777777 3 years ago
Is in Rome-Total War Realism Mod this battle in Historic battles ???
OsmanRTW 3 years ago
awesome video
nilkly 3 years ago
what mod of rome rtotal war is that?
gester27 3 years ago
Rome Total Realism
Student232 3 years ago
really? i thought it was roma serrectum.
gester27 3 years ago
Im pretty sure they are RTR Principes. Been awhile since i played RTR though im an EB player myself.
Student232 3 years ago
im not sure what EB is LOL. well i tried relism i didnt like it much because you cant really get the plate lirica segmentas lol. the game is before the reformatino of marius lol.
gester27 3 years ago
Europa Barbarorum. Which is another mod you wont like if you want lorica segmentata. LS as it is refered to did not come into any sort of widespread use until the some time first centuary AD which puts it out of Rome total Realism and Europa barbarorum's time frame. Thus making thier inclusion ahistorical.
RTR ends 14AD i think so does EB so there is little point in wasting a unit space for a soldier that would only appear briefly in the game at best.
Student232 3 years ago
varro and pauluss where the 2 consels for that year and where given the biggest roman army ever assembled pauluss had the right idea to find better ground for his cav to be at a disavantige but varro to the likeing of the senite preferred to fight qiuckjly and win by using his numbers.every day one of the 2 consels would take commanded of the army varro waited till his tern then attacked pauluss was killed in the first cav charge and varro was routed during the third the romans were defeated
darthrevan10 3 years ago
hasdrubal and mago were told by political rival but head of the senite hanno the great to reinforce spain while mago stayed hasdrubal went to help hannibal he was about half way to rome when he meet scipio there was a huge battle altho a gr8 commander hasdrubal was outwitted and in the missed of the battle when it was 2 late hasdrubal had realised what had happend and it was 2 late so he charged the romans and was killed with this victory scipio ensured none would come to hannibals aid
darthrevan10 3 years ago
great video well done
villarreal8 3 years ago
nicely done ;) can you tell me how you made the romans charge in that way, did you do it online or what?
Mammoth1993 3 years ago
The unit u guys are talking about is the RTR Pricipes units . Congrats on the video and the mod both are very well made !
One thing that not enlights me is why carthage didnt reinforce Hannibal thru spain (rome controlled the sea). They should have more resources at the time then rome , even with the rising of roman power . Indeed the only way to defeat hannibal was to fight like him .. and thats a piece of hystory ..
Krushinbrit 3 years ago
Carthage did hannibals brother came through spain with 60,000 men and 100 elephants but he was cut off by scipio and the romans defeated hannibals brother
dudders28 3 years ago
The reason Carthage did not reinforce Hannibal was the fact that his political rival, Hanno the Great, lead the Carthaginian Senate. It was HIS decision to give aid to Spain, rather, than to Hannibal in Italy.
countryfan8 3 years ago
I don't actualy understaND THAT WITH "DEEPER FORMATION" Did you mean like close to eachother ?
saggsett 3 years ago
No with thicker lines
Ojf119 3 years ago
Third from what i'd read Hannibal's formation was a crescent - but facing towards the Romans , not away from it (convex not concave and gradually was pushed from convex to concave by the Romans pushing back the Gauls and Spaniards in the centre until it became concave - and after the Romans were surrounded some 10 or 20 thousand out of the 80,000 did cut their way out through Hannibal's centre and escaped.
DuncanMMcFarlane 3 years ago 3
Second Varro's legions were mostly totally inexperienced raw recruits (most of the Roman veterans had been killed by Hannibal at Trasimene and the Trebbia) while Hannibal's were mostly veterans of Spain and earlier Italian battles. So while Hannibal's plan was certainly brilliant it's likely he had the advantage that his troops were experienced and well trained enough to carry out these manouvres while Varro's were only really capable of frontal assault.
DuncanMMcFarlane 3 years ago
Well done on making this video.
Varro may have drawn up the legions in such depth because there simply wasn't room between the river and the hills/coast to deploy 80,000 men in the normal depth and not just as a gamble to break Hannibal's centre quickly (though that was probably his best - if unlikely - hope of victory).
DuncanMMcFarlane 3 years ago
does anyone know were that photo is from at 9.25?
NEBSLIKA 3 years ago
how can you youse this type of roman unit
Arash2650 3 years ago
The video was used with the Total Realism mod, so I guess it's a reskinning of the Principes or Hastati unit.
ArbiterofChaos 3 years ago
Search on google Rome total realism there they show you how to get this skins :)
saggsett 3 years ago
Very good vidio its like the real hannibal film!
Arash2650 3 years ago
Fantastic! I didn't knew that this battle has fought on the day of my birthday (august 2nd) :DD GO HANNIBAL
XeliadX 3 years ago
true, the romans had full chainarmor, but most other factions only had linen, but at the best leather armor, and a dagger. sheild
enkopingsbo 3 years ago
the greatest battle ever
jaybarca 3 years ago
Great reconstruction dude; congrats
waw460 3 years ago
whats the 2nd song played cus at 5:32 it fits amazingly with the music
minceanator 3 years ago
hannibal wuz a genius but against ceaser he woudeve lost
T5YFM 3 years ago 3
idk about that but he might have won cuz he was also very strong
zelda6991 3 years ago
yes but he tactically put his weaker african infantry in the center cuz he knew they were gonna fall back then he put his alberian spearmen at the sides and cavalry atacked the back
tecna64 3 years ago
idk about that but he might have won cuz he was also very strong
zelda6991 3 years ago
i disagree most of ceasers sucsess came from how fucking stronger rome was then everyone else and a LOT of luck
hanable would have kicked his ass easy
nilkly 3 years ago
i agree with nikly...caesar commanded the best army in the world when he fought the gauls...however hannibal had to lead the carthaginians (who were more traders than warriors) against the roman armies, and still couldn't be beaten
bantinhigh 3 years ago
Actually, at first, Hannibal and his father, Hamilcar's, armies were about 85% Mercenaries, and then they had their troops. Carthaginian society was a lot like Spartan Society. And later, when he passed over the Alps, he (Hannibal) recruited the Gauls along with the Spanish. He destroyed the Romans in Italy, never loosing a sing battle on Italian soil. When Scipio attacked Carthage, however, he was forced to retreat. Hannibal's army was superior to the Rome's at the time.
dudewithfood12345 3 years ago
Hannnibal was a genius no doubt about it
tinaismyname95 3 years ago 2
Hannnibal was a genius no doubt about it
tinaismyname95 3 years ago
Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont believe that the romans send a principes only Army into the battle.
There should be more Hastati than Prinicipes in this battle, because this army was fast recrtuted and the romans lost many older soldiers in the battles before ;).
BadHobbid 3 years ago
why don't you show a you down view so we can see the encirlment. i just looks like any battle from close up
Waterboarder25 3 years ago
what does total realism mod do anyway
zelda6991 4 years ago
tries to add realism to the units and more cities
Ojf3 4 years ago
to true it has bout double the amout of cities in it and changed the look of the units to more realistic and adds more units. And it streches the map to western India so the Seleucids have a massive empire to start. Rome is one faction and starts off with only 3 cities and Pyrrhus of Eiprus is on the southern coast ready to gobble u up. U can play as any faction in the game to start with
shootie894 4 years ago
This video rawks.
fatuesque 4 years ago 3
can someone please tell me how to install skins for rome total war?
issday 4 years ago 2
There not skins, its a mod...
richb89 4 years ago
I learned something today. Dats why that quote said "Hannibal know how to gain victory, but he don't know how to use it." the romans gotten very lucky
emoasianboy 4 years ago
where can i get rome total war realism??? it looks like a great game
Brutius78 4 years ago