The Second Punic War - History of the Roman Empire - Part 4
video description
Date: 2023-12-16
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 25
-user-cz8bp7vc3q
Hanibal is like General Lee in Civil War, Fate has you can not win the War, no matter how brilliant you are. I think he's only real chance was to take the senate n Roman leadership down n hopefully use the slaves to join he's side. As great as he's victory n daring was, battles don't necessary win the war. It's the death blow, you have to do. However Carthage is Phoenicians, which is guilty of child sacrifices. That probably really did them in, as the judgement day came for their nation, God decided so. Consider how the South America Empires also did human sacrifices n they were conquered by Spain.
reply
Hanibal is like General Lee in Civil War, Fate has you can not win the War, no matter how brilliant you are. I think he's only real chance was to take the senate n Roman leadership down n hopefully use the slaves to join he's side. As great as he's victory n daring was, battles don't necessary win the war. It's the death blow, you have to do. However Carthage is Phoenicians, which is guilty of child sacrifices. That probably really did them in, as the judgement day came for their nation, God decided so. Consider how the South America Empires also did human sacrifices n they were conquered by Spain.
reply
knowledgia
-IF- Hannibal won at Zama (there is increasing debate surrounding he didn't lose that battle to Scipio, there is no way Carthage bounces back. Rome has full control of the Western Mediterranean, has Iberia (or at least the former Carthaginian territories, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. It basically has no navy and one standing army (at Carthage. Numidia is now directly competing against Carthage and is a Roman ally. Hannibal and Carthage have to sue for peace even if he destroys Scipio's army.
-IF- Hannibal wins at Zama, Carthage still loses. They cannot compete. Hannibal would undoubtedly know this.
reply
-IF- Hannibal won at Zama (there is increasing debate surrounding he didn't lose that battle to Scipio, there is no way Carthage bounces back. Rome has full control of the Western Mediterranean, has Iberia (or at least the former Carthaginian territories, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. It basically has no navy and one standing army (at Carthage. Numidia is now directly competing against Carthage and is a Roman ally. Hannibal and Carthage have to sue for peace even if he destroys Scipio's army.
-IF- Hannibal wins at Zama, Carthage still loses. They cannot compete. Hannibal would undoubtedly know this.
reply
knowledgia
I'm sad that you did not mention the crucial contribution of the berbers to Scipio in winning his battle of Zama! Hannibal knew he lost the fight before even beginning, just when he saw the berbers at the side of Scipio (the reason of their alliance is the revenge of the berbere leader MASSINISSA over carthage over a woman story. The berbers at that time were the best cavaliers in the world, and they knew how to counter the elephants charge, they did not fear them, on the contrary to the romans. PLEASE SPECIFY THAT
reply
I'm sad that you did not mention the crucial contribution of the berbers to Scipio in winning his battle of Zama! Hannibal knew he lost the fight before even beginning, just when he saw the berbers at the side of Scipio (the reason of their alliance is the revenge of the berbere leader MASSINISSA over carthage over a woman story. The berbers at that time were the best cavaliers in the world, and they knew how to counter the elephants charge, they did not fear them, on the contrary to the romans. PLEASE SPECIFY THAT
reply
-y2k21
I don't think Hannibal is a very good general because if I was a general my number one concern would be logistics because that's the most important part of the military. The military can be brought down to its knees without the proper supplies and manpower no matter how powerful your leaders are or your forces.
There are examples in history where militaries without supplies did win but these are few and far in between and rely on brute force and a lot of luck and being lucky is not a good strategy.
reply
I don't think Hannibal is a very good general because if I was a general my number one concern would be logistics because that's the most important part of the military. The military can be brought down to its knees without the proper supplies and manpower no matter how powerful your leaders are or your forces.
There are examples in history where militaries without supplies did win but these are few and far in between and rely on brute force and a lot of luck and being lucky is not a good strategy.
reply
-BlueGoblin1
The failure was Cathages's lack of unity. If they had ignroed iberia and sent troops to italy they could have sacked Rome or at the vwry least soidfied thier gains there.
Another problem carthage has is that they only had one Hannibal. And they could not muster troops on the sclae of the Romans so every defeat sent shock waves through Carthage.
Hannibal nearly bankrupted the Roman Senate and they had moblized like never before. And Hannibal needed more troops to mitigate his losses.
reply
The failure was Cathages's lack of unity. If they had ignroed iberia and sent troops to italy they could have sacked Rome or at the vwry least soidfied thier gains there.
Another problem carthage has is that they only had one Hannibal. And they could not muster troops on the sclae of the Romans so every defeat sent shock waves through Carthage.
Hannibal nearly bankrupted the Roman Senate and they had moblized like never before. And Hannibal needed more troops to mitigate his losses.
reply
-DesertAres
Amazing that Hannibal thrashed Roman army after Roman army and then in one single battle loses everything. I imagine even if Hannibal had won at Zama, the Romans now controlling Spain and the Mediterranean Sea would just have raised more armies. It should be noted that Hannibal used the smaller north African forest elephant, now extinct, not the much bigger Indian elephant used by Pyrrhus used in his campaigns.
reply
Amazing that Hannibal thrashed Roman army after Roman army and then in one single battle loses everything. I imagine even if Hannibal had won at Zama, the Romans now controlling Spain and the Mediterranean Sea would just have raised more armies. It should be noted that Hannibal used the smaller north African forest elephant, now extinct, not the much bigger Indian elephant used by Pyrrhus used in his campaigns.
reply
-CG_CAKE
Im Tunisian I live in port Punic in Carthage, Ive seen many warriors in History and proud to say that Hannibal was one of them. shame on the Carthaginian goverment cowards they left Hannibal on his own pretending its not their war. until they got it deep in their ass. Im an ex mma fighter and life taught me in the time of wars there is no place for cowardness.
reply
Im Tunisian I live in port Punic in Carthage, Ive seen many warriors in History and proud to say that Hannibal was one of them. shame on the Carthaginian goverment cowards they left Hannibal on his own pretending its not their war. until they got it deep in their ass. Im an ex mma fighter and life taught me in the time of wars there is no place for cowardness.
reply
-Chronos4088
This is an overoversimplification. Even if you were pressed for time you could've at least added the troop number each time it changed. You also made it seem like Hannibal wasn't that much of a threat. Many more things you failed to mention.
In the end 12 minutes just aren't enough.
reply
This is an overoversimplification. Even if you were pressed for time you could've at least added the troop number each time it changed. You also made it seem like Hannibal wasn't that much of a threat. Many more things you failed to mention.
In the end 12 minutes just aren't enough.
reply
knowledgia
The battle of Zama was much more close than shown here.
The infantry of Rome and Carthage were both about exhausted. The Roman were even on the verge of breaking when the allied cavalry ceased their pursuit and returned to the main battlefield, bringing victory with them.
reply
The battle of Zama was much more close than shown here.
The infantry of Rome and Carthage were both about exhausted. The Roman were even on the verge of breaking when the allied cavalry ceased their pursuit and returned to the main battlefield, bringing victory with them.
reply
-NelsonDiscovery
-He had learned quite a bit about the Romans over the years. - Mainly that Roman generals seem to believe that if you just push a bunch of men against the army of the enemy, victory will come automatically without the use nor the counteracting of military tactics.
reply
-He had learned quite a bit about the Romans over the years. - Mainly that Roman generals seem to believe that if you just push a bunch of men against the army of the enemy, victory will come automatically without the use nor the counteracting of military tactics.
reply
knowledgia
Just copare the early romans to the late romans, the early ones where homogenus and determined, losing army after army and just raizing another one. While the late romans where disunited and apathetic, lost armies where never rebuilt.
reply
Just copare the early romans to the late romans, the early ones where homogenus and determined, losing army after army and just raizing another one. While the late romans where disunited and apathetic, lost armies where never rebuilt.
reply
-electrofan1796
Hannibal and Napoleon: ballsy, pretty successful for years, were feared on the battlefield.
Their enemies: -HEY GUYS CRAZY IDEA BUT LETS NOT ATTACK THE GUY WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOSING TO AND JUST ATTACK THE OTHER STUFF-
reply
Hannibal and Napoleon: ballsy, pretty successful for years, were feared on the battlefield.
Their enemies: -HEY GUYS CRAZY IDEA BUT LETS NOT ATTACK THE GUY WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOSING TO AND JUST ATTACK THE OTHER STUFF-
reply
-pamelakimathi6703
Hannabal caused too much pains to Romans and you have not mentioned anything but you just rushed to how Rome won, this story is not even a quarter of what hannabal inflicted on Rome. all nothing
reply
Hannabal caused too much pains to Romans and you have not mentioned anything but you just rushed to how Rome won, this story is not even a quarter of what hannabal inflicted on Rome. all nothing
reply
knowledgia
I think the 2nd Punic War was inevitable. Expansionism, greed, revenge, and militarism, would lead to this second war. It is somewhat like the first world war setting the stage for the second.
reply
I think the 2nd Punic War was inevitable. Expansionism, greed, revenge, and militarism, would lead to this second war. It is somewhat like the first world war setting the stage for the second.
reply
-Konuvis
If you don't mind the manga medium I highly recommend Ad Astra. It covers the whole campaign of Hannibal and his battles with Scipion the African. Very well researched and enjoyable.
reply
If you don't mind the manga medium I highly recommend Ad Astra. It covers the whole campaign of Hannibal and his battles with Scipion the African. Very well researched and enjoyable.
reply
-user-cc5oc2iw1o
Lies like we know all ways European and Americans changes the history to show their self's strong
And Hannibal was born in carthage not Spain idi. ota!
reply
Lies like we know all ways European and Americans changes the history to show their self's strong
And Hannibal was born in carthage not Spain idi. ota!
reply
-anubis1416
Eh small inaccuracy. Saguntum might have been on south side of the river, not the north. Carthage and Rome had differing opinions on where it was.
reply
Eh small inaccuracy. Saguntum might have been on south side of the river, not the north. Carthage and Rome had differing opinions on where it was.
reply
knowledgia
Failed to mention Scipio Africanus survived Cannae, Took Spain, defeated Hannibal's brother before invading Africa and kicking Hannibal's ass.
reply
Failed to mention Scipio Africanus survived Cannae, Took Spain, defeated Hannibal's brother before invading Africa and kicking Hannibal's ass.
reply
-aaronCFH_3756
An alternate name for this war could be the Roman-Barcid War. Since Hannibal was the only major Punic figure who fought the war.
reply
An alternate name for this war could be the Roman-Barcid War. Since Hannibal was the only major Punic figure who fought the war.
reply
-misterfister7473
Why are overly ambitious people always starting wars that other people die in. History has been shaped by narcissists
reply
Why are overly ambitious people always starting wars that other people die in. History has been shaped by narcissists
reply
-ejletsgo1650
thats why they say
Carthage can flex those rowing muscles but they are no match for the roman mind
-Oversimplified
reply
thats why they say
Carthage can flex those rowing muscles but they are no match for the roman mind
-Oversimplified
reply
-kuntul4499
What i learnt from the second punic war is rome presistent, and presistent can make us got what we want in today worlds
reply
What i learnt from the second punic war is rome presistent, and presistent can make us got what we want in today worlds
reply
knowledgia
The biggest part of the cavalry of Scipio was composed by the army of Massinissa the numidian, the rival of syfax
reply
The biggest part of the cavalry of Scipio was composed by the army of Massinissa the numidian, the rival of syfax
reply
-descartes2404
8: 40 I read the name of that town on top as Hippo Diarrhea bec it was partially covered by the banners lol
reply
8: 40 I read the name of that town on top as Hippo Diarrhea bec it was partially covered by the banners lol
reply
-olexandrs6639
dislike.
ebro river treaty was violated by Rome, when they allied with Saguntum (144km south of Ebro)
reply
dislike.
ebro river treaty was violated by Rome, when they allied with Saguntum (144km south of Ebro)
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
