Thanks for the upload. Hannibal was a great leader and general.2 thousand years later & his name still lives on may it live another 2 thousand years more! Hannibal sparked my interest in history and changed my life. Hope his story does the same for you too
17 year occupation, the only reason he lost as I see it is because he seems like a rational mind, the romans weren't rational. he chose where and when he fought otherwise he didn't fight at all. still a genius, afterall, rome defeated itself in the end, a lot worse way to meet your end out of pure greed and in fighting
Sadly, Hannibal's last campaign in the war was far inferior to his during his prime. He surrendered the initiative and movement to Scipio from the offset, and at Zama showed himself painfully static in tactics.
Actually, Hannibal would not have lost the war if the Senate would let him do what he's set to do. Hannibal wanted to smash into Rome but the Carthaginian senates denied him this chance as they were afraid that this would not only cause Carthage one problem but another as more and more people, such as the Persian empire would start challenging Carthage and they even denied Hannibal backup forces when they asked for it. The Battle of Zama was also lost by the senate's fault. They wanted Hannibal to fight at that battle when they disposed him and this caused Hannibal to hate the senate and even certain historians said he even thought of killing the senates for causing the Romans to fight on Carthage as they are "not worthy to fight Carthage as they're mere peasants that needs to be slaughtered". This lowered the morale of Hannibal as he's fighting for Carthage as he felt that he's being betrayed by the country he's bringing pride to. When Carthage fell, they still blamed Hannibal for losing the war totally when the Senate was the actual cause to the downfall of Carthage and this let Hannibal decide that Carthage had already betrayed him thus he left and became a roving commander to any army that wanted to hire him.
Also I think at Zama, Hannibal could have won at Zama had he used the elephants in the way that Pyhrrus did, keeping them in reserve until the crucial moment when lines are already close and/or engaged. Then there is no option to form lanes or have skirmishers/velites with javelins shower them with deadly fire before they reach main battle line.
Unfortunately he sent them head long in front of all his troops towards a yet un-engaged enemy who were in perfect formation and ready to funnel them and dispatch them at will.
I think the biggest mistake short of marching on rome after cannae was his decision to pass through Alps while losing so many troops. He replaced them with Gauls who had some good cavalry and brave infantry but they simply weren't as good as the battle hardened troops that he lost while crossing. He could have perhaps had scout ships go ahead and move via fleet along the coast of southern Gaul instead. It would also have been risky due to loss of naval dominance but also could have allowed him to get to Italy or close to it with his elephants and elite troops intact.
The double envelopment at cannae while having the center slowly fall back was sheer brilliance and was never seen before.
His ability to set himself up for success in Trebia and Lake Trasimene speaks to his tactical brilliance. Unfortunately in the meta strategy he was somewhat deficient as he believed Rome wasn't committed to war to the death and believed he could get a good deal for Carthage by winning enough battles. He didn't understand that rome was totally different. It was peace on their terms or no peace at all.
Also, roman generals got all the material and manpower support possible from the homeland. The childish and arrogant and petty Carthaginian politicians were more worried about becoming rich and not allowing him to become more popular so they screwed him over with almost no support. No roman general ever had to deal with that.
Final thought, Napoleon tried to emulate Hannibal wherever he could. He was another supreme tactician who in global strategy lacked the same brilliance as his tactical and battlefield abilities.
Hannibal's Cannae and Alexander's Gaugamela are far and away two of my most favorite battles of antiquity to study. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples generalship its equal.
There were additional engagements between Rome and Hannibal as late as 207 BC where he continues to win victory after victory, and there are actual "pitched battles" too. Good stuff!
The Spanish and the Apache still are the most expert horsemen there are and have ever been! I love to see the Spanish and the Native American seat a horse, it is one of the most beautiful things in life one will ever see.
THE TROUBLE WITH ZAMA: Paradox, Smoke and Mirrors in an Ancient Battlefield: http://goo.gl/5oiDqC
With a reasonable general the Romans would have defeated Hannibal quite quickly.
Thanks for the upload.
Hannibal was a great leader and general.2 thousand years later & his name still lives on may it live another 2 thousand years more!
Hannibal sparked my interest in history and changed my life. Hope his story does the same for you too
I love the music in the background during the documentary.
17 year occupation, the only reason he lost as I see it is because he seems like a rational mind, the romans weren't rational. he chose where and when he fought otherwise he didn't fight at all. still a genius, afterall, rome defeated itself in the end, a lot worse way to meet your end out of pure greed and in fighting
Sadly, Hannibal's last campaign in the war was far inferior to his during his prime. He surrendered the initiative and movement to Scipio from the offset, and at Zama showed himself painfully static in tactics.
man, the Gauls really shoulda fucked off so that the Carthaginians coulda done their thing!
What an extraordinary Leader! Fierce, Genius! Leader of Leaders!
Actually, Hannibal would not have lost the war if the Senate would let him do what he's set to do. Hannibal wanted to smash into Rome but the Carthaginian senates denied him this chance as they were afraid that this would not only cause Carthage one problem but another as more and more people, such as the Persian empire would start challenging Carthage and they even denied Hannibal backup forces when they asked for it. The Battle of Zama was also lost by the senate's fault. They wanted Hannibal to fight at that battle when they disposed him and this caused Hannibal to hate the senate and even certain historians said he even thought of killing the senates for causing the Romans to fight on Carthage as they are "not worthy to fight Carthage as they're mere peasants that needs to be slaughtered". This lowered the morale of Hannibal as he's fighting for Carthage as he felt that he's being betrayed by the country he's bringing pride to. When Carthage fell, they still blamed Hannibal for losing the war totally when the Senate was the actual cause to the downfall of Carthage and this let Hannibal decide that Carthage had already betrayed him thus he left and became a roving commander to any army that wanted to hire him.
Also I think at Zama, Hannibal could have won at Zama had he used the elephants in the way that Pyhrrus did, keeping them in reserve until the crucial moment when lines are already close and/or engaged. Then there is no option to form lanes or have skirmishers/velites with javelins shower them with deadly fire before they reach main battle line.
Unfortunately he sent them head long in front of all his troops towards a yet un-engaged enemy who were in perfect formation and ready to funnel them and dispatch them at will.
the numidians didn't ride ponies, as goldsworthy said. they rode the ancestors of the barb horse
I think the biggest mistake short of marching on rome after cannae was his decision to pass through Alps while losing so many troops. He replaced them with Gauls who had some good cavalry and brave infantry but they simply weren't as good as the battle hardened troops that he lost while crossing. He could have perhaps had scout ships go ahead and move via fleet along the coast of southern Gaul instead. It would also have been risky due to loss of naval dominance but also could have allowed him to get to Italy or close to it with his elephants and elite troops intact.
Obviously Hannibal was defeated at Zama by Scipio. I was referring to the campaign in Italy.
This documentary contains tracks from Black Hawk Down: 17:55.
The double envelopment at cannae while having the center slowly fall back was sheer brilliance and was never seen before.
His ability to set himself up for success in Trebia and Lake Trasimene speaks to his tactical brilliance. Unfortunately in the meta strategy he was somewhat deficient as he believed Rome wasn't committed to war to the death and believed he could get a good deal for Carthage by winning enough battles. He didn't understand that rome was totally different. It was peace on their terms or no peace at all.
Also, roman generals got all the material and manpower support possible from the homeland. The childish and arrogant and petty Carthaginian politicians were more worried about becoming rich and not allowing him to become more popular so they screwed him over with almost no support. No roman general ever had to deal with that.
Final thought, Napoleon tried to emulate Hannibal wherever he could. He was another supreme tactician who in global strategy lacked the same brilliance as his tactical and battlefield abilities.
he stole his tactics from alexander… lets keep it real here a full 100 years prior to Hannibal alexander was using the hammer and anvil tactic
Hannibal's Cannae and Alexander's Gaugamela are far and away two of my most favorite battles of antiquity to study. You'll be hard pressed to find many examples generalship its equal.
There were additional engagements between Rome and Hannibal as late as 207 BC where he continues to win victory after victory, and there are actual "pitched battles" too. Good stuff!
la musique de la fin plz
Too bad I didn't get to see such documentaries when I studied history in school. They would've been very helpful.
The Spanish and the Apache still are the most expert horsemen there are and have ever been! I love to see the Spanish and the Native American seat a horse, it is one of the most beautiful things in life one will ever see.