@BatkoMahnovets he didn't say he had no siege equipment. He said he is not a barbarian to go and ravage Rome. watch the movie again. That is why he's stupid cauze he thinks too highly of himself.
Sorry saigonj I was commenting the RL not the movie. Just think about how they sieged and destroyed completely the largest city in Iberia at that time, Sagentum it never ever recovered itself. So its silly they make Hannibal talk that way in the movie, he already did that many times plus dont forget he swore to destroy Rome, so if he had a siege equipment - no Roman empire to talk about for us.
There is a possibilty that Africanus and Hannibal met again, later in Seleucia.
had scipio ever fought hannibal with equal forces hannibal would have crushed him. Hannibals forces werent trained and couldnt support his strategies to the capacity needed to win. scipio learnd and was smart sure but hannibal is simply better and didnt need ten years of defeat to learn how to be a tactician. Hannibal is the best miltary tactician of all time and scipio is somewhat overrated
So having 20 k more man and great number of elefants wasn't enough?
The key to the victory at that battle was the "cavalry". The same cavalry Hannibal wasn't alowed to bring because the Carthage *senate* wont sent him the number needed to fight.
Scipio had to raise his army almost himself, Fabio did everything possible so he couldn't get the regular legions.
Scipio went to Sicily and retook the *damned* 2 legions whom survive from Cannae 10 years earlier and were ban*.
The Carthage *senate* wont sent the number of transport ships to get all Hannibals cavalry.
Scipio made a brilliant campaign in Spain as an Imperae(when you are a military commander of a legion and you are not a Consul). No one else wanted to go to fight in Hispania.
The last to fight there were his father and his uncle whom both died in Hispania fighting Hannibals brothers and their iberoceltic allies.
Hannibal should have never engaged in battle against scipio. He should have used Fabius' tactics of delay and hid behind the carthage walls. Scipio, like Hannibal had no siege weapons to harm the city and as evidenced by the Third Punic War, it took the Romans 3 years to conquer the city without any weapons and i'm sure Hannibal would have been able to hold them off until a more favourable peace treaty would be negotiated with the Romans.
@moonerjamerson I dunno, its hard to even consider that he would have hidden inside the walls and refuse to face the hated romans. he couldnt know scipio would copy him. i think the problem lied with spain and carthage. they should have fought in spain, and carthage should have given him support all the way.
@spoukas Most definately, but as of that moment when Hannibal came back to Carthage I personally believe he should have went on the defensive inside the carthiginian wall.
Another thing about Hannibal not attacking Rome directly - which they don`t mention at all - is the lack of sea power by Carthage during the second war. ALL THE TIME Rome was able to resupply themselves just ? `cause they had the naval superiority. Does not make much sense besieging a city that has endless supplies, na?
I kind hate that history blame him for not attack Rome. General like him didn't attack must be have good reasons. I think the y should blame the politic back in home didn't send the troop or resupply that he needed. why don't they get blame? they didn't provide the army Hannibal the army he asked.
@ziggy577 Though the Romans in Britain ended up being conquered by the German tribe called the Angles, who brought to Britain their primitive Germanic language then called Angleish. now called English.
Hannibal was a great general of Africa. If you ever see the movie "Patton", Patton the time to go off the main road while fighting the Germans in Africa to respect the ancient battle field between Carthage & Rome. Let us remember that Egypt and Carthage were great civilizations of the African continent.
Do you really believe this documentary based on Roman historical account to the extent that Hannibal did not attack Rome out or mercy? Are you fucking crazy? Do you really think that kind of mentality would have got him that far across the Alpes? No sir, he lived his entire life with the sole dream of annhilating the Roman Republic and that included erazing Rome off the map. The only reason he did not attack Rome is because he did not have enough men left to invade it with.
@UnitedKorean Not just that....he wanted Rome to surrender....Rome didn't surrender...kill an enemy and breaking an enemy are two diffrent things. He wanted to break the Romans, he failed and instead make there reselve harder.
"Hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use."
@UnitedKorean Not just that....he wanted Rome to surrender....Rome didn't surrender...kill an enemy and breaking an enemy are two diffrent things. He wanted to break the Romans, he failed and instead make there reselve harder.
"Hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use it."
@UnitedKorean HERE HERE!! I totally agree, Hannibal never could have laid siege to rome, his army had no siege train and he didn't have nearly enough men. But I think Hannibal's goal was just to destroy the Roman confederation, I think he wanted to reduce Rome to just another petty city state in Italy.
That's what I think, and most scholars. Hannibal didn't envision the destruction of Rome as Polybius records the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon, in which it clearly states Rome would exist as a regional power.
That's not to say he wouldn't have taken Rome if he could...
Actaully, that's quite a common misconception. Hannibal made use of siege engines throughout his campaign in Italy. He simply built them on the spot.
@kivati Hannbal had no siege train. Taking Saguntum was a challenge, and can you imagine trying to take a siege train through the alps of Northern Italy? I have never heard of Hannibal besieging a major city like Rome.
Of course he had a siege train. He left it behind for the alps journey, then simply built new engines for when he laid siege in Italy. There is abundant evidence that Hannibal used siege weapons throughout his Italian campaign, building them when needed. Appian mentions siege engines in Hannibal's attack on the town of Petilia shortly after the battle of Cannae (App. Hann. 5.29). Livy makes mention of various different siege machinery.
@kivati You sound more informed than me. Have you read all these sources? If so I am glad to meet another Roman enthusiast. Read Nigel Bagnall's "The Punic Wars" in it he goes into depth why Hannibal had no siege train. It is a pretty interesting book. My point is Hannibal never had a chance to take Rome, he may have taken cities like Cumae and Nola but Rome would have been a very difficult city to siege with an army of 30,000 in hostile territory.
I've read a lot recently (about 30 books from ancient to modern sources). You're correct about Rome - Hannibal simply didn't have the men to lay siege or assault it.
One attempt at capturing Nola in 216 BC, Hannibal ordered his men to bring up the equipment needed for an assault of the town (Livy. 21.16.11-12). The assault failed, but he moved onto Acerrae, where he again made siege and assault preparations. The town was circumvalleted and the town was captured (Livy 23.17.4-6). Later that year Hannibal used mantelets and dug saps when he assaulted Casilinum (Livy. 23.18.8-9).
The following year he had to wait for a day in his attempt to capture Cumae as he had to bring up the necessary equipment from camp (Livy. 23.36.5-8). When he assaulted the town, he made use of a high wooden tower against the wall. He also used artillery and siege engines against the citadel of Tarentum. His siege capability was not as bad as historians make out, and he did infact storm a few places, and it is only the ones he failed to take that gets attention.
it was the roman ability to muster army after army that was hannibals undoing.. he didnt account for that. Italy was a very urban country with dense populations thus allowing many armies to be created out of the populace. Hannibal should have went straight for Rome when he was strongest..
What's the gist of the ancient warfare: he who has more elefants - loses (given the enemy infantry doesn't consist of too impressive peasants and Greenpeace activists).
Hannibal was lucky in Italy to have too little of elefants left.
The same thing as with tanks in the WWII: the more you have, the more you tend to use for a direct assault, the more you lose if the enemy infantry just isn't shocked by the sight.
What's sad, they completely exterminated a whole specie of North African elefants.
I think, if Hannibal had attempted to assault Rome itself, it woulda been over much earlier for him.
What made him victorious was his tactical genius, of course, and the supremacy of his cavalry. Which is quite useless at the streets of a large city against determined and sturdy Roman infantry, while it cannot be outmaneuvered (and you can hardly be in charge of the battle at all in such conditions).
That would be like, say, Stalingrad for Hannibal, and he understood it, being a genius he was.
In the end then Hannibal wasnt ruthless enough, though that is a weakness in war, it shows he was human and not a blood thirsty monster, like the roman empire would become.
Even at the very last moment of Hannibal life , he was recorded to be saying if i had only had more elephants to defeat, i could have defeated them,,,
@ilums50 100% agree... I agree. Thats shame, people just wanna go home becose they think they survive there :I If war would come, i would join army to defend my country! Altough, i MUST join army anw, here in Finland we have conscription. I think thats good
Hannibal could of easily destroyed Rome, he had his revenge, he wasn't going to destroy a whole empire just to make a point. I admire that, I would have done differently.
@escfromsam Oh sure you're absolutely right, I don’t think Greek civilization would've not existed if it hadn't been for the Phoenician or even Western culture as a matter of a fact quite the contrary, all I'm saying is that one can't help but wonder if things would’ve evolved as the way we know them now, because everything existing in the present owes something to the past, sometimes Westerns tend to be a bit ethnocentric and imagine that the earth was an empty planet before the Greeks.
@escfromsam Perhaps, History would've been different however don't underestimate Phoenician culture as it was a highly refined and developed culture, and although Romans considered them as barbaric don't forget that alphabet comes from the Phoenicians and without it there would be no language which means no civilization which means probably no the Roman Empire, so in reality it all comes in full circle it's just that History unfortunately for Hannibal and his people only credits the winners.
It's funny to see that in life the only thing that truly counts is the finishing touch...the rest is insignificant, Hannibal learned it the hard way...
Also Hannibal was captured by the Romans and " no roman will lay his dirty hands on me@ and he pulled out his sword and slit his throat, not dying of poison
i dont deny that hannibal was smart but i think some of the numbers in the battles were way over exagerrated to make scipio look like a military genius also
@4000marco It was normal at that time animal cruelty was not thought about much as it was thought about today. The Romans use to set pigs on fire to scare the elephants away and plus you get free pork chops :-)
this conversations probably mostly made up, what hannibal said to scipio according to historians was that basically fate was cruel and could change quickly as it did for him in italy and he was basically asking for a fair truce and not to tempt his own fate with a battle or something to that effect
The problem with Hannibal, as was the problem with the Roman generals prior to Scipio, was predictability. In many ways, Scipio had switched roles with Hannibal.
Now, it was Hannibal who could not predict Scipio, while Scipio could read Hannibal.
Hannibal's real genius was that he was the FIRST to innovate his own tactics and successful fighting style. Scipio showed that you don't have to be a genius to win; you just have to be willing to learn from your mistakes.
Maybe. But Rome also caused one of the darkest periods in history, a great and terrible dark age, which was caused by the catholic church and their blasphemic traditions. If there were no agressive romans, and instead peaceful carthaginians, Nazareth probably wouldn't be terrorized by Roman taxes, and thus Jesus would be bored.
After that , Jews would stay in Israel, thus making Germans not angry and not causing world war 2. It would be all weird.
Even though I believe the Holocaust to be exaggerated, I still don't think it was right what Hitler did to all of those families. He was looking for an idea to blame, but he blamed a whole group of people instead.
@alexross8 u know nothing. Jews never made the germans angry. They didnt "make" anything to create anger. The reason why they were persecuted was hitler´s madness.
And i dont think he was only looking for someone to blame, for that he had the communists etc.
Most of the german jews he killed were real germans, had jobs, didnt do anything etc... And i dont think, that the holocaust is exaggerated, 6 million dead jews and all the stuff( gas chambers etc) speak for their own, and cant be negotiated
It wasn't Hitler's madness that caused everyone to despise the Jews. It were the common people that made Hitler and everyone else despise the Jews. The Jews were the minority group, yet the media and the wealth was comprised of mostly Jewish people. After the war ended, the death tolls were up to 4 million, then they went up to 5 million, and now people are claiming 6 million. Regardless, I am not supporting Hitler.
@alexross8 as hannibal said faith can change quickly, every small decision no matter how utterly uninportant has had a small effect on the future, thus the bigger ones had alot of effect and 1 small difference would completely change the world as we know it today. if there hadn't been a ww2 when we had had it, it could of happened at another place and time, same thing about the holocaust and several other historical events. but i think you get my point. ur right about the church as wel btw
Well... Being beaten by your very own tactics, the tactics that prevent you from losing for many years of battle, that's not that bad of an ending for a great general
@TheDarkFrontier if he knew the romans were going to do that then yes. then agen if his elephents were closer together then they could be sirounded still
@0pointoreoccuring1 I see! As a writer myself, I will be very respectful of that, don't worry. I'll just say "A man on youtube said: " in political debates :P
what a great movie.i guess evil won finally in this one(rome).thanks goodness it was this actor and not vin diesel who would have ruined it.maybe hannibal can come back &save america from the people running it?only kidding...
@0pointoreoccuring1 "Civilisation is just organised barbarity" Who's that line from? I know lots of quotes, but that one is pure genius! Congrats to you if it's from you. Can I use it sometimes? :P
dude hannibal knew he wasnt goning to win zama, he got thrown into the mix by his government and had only so much to work with, and that little piece of numidians shit massinissa, only one day late and the odds would have been evened
I find it funny that the film had to justify Hannibal fleeing the battle at Zama by having one of his underlings shout "Go! Save yourself! As long as you are alive, Carthage has hope." Hannibal fled due to the same reasons every single general in the history of warfare had fled: He lost the battle, and he didn't want to die. People are quick to equate that act with cowardice, but really, it's just common bloody sense.
It would've been soooo awesome if Rome's greatest enemies Hannibal, Spartacus, Cleopatra, and Boudicca had met and became allies if they had lived during the same time.
Pride was the key to Carthage's fall. Hannibal had the foundation to unlock the lock that was sealing Rome's gate but due to the pride of Carthage's diplomat unwilling to acknowledge Hannibal's achievement, they refuse to give the key to unlock those gates.
To Hannibal's quote, You could have only made Scipio have you screwed Scipio's mother in bed. XD
the "you caused me to be" line makes me realize that every person (in history, modern times, even in fiction) by action or inaction creates their own mortal enemy
From the Roman point of view, Scipio was the saving grace of Rome. He, unlike many of his fellow Romans, was able to learn from his enemy, and adapt to him. Like the video said, he also knew how to finish what was started. Props to that, wish modern political leaders would take note of this leadership style.
It has been said that war does not determine who is right, only who is left.
War then, should be fought to be won, decisively, because history is written by the victors.
@Ragemaster9999 Wars cannot be fought that way today but there has always been stubborn military leaders full of hubris and rigidity. Hannibal and Scipio were different and in many ways like Napolean and Wellington.
Wellington studied Napolean who became complacent and felt he had nothing more to learn like Hannibal.
Grant was like this as well, studying Robt. E Lee. Today the US has PhD generals who's aims are more market oriented then victory.
@kybelian The US choses enemies who are safe and is about awarding contracts for the war machine. This is why Petraeus can be considered a great general because he pays the enemy not to fight the US while the war machine is all about Halleburten and the like getting contracts. The US spends trillions chasing 183 ragheads armed with grenade launchers and cell phone detonators robbing the treasury but enriching the contractors. How long is it taking whatever it is going on in Afghanistan?
that kind of reasoning is what ultimately led to Rome's own demise. In fact, if you would read up on things, the Western Empire collapsed because of Rome's unwillingness to cooperate with the germans (ie give them lands to live on etc).
And the years of constant fighting between the eastern empire and persia left them crippled to deal with the arabs when they invaded, thats why they took the middle east.
sad ending, a pity Hannibal did not go down fighting with his men, and instead fled like a coward only to commit suicide later.
What happened to Mahabio? His first brother died at cannae, the other was ambushed while marching north from spain to reinforce,, it wasn't clear what happened to Mahabo, the Calvary commander, and last brother
I also wonder if his sickness combined with him losing his family affected him somehow, or clouded his judgement.
The Romans were a admirable nation and has one of the most amazing armies of the ancient world ...
Only two nations could stand with success against the Roman Empire in his prime ... the Parthians and the germanic tribes ...
Later the Germanic tribes conquer the west roman empire ...... the strongest germanic kingdom were the Franks.... the the frankish germanic army was one of the strongest armies of their times and they defended Europe from the Arabs and the Avars....
That's not all. There was also Hannibal who came close to conquering the Roman Republic, the Sassanid Persians who crushed the armies of three Roman emperors in a row during the reign of Shapur I, the Huns who were a huge threat to both Western and Eastern empires in the time of Attila, and the Muslim Arabs who overran most of the Eastern empire under Khalid ibn al-Walid and succeeding generals.
@Jagged85 Yes you are right . The west part of the Roman Empire was conquered from the Germanic tribes. The east part could survived further many centuries.
Yes the Arabs were a real threat to the roman empire . But finally the Arabs could not take Constantinople and so the Romans could defend the Balkans from a arab saracen invasion . In the west the Arabs could conquer the (at this time) weak germanic Visigothic state but they were defeated from the Germanic Francs .
@Jagged85 yes but only about the Turks you are wrong.
The Huns were a ancient nomad nation. The scientists are not sure about the origin of them but it is possible that mongolic and turcic warriors were also included in the hun confederation tribe ...
The Seljuks were Turcics not Turks... The Ottomans were Turks. ''Turk'' is the ame for the modern turkish nation.
The Huns were originally an Altaic (Turkic/Mongolian) tribe, but later assimilated other tribes as they travelled west, including Iranian and Uralic tribes.
The term "Turk" refers to both the "Turkic" people of Central Asia and the "Turkish" people of Turkey.
The Eastern Roman Empire still existed during the Middle Ages as the Byzantine Empire, which was threatened at various times by the Sassanid Persians, Muslim Arabs, Frankish Crusaders, and Turks (Seljuk & Ottoman).
@Jagged85 the difference is that by the time the Romans encountered and suffered those defeats, Rome was like an old warrior. crippled by internal turmoil, its armies spread out and its citizens were more self interested. Carthage was a single power in history which could have prevented the Romans from existing altogether.
I will deeply try to explain this so that even you can understand.
This might take a few posts to answer all of the dumb useless questions you given me though,
1.The Romans killed Hasdrubal, because he was planning to regroup with Hannibal's Army. If they regrouped, they could have enough troops to attack Rome.
2.Are you stupid? Tell me, which great civilization didn't have slaves, eh?
AGreece, AEgypt, ARome, AChina, AJapan, Aztecs, France, England, Germany, USA.
@AqworldsWiki Having slaves does not make a civilisation great you idiot...and "slaves" is a loose term and you forogt the Mongolian Empire, but then again they did not have slaves.
Hannibal is dead but still hates the fucking Romans, they could not him and got his oath done by poisoning himself, that fucking Scipio was skilled as Hannibal, he copied everything, even his death, he killed himself in Africa just like Hannibal.
@yfjackalosf What? Died for dickless politicians who would not send him the reinforcements to destroy Rome? If I was him I would of been angry and wanted to die in peace. Also, he never gives them the satisfaction of killing him. LEGEND.
Sun Tzu will be praise to Hannibal for attack his enemies who are unprepared, but his greatest weakness is pride, uncontrollable anger, and other reasons which Sun Tzu does not like. Think about it, Sun Tzu praises Faius for avoiding Hannibal due of his battlefield superoity.
The Romans were fools to destroy the Carthaginian records of Hannibal. Perhaps looking at how his own side viewed him would have been invaluable to their understanding of the man and opponents like him that they faced later on in their era. Just shows that you should never eradicate all memory of something, in case you destroy something vital.
wait so if the story of hannibal was destroyed by the romans, then how is it we know the story and how do we know it is accurate if its not coming from a primary and original source?
what language is the subtitle?
Paralyzer 3 weeks ago
@Paralyzer Swedish
Draggis92 2 weeks ago
@Draggis92 thanks :)
Paralyzer 2 weeks ago
@Paralyzer swedish
1weirdhumanlol 1 week ago
@1weirdhumanlol thanks :) cool Language swedish, I have to learn it
Paralyzer 1 week ago
what is the subtitle ???
Paralyzer 3 weeks ago
stupid hannibal didn't finish rome off
saigondj 3 weeks ago
@saigondj
Many say stupid.
But he had no siege equipment and the city had huge walls and 2 urbanae legions.
Hannibal couldn't make a head assult nor he had enough man to completely cut it off.
Very difficult to know how that would end.
BatkoMahnovets 3 weeks ago
@BatkoMahnovets he didn't say he had no siege equipment. He said he is not a barbarian to go and ravage Rome. watch the movie again. That is why he's stupid cauze he thinks too highly of himself.
saigondj 3 weeks ago
@saigondj
Sorry saigonj I was commenting the RL not the movie. Just think about how they sieged and destroyed completely the largest city in Iberia at that time, Sagentum it never ever recovered itself. So its silly they make Hannibal talk that way in the movie, he already did that many times plus dont forget he swore to destroy Rome, so if he had a siege equipment - no Roman empire to talk about for us.
There is a possibilty that Africanus and Hannibal met again, later in Seleucia.
BatkoMahnovets 1 week ago
@saigondj
Did you know that both Africanus and Hannibal died in same year? Around 183 BC.
Africanus being like 10 years younger then Hannibal died first (he had febers acquired in Iberian campaign) they both were in exile.
BatkoMahnovets 1 week ago
That's odd, i had to translate a Latin passage in a past paper of which tells about Scipio meeting Hannibal in libabayum
Ryanjoe090 1 month ago
I totally agree, Hannibal 458, Scipio was just a power overlord who STOLE victory from Hannibal, the brute.
dolandaka 1 month ago
Very good depiction of this true story!! :) and btw (no humans being harmed in the making of the film is supposed to be a given) :)
xOrangeTiger007x 1 month ago
I wonder how they manage to track someone down in them days wasn't like they had a photo to go on.
Dechthem 1 month ago in playlist Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare
had scipio ever fought hannibal with equal forces hannibal would have crushed him. Hannibals forces werent trained and couldnt support his strategies to the capacity needed to win. scipio learnd and was smart sure but hannibal is simply better and didnt need ten years of defeat to learn how to be a tactician. Hannibal is the best miltary tactician of all time and scipio is somewhat overrated
hannibal458 1 month ago
@hannibal458
So having 20 k more man and great number of elefants wasn't enough?
The key to the victory at that battle was the "cavalry". The same cavalry Hannibal wasn't alowed to bring because the Carthage *senate* wont sent him the number needed to fight.
Scipio had to raise his army almost himself, Fabio did everything possible so he couldn't get the regular legions.
Scipio went to Sicily and retook the *damned* 2 legions whom survive from Cannae 10 years earlier and were ban*.
BatkoMahnovets 3 weeks ago
@BatkoMahnovets
The Carthage *senate* wont sent the number of transport ships to get all Hannibals cavalry.
Scipio made a brilliant campaign in Spain as an Imperae(when you are a military commander of a legion and you are not a Consul). No one else wanted to go to fight in Hispania.
The last to fight there were his father and his uncle whom both died in Hispania fighting Hannibals brothers and their iberoceltic allies.
BatkoMahnovets 3 weeks ago
Thanks for posting :)
Draggis92 2 months ago
If I were to witness the meeting of Hannibal and Scipio I'd probably pass out for long hours because of the EPICNESS OF THE EVENT O.O
Bzibzianka 2 months ago
roman senate sucks
OrmpleStudios 2 months ago
Hanabal did make a mistake at the end which would have given him great glory, still he did veyr well to get their in the first place.
PretentiousPainters 3 months ago
You have really lead a great life when your enemies write your history and you still turn out to be a legend of your time.
sushanalone 3 months ago
It's a shame the papers from the carthaginians view were destroyed.. could of been interesting
1weirdhumanlol 3 months ago 4
Poor Hannibal :(
1weirdhumanlol 3 months ago
scipio was a badass
smithryansmith 3 months ago
Thanks for uploading this mate!
rohitsp 4 months ago
So ironically, it was Hannibal which strengthened Rome to conquer the world. History cant get any weirder than this
sy2deonly1 4 months ago
@sy2deonly1 That which does not kill you, only makes you stronger.
lusulpher 1 month ago
only part that really stands out is the part when the narr.. said rome prefered they own interpretons of hannibal...
83leaf 5 months ago
Hannibal should have never engaged in battle against scipio. He should have used Fabius' tactics of delay and hid behind the carthage walls. Scipio, like Hannibal had no siege weapons to harm the city and as evidenced by the Third Punic War, it took the Romans 3 years to conquer the city without any weapons and i'm sure Hannibal would have been able to hold them off until a more favourable peace treaty would be negotiated with the Romans.
moonerjamerson 5 months ago
@moonerjamerson I dunno, its hard to even consider that he would have hidden inside the walls and refuse to face the hated romans. he couldnt know scipio would copy him. i think the problem lied with spain and carthage. they should have fought in spain, and carthage should have given him support all the way.
spoukas 4 months ago
@spoukas Most definately, but as of that moment when Hannibal came back to Carthage I personally believe he should have went on the defensive inside the carthiginian wall.
moonerjamerson 4 months ago
Another thing about Hannibal not attacking Rome directly - which they don`t mention at all - is the lack of sea power by Carthage during the second war. ALL THE TIME Rome was able to resupply themselves just ? `cause they had the naval superiority. Does not make much sense besieging a city that has endless supplies, na?
Jagertal 5 months ago
Long Live Hannibal ....
rossoneroarif 6 months ago
And then came Atilla 600 years later...
SoccerFury08 6 months ago
@SoccerFury08 yes he came against a weekend split rome nothing compared to what hannibal did
aviles1323 6 months ago
Hannibal lost because his "Afrika Corps" went to the side of Scipio... that's why he tried diplomacy at the last minute....
IMNODOCTOR 6 months ago
Thank you. I enjoyed the entire series.
MrMAX4400 6 months ago
I kind hate that history blame him for not attack Rome. General like him didn't attack must be have good reasons. I think the y should blame the politic back in home didn't send the troop or resupply that he needed. why don't they get blame? they didn't provide the army Hannibal the army he asked.
aiaek 6 months ago
I never knew this history that well. Very interesting. Hannibal is a legend.
83UtrechtNL 7 months ago
Uh, let us also remember that the Romans were not British and did not speak English. On the contrary, Rome conquered the Britons.
ziggy577 8 months ago
@ziggy577 Though the Romans in Britain ended up being conquered by the German tribe called the Angles, who brought to Britain their primitive Germanic language then called Angleish. now called English.
24michiganironbrigad 8 months ago
Hannibal was a great general of Africa. If you ever see the movie "Patton", Patton the time to go off the main road while fighting the Germans in Africa to respect the ancient battle field between Carthage & Rome. Let us remember that Egypt and Carthage were great civilizations of the African continent.
ziggy577 8 months ago
*NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM* Just about two and a half million men XD
LumiKuuro 8 months ago 23
Do you really believe this documentary based on Roman historical account to the extent that Hannibal did not attack Rome out or mercy? Are you fucking crazy? Do you really think that kind of mentality would have got him that far across the Alpes? No sir, he lived his entire life with the sole dream of annhilating the Roman Republic and that included erazing Rome off the map. The only reason he did not attack Rome is because he did not have enough men left to invade it with.
UnitedKorean 8 months ago
@UnitedKorean Not just that....he wanted Rome to surrender....Rome didn't surrender...kill an enemy and breaking an enemy are two diffrent things. He wanted to break the Romans, he failed and instead make there reselve harder.
"Hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use."
whydid666 8 months ago
@UnitedKorean Not just that....he wanted Rome to surrender....Rome didn't surrender...kill an enemy and breaking an enemy are two diffrent things. He wanted to break the Romans, he failed and instead make there reselve harder.
"Hannibal knew how to gain victory but not how to use it."
whydid666 8 months ago
@UnitedKorean HERE HERE!! I totally agree, Hannibal never could have laid siege to rome, his army had no siege train and he didn't have nearly enough men. But I think Hannibal's goal was just to destroy the Roman confederation, I think he wanted to reduce Rome to just another petty city state in Italy.
SPQR35715 8 months ago
@SPQR35715
That's what I think, and most scholars. Hannibal didn't envision the destruction of Rome as Polybius records the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon, in which it clearly states Rome would exist as a regional power.
That's not to say he wouldn't have taken Rome if he could...
kivati 6 months ago
@SPQR35715
Actaully, that's quite a common misconception. Hannibal made use of siege engines throughout his campaign in Italy. He simply built them on the spot.
kivati 6 months ago
@kivati Hannbal had no siege train. Taking Saguntum was a challenge, and can you imagine trying to take a siege train through the alps of Northern Italy? I have never heard of Hannibal besieging a major city like Rome.
SPQR35715 6 months ago
@SPQR35715
Of course he had a siege train. He left it behind for the alps journey, then simply built new engines for when he laid siege in Italy. There is abundant evidence that Hannibal used siege weapons throughout his Italian campaign, building them when needed. Appian mentions siege engines in Hannibal's attack on the town of Petilia shortly after the battle of Cannae (App. Hann. 5.29). Livy makes mention of various different siege machinery.
kivati 6 months ago
@kivati You sound more informed than me. Have you read all these sources? If so I am glad to meet another Roman enthusiast. Read Nigel Bagnall's "The Punic Wars" in it he goes into depth why Hannibal had no siege train. It is a pretty interesting book. My point is Hannibal never had a chance to take Rome, he may have taken cities like Cumae and Nola but Rome would have been a very difficult city to siege with an army of 30,000 in hostile territory.
SPQR35715 5 months ago
@SPQR35715
I've read a lot recently (about 30 books from ancient to modern sources). You're correct about Rome - Hannibal simply didn't have the men to lay siege or assault it.
kivati 5 months ago
@SPQR35715
One attempt at capturing Nola in 216 BC, Hannibal ordered his men to bring up the equipment needed for an assault of the town (Livy. 21.16.11-12). The assault failed, but he moved onto Acerrae, where he again made siege and assault preparations. The town was circumvalleted and the town was captured (Livy 23.17.4-6). Later that year Hannibal used mantelets and dug saps when he assaulted Casilinum (Livy. 23.18.8-9).
kivati 6 months ago
@SPQR35715
The following year he had to wait for a day in his attempt to capture Cumae as he had to bring up the necessary equipment from camp (Livy. 23.36.5-8). When he assaulted the town, he made use of a high wooden tower against the wall. He also used artillery and siege engines against the citadel of Tarentum. His siege capability was not as bad as historians make out, and he did infact storm a few places, and it is only the ones he failed to take that gets attention.
kivati 6 months ago
hmmm i shared a tear when he poisoned himself(((
perepiska2psihov 9 months ago
it was the roman ability to muster army after army that was hannibals undoing.. he didnt account for that. Italy was a very urban country with dense populations thus allowing many armies to be created out of the populace. Hannibal should have went straight for Rome when he was strongest..
DALEproductions 9 months ago
Long live the name of Hannibal!!! Long live Spartacus!!! Let Rome Fall!!!
Elesparto 9 months ago
What's the gist of the ancient warfare: he who has more elefants - loses (given the enemy infantry doesn't consist of too impressive peasants and Greenpeace activists).
Hannibal was lucky in Italy to have too little of elefants left.
The same thing as with tanks in the WWII: the more you have, the more you tend to use for a direct assault, the more you lose if the enemy infantry just isn't shocked by the sight.
What's sad, they completely exterminated a whole specie of North African elefants.
Artyom2012 9 months ago
I think, if Hannibal had attempted to assault Rome itself, it woulda been over much earlier for him.
What made him victorious was his tactical genius, of course, and the supremacy of his cavalry. Which is quite useless at the streets of a large city against determined and sturdy Roman infantry, while it cannot be outmaneuvered (and you can hardly be in charge of the battle at all in such conditions).
That would be like, say, Stalingrad for Hannibal, and he understood it, being a genius he was.
Artyom2012 9 months ago
In the end then Hannibal wasnt ruthless enough, though that is a weakness in war, it shows he was human and not a blood thirsty monster, like the roman empire would become.
Snotlingfondler 9 months ago
Even at the very last moment of Hannibal life , he was recorded to be saying if i had only had more elephants to defeat, i could have defeated them,,,
hammad313 9 months ago
i salute the soldier 5:49 his so loyal and give his own life just for his general
ilums50 10 months ago 24
@ilums50 lol all true Romans (like soldiers of Caesar, Brutus, Augustus..) would do that, and even more
TheRomanRuler 8 months ago
@TheRomanRuler my point is it is so rare to find that kind of loyalty to your officer this days :)
ilums50 8 months ago
@ilums50 100% agree... I agree. Thats shame, people just wanna go home becose they think they survive there :I If war would come, i would join army to defend my country! Altough, i MUST join army anw, here in Finland we have conscription. I think thats good
TheRomanRuler 8 months ago
if Hannibal won. and destroyed Rome. Maybe the roman languages we see today spanish french romanian. portuguse. wouldnt have existed.
Paralyzer 10 months ago 2
Hannibal could of easily destroyed Rome, he had his revenge, he wasn't going to destroy a whole empire just to make a point. I admire that, I would have done differently.
12345Zartio 10 months ago
@12345Zartio
... Most historians agree that Hannibal did not assault Rome after Cannae because he did not have enough resources to conquer it.
1tephania 9 months ago
This series was so great. Riveting.
What if Hannibal went all the way when he could? Think how different western civilization would be now. Fascinating.
yor90 10 months ago
Hannibal is a reincarnated Daimyo. The way of the warrior fuels his spirit. Honor over victory.
GnaReffotsirk 10 months ago
@escfromsam Oh sure you're absolutely right, I don’t think Greek civilization would've not existed if it hadn't been for the Phoenician or even Western culture as a matter of a fact quite the contrary, all I'm saying is that one can't help but wonder if things would’ve evolved as the way we know them now, because everything existing in the present owes something to the past, sometimes Westerns tend to be a bit ethnocentric and imagine that the earth was an empty planet before the Greeks.
bukkake999 10 months ago
@escfromsam Perhaps, History would've been different however don't underestimate Phoenician culture as it was a highly refined and developed culture, and although Romans considered them as barbaric don't forget that alphabet comes from the Phoenicians and without it there would be no language which means no civilization which means probably no the Roman Empire, so in reality it all comes in full circle it's just that History unfortunately for Hannibal and his people only credits the winners.
bukkake999 10 months ago
Comment removed
bukkake999 10 months ago
It's funny to see that what truly counts is the finishing touch...the rest is insignificant, Hannibal unfortunately learned it the hard way.
bukkake999 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's funny to see that in life the only thing that truly counts is the finishing touch...the rest is insignificant, Hannibal learned it the hard way...
bukkake999 11 months ago
Comment removed
bukkake999 11 months ago
tnx for upping!
CescoPisicoli 11 months ago
Scipio and Hannibal= Titans of War.
Minhist 11 months ago
Also Hannibal was captured by the Romans and " no roman will lay his dirty hands on me@ and he pulled out his sword and slit his throat, not dying of poison
kd9597 11 months ago
In history class I learned that scipio used trumpeteers to scare away the elephants
kd9597 11 months ago
i dont deny that hannibal was smart but i think some of the numbers in the battles were way over exagerrated to make scipio look like a military genius also
Zannyzander 1 year ago
Roma ganhou chupa!
RomanLegioXx 1 year ago
poor elefants:(
4000marco 1 year ago
@4000marco 9:15 No animals were harmed during the making of this film.
dragdev 1 year ago
@dragdev i know.... im talking about the elephants in that age:P
4000marco 1 year ago
@4000marco It was normal at that time animal cruelty was not thought about much as it was thought about today. The Romans use to set pigs on fire to scare the elephants away and plus you get free pork chops :-)
dragdev 1 year ago
@dragdev I think animal cruelty was less of a concern than a ton of Carthaginians.
14GloryofRome14 11 months ago
Carthage will rise upp again!
sweAndreasFilm 1 year ago
what the fuck are you guys doing talking about hitler on a hannibal video?
playman579 1 year ago
this conversations probably mostly made up, what hannibal said to scipio according to historians was that basically fate was cruel and could change quickly as it did for him in italy and he was basically asking for a fair truce and not to tempt his own fate with a battle or something to that effect
SelfHatingWhite 1 year ago
Shut up bitch, cartaginians were a piece of cake for Rome, they were weak and retarded, even a monkey army could defeat and beat their asses!
genishtora 1 year ago
The problem with Hannibal, as was the problem with the Roman generals prior to Scipio, was predictability. In many ways, Scipio had switched roles with Hannibal.
Now, it was Hannibal who could not predict Scipio, while Scipio could read Hannibal.
Hannibal's real genius was that he was the FIRST to innovate his own tactics and successful fighting style. Scipio showed that you don't have to be a genius to win; you just have to be willing to learn from your mistakes.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago
Bah scipio only had numbers not the same leadership skills as hanibal
03Srbija 1 year ago
If there were no Romans, there would not be Western Civilization, thus no internet.
naq29 1 year ago
@naq29
Maybe. But Rome also caused one of the darkest periods in history, a great and terrible dark age, which was caused by the catholic church and their blasphemic traditions. If there were no agressive romans, and instead peaceful carthaginians, Nazareth probably wouldn't be terrorized by Roman taxes, and thus Jesus would be bored.
After that , Jews would stay in Israel, thus making Germans not angry and not causing world war 2. It would be all weird.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 lol, so the jews ARE the reason for ww2? is that what u are saying?
tazelator 1 year ago
@tazelator
Well, Yes and no.
They entered Germania and took jobs that hardworking natives were going to take. It's almost like the crisis that America is in.
But the real blame is on Rome. For if Rome hadn't conquered Jerusalem, then the Jews wouldn't have migrated to different parts of the world.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 so what Hitler did with the jews was right in ur opinion?
tazelator 1 year ago
@tazelator No.
Even though I believe the Holocaust to be exaggerated, I still don't think it was right what Hitler did to all of those families. He was looking for an idea to blame, but he blamed a whole group of people instead.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 u know nothing. Jews never made the germans angry. They didnt "make" anything to create anger. The reason why they were persecuted was hitler´s madness.
And i dont think he was only looking for someone to blame, for that he had the communists etc.
Most of the german jews he killed were real germans, had jobs, didnt do anything etc... And i dont think, that the holocaust is exaggerated, 6 million dead jews and all the stuff( gas chambers etc) speak for their own, and cant be negotiated
tazelator 1 year ago
@tazelator
It wasn't Hitler's madness that caused everyone to despise the Jews. It were the common people that made Hitler and everyone else despise the Jews. The Jews were the minority group, yet the media and the wealth was comprised of mostly Jewish people. After the war ended, the death tolls were up to 4 million, then they went up to 5 million, and now people are claiming 6 million. Regardless, I am not supporting Hitler.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8 as hannibal said faith can change quickly, every small decision no matter how utterly uninportant has had a small effect on the future, thus the bigger ones had alot of effect and 1 small difference would completely change the world as we know it today. if there hadn't been a ww2 when we had had it, it could of happened at another place and time, same thing about the holocaust and several other historical events. but i think you get my point. ur right about the church as wel btw
ishopinamsterdam 1 year ago
hannibal is wrong he didn`t conquered rome
ggmarwin 1 year ago
All the time I'm watching this, I'm vaguely thinking that guy playing Hannibal resembles Anthony Hopkins. Then it dawns on me...
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
plz tel me what this movie movie called
TheAjulla 1 year ago
Well... Being beaten by your very own tactics, the tactics that prevent you from losing for many years of battle, that's not that bad of an ending for a great general
Legolasgun 1 year ago
Hannibal should've had his Elephants charge in a diagonal, it would've been much harder for the Romans to open a diagonal channel.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@TheDarkFrontier if he knew the romans were going to do that then yes. then agen if his elephents were closer together then they could be sirounded still
spam1138 1 year ago
thanks for uploading, great documentary!
chudnovsky 1 year ago
R.I.P Hannibal
Forstpessake 1 year ago 23
@Forstpessake *R.I.P Elephants :(
skyminex 7 months ago
@0pointoreoccuring1 I see! As a writer myself, I will be very respectful of that, don't worry. I'll just say "A man on youtube said: " in political debates :P
maaderllin 1 year ago
what a great movie.i guess evil won finally in this one(rome).thanks goodness it was this actor and not vin diesel who would have ruined it.maybe hannibal can come back &save america from the people running it?only kidding...
CinematicComics 1 year ago 2
I wish we would make documentaries like this here in the United States. Ts was really cool. I aso wish Hollwywood would make a good Hanibal movie!
bulluni 1 year ago 2
@0pointoreoccuring1 "Civilisation is just organised barbarity" Who's that line from? I know lots of quotes, but that one is pure genius! Congrats to you if it's from you. Can I use it sometimes? :P
maaderllin 1 year ago
dude hannibal knew he wasnt goning to win zama, he got thrown into the mix by his government and had only so much to work with, and that little piece of numidians shit massinissa, only one day late and the odds would have been evened
lion3p0 1 year ago
"I will either find a way, or make one." Hannibal
Shundra 1 year ago
I find it funny that the film had to justify Hannibal fleeing the battle at Zama by having one of his underlings shout "Go! Save yourself! As long as you are alive, Carthage has hope." Hannibal fled due to the same reasons every single general in the history of warfare had fled: He lost the battle, and he didn't want to die. People are quick to equate that act with cowardice, but really, it's just common bloody sense.
infernocanuck 1 year ago
@infernocanuck Alexander the Great never ran, but then again he never lost.
There have been many Generals in history who chose to die with their men even though the battle was lost.
OutcastedOutlaw 1 year ago
It would've been soooo awesome if Rome's greatest enemies Hannibal, Spartacus, Cleopatra, and Boudicca had met and became allies if they had lived during the same time.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
So, I'm just going back to Rome: Total war, pick Carthage and change the course of history...virtually.
Whenever I watch movies like these; most recently was Robin Hood, wars like these makes me play back Rome:Total war, again and again. XD
Str4t0sPh3rE 1 year ago
So what have we learned from all this?
Pride was the key to Carthage's fall. Hannibal had the foundation to unlock the lock that was sealing Rome's gate but due to the pride of Carthage's diplomat unwilling to acknowledge Hannibal's achievement, they refuse to give the key to unlock those gates.
To Hannibal's quote, You could have only made Scipio have you screwed Scipio's mother in bed. XD
Str4t0sPh3rE 1 year ago
@Str4t0sPh3rE Wow did he really say that?
bulluni 1 year ago
Comment removed
nofollow 1 year ago
Imagine how world history would have been different had Carthage won...
CrystalHunter1989 1 year ago
This is a lie hanibal did better than this.
IntellegentNGR 1 year ago
In the ending it says Scipio died shortly after Hannibal, but from what I've read he actually died _before_ Hannibal.
Also, yay for Rome!!! ;P
antred11 1 year ago
I love the conversation in this documentary <3
It is educating rather than flaming.
For most part.
Kulmataklaus 1 year ago
the "you caused me to be" line makes me realize that every person (in history, modern times, even in fiction) by action or inaction creates their own mortal enemy
summers1 1 year ago
Green peace would have been on Hanibals case day in day out LOL
Keranofkri 1 year ago
From the Roman point of view, Scipio was the saving grace of Rome. He, unlike many of his fellow Romans, was able to learn from his enemy, and adapt to him. Like the video said, he also knew how to finish what was started. Props to that, wish modern political leaders would take note of this leadership style.
It has been said that war does not determine who is right, only who is left.
War then, should be fought to be won, decisively, because history is written by the victors.
Ragemaster9999 1 year ago 21
@Ragemaster9999 Wars cannot be fought that way today but there has always been stubborn military leaders full of hubris and rigidity. Hannibal and Scipio were different and in many ways like Napolean and Wellington.
Wellington studied Napolean who became complacent and felt he had nothing more to learn like Hannibal.
Grant was like this as well, studying Robt. E Lee. Today the US has PhD generals who's aims are more market oriented then victory.
kybelian 10 months ago
@kybelian The US choses enemies who are safe and is about awarding contracts for the war machine. This is why Petraeus can be considered a great general because he pays the enemy not to fight the US while the war machine is all about Halleburten and the like getting contracts. The US spends trillions chasing 183 ragheads armed with grenade launchers and cell phone detonators robbing the treasury but enriching the contractors. How long is it taking whatever it is going on in Afghanistan?
kybelian 10 months ago
This was a great mini-series. Thanks for posting it.
kybelian 10 months ago
@Ragemaster9999
that kind of reasoning is what ultimately led to Rome's own demise. In fact, if you would read up on things, the Western Empire collapsed because of Rome's unwillingness to cooperate with the germans (ie give them lands to live on etc).
And the years of constant fighting between the eastern empire and persia left them crippled to deal with the arabs when they invaded, thats why they took the middle east.
zazenzach 10 months ago
sad ending, a pity Hannibal did not go down fighting with his men, and instead fled like a coward only to commit suicide later.
What happened to Mahabio? His first brother died at cannae, the other was ambushed while marching north from spain to reinforce,, it wasn't clear what happened to Mahabo, the Calvary commander, and last brother
I also wonder if his sickness combined with him losing his family affected him somehow, or clouded his judgement.
Ragemaster9999 1 year ago
ummm if all that information on hannibal was burned in a fire how did we get to know about him?
BBxTerra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BBxTerra Because Hannibal uploaded this video at hannibalbarca.blogspot.com before he died. =X
Str4t0sPh3rE 1 year ago
The germanic tribe of the Goths were also very powerful ... they had a very strong heavy cavalry and they destroyed the Romans in Adrianople ..... .
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
The Romans were a admirable nation and has one of the most amazing armies of the ancient world ...
Only two nations could stand with success against the Roman Empire in his prime ... the Parthians and the germanic tribes ...
Later the Germanic tribes conquer the west roman empire ...... the strongest germanic kingdom were the Franks.... the the frankish germanic army was one of the strongest armies of their times and they defended Europe from the Arabs and the Avars....
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99 the guy that defeated the arabs was Charles the Hammer right ?
dardo1201 1 year ago
@dardo1201 yes
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99
That's not all. There was also Hannibal who came close to conquering the Roman Republic, the Sassanid Persians who crushed the armies of three Roman emperors in a row during the reign of Shapur I, the Huns who were a huge threat to both Western and Eastern empires in the time of Attila, and the Muslim Arabs who overran most of the Eastern empire under Khalid ibn al-Walid and succeeding generals.
Jagged85 1 year ago 8
@Jagged85 Yes you are right . The west part of the Roman Empire was conquered from the Germanic tribes. The east part could survived further many centuries.
Yes the Arabs were a real threat to the roman empire . But finally the Arabs could not take Constantinople and so the Romans could defend the Balkans from a arab saracen invasion . In the west the Arabs could conquer the (at this time) weak germanic Visigothic state but they were defeated from the Germanic Francs .
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99
In other words, there were several major threats to the Roman state:
-The Semites (Carthiginians, Muslim Arabs)
-The Iranians (Parthians, Sarmatians, Sassanid Persians)
-The Germanics (Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Franks)
-The Turks (Huns, Seljuks, Ottomans)
Jagged85 1 year ago 4
@Jagged85 yes but only about the Turks you are wrong.
The Huns were a ancient nomad nation. The scientists are not sure about the origin of them but it is possible that mongolic and turcic warriors were also included in the hun confederation tribe ...
The Seljuks were Turcics not Turks... The Ottomans were Turks. ''Turk'' is the ame for the modern turkish nation.
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99
The Huns were originally an Altaic (Turkic/Mongolian) tribe, but later assimilated other tribes as they travelled west, including Iranian and Uralic tribes.
The term "Turk" refers to both the "Turkic" people of Central Asia and the "Turkish" people of Turkey.
Jagged85 1 year ago 2
@Jagged85 ??? ottomans and muslims didn't existed at that time
mattvlad3 8 months ago
Comment removed
Jagged85 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mattvlad3
The Eastern Roman Empire still existed during the Middle Ages as the Byzantine Empire, which was threatened at various times by the Sassanid Persians, Muslim Arabs, Frankish Crusaders, and Turks (Seljuk & Ottoman).
Jagged85 8 months ago
@Jagged85 the difference is that by the time the Romans encountered and suffered those defeats, Rome was like an old warrior. crippled by internal turmoil, its armies spread out and its citizens were more self interested. Carthage was a single power in history which could have prevented the Romans from existing altogether.
TheScienceofnature 9 months ago
I will deeply try to explain this so that even you can understand.
This might take a few posts to answer all of the dumb useless questions you given me though,
1.The Romans killed Hasdrubal, because he was planning to regroup with Hannibal's Army. If they regrouped, they could have enough troops to attack Rome.
2.Are you stupid? Tell me, which great civilization didn't have slaves, eh?
AGreece, AEgypt, ARome, AChina, AJapan, Aztecs, France, England, Germany, USA.
That's every single nation.
AqworldsWiki 1 year ago
@AqworldsWiki Having slaves does not make a civilisation great you idiot...and "slaves" is a loose term and you forogt the Mongolian Empire, but then again they did not have slaves.
Hellothasauras 1 year ago
@Hellothasauras You're the idiot. Read my post properly.
I said "Every Great Civilization had slaves"
You are incorrect. The Mongols had slaves.
Fucking Asshole. Why don't you learn how to read before you reply to my posts.
AqworldsWiki 1 year ago 2
Hannibal is dead but still hates the fucking Romans, they could not him and got his oath done by poisoning himself, that fucking Scipio was skilled as Hannibal, he copied everything, even his death, he killed himself in Africa just like Hannibal.
TheMohaw 1 year ago
hannible lost, he died a cowards, he should of died at zamma like a true general
yfjackalosf 1 year ago
@yfjackalosf What? Died for dickless politicians who would not send him the reinforcements to destroy Rome? If I was him I would of been angry and wanted to die in peace. Also, he never gives them the satisfaction of killing him. LEGEND.
Hellothasauras 1 year ago
@0pointoreoccuring1 if your going to do it,do it right.
daehoidareht 1 year ago
Sun Tzu will be praise to Hannibal for attack his enemies who are unprepared, but his greatest weakness is pride, uncontrollable anger, and other reasons which Sun Tzu does not like. Think about it, Sun Tzu praises Faius for avoiding Hannibal due of his battlefield superoity.
LegoRepublicese 1 year ago
@LegoRepublicese come again..Sun tzu lived 300 years prior to hannibal,so he couldnt know much about neither him ,nor fabius..
KINGKENNYTHEHOLY 1 year ago
@KINGKENNYTHEHOLY I know that, just if he lived in that time? It just my opinon.
LegoRepublicese 1 year ago
@LegoRepublicese Sorry ,I must have misunderstood you,I thougt you said sun tzu did comment on Hannibal..sorry for the inconvinience
KINGKENNYTHEHOLY 1 year ago
The Romans were fools to destroy the Carthaginian records of Hannibal. Perhaps looking at how his own side viewed him would have been invaluable to their understanding of the man and opponents like him that they faced later on in their era. Just shows that you should never eradicate all memory of something, in case you destroy something vital.
englishfrenchgerman 1 year ago
Hannibal! We will remmember you! We will think of you, everytime we draw our guns!
If i could travel back in time... Hannibal would be the first person i would look after!
RoManLP15 1 year ago 3
wait so if the story of hannibal was destroyed by the romans, then how is it we know the story and how do we know it is accurate if its not coming from a primary and original source?
cookiesandcream44 1 year ago