Jesus bro! I watched the video and thought you had at least around 500k subs, but man after I saw your sub count I was speechless! Man your production quality is really good. Keep this up and within a year you will reach that number. Again I really appreciate your quality, thank you!
Thank you! Unfortunately I am not able to work on new videos full time these days and this limits growing potential a little bit. But hopefully will be able to release a few new videos soon!
As is the case with any war, but maybe more profound in classical antiquity and a war that lasted generations, it’s hard to imagine being at Canne and shamed by your country only to achieve total victory a lifetime later. The arc those men must have felt. It was their entire world.
Right. But everybody likes to point out the chaos of the elephants as the decisive factor for Hannibal defeat. It was in fact only contributed lightly to the affair. Hannibal, the greatest general, knew ahead it will be a defeat. He had to manage the battle with 2 hands tied behind his back. (not to mention his one eye...). His infantry was not well prepared, recent recruits with no training, who did not know one another, not even speaking the same language; his cavalry was much inferior to the Mesinisa's superior Numidian cavalry, and his elephants were not really war elephants. The fight was doomed, Hannibal was betrayed by his own people, but for me he will always be the best General! (one minute comment: for the pronunciation, try to use the (real) original names, as for Scipio, it is as Skipio (in Latin), and Carthage is as Cartage, or Cartago (sounds Kartago), as in its Latin name. Of course their “punic” (Phoenician) real name is much different... and yes, this includes the name og the greatest Hannibal...)
Hannibal's lack of synergy, coesiveness, and understanding the disposition of his very own army reminds me of an excerpt from The Art of War. _“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”_
Quite the exaggeration to say Hannibal lacks understanding of his own army, this fight was already going to be tough for Hannibal as he had inferior cavalry and mostly inexperienced soldiers. I can understand if you critiqued his use of elephants during the fight but to reach and say that he doesn’t have synergy is crazy, he’s the same man who defeated Rome at Cannae, Trasimine, Trebia etc after all.
@yesno8273 _"He's the same man who defeated Rome at Cannae, Trasimine, Trebia etc after all."_ Until Scipio came into the scene as a Roman army commander.
Good content, but a better narrator and some more Data (for example estimated size of troops) and in which exact year things happened (Like in a Box shown to habe a look at it all the time) would bei great!
Thank you, great idea with the year box, I'll use it in the next video. As for the narrator though, I know my English isn't perfect but I can't afford to hire a voice actor, so this isn't going to change in the near future.
Amazing production value Para Bellum, I just came across your channel recently. Just out of curiosity was the comic book style artwork drawn by yourself/your team because its an excellent for story telling and visualization of the context/ information presented. The style also adds your own personal flavour to your work compared to other channels. The battle presentations are very good too with your own personal style, I especially enjoy the predicted battle intent/plan of each commander before the start of the battle. Although I was wondering does each unit (dot/square) represent a certain number value of troops. Im too used to standard nato symbols for military units, so I wasnt too familar with each unit at a glance (apart from the cavalry tile with the horse symbol on it) until it was explained. Different shades of colours and shapes is a good touch to differentiate different unit types and the infantry is easy to distiguish. Although I do prefer a pictured tile for more specialized units like cavalry, elephants, camels, chariots, artillery etc, but thats just my own personal preference and I dont want to cramp your own style. Your narration was good and easy to follow too, so just focus on the main content first and if you get a higher budget and sponsers later you can hire a narrator. Great Job!
Thank you so much. Glad you liked the video. In this video the artwork of italian artist Massimo Todaro was used. We didn't have any specific number of soldiers in mind when we used dots. But we placed corresponding number of dots to represent relative sizes of armies.
We are using a little bit different approach these days for making battle maps. This isometric approach with a lot of dots turned out to be extremely laborious production wise. So we'll probably do the Fall of Carthage in the same style and that would be it. The new videos will be in different style
I wonder, if Hannibal knew of Scipio's new tactics of organising the roman infantry into mobile blocks instead of a tightly packed formation? And if he did, would he have deployed his elephants differently? Perhaps to even the playing field against the cavalry or to charge the flanks of roman infantry once they were enagaged with his own infantry.
I do oftentimes wonder about the supposed 4000 Macedonian phalangists that Philip V sent to Hannibal. I also wonder if Hannibal considered using them in his rear line, about facing for the impending cavalry return. Perhaps thinning their line to 4 men deep, thus widening their formation to cover most of Hannibal's veterans. Acting as the rear guard, protecting Hannibal's veteran 3rd line as they were engaged and apparently besting the combined lines of the Scipio's romans. Could have possibly worked, having cavalry unexpectedly charging into sarissas. It doesn't sound that alien to me if Hannibal did consider that... He's come up with far more outrageous (and very successful) tactics.
@6kcpRNzXTDNtcPQ Umm i don't know where your comments disappeared? But i was about to respond I disagree. Both Napoleon and Hannibal ultimately suffered their definite defeats because of deceptions and routs. Their respectable ends are actually quite poetic. 1. Mistakes were made before both battles 2. Both faced their arch nemesis they'd never faced before, whom knew and had studied their tactics 3. Both were betrayed before and during the battle 4. Both would've won if not for enemy reinforcements The poorly trained elephants bit can be argued, I guess, but evidence of the battle and general knowledge of this time period points to them being heavily untrained for war at this time. The inferior troops is not a lie. There's a reason Hannibal kept his best troops in the rear and his most fragile troops in the front. They were new troops, mercenaries, foreigners, and Hannibal had had basically no time to train them. 10-15.000 numerical advantage in infantry means nothing if they are up against well drilled and experienced forces. That is a historical fact. And Hannibal's placement of his troops support this. He was no fool. And the decision to prolong the veterans engagement was a calculated risk Hannibal knew he had to take. It was high risk high reward. He knew the cavarly at some point would return, it was inevitable, but it routed earlier than it was supposed to. And yes there's no definite proof the Roman centre was yet at that point crumbling when the cavarly returned, but, it's safe to assume that Hannibal's tactic of tiring the Roman legions first before maneuvering into a wider front with his elite troops to smash the Roman centre while threateaning encirclement... wouldn't have been far away. Again, from what i'e studied, it seems to me that Hannibal did everything possible to win. Just wasn't to be.
As a general fan of history, thrace, snd Macedonia thst close should have been peacefully resolved. Also, 😢 Survivor of cannae sounds like a privilege and an honor
The fact that Hannibal "lost" this battle and then is elected chief Sophet of Carthage the very next year is not indicative he lost. Suggesting he either drew this battle to a standstill or it never actually took place at all. Even if Hannibal wins this battle, Carthage still loses and sues for peace. They lost all their Iberian and African territories. They just simply could not go on fighting this war. "At Cannae discipline was absolute, and Hannibal’s forces moved with clockwork precision, leaving nothing to chance. After the Carthaginian heavy horse under Hasdrubal defeated the Roman equites on the right wing of the Roman formation, they did not give in to the temptation of pursuing the survivors, a remarkable display of discipline. Instead they wheeled to the right like a well-oiled machine, swiftly riding behind the mile-long battlefield to fall upon the flank and rear of the large contingent of allied Italian cavalry under Varro, which was being kept in place by the hit and run tactics of the agile and versatile Numidian riders. When the allied cavalry panicked and broke, it was only the fast Numidian horsemen who undertook the pursuit, while Hasdrubal’s heavy horse, again with perfect discipline, wheeled once more to the right and fell upon the rear of the Roman army already engaged with the Carthaginian center and in the process of being enveloped by Hannibal’s elite Lybian forces closing in from the sides. Hasdrubal’s preordained cavalry manoeuvre blocked the possibility of any retreat and doomed the legions under Servilius and Minucius to their fate. Compare the above display of equestrian manoeuvrability and discipline with the cavalry engagement at Zama, where Hannibal was outnumbered by 6,000 to 4,000 in horsemen. It is clear that Hannibal instructed his smaller Numidian and Carthaginian cavalry to feign a retreat when the Roman horse attacked at the beginning of the battle, and, pretending to escape, draw away from the battlefield the pursuing Numidian horse from the right Roman flank, under the command of Massinissa, as well as the Roman equites under Laelius from the opposite wing. This they accomplished with perfection, removing the superior cavalry forces from the battlefield. Hannibal, and not Scipio, controlled this development. With respect to the infantry engagement, only Hannibal’s third line, which he held as a reserve far behind the others, was composed of seasoned veterans and elite forces from his Italian campaign. Naturally, most of them were not among the men who had crossed the Alps with him in 218 BCE, but they were experienced soldiers, including many from Bruttium, who were determined to shake the Roman yoke. His first two lines, on the other hand, were of questionable quality, and Hannibal probably expected them to cave in under the onslaught of the veteran Roman legionnaires, although not without first taking their toll from them, both in terms of casualties and fatigue. He wanted to insure that not only the Roman first line-the hastati-but also the second and third lines-the principes and the triari-would come into the fray and gradually wear themselves out. Once Hannibal’s first line broke, the retreating soldiers were not permitted to reintegrate themselves at random points in the next line, but were forced to move to the sides, extending the Carthaginian front. Knowing Hannibal’s habit of meticulous planning, it is likely that this repositioning was intentional and decided well before the start of the battle. The same thing happened after the second line broke, and then the Romans were left facing the fresh and rested elite veterans of Hannibal’s army, plus a vastly wider enemy line, threatening to engulf them from the flanks. At that point in the fray, Scipio must have realized that his situation was becoming desperate, for he was in danger of being enveloped from the sides, and was facing an irresistible barrier of rested veterans ready to crush his tired soldiers in the center. We are told that he ordered the Roman advance stopped and repositioned the principes and the triari to the sides of his formation, extending his front to match the width of the Carthaginian line, hoping to avoid encirclement. From the Roman account we get the impression that the Carthaginians remained idle during this redeployment, patiently waiting without attacking until Scipio was done with his preparations, which is patently absurd. We are asked to believe that the most brilliant tactician in history not only was waging a most unimaginative battle but actually wasted time when he would have known full well that time was of the essence and that he had to complete the defeat of the enemy infantry before the absent Roman cavalry could return to the battlefield. It is likely that, if the battle was unfolding as described, at this point Hannibal’s rested veterans would have attacked the Romans without giving them the opportunity to redeploy. At the very least Hannibal would have used the momentary lull in the fighting to reorganize his own forces, most likely by displacing his veterans to the sides, to face the triari and the principes, while the survivors of his first two lines got ready to deal with the exhausted hastati in the center-it is not credible that he would have remained idle. As for Scipio, there was nothing more he could have done at this point, and we are told that the battle resumed with increased ferocity. In view of the rested condition and the quality of Hannibal’s elite veterans, it is very likely that they were in the process of routing the principes and triari while the center held, and certain defeat looked Scipio in the face. What saved the day for Scipio, if we believe the classical accounts, was the fortuitous return in the nick of time of the horsemen under Massinissa and Laelius, who had been tricked away from the battlefield for what must have been hours, and who fell upon the Carthaginian rear. If this is what happened, we must conclude that ultimately it was Massinissa’s betrayal of Hannibal and his fortunate (for the Romans) return to the field, rather than the generalship of Scipio, that decided the outcome of the battle. Had Massinissa and Laelius’s return been delayed for another half hour, Hannibal would almost certainly have prevailed. Even at this point, the Carthaginians were not completely encircled, as the Romans had been at Cannae. According to Polybius, the Carthaginian casualties numbered 20,000, an outcome hardly comparable with the 70,000 fallen at Cannae. Scipio, undoubtedly aware of how close he had been to defeat, had he not been saved at the last moment by Massinissa, later acknowledged that Hannibal had done at Zama everything anyone could have done (Livy 30 : 35, 5-8). The illusion that at Zama the student had matched and outdone the teacher, part of the Scipio myth propagated by Roman historiography, does not fit what supposedly took place in the last battle of the Second Punic War. The classical accounts of the battle of Zama, as we have seen, are strangely inconsistent and contradictory. The course of the struggle is unimaginative to the point of being suspect as the alleged outcome of a first-rate military mind such as Hannibal’s and even Scipio’s. It reads more like the invention of a writer lacking the vision of a great general. The matter of the fictional elephants further reduces credibility. But these are not the only problems with the battle of Zama." thehistoryherald.com/articles/ancient-history-civilisation/hannibal-and-the-punic-wars/the-trouble-with-zama-paradox-smoke-and-mirrors-in-an-ancient-battlefield/2/
He used the Numidia knights of masinisa but masinisa allies with rome and the other knight wasn't strong and fast like numidan knights because that he lost the battle
He couldnt use the same tactics for two reasons: 1) Scipio knew very well his tactics and spent years training his legions in Sicily and Spain to fight Hannibal army. So he had to find alternative ways to defeat Scipio. 2) Hannibal lost his advantage in terms of cavalry because Massinisa, Numidians king, switched side when Scipio barbed him and promised titles and land. Without cavalry advantage, Hannibal had to focus more on a tactic that favour infantry. He prepared well for Battle of Zama and developed a smart plan to move away from the battlefield the enemy cavalry but his carthaginians cavalry didnt follow his plan and let Massinisa and Lelius to come back to the battlefield and attack Hannibal rear.
Sometimes I wonder if Hannibal even had command of this battle. I think not and the defeat just blamed on him. There was no clever plan, tactics or tricks. Just seemed unlike Hannibal. Not even and psychological tricks or ambushes.
Romans didn't have surnames. They had praenomen, nomen, cognomen and sometimes agnomen. Praenomen is personal name, in this case it is Publius. Nomen is the closest to what we would call surname - it is the name of the family (genus) a person belongs to. Scipio belonged to the genus Cornelia so his nomen was Cornelius. Cognomen is a nickname, in this case it is Scipio. It literally means "a walking stick" in latin. Agnomen is also a nickname and after winning the war for Rome Scipio got an agnomen "Africanus". The difference between cognomen and agnomen is that cognomen sticks to the family or family branch and can be passed from father to son, while agnomen sticks to the person himself and cannot be inherited. At some point in history Rome indeed had more inhabitants than Carthage, but not at the time of the Second Punic War. Strabo estimates the free male population of Carthage in 241 BC as 250 000 (total population of the city was around 700 000 also according to Strabo). We can safely extrapolate this number to the year 202 BC. Livy provides the number of citizens (free men 17+ y.o.) in the whole Roman republic (not just the city of Rome) as 214 000 citizens in 204 BC.
@@parabellum9240 Cognomen (latin ) , cognome (italian ) , Surname (in English ) . the agnomen , soprannome (in italian ) , nickname (in English ) . The surname was Scipio ( and you have to read the C in it as a k ) . The agnomen (nickname ) was Africanus . The gens was what you could call a clan : Corneli , Juli , valeri etc .
@@parabellum9240 and for the population , Rome was a republic that had most of central Italy and southern Italy as citizens or are you thinking that the soldiers fighting against Carthage comes only from the city called Rome ? If you look at the punic wars Rome lost more soldiers but won and one of the main reason was that Rome had more Citizens and that means more troops
@@locusta4662during the Second Punic War the vast majority of population of the southern, central and northern Italy were not Roman citizens. They were allied with Rome and in effect controlled by Rome, but they were not citizens of Rome. That's why it was so easy for Hannibal to turn some of the cities to his side. For example Etruscans were granted roman citizenship in 89 BC, the majority of other peoples of Italy got Roman citizenships as a result of the Social War (91-87 BC). When comparing population of Carthage and Rome I speak specifically about the city of Carthage and the city of Rome. And the population of the city of Rome was smaller than the population of the city of Carthage around the end of the Second Punic War.
@@locusta4662 yeah, yeah yeah, and it was not Cicero but Kikero, not Caesar but Kaiser, yes, we all know this, still I prefer the customary pronunciation as in this way more people will understand who I am talking about.
Not just. He made some modifications. For example his pincer tactic was more mobile and based on roman legions structure. Copying it isnt enough to defeat Hannibal. In Zama the cavalry and the diplomacy was the key. By allying with Numidians, romans gained a huge advantage. Scipio wasnt able to use his tactics in Zama because Hannibal prepared for it. Scipio has to thanks Lelio and Massinisa for the victory. Without their cavalry he would have been killed with all roman army.
This guy needs to work on his English. He has a bit of an accent and it's hard to understand him. It's good he speaks English, don't get me wrong, but he needs to work on speaking it more clearly.
My friend, I’m offering to help you with the voice acting if you want me to free of charge. You’re making an excellent work and your efforts deserve to be complimented. Feel free to contact me
Jesus bro! I watched the video and thought you had at least around 500k subs, but man after I saw your sub count I was speechless! Man your production quality is really good. Keep this up and within a year you will reach that number. Again I really appreciate your quality, thank you!
Thank you! Unfortunately I am not able to work on new videos full time these days and this limits growing potential a little bit. But hopefully will be able to release a few new videos soon!
Much better than netflix.
These are some of the best history videos on all of RUclips! crazy that you don't have hundreds of thousands of viewers
Thank you :) Hoping that one day I will, but my channel is still pretty new.
Great documentary and very visually enganging as always!
As is the case with any war, but maybe more profound in classical antiquity and a war that lasted generations, it’s hard to imagine being at Canne and shamed by your country only to achieve total victory a lifetime later. The arc those men must have felt. It was their entire world.
You mean betrayal in war is a good thing
With these type of vids you deserve to have thousands of subs
Thank you!
Magnificiently told, even better presented!
Subscribed.
Thanks and welcome!
Thanks for such a clear-cut explanation
Glad it was helpful!
Amazing video thank you, can’t believe it’s taken this long to find your channel, liked and subbed my bro keep it going
Thanks for the sub!
Great work!
Thank you!
fear the green Macaroni elbows! great video, PB 😄👍
Thank you 👍
Well done! That was interesting and fun to watch
Good video!
Right. But everybody likes to point out the chaos of the elephants as the decisive factor for Hannibal defeat. It was in fact only contributed lightly to the affair. Hannibal, the greatest general, knew ahead it will be a defeat. He had to manage the battle with 2 hands tied behind his back. (not to mention his one eye...). His infantry was not well prepared, recent recruits with no training, who did not know one another, not even speaking the same language; his cavalry was much inferior to the Mesinisa's superior Numidian cavalry, and his elephants were not really war elephants. The fight was doomed, Hannibal was betrayed by his own people, but for me he will always be the best General!
(one minute comment: for the pronunciation, try to use the (real) original names, as for Scipio, it is as Skipio (in Latin), and Carthage is as Cartage, or Cartago (sounds Kartago), as in its Latin name. Of course their “punic” (Phoenician) real name is much different... and yes, this includes the name og the greatest Hannibal...)
Hannibal's lack of synergy, coesiveness, and understanding the disposition of his very own army reminds me of an excerpt from The Art of War.
_“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”_
Quite the exaggeration to say Hannibal lacks understanding of his own army, this fight was already going to be tough for Hannibal as he had inferior cavalry and mostly inexperienced soldiers. I can understand if you critiqued his use of elephants during the fight but to reach and say that he doesn’t have synergy is crazy, he’s the same man who defeated Rome at Cannae, Trasimine, Trebia etc after all.
@yesno8273 _"He's the same man who defeated Rome at Cannae, Trasimine, Trebia etc after all."_
Until Scipio came into the scene as a Roman army commander.
Well done great work
Thank you!
Good content, but a better narrator and some more Data (for example estimated size of troops) and in which exact year things happened (Like in a Box shown to habe a look at it all the time) would bei great!
Thank you, great idea with the year box, I'll use it in the next video. As for the narrator though, I know my English isn't perfect but I can't afford to hire a voice actor, so this isn't going to change in the near future.
only 23k views? man you deserve better
Thank you, unfortunately RUclips doesn't think so :(
Damnnn, the Romans pulled a Cannae at Hannibal
Well it would be more the Battle of Illipa in 205bc when Scipio "cannaed" the last Carthaginian army left in Iberia.
Amazing production value Para Bellum, I just came across your channel recently. Just out of curiosity was the comic book style artwork drawn by yourself/your team because its an excellent for story telling and visualization of the context/ information presented. The style also adds your own personal flavour to your work compared to other channels. The battle presentations are very good too with your own personal style, I especially enjoy the predicted battle intent/plan of each commander before the start of the battle. Although I was wondering does each unit (dot/square) represent a certain number value of troops. Im too used to standard nato symbols for military units, so I wasnt too familar with each unit at a glance (apart from the cavalry tile with the horse symbol on it) until it was explained. Different shades of colours and shapes is a good touch to differentiate different unit types and the infantry is easy to distiguish. Although I do prefer a pictured tile for more specialized units like cavalry, elephants, camels, chariots, artillery etc, but thats just my own personal preference and I dont want to cramp your own style. Your narration was good and easy to follow too, so just focus on the main content first and if you get a higher budget and sponsers later you can hire a narrator. Great Job!
Thank you so much. Glad you liked the video.
In this video the artwork of italian artist Massimo Todaro was used.
We didn't have any specific number of soldiers in mind when we used dots. But we placed corresponding number of dots to represent relative sizes of armies.
We are using a little bit different approach these days for making battle maps. This isometric approach with a lot of dots turned out to be extremely laborious production wise. So we'll probably do the Fall of Carthage in the same style and that would be it. The new videos will be in different style
Can you do the Battle of Soissons 486
What is title of the music during battle?
i was watching an AI generated anime and gosh i couldnt stop thinking about an AI recreation of the battle of zama so much potential
Subscribed ❤
Hello! What songs did you use for this video? Awesome content btw
nice one, keep it up
Thank you
Interesting choice to display the elephants as pieces of macaroni, but overall well done
Your accent is fascinating, I cant tell if you're East European, Italian or Bengali lol
I'm Ukrainian
Great , thanks
I wonder, if Hannibal knew of Scipio's new tactics of organising the roman infantry into mobile blocks instead of a tightly packed formation? And if he did, would he have deployed his elephants differently? Perhaps to even the playing field against the cavalry or to charge the flanks of roman infantry once they were enagaged with his own infantry.
Why have you used an image of the Sassanian king Shahpur for Shypax? 😂
wow this is great
Skip-io not sip-io. The C is pronounced as a hard C, like can or Corinth.
Hannibal once said he wouldve gone down as the greatest general of all time if not for zama.
I do oftentimes wonder about the supposed 4000 Macedonian phalangists that Philip V sent to Hannibal. I also wonder if Hannibal considered using them in his rear line, about facing for the impending cavalry return. Perhaps thinning their line to 4 men deep, thus widening their formation to cover most of Hannibal's veterans. Acting as the rear guard, protecting Hannibal's veteran 3rd line as they were engaged and apparently besting the combined lines of the Scipio's romans. Could have possibly worked, having cavalry unexpectedly charging into sarissas.
It doesn't sound that alien to me if Hannibal did consider that... He's come up with far more outrageous (and very successful) tactics.
Elephants were mascots & psychological instruments for intimidation for the Carthaginians.
You could’ve add subtitles
The video has subtitles.
Utica, NY is right next to Rome, NY, lol.
What kind of English is this?
My first language is Ukrainian.
Look Hannibal didn’t has his massive Calvary they had to stay in Spain
WHAT DOES THIS BATTLE TEACH US MILITARY GUYS!
@6kcpRNzXTDNtcPQ
Umm i don't know where your comments disappeared? But i was about to respond
I disagree. Both Napoleon and Hannibal ultimately suffered their definite defeats because of deceptions and routs. Their respectable ends are actually quite poetic.
1. Mistakes were made before both battles
2. Both faced their arch nemesis they'd never faced before, whom knew and had studied their tactics
3. Both were betrayed before and during the battle
4. Both would've won if not for enemy reinforcements
The poorly trained elephants bit can be argued, I guess, but evidence of the battle and general knowledge of this time period points to them being heavily untrained for war at this time.
The inferior troops is not a lie. There's a reason Hannibal kept his best troops in the rear and his most fragile troops in the front. They were new troops, mercenaries, foreigners, and Hannibal had had basically no time to train them. 10-15.000 numerical advantage in infantry means nothing if they are up against well drilled and experienced forces. That is a historical fact. And Hannibal's placement of his troops support this. He was no fool.
And the decision to prolong the veterans engagement was a calculated risk Hannibal knew he had to take. It was high risk high reward. He knew the cavarly at some point would return, it was inevitable, but it routed earlier than it was supposed to. And yes there's no definite proof the Roman centre was yet at that point crumbling when the cavarly returned, but, it's safe to assume that Hannibal's tactic of tiring the Roman legions first before maneuvering into a wider front with his elite troops to smash the Roman centre while threateaning encirclement... wouldn't have been far away. Again, from what i'e studied, it seems to me that Hannibal did everything possible to win. Just wasn't to be.
As a general fan of history, thrace, snd Macedonia thst close should have been peacefully resolved. Also, 😢 Survivor of cannae sounds like a privilege and an honor
The fact that Hannibal "lost" this battle and then is elected chief Sophet of Carthage the very next year is not indicative he lost. Suggesting he either drew this battle to a standstill or it never actually took place at all. Even if Hannibal wins this battle, Carthage still loses and sues for peace. They lost all their Iberian and African territories. They just simply could not go on fighting this war.
"At Cannae discipline was absolute, and Hannibal’s forces moved with clockwork precision, leaving nothing to chance. After the Carthaginian heavy horse under Hasdrubal defeated the Roman equites on the right wing of the Roman formation, they did not give in to the temptation of pursuing the survivors, a remarkable display of discipline. Instead they wheeled to the right like a well-oiled machine, swiftly riding behind the mile-long battlefield to fall upon the flank and rear of the large contingent of allied Italian cavalry under Varro, which was being kept in place by the hit and run tactics of the agile and versatile Numidian riders. When the allied cavalry panicked and broke, it was only the fast Numidian horsemen who undertook the pursuit, while Hasdrubal’s heavy horse, again with perfect discipline, wheeled once more to the right and fell upon the rear of the Roman army already engaged with the Carthaginian center and in the process of being enveloped by Hannibal’s elite Lybian forces closing in from the sides. Hasdrubal’s preordained cavalry manoeuvre blocked the possibility of any retreat and doomed the legions under Servilius and Minucius to their fate.
Compare the above display of equestrian manoeuvrability and discipline with the cavalry engagement at Zama, where Hannibal was outnumbered by 6,000 to 4,000 in horsemen. It is clear that Hannibal instructed his smaller Numidian and Carthaginian cavalry to feign a retreat when the Roman horse attacked at the beginning of the battle, and, pretending to escape, draw away from the battlefield the pursuing Numidian horse from the right Roman flank, under the command of Massinissa, as well as the Roman equites under Laelius from the opposite wing. This they accomplished with perfection, removing the superior cavalry forces from the battlefield. Hannibal, and not Scipio, controlled this development.
With respect to the infantry engagement, only Hannibal’s third line, which he held as a reserve far behind the others, was composed of seasoned veterans and elite forces from his Italian campaign. Naturally, most of them were not among the men who had crossed the Alps with him in 218 BCE, but they were experienced soldiers, including many from Bruttium, who were determined to shake the Roman yoke. His first two lines, on the other hand, were of questionable quality, and Hannibal probably expected them to cave in under the onslaught of the veteran Roman legionnaires, although not without first taking their toll from them, both in terms of casualties and fatigue. He wanted to insure that not only the Roman first line-the hastati-but also the second and third lines-the principes and the triari-would come into the fray and gradually wear themselves out. Once Hannibal’s first line broke, the retreating soldiers were not permitted to reintegrate themselves at random points in the next line, but were forced to move to the sides, extending the Carthaginian front. Knowing Hannibal’s habit of meticulous planning, it is likely that this repositioning was intentional and decided well before the start of the battle. The same thing happened after the second line broke, and then the Romans were left facing the fresh and rested elite veterans of Hannibal’s army, plus a vastly wider enemy line, threatening to engulf them from the flanks.
At that point in the fray, Scipio must have realized that his situation was becoming desperate, for he was in danger of being enveloped from the sides, and was facing an irresistible barrier of rested veterans ready to crush his tired soldiers in the center. We are told that he ordered the Roman advance stopped and repositioned the principes and the triari to the sides of his formation, extending his front to match the width of the Carthaginian line, hoping to avoid encirclement. From the Roman account we get the impression that the Carthaginians remained idle during this redeployment, patiently waiting without attacking until Scipio was done with his preparations, which is patently absurd. We are asked to believe that the most brilliant tactician in history not only was waging a most unimaginative battle but actually wasted time when he would have known full well that time was of the essence and that he had to complete the defeat of the enemy infantry before the absent Roman cavalry could return to the battlefield. It is likely that, if the battle was unfolding as described, at this point Hannibal’s rested veterans would have attacked the Romans without giving them the opportunity to redeploy. At the very least Hannibal would have used the momentary lull in the fighting to reorganize his own forces, most likely by displacing his veterans to the sides, to face the triari and the principes, while the survivors of his first two lines got ready to deal with the exhausted hastati in the center-it is not credible that he would have remained idle. As for Scipio, there was nothing more he could have done at this point, and we are told that the battle resumed with increased ferocity. In view of the rested condition and the quality of Hannibal’s elite veterans, it is very likely that they were in the process of routing the principes and triari while the center held, and certain defeat looked Scipio in the face.
What saved the day for Scipio, if we believe the classical accounts, was the fortuitous return in the nick of time of the horsemen under Massinissa and Laelius, who had been tricked away from the battlefield for what must have been hours, and who fell upon the Carthaginian rear. If this is what happened, we must conclude that ultimately it was Massinissa’s betrayal of Hannibal and his fortunate (for the Romans) return to the field, rather than the generalship of Scipio, that decided the outcome of the battle. Had Massinissa and Laelius’s return been delayed for another half hour, Hannibal would almost certainly have prevailed. Even at this point, the Carthaginians were not completely encircled, as the Romans had been at Cannae. According to Polybius, the Carthaginian casualties numbered 20,000, an outcome hardly comparable with the 70,000 fallen at Cannae. Scipio, undoubtedly aware of how close he had been to defeat, had he not been saved at the last moment by Massinissa, later acknowledged that Hannibal had done at Zama everything anyone could have done (Livy 30 : 35, 5-8). The illusion that at Zama the student had matched and outdone the teacher, part of the Scipio myth propagated by Roman historiography, does not fit what supposedly took place in the last battle of the Second Punic War.
The classical accounts of the battle of Zama, as we have seen, are strangely inconsistent and contradictory. The course of the struggle is unimaginative to the point of being suspect as the alleged outcome of a first-rate military mind such as Hannibal’s and even Scipio’s. It reads more like the invention of a writer lacking the vision of a great general. The matter of the fictional elephants further reduces credibility. But these are not the only problems with the battle of Zama."
thehistoryherald.com/articles/ancient-history-civilisation/hannibal-and-the-punic-wars/the-trouble-with-zama-paradox-smoke-and-mirrors-in-an-ancient-battlefield/2/
great.
now can you tell me if hannibals mother and wife were iberian?
Why doesnt htis channel have more subs?
RUclips doesn't like me I guess :)
Massinissa carrying
Massinissa betrayals
It is strange Hannibal didn't try to help the flanks, considering that cav in the rear was his favourite tactic.
He used the Numidia knights of masinisa but masinisa allies with rome and the other knight wasn't strong and fast like numidan knights because that he lost the battle
He couldnt use the same tactics for two reasons:
1) Scipio knew very well his tactics and spent years training his legions in Sicily and Spain to fight Hannibal army. So he had to find alternative ways to defeat Scipio.
2) Hannibal lost his advantage in terms of cavalry because Massinisa, Numidians king, switched side when Scipio barbed him and promised titles and land. Without cavalry advantage, Hannibal had to focus more on a tactic that favour infantry.
He prepared well for Battle of Zama and developed a smart plan to move away from the battlefield the enemy cavalry but his carthaginians cavalry didnt follow his plan and let Massinisa and Lelius to come back to the battlefield and attack Hannibal rear.
Sometimes I wonder if Hannibal even had command of this battle. I think not and the defeat just blamed on him. There was no clever plan, tactics or tricks. Just seemed unlike Hannibal. Not even and psychological tricks or ambushes.
Scipio was the Surname , Rome had more inhabitants than Carthago
Romans didn't have surnames. They had praenomen, nomen, cognomen and sometimes agnomen.
Praenomen is personal name, in this case it is Publius.
Nomen is the closest to what we would call surname - it is the name of the family (genus) a person belongs to. Scipio belonged to the genus Cornelia so his nomen was Cornelius.
Cognomen is a nickname, in this case it is Scipio. It literally means "a walking stick" in latin.
Agnomen is also a nickname and after winning the war for Rome Scipio got an agnomen "Africanus". The difference between cognomen and agnomen is that cognomen sticks to the family or family branch and can be passed from father to son, while agnomen sticks to the person himself and cannot be inherited.
At some point in history Rome indeed had more inhabitants than Carthage, but not at the time of the Second Punic War.
Strabo estimates the free male population of Carthage in 241 BC as 250 000 (total population of the city was around 700 000 also according to Strabo). We can safely extrapolate this number to the year 202 BC. Livy provides the number of citizens (free men 17+ y.o.) in the whole Roman republic (not just the city of Rome) as 214 000 citizens in 204 BC.
@@parabellum9240 Cognomen (latin ) , cognome (italian ) , Surname (in English ) . the agnomen , soprannome (in italian ) , nickname (in English ) . The surname was Scipio ( and you have to read the C in it as a k ) . The agnomen (nickname ) was Africanus . The gens was what you could call a clan : Corneli , Juli , valeri etc .
@@parabellum9240 and for the population , Rome was a republic that had most of central Italy and southern Italy as citizens or are you thinking that the soldiers fighting against Carthage comes only from the city called Rome ? If you look at the punic wars Rome lost more soldiers but won and one of the main reason was that Rome had more Citizens and that means more troops
@@locusta4662during the Second Punic War the vast majority of population of the southern, central and northern Italy were not Roman citizens. They were allied with Rome and in effect controlled by Rome, but they were not citizens of Rome. That's why it was so easy for Hannibal to turn some of the cities to his side. For example Etruscans were granted roman citizenship in 89 BC, the majority of other peoples of Italy got Roman citizenships as a result of the Social War (91-87 BC).
When comparing population of Carthage and Rome I speak specifically about the city of Carthage and the city of Rome. And the population of the city of Rome was smaller than the population of the city of Carthage around the end of the Second Punic War.
@@locusta4662 yeah, yeah yeah, and it was not Cicero but Kikero, not Caesar but Kaiser, yes, we all know this, still I prefer the customary pronunciation as in this way more people will understand who I am talking about.
👏
Scipio just copied Hannibal's moves and tactic's, very smart general
Not just. He made some modifications. For example his pincer tactic was more mobile and based on roman legions structure. Copying it isnt enough to defeat Hannibal. In Zama the cavalry and the diplomacy was the key. By allying with Numidians, romans gained a huge advantage. Scipio wasnt able to use his tactics in Zama because Hannibal prepared for it. Scipio has to thanks Lelio and Massinisa for the victory. Without their cavalry he would have been killed with all roman army.
This guy needs to work on his English. He has a bit of an accent and it's hard to understand him. It's good he speaks English, don't get me wrong, but he needs to work on speaking it more clearly.
we'll be releasing new videos with new narrator soon. Possibly redubbing old ones too.
hire a voice actor, all else is great
thank you for advice, but I don't have budget for this
Delenda est Carthago
Good that he lost
Hannibal the greatest general ever
Only if Scipio had not been born.
@@MultiRedskullstill the greatest,what he achieved against the mighty of the Roman empire is unsurmountable
My friend, I’m offering to help you with the voice acting if you want me to free of charge. You’re making an excellent work and your efforts deserve to be complimented. Feel free to contact me
Thank you, how can I contact you?