Hannibal - Rome's Worst Nightmare Part 5

It is 200 years before the birth of Christ and Rome is the new superpower of the ancient world. She believes she is invincible - but one man is destined to change that. He is a man bound by oath to avenge the wrongs inflicted on his home and, in pursuit of revenge, he will stop at nothing. Hannibal explores the man behind the myth, revealing what drove the 26-year-old to mastermind one of the most audacious military moves in history. With 40,000 soldiers and 37 elephants, he marched 1,500 miles to challenge his enemies on their own soil. It was an act so daring that few people believed it possible. Hannibal combines drama, the latest historical research and state-of-the-art CGI to bring this spectacular story to life.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Hannibal
• Rome
• Cannae
• Carthage
• Barca
• Scipio
• Africanus
• Mago
• Maharbal
• Hasdrubal
• Hanno
• Documentary
• Battle
• Zama

[Kelly14UK]

03:00 By this point he claims to have killed 40,000 Romans? That's an entire football stadium.

[Bzibzianka]

7:17 - omg, his eyelashes are sooo long! <3

Sorry, had to say it :D

Long live the memory of the greatest general ever, Hannibal Barca!

[ronaldolover0311]

at 2:56 did anyone else see the dead guy smiling? 0______o

[StellandBlood]

@CryingFreeman123

After Cannae,Rome was on its knees,and totally demoralized,Hannibal had to siege Rome,which he perfectly could and strangely he did not,even if he couldn´t conquer the city,as Rome had more than enough men to defend it,he would have forced it to starve,and in time to set out a offensives to break the siege,reinforcements,from Carthage would have been decisive,not to help him in the siege of Rome,but to secure remaining Italy,preventing armies from emerging on its rearguard.

[CryingFreeman123]

@StellandBlood: I seriously doubt that. Even if Carthage had sent him a further 20,000 or 30,000 troops, they would have either been inexperienced soldiers or mercenaries who only fight for money. Even with an army of 70,000 or 80,000 troops, Hannibal never had a chance to put Rome under siege and either starve the city into surrender or conquer it. He had no engineers, no war engines, his supply lines were too long and too easy to interrupt. - cont'd

[StellandBlood]

@CryingFreeman123

Had Hannibal minimal reinforcements from Carthage,he would have won.

[CryingFreeman123]

Hannibal was no doubt one of the greatest generals the world has ever seen, but he was on the brink of losing out when Fabius Maximus started applying his guerilla tactics, and had the Romans not lost their patience with Fabius, Hannibal would have lost the war in Italy a lot earlier. His victory at Cannae was more a result of Roman impatience and arrogance than of his own superiority although he exploited his enenmy's errors in judging the situation appropriately in brilliant fashion.

[Lightingwarrior]

@craziii3 Pretty much, but there was also the fact that he underesimated the Roman's reslove. To him this was a battle to prove the Carthage was superior to Rome, to the Roman's this was a battle to the death, where they would win or they would be destroyed.

[craziii3]

@Lightingwarrior the main point was that he had no support. too bad.

[Lightingwarrior]

@NLPaganBlood Technically to be fair, he was only acting in the way that was common in that time, since many other leaders before Alexander did the same kind of thing, since if you didn't show to be ruthless, you would be held up with long sieges and rebellions. Hence to secure the lands you conquered and prevent rebellion, you had to put the fear of god into the people, where news would spread of what you did and people would be more likely to surrender, it worked for the Mongols.

[Lightingwarrior]

@Bzibzianka Haniibal was great I agree and a brillent tactian, but personally I think Alexander was better

[xOrangeTiger007x]

@Lightingwarrior Nice debate :)