Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until the very end Hannibal was kicking Rome's ass and making them his ***** lol. The battle of Cannae alone is amazing. The Romans sure got lucky in the end.
Cannae was fought in 216 BC. The following year Hannibal was joined by 4,000 cavalry with money and provisions. That was the only time he received reinforcements throughout the war. No other troops reached him from Carthage for 12 years. His last significant successes took place in 212 BC.
Hannibal could only count on local allies, who were ruthlessly punished by the Romans for switching alliances as soon as the Carthaginian general was somewhere else. The Romans could field multiple armies in Spain, peninsular Italy and Sicily at the same time. They beat any enemy general trying to reinforce Hannibal, until his presence in Italy was totally useless to his cause, and he was recalled to Carthage in 203 BC. In Africa, at the Battle of Zama Scipio routed Hannibal with his veterans. Carthage was left without any means to prolong the war and admitted total defeat.
It doesn’t really seem that luck played any role in that war, like in any other war fought on a large scale for almost two decades.
Accoring to Livy, Hannibal was subsequently beaten several times by Marcellus, once by Sempronius who defended Placentia, Sempronius Tuditanus, and of course Scipio Africanus. He was also tied up and worn down by Fabius who executed a sort of stalking guerilla campaign without fighting.
The poster above noted that Hannibal was only once re-enforced. It is not always rememered that Carthage actually did try and failed. Other opportunities that Rome took away occurred when Claudius Nero destroyed Hannibal's brothers army coming over the Alps and threw Hasdrubal's head in Hannibal's camp. Also, Leailius defeating the Carthiginian fleet at Carteia, Varus and Cornelius defeating Mago in Gaul, Septius stepping up and thrashing Hannibal's brothers in Spain after the destruction of the Scipios, Africanus' pre-Zama battles, and the fact that Rome was able to succesfully wage separate wars in Gaul, Macedonia, Spain, and agains the Numidians, all of which were Hannibal's allies, while taking back Capua and the lost parts of Italy piece by piece. Props to Laevinus for the Macedonian war.
I had an entire thread on here which I do not care to find about how Hannibal has a very poor record on sieges, which explains why he only marched on Rome belatedly and accomplished nothing.
So no, he was not kicking ass until the end, or however you put it. Rome defeated Carthage, Macedonia, the Numidian kingdom, varius tribes in Gaul and Spain, and Italian traitors, AT THE SAME TIME.
The great thing about this is that the histories are still extant and easily available, if you want to read the truth. I recommend Livy's incredibly detailed ten books on the war with Hannibal. Parts of Polybius are still extant, and Plutarch does some good biographies which touch on it, particularly of Marcellus, though sadly, his history of Scipio is lost.
Hope this helps you out.
Hannibal, by the way, was a Phoenician. I am guessing by your jaw-dropping lack of knowledge and unwaivering confidence in gibberish that you are an Afrocentrist who like Hannibal because he was a nominal African? I am guessing by "Nubbin" you mean Nubian? Just a guess.
Last edited by cachibatches; 02-19-2018 at 02:47 AM..
Until the very end Hannibal was kicking Rome's ass and making them his ***** lol. The battle of Cannae alone is amazing. The Romans sure got lucky in the end.
What is more amazing to me is that Hannibal managed to survive in Italy for so long despite the odds against him. Rome had a much greater reserve in manpower and controlled all of Italy when the war started, but somehow Hannibal managed with his little army to survive in Italy for decades. Every year in those campaign Rome was able to raise multiple armies, each of the same size or larger than Hannibal's own, but they had never tried to surround and eliminate Hannibal himself the way the allies went after Napoleon after the Battle of Nations.
Many have made the case that Hannibal was overrated because of Zama but keep in mind that by that time Hannibal and his veterans are middle aged, and the quality of the the Carthaginian recruits and mercenaries were of lower quality than the troops he was used to. If they were even somewhat up to par they would've done a lot more damage to the hastati.
During the course of the Second Punic War Carthage sent tens of thousands of troops to Sicily, Sardinia and Spain. If those troops were sent to Italy instead the war would sure have gone differently.
Hannibal's achievements were impressive, but victory relied on Rome coming to terms with him. Rome's success was based upon a mentality of fighting to the end, in situations where most states would have signed peace treaties. So despite achieving many early successes, Rome's vast reserves of wealth and manpower eventually saw off Hannibal, who struggled with a poor logistical situation. Long supply lines and a Carthaginian government that only provided half-hearted support.
I disagree Hannibal was a great field tactician but not a conquerer. He was also not a great politician as he couldn’t get enough support at home to maintain his campaign nor could he get enough other Italic states to revolt. He couldn’t build seige weapons to save his life nor form a proper proper siege around Rome. Sure he was a great general but Rome was so much more. Hannibal had a bunch of Pyrrhic victories and could not replace he elite veterans with like for like. Rome could lose 1/4 million men and replace with like quality on a season.
I disagree Hannibal was a great field tactician but not a conquerer. He was also not a great politician as he couldn’t get enough support at home to maintain his campaign nor could he get enough other Italic states to revolt. He couldn’t build seige weapons to save his life nor form a proper proper siege around Rome. Sure he was a great general but Rome was so much more. Hannibal had a bunch of Pyrrhic victories and could not replace he elite veterans with like for like. Rome could lose 1/4 million men and replace with like quality on a season.
If Carthage was as determined and had as much resolve as Rome, Hannibal would've won the war. Sieging Rome with the resources and numbers that he had would've put him in a perilous position. Anyone who can patch together the army and alliance that he did is at least an okay politician in my book. Trebia, Lake Trasmere, and Cannae were anything but pyrrhic victories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
