My thoughts on why Hannibal didn't bother to take Rome. He couldn't. He had tried and failed to lay siege to a smaller less defended city. But why? His army was small but fierce. While Hannibal was always outnumbered he always maneuvered derisively and with aggression. Using terrain, clever tactics, and fear as force multipliers. (Fear being with elephants, the average Roman would have no idea what this monster was.) My conclusion, Hannibal didn't have a siege army. Hannibal has a shock army. It's fast, aggressive, and flexible. But cannot do much in one spot for a prolonged time.
He lacked siege equipment, and he was in hostile territory without a reliable mode of resupply of either manpower or other support. If he had attempted a siege of Rome, he risked being bogged down at its walls, or even pinned against them, should Rome have fielded another force. Additionally, *if he had actually taken the city, there would have been no one left to surrender to him. In many ways, it was similar to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as the targets for the same reason.
He also had few Carthaginians in his army but filled his ranks with foreign mercenaries who far outnumber him and too vicious to trust. Attacking Rome was out of the question because he lacked siege weaponry and even if he managed to take down Rome with or without heavy costs, mutiny after defeating their strongest foe would've been inevitable.
@@charliemountain82 That's a judicious statement. It has often been noted additionally, that Hannibal had what is called a "Hellenistic Mindset", or in terms of war, you defeat your opponent via means of a decisive battle, or what not, proceed for terms and thus settle things.
Well said!! 💯 His army just wasn't Good enough of a Siege army!! He would have needed Siege equipment and countless Soldiers if he attempted to besiege Rome!! (Because ZERO doubt Rome would throw every General and Body, and All equipment that Rome had for defense, everything available to protect the City)
Hannibal being forced back to Carthage was a clever ploy by Roman General Scipio. Who decided to take the fight to Africa. Correctly guessing, Hannibal would leave Rome/Italy and follow him. Quite a gambit as the Roman Senate didn't allow Scipio to take a huge Roman army needed for the defence of Rome away on a expedition. So he created his own army and set sail for Africa. Before that he had already fought in Iberia (modern Portugal & Spain) It worked and Scipio emerged victorious and was renamed Scipio Africanus and offered to be dictator of Rome. Which he refused. This was the second punic war. In the third one, Scipio's grandson, also named Scipio, sacked the city
Actually Scipio Aemilianus was an adopted Grandson of Africanus. Scipio Aemilianus was the biological son of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, the Roman who ended the Antigonid Macedon Dynasty, and Epirus independence and power!!
@@Aemilius46 Growing up in an what used to an old Roman Vicus, visiting to museum a lot, reading about it and watching Metatron's youtube channel helped a lot. It's interesting to know about your roots. Which for me seems to be Gallo-Roman
@@warographics643 Fleetfoot01 1 second ago The only problem I have with this video was with it repeatedly falsely being called the "Roman Empire", which it was not at the time of the Punic wars! Rome and Italy was a Republic during the time of the three Punic Wars, not a empire. The Roman Empire wasn't founded until 27 BC, over 120+ years _AFTER_ the end of the Third Punic War, which ended in 146 BC.
@@Aemilius46 You clearly know nothing about ancient ROMAN history. The reason it was known as first the Roman Kingdom, then the Roman Republic and finally the Roman Empire is because the central government of those three regimes, ie, the Roman kings, then the Republic Senate and finally the Emperors starting from Augustus Caesar, ruled from the city of ROME. Hence who the societies were called ROMAN, they were named for the city that the ruler/governments ruled from. That also while the armies that defended Italy back then were called the ROMAN legions.
I always get sad thinking about the Fall of Carthage, and how the, most likely mythical, tale of Scipio looking on the burning city, started to cry, and uttered, "A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain." As he was thinking about how in the future, Rome might suffer the same fate. Polybius definitely wrote it in, as an allusion to the fall of the Greek culture by the Romans as well. Him being a Greek hostage in Rome.
Of likely apocryphal tidbits like that I once heard a history professor say the following: It might have well been true. The idea being that while likely something people came up with after the fact, they perfectly sum up what was going on at the time they supposedly happened. The professor thought it important to understand that things like that Scipio bit are most likely later inventions and would point them out when he could, but he also saw the worth in them. My takeaway from that was to increase my appreciation for how well fiction can tell the truth, if you know how to look for it.
@@whyjnot420 I 100% agree with you, it's why I find reading ancient historical sources so entertaining. There is a truth mixed in with these tellings of history that we can gleam into what is deemed important by the people during the time they lived them.
@@tylercummings1458 Not just things like ancient primary sources. E.g. Master & Commander: Far Side of the World. Everything from that to the book of Samuel has different levels of certain truths, even when surrounded by a simply fictitious story like with a period accurate historical fiction like with a modern movie. Or surrounded by the literal stuff of myth and of the gods dating back thousands of years. There are kernels of the past hidden away like proto-indo-european words in Finnish or in plain sight for the world to see if they know how, such as some of the proposed armor for a real life analog to Achilles. Finding or being shown and ultimately understanding these (to some degree at least) is infinitely entertaining. And this is not even getting into trying to understand what these stories mean to those who told them. A fun exercise here is to try and imagine what someone 1-2k years in the future would think of the stories we tell today. Movies, manga, video games, cheap pulp fiction crap, etc. etc. etc.
@@whyjnot420 That would be entertaining to see lol. I actually always say, when reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, you learn about the things that a British man views important for a functioning society during the late 18th century.
Hannibal couldn't besiege Rome because he knew well that he didn't have the siege equipment, nor numbers to take on All the Roman forces!! Imagine how many Roman forces he would've had to fight if he attempted to take Rome. Politics did play a part, but not the entire reason.
@@Butterratbee Wow, that's a pretty hilariously ignorant view of the education, fostering of individual character, and hierarchical roles within military circles. So much so, that I'm not even sure where to start. It's very clear that your entire perception is tainted by an inherent anti-military bias, to the extent that I'm actually wondering if you've even graduated from high school yet. Look at Mattis as the absolutely clearest example of an "adult in the room" during the Trump administration, for example. Or the numerous times in Russian history (alone) where political figures acted against the advice of or superceded the command of generals with disastrous results. There have been numerous examples throughout history of over-zealous politicians pursuing military action or outright war against the advice of military commanders. Tell me Eisenhower wasn't a comparatively better and more realistic president than the vast majority of presidents before and since. Would you call George Washington an idiot that only knew how to fight? Last I checked, he's almost universally ranked within the top 10 best presidents in US history by historians. Look at the resounding success, nay, flourishing, that took place during the western occupation and reconstruction of Europe and Japan after WW2. Do you even know who was organizing and orchestrating those? Military generals, you ignorant oaf. In fact, your statement is so hilariously stupid that a cursory glance establishes an evident misunderstanding and misconception of what jobs most generals fill. Fighting and combat coordination isn't something that the overwhelming number of generals ever even experience, let alone actively participate in - that is the work of field and company level officers (only the latter of which are actually likely to "fight"). Generals fulfill administrative, logistical, and organizational roles. There is a reason why retired military officers very often make better politicians, diplomats, and government officials than individuals that actively pursue careers in such fields (look up Smedley Butler). It may not always be the case, and sometimes failures do occur, but the simple fact of the matter is that integrity and courage are characteristics that are actively fostered across the entire rank spectrum. We both know this very much is not the case amongst career politicians. The UCMJ (if you even know what that is or the specifics within it) is evidence of this - feel free to look up what it has to say about unlawful orders, because I know full well that you have no idea. Yes, bad actors do exist, but they are very much in the minority. Yes, some generals do put their wallets ahead of their integrity and buy into lobbyists out of greed. If one were to somehow determine the ratio, in the US, of active military generals relative to career politicians engaged in such actions, I would be genuinely unsurprised to find the results weighing far more heavily against the latter. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data on that (if it's even out there), so that one must remain conjecture on my part. I'm not going to say that military commanders never mess up or entangle the appropriate political process, but I'll definitely say that your statement is a sweeping generalization (no pun intended), demonstrably inaccurate, and belligerently ignorant.
@@Butterratbee if you cannot debate history without insulting someone with an opposing view, you only demonstrate your own lack of capacity for critical thinking. I understand your point, as the original comment was a gross overgeneralization (potentially intentional), but try to be respectful.
Thankfully he did because Rome was the coolest civilization to ever exist. If Carthage actually helped him, we would’ve never see Aurelian restore the world…
Rome rewarded success, meanwhile, Carthage punished failure. And bc of Roman politics of the Roman Republic, and their traditions, it made Roman consuls more aggressive to gain as much glory and prestige as possible, which in Roman culture was incredibly important. Meanwhile, Carthage laws and society made their commanders more cautious and restrained.
Really enjoying these videos always loved history the culture, the wars,the art,the leaders, I never got to learn about it in school always watched your videos or others on RUclips keep up the great work
I think I heard that Cato finished every single of his speeches with "Carthago delenda est", even if they had nothing to do with Carthage. That's how much he hated Carthage.
On one hand you have Hannibal hamstrung by envious politicians in Carthage who wanted peace with Rome. Then on the opposing side you have men like Cato. That is why Rome won
Excellent video again ,Simon. Only thing, you missed the myrmellians(?)in Messana, that invited both to help against Syracuse sparking the First War. Cheers.
Imagine being the Roman scout who had to report to his commander that there was a large army with war elephants just coming over the Alps. The commander would’ve probably had him flogged for being drunk.
Definitely!!!! 💯💯 Me too, love the channels and videos!! You should check out the RUclips channel, Kings and Generals!! Very interesting and intellectual historical stuff!! (Rome, Greece, Generals, Armies, etc)
Technically this would be the Roman Republic! 🙂 There's three parts of Ancient Rome in a sense, the Roman Kingdom/Monarchy, followed by the Roman Republic, then Roman Empire! (Some believe that the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire, etc! Count as well!)
When Rome defeated Hannibal, they weren't actually known just for the Eagle because they also had the Horse, Boar, Wolf, and Minotaur Legionary standards. The Eagle became the only standard after the Marian Reforms. Also, Carthage did support Hannibal, they gave him commanders like his brothers, the elephants, etc.
@@Aemilius46 Did you watch the video? Hannibal had Rome on the ropes but pro Roman voices in Carthage basically got him cut off from supplies and reenforcements so he basically starved out and had to retreat back to Africa
@@samwill7259 Doesn't matter, because Rome had far more Talent, Supplies, Reinforcement, and Intelligence than Carthage and Hannibal.... It's why Carthage and Hannibal lost EVERY War against the Republic, and we're completely Wiped out, while Rome lasted for MANY More years.
You know I just realized that in some ways the Roman Empire died the way the Carthaginian Empire died through the fall of Constantinople who just like the port city of Carthage is also magnificent major port city who became the last bastion of the Romans/Byzantines until the Ottomans had breached its gates.
Good observation. I suppose one difference was that Byzantine knowledge, history etc. was not lost after its fall. After Carthage fell nearly all traces of the Phoenician culture and science that had given us the alphabet we use today and naval navigation using the stars for example was nearly wiped clean from history.
@@martineldritch That's true, but when you mentioned the alphabet, I became a bit questioning. Can you elaborate on what you mean and what alphabet you are talking about? Phoenician, perhaps? Depending on what language you're talking about and the region, in the case of Latin, its alphabet is rather an important influence on English for example, something that is widely used/known. Phoenician is known to have had an impact on Ancient Greek, though some would love to contest that for certain reasons.
@@drakehashimoto685 From "Archaic Greek Alphabets" Wiki "All forms of the Greek alphabet were originally based on the shared inventory of the 22 symbols of the Phoenician alphabet..." Hope this helps. ?
I feel like calling the burning of the Temple of Eshmoun "an act of final, belligerent desperation" isn't fair at all to the legacy of the Carthaginians. They had 3 choices: A humiliating execution, a lifetime of slavery, or one final act of defiance. The dictionary definition of "belligerent" is "hostile, aggressive." I don't see how someone could, when faced with the circumstances and aftermath of the Third Punic War, apply that term to anyone other than the Romans themselves. I feel that "an act of final, desperate defiance" would have been far more appropriate. Awesome video, as always. 👍
Wasn't going to happen though.... Carthage lost all the Wars with Rome and there was no way Carthage would've held down the Roman Republic for a long time.
@@Aemilius46it could very well have happened, the rise of rome wasnt some inevitable outcome and at that time rome was far from being the powerhouse empire we remember it ad yet. Rome came very close to be defeated and conquered multiple times troughout history, guess they had plot armour 😂
@@hattorihanzo562Plot armor for real life that makes sense.... 🤦 Rome had incredible General's, Variety of Skills, Excellent Diplomacy and Politics, And we're able to conquer those who we're once thought as "Greatness"
It was a joke dude... What you say doesnt change anything. "wasn't going to happen though" is just wrong, Carthage couldve very well won against Rome and the rise of Rome wasnt some inevitable outcome of history. Its historical fact that rome had a lot of luck troughout it struggle to become the empire we remember it as and hannibal came very very close to conquer it.
The loss of any great civilization is horrible. But unlike other tragedies, Carthage was quickly, and mercilessly stomped on. I can't help but wonder what a world without Rome having such a profound impact would be like.
Cato didn't just end any speech on the subject with this, he ended any speech *period* with "ceterum censeo carthagine delenda est" (=also, I am of the opinion carthage has to be destroyed)
Definitely need to cover the Siege of Fredericksburg. One of the key battles of the US War Between the States; this battle had a significant moment of courage, heroism, and compassion when 2nd Lt. Richard Rowland Kirkland of the CSA brought water to wounded Federals despite major risks to his person.
@@jaypandya7441 Sure, so would Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, (if you’re looking for Federal victories), either of the Manassas battles, or Cold Harbor; but Fredericksburg is special, for the soldier I mentioned.
How about the Battle of Brunanburh? The last battle that created England (or Englaland at that point), culmination of Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Aethelflaed's attempts to reclaim England from the Danes and Norse. Aethelstan being crowned the first king of England.
Is it really a mystery why Hannibal couldn't finish the war when he was in Italy? I thought it was common knowledge that the Carthaginian senate refused to reinforce Hannibal in fear of him growing too powerful, more powerful than the senate, a Caesar before Caesar. Forced to make do with whatever troops/mercenaries and to forage the countryside for food. Rome's principal allies refused to turn their back on her and the Carthaginian senate bought Rome enough time to mobilize and attack Carthage herself. Self checkmate.
They did but Rome did not have the walls it would later the story is this Hannibal was an old school guy before this if you beat armies like him the loser would sue for peace but Rome was new for Rome they had all these cities in Italy allied to them form early under Rome they had protection and were citizen's of Rome Hannibal could not offer anything near that so they did not break with Rome and there man power kept going to Rome and Rome used it to keep fighting over and raising new armies Hannibal was begged by his brothers just to go lay Siege to the city but he knew he did not have the men to do it so he went south it was the same later with the Greeks when they met Rome in battle in the old days they would raise there long pikes to show we give up and both sides would let them go Roman Legions would cut them apart as Rome did not follow the old rules the world now would fallow new rules Roman ones
Hannibal was given lot's of help! The problem for Carthage was that Rome had greater resources and manpower and was able to intercept the reinforcements and destroy them before they reached Hannibals forces!!
Simon you should do a feature with armchair historian you two are brilliant at telling story’s absolutely brilliant my favourites are on modern war machines
@13:43 Adopted son (and cousin) of Publius Cornelius Scipio, who was the son of Scipio Africanus, the Roman general who finally defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. Scipio Africanus was therefore Scipio Aemilianus' adopted grandfather. Additionally, Scipio Aemilianus' birth father was Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, whose father was Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the Roman consul was was killed in battle at Cannae, which was Hannibal's most famous victory (still studied in military strategy classes to this day,) and which was the biggest reason Hannibal became the Boogeyman to the Romans. The Roman army was 175% the size of the Carthaginian army, and yet not only did they lose, the army was virtually-annihiliated The Romans lost approximately 20% of their adult male population in a single day. During the latter part of the battle when the Romans' defeat had begun, 500 Romans died every minute. When you compare the two sides' casualties: for every 1 soldier of the Carthaginian army who died, the Romans lost TEN! Historians have come up with a bunch of ways of looking at it because it was that huge of a disaster for the Romans. Rome had never suffered a defeat this bad, and unbeknownst to them, this would be the worst defeat Rome ever suffered in its ~1,000-year history. Sidenote: sooooooo yeah that's why Cato the Censor wouldn't shut up about destroying Carthage - he was one of the few people who were old enough to REMEMBER that day (he was 18 when it happened.) Cato, like anyone who lived during the rest of the Second Punic War after Cannae, lived in perpetual fear of one thing above all others: Hannibal Barca of Carthage. Anyway: when it came to both birth family and adopted family, Scipio Aemilianus had a major bone to pick with Carthage. ruclips.net/video/Beg3fo2pSEs/видео.htmlsi=jYKvV03FrqRRfrDz&t=949 ruclips.net/video/Beg3fo2pSEs/видео.htmlsi=jYKvV03FrqRRfrDz&t=949 ruclips.net/video/Q-nWA0WeF98/видео.htmlsi=zlS7ry5u0WCjmPTa&t=2051
A lot of people like to make a big deal out of the victories of ancient Rome. No doubt they won some major and some amazing victories, but so have a great many other powers through history. The thing that makes ancient Rome much more unique than simply winning does, is the fact that they could take a hit that would kill another state. Time and time again, Rome would take a major loss.... lose 2 armies in an afternoon at Cannae, just raise more..... lose a fleet of a couple hundred ships in a storm because you don't know how to use a navy, just build more..... you can see this oh so many times in Roman history and for a thousand years, they just kept getting back up. Hell, the same year they destroyed Carthage, they destroyed Corinth.... that just highlights the manpower they had at their disposal. edit: and that is just talking about what we can consider the classical and later Western Roman empire. Not even getting into the Eastern or as we say, Byzantine Empire. Doing that adds another 1000 years. April 20th 753 BCE (the traditional date of the founding of the city of Rome) to May 29th 1453 (the fall of Constantinople).
You must be very high!! Rome ended the multiple Dynasties/Kingdoms/Empires, Rome was not just brilliant in Warfare and Politics, but victories like the Battle of Clastidium where they we're heavily outnumbered and only had a couple thousand Cavalry yet still won!
Good effort to explain complicated historical events spanning hundreds of years in 18 minutes. Although the figures for population seem over exaggerated. 700 000 population? Rome at the peak of the principate is estimated between 500k and 1 mln.
Frequently? It is said that every time he would speak in the senate, he would end the speech with that phrase, even if it did not have anything to do with what he was talking about. tbh, that was smart, people are more likely to be warm to something they have heard a thousand times, even if they did not like whatever it was originally.
@@owusu369 but they weren't Carthaginians. The Romans mande sure that the Carthaginian culture was totally destroyed. Survivors were taken as slaves, who later assimilated with ethnicities from rest of the empire. The true Carthaginian bloodline was dead by the time we get to Augustus
Human history is filled with savagery and brutality. Not much has changed. We're still at one another's throats somewhere in the world. Will we ever get past this tribalism and learn to live together peacefully? It hasn't happened yet. The difference is now we have the technology to make our species go extinct. One way or another, we must become a global community if we are to solve the problems we all face. Otherwise Mother Nature may select us for extinction. We may select ourselves for extinction. It is remarkable how little we have learned in the 2,000 odd years since the Punic Wars. I pray we learn these lessons while we still have the time to save ourselves.🙏🏻☮️🇺🇸
Really enjoy this channel. I am however unable not to complain, so that being said you kept calling Rome an Empire, at the time it was the Roman Republic. I'm being pedantic, I know. But really enjoy the channel Simon, absolutely brilliant stuff 🙂
@@thewildcardperson Umm, no. Rome may have had a king at some point, but that was when it was just one city state among dozens, they're more myth than fact, since anything written about them came centuries after the fact. But the Rome that took over more and more of its neighbors, and that came into conflict with Carthage once their spheres off influence collided, was a Republic. It was already an empire at this point, just still under a republican form of government. And the bigger the empire got, the less able the institutions of that government were able to effectively run it, which eventually led to one guy taking over all real power (while still pretending that the old institutions were totally still in charge), at which point historians start to refer to it officially as the Roman Empire.
The only problem I have was with Simon repeatedly falsely calling it the "Roman Empire", which it was not at the time of the Punic wars! Rome and Italy was a Republic during the time of the three Punic Wars, not a empire. The Roman Empire wasn't founded until 27 BC, over 120+ years _AFTER_ the end of the Third Punic War, which ended in 146 BC.
@@TheTablePaper It wasn't though, the Roman Republic didn't become the empire until 121 years _after_ the sacking of Carthage which ended the Third Punic War.
@@Fleetfoot01 The definition of 'empire' you're using here isn't the modern definition. Roman history is divided between it's republican and imperial phase and that's the definition of empire you're using. A state under the rule of an imperator. If this was the only definition of empire then *only* the Roman empire was ever an empire in history. I'm using the modern definition of empire, a state subjugating foreigners under their rule. The same way the British empire or Incan empires were empires.
814-146 what a run for one of the most important Mediterranean cities of Antiquity. Only Athens and Syracuse could match their naval/trade prowess until of course Rome swooped in and took everything they all had.
The cathenginians messed up from start with surrender. Then the batshit crazy demands from Rome to relocate inland. Should have just said come and take our city if you can.
Most people think Hannibal had planned to go over the alps beforehand, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. He was planning on attacking Italy straight away, but Scipio had shown up a day or two before Hannibal did, so the way was blocked thus forcing him to take the alps during winter. Lets be honest , taking the alps during winter with elephants , siege weapons , and men dressed for spring is not a "genius" plan. He lost half his army because of it... but he was just THAT determined to spill Roman blood. Based.
I have no idea, but cultic pseudo-science aside, regional climates have changed through centuries and millennium. And the Alpine area at the time, or maybe during that given Winter, might have been milder, or that particular season warmer. Just as more than a thousand years later, Vikings launched on far-flung voyages, thanks to warmer milder Atlantic-weather. - And lo, not a carbon-emitting engine ever came into sight their Long-ships! ⛵
Who cares!!! It wasn't as great as people think, not only did he lose lot's of men and elephants, but he still lost. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and Marcus Claudius Marcellus we're able to protect Rome and other Cities!
Well done!! 👍 👏 I greatly Admire Scipio Aemilianus and his father, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus (Both we're Extraordinary and Brilliant Generals and Politicians) ironically, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus ended the Antigonid Macedon Dynasty, while his son Scipio Aemilianus ended Carthage!! Carthage was certainly Nothing compared to Rome and Greece!!!! Not to mention how Many people of Greatness come from Rome and Greece, compared to Carthage.... #GloryToRome #GloryToGreece
Partially, you're right about doing it because of Roman pride, but that wasn't completely or even mostly it. Carthage and Rome obliterated each other in the first two wars. Rome put massive indemnities on Carthage, not unlike what the Allies did to Germany after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles and for the same reasons. To keep them down. Cato wanted Carthage destroyed because after both wars they paid the debts off extremely quickly and were back on their feet. It freaked the Romans out big time. They figured the only way they could ever stop worrying about Carthage was if Carthage was just completely wiped off the map. They thought the same way about the Gauls who once sacked Rome. Even had a treasury set aside for if the Gauls came back. Shocking events stayed with them amd made them paranoid, which after Hannibal they had every right to be 😂
Cato was one of the few men of his time that listen to the priests of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Jupiter told his priests, the priest told Cato and then Cato told the Senate then Jupiters will was made manifest
Some sources argue that Hannibal was not in fact a good general, tactically speaking, especially when considering how catastrophic the crossing of the alps was with the elephants and many other small military mistakes that Hannibal made. Those sources argue that the only historian who glorified him and his achievements was Polivio, a Roman author who supposedly was paid by Scipio’s family to celebrate Hannibal, thinking that if they make Hannibal appear like such a great general, Scipio would appear like a much greater one for having defeated him. Hannibal was a fascinating, formidable force that’s for sure. Tragically, he caused the end of his own nation.
Dude, Hannibal didn’t rise through the ranks lol, his father was the top Carthaginian general, Hasdrubal. He inherited his father’s position and entire army upon his death. He didn’t rise through any ranks! He started straight at the top.
Not neccasserily top since Hasdrubal was lowkey getting rid of because the elites in carthage didnt Like him and His hawkish Attitude, the barcas Made themselves a Personal Kingdom in spain
Qart-Hadesht hadn't been annihilated...it just changed Masters. The Time hasn't ended yet...and a last assault is to be launched.....Rome has to dread the new Carthage.
@@resileaf9501 SMH, really ? Most siege engines weren't dragged all over hell & back most were built on site w only a few parts being bought from where they started mostly parts made from metal & rope don't forget Carthage was a master of prefab if you have engineers & the necessary parts prefabricated all you need is trees to cut down & italy has trees
@@resileaf9501 it's actually the engineers although Carthage had amazing engineers for whatever reason there weren't many in the military & he didn't see fit to bring the few there were his plan was to get romes Italian allies to turn on them by making the countryside burn & it's people bleed but it didn't work obviously
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
My thoughts on why Hannibal didn't bother to take Rome. He couldn't.
He had tried and failed to lay siege to a smaller less defended city.
But why?
His army was small but fierce.
While Hannibal was always outnumbered he always maneuvered derisively and with aggression. Using terrain, clever tactics, and fear as force multipliers. (Fear being with elephants, the average Roman would have no idea what this monster was.)
My conclusion, Hannibal didn't have a siege army.
Hannibal has a shock army.
It's fast, aggressive, and flexible.
But cannot do much in one spot for a prolonged time.
He lacked siege equipment, and he was in hostile territory without a reliable mode of resupply of either manpower or other support. If he had attempted a siege of Rome, he risked being bogged down at its walls, or even pinned against them, should Rome have fielded another force.
Additionally, *if he had actually taken the city, there would have been no one left to surrender to him. In many ways, it was similar to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as the targets for the same reason.
He also had few Carthaginians in his army but filled his ranks with foreign mercenaries who far outnumber him and too vicious to trust. Attacking Rome was out of the question because he lacked siege weaponry and even if he managed to take down Rome with or without heavy costs, mutiny after defeating their strongest foe would've been inevitable.
@@charliemountain82 That's a judicious statement. It has often been noted additionally, that Hannibal had what is called a "Hellenistic Mindset", or in terms of war, you defeat your opponent via means of a decisive battle, or what not, proceed for terms and thus settle things.
Well said!! 💯
His army just wasn't Good enough of a Siege army!! He would have needed Siege equipment and countless Soldiers if he attempted to besiege Rome!! (Because ZERO doubt Rome would throw every General and Body, and All equipment that Rome had for defense, everything available to protect the City)
@@ythandlename no he could just pay them with plunder from rome. He had just defeated the gauls biggest enemy, so why would they revolt?
Fair effort to explain the destruction of Carthage in 18 and a half minutes. Nicely done, Oliver
They destroyed Carthage in 18 and a half minutes… that’s fast!
Hannibal being forced back to Carthage was a clever ploy by Roman General Scipio. Who decided to take the fight to Africa. Correctly guessing, Hannibal would leave Rome/Italy and follow him. Quite a gambit as the Roman Senate didn't allow Scipio to take a huge Roman army needed for the defence of Rome away on a expedition. So he created his own army and set sail for Africa.
Before that he had already fought in Iberia (modern Portugal & Spain)
It worked and Scipio emerged victorious and was renamed Scipio Africanus and offered to be dictator of Rome. Which he refused.
This was the second punic war.
In the third one, Scipio's grandson, also named Scipio, sacked the city
Cato was one of the people who screwed Scipio over after the second war.
Actually Scipio Aemilianus was an adopted Grandson of Africanus. Scipio Aemilianus was the biological son of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, the Roman who ended the Antigonid Macedon Dynasty, and Epirus independence and power!!
@@Aemilius46 It seems to be quite common. First Emperor Octavius was also adopted. By Caesar
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan True!! It was a VERY common thing indeed!! You are correct!
@@Aemilius46 Growing up in an what used to an old Roman Vicus, visiting to museum a lot, reading about it and watching Metatron's youtube channel helped a lot.
It's interesting to know about your roots. Which for me seems to be Gallo-Roman
This channel is quickly becoming one my favorites that you make Simon. Thanks to you and the crew.
Thanks man, it really means a lot. I put a lot of work into these
Thank you :)
@@warographics643
Fleetfoot01
1 second ago
The only problem I have with this video was with it repeatedly falsely being called the "Roman Empire", which it was not at the time of the Punic wars! Rome and Italy was a Republic during the time of the three Punic Wars, not a empire. The Roman Empire wasn't founded until 27 BC, over 120+ years _AFTER_ the end of the Third Punic War, which ended in 146 BC.
While not my favourite channel, this is the only war channel I watch, because Simon and his team of writers and editors are just *chef's kiss*
@@Aemilius46 You clearly know nothing about ancient ROMAN history. The reason it was known as first the Roman Kingdom, then the Roman Republic and finally the Roman Empire is because the central government of those three regimes, ie, the Roman kings, then the Republic Senate and finally the Emperors starting from Augustus Caesar, ruled from the city of ROME. Hence who the societies were called ROMAN, they were named for the city that the ruler/governments ruled from. That also while the armies that defended Italy back then were called the ROMAN legions.
This by far is one of my favorite channels. Keep up the great work.
I always get sad thinking about the Fall of Carthage, and how the, most likely mythical, tale of Scipio looking on the burning city, started to cry, and uttered, "A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain." As he was thinking about how in the future, Rome might suffer the same fate. Polybius definitely wrote it in, as an allusion to the fall of the Greek culture by the Romans as well. Him being a Greek hostage in Rome.
Of likely apocryphal tidbits like that I once heard a history professor say the following: It might have well been true.
The idea being that while likely something people came up with after the fact, they perfectly sum up what was going on at the time they supposedly happened.
The professor thought it important to understand that things like that Scipio bit are most likely later inventions and would point them out when he could, but he also saw the worth in them. My takeaway from that was to increase my appreciation for how well fiction can tell the truth, if you know how to look for it.
@@whyjnot420 I 100% agree with you, it's why I find reading ancient historical sources so entertaining. There is a truth mixed in with these tellings of history that we can gleam into what is deemed important by the people during the time they lived them.
@@tylercummings1458 Not just things like ancient primary sources. E.g. Master & Commander: Far Side of the World.
Everything from that to the book of Samuel has different levels of certain truths, even when surrounded by a simply fictitious story like with a period accurate historical fiction like with a modern movie. Or surrounded by the literal stuff of myth and of the gods dating back thousands of years. There are kernels of the past hidden away like proto-indo-european words in Finnish or in plain sight for the world to see if they know how, such as some of the proposed armor for a real life analog to Achilles.
Finding or being shown and ultimately understanding these (to some degree at least) is infinitely entertaining. And this is not even getting into trying to understand what these stories mean to those who told them. A fun exercise here is to try and imagine what someone 1-2k years in the future would think of the stories we tell today. Movies, manga, video games, cheap pulp fiction crap, etc. etc. etc.
@@whyjnot420 That would be entertaining to see lol. I actually always say, when reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, you learn about the things that a British man views important for a functioning society during the late 18th century.
I sometimes see people talking about the prescience of ancient peoples. To me, it suggests not that much has really changed.
1:25 - Chapter 1 - Carthage
3:20 - Chapter 2 - The 1st punic war
5:05 - Chapter 3 - The 2nd punic war
7:45 - Chapter 4 - An excuse for war
8:50 - Chapter 5 - The 3rd punic war
11:10 - Chapter 6 - The siege
13:05 - Chapter 7 - Leadership change
14:40 - Chapter 8 - The port battle
15:40 - Chapter 9 - The end
17:10 - Chapter 10 - Destruction
Hannibal failed because of Carthage Politics. Usually that's 90% of why Great General's fail. Hierarchy is the problem.
Hannibal couldn't besiege Rome because he knew well that he didn't have the siege equipment, nor numbers to take on All the Roman forces!! Imagine how many Roman forces he would've had to fight if he attempted to take Rome. Politics did play a part, but not the entire reason.
@@Butterratbee Wow, that's a pretty hilariously ignorant view of the education, fostering of individual character, and hierarchical roles within military circles. So much so, that I'm not even sure where to start. It's very clear that your entire perception is tainted by an inherent anti-military bias, to the extent that I'm actually wondering if you've even graduated from high school yet.
Look at Mattis as the absolutely clearest example of an "adult in the room" during the Trump administration, for example. Or the numerous times in Russian history (alone) where political figures acted against the advice of or superceded the command of generals with disastrous results. There have been numerous examples throughout history of over-zealous politicians pursuing military action or outright war against the advice of military commanders. Tell me Eisenhower wasn't a comparatively better and more realistic president than the vast majority of presidents before and since. Would you call George Washington an idiot that only knew how to fight? Last I checked, he's almost universally ranked within the top 10 best presidents in US history by historians. Look at the resounding success, nay, flourishing, that took place during the western occupation and reconstruction of Europe and Japan after WW2. Do you even know who was organizing and orchestrating those? Military generals, you ignorant oaf.
In fact, your statement is so hilariously stupid that a cursory glance establishes an evident misunderstanding and misconception of what jobs most generals fill. Fighting and combat coordination isn't something that the overwhelming number of generals ever even experience, let alone actively participate in - that is the work of field and company level officers (only the latter of which are actually likely to "fight"). Generals fulfill administrative, logistical, and organizational roles. There is a reason why retired military officers very often make better politicians, diplomats, and government officials than individuals that actively pursue careers in such fields (look up Smedley Butler). It may not always be the case, and sometimes failures do occur, but the simple fact of the matter is that integrity and courage are characteristics that are actively fostered across the entire rank spectrum. We both know this very much is not the case amongst career politicians. The UCMJ (if you even know what that is or the specifics within it) is evidence of this - feel free to look up what it has to say about unlawful orders, because I know full well that you have no idea.
Yes, bad actors do exist, but they are very much in the minority. Yes, some generals do put their wallets ahead of their integrity and buy into lobbyists out of greed. If one were to somehow determine the ratio, in the US, of active military generals relative to career politicians engaged in such actions, I would be genuinely unsurprised to find the results weighing far more heavily against the latter. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data on that (if it's even out there), so that one must remain conjecture on my part. I'm not going to say that military commanders never mess up or entangle the appropriate political process, but I'll definitely say that your statement is a sweeping generalization (no pun intended), demonstrably inaccurate, and belligerently ignorant.
@@Butterratbee if you cannot debate history without insulting someone with an opposing view, you only demonstrate your own lack of capacity for critical thinking.
I understand your point, as the original comment was a gross overgeneralization (potentially intentional), but try to be respectful.
Thankfully he did because Rome was the coolest civilization to ever exist. If Carthage actually helped him, we would’ve never see Aurelian restore the world…
Rome rewarded success, meanwhile, Carthage punished failure. And bc of Roman politics of the Roman Republic, and their traditions, it made Roman consuls more aggressive to gain as much glory and prestige as possible, which in Roman culture was incredibly important. Meanwhile, Carthage laws and society made their commanders more cautious and restrained.
Really enjoying these videos always loved history the culture, the wars,the art,the leaders, I never got to learn about it in school always watched your videos or others on RUclips keep up the great work
Finally thank you. First learned about this on the Timeline channel. They give an extensive presentation of this. Good job.
I think I heard that Cato finished every single of his speeches with "Carthago delenda est", even if they had nothing to do with Carthage.
That's how much he hated Carthage.
Yea he did he was also right Carthage had a secret part to its port where they were building warships
They gave us no choice.
Isn’t this a tax policy session?
Can't blame him after how much they cost Rome.
On one hand you have Hannibal hamstrung by envious politicians in Carthage who wanted peace with Rome. Then on the opposing side you have men like Cato. That is why Rome won
Excellent video again ,Simon. Only thing, you missed the myrmellians(?)in Messana, that invited both to help against Syracuse sparking the First War. Cheers.
Imagine being the Roman scout who had to report to his commander that there was a large army with war elephants just coming over the Alps. The commander would’ve probably had him flogged for being drunk.
I have been following Simon for years and somehow am still finding new channels.
Excellent video.. thorough and very interesting! I love all of your channels and the videos are always fascinating. Great job Simon and team 👏 💯 😊
Definitely!!!! 💯💯 Me too, love the channels and videos!!
You should check out the RUclips channel, Kings and Generals!! Very interesting and intellectual historical stuff!! (Rome, Greece, Generals, Armies, etc)
Please make more videos about historical events in the Roman Empire.. i absolutly loved this one.. im glued to the screen!
Technically this would be the Roman Republic! 🙂 There's three parts of Ancient Rome in a sense, the Roman Kingdom/Monarchy, followed by the Roman Republic, then Roman Empire! (Some believe that the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire, etc! Count as well!)
Always good content. I've come to expect nothing less from this channel!
Carthage screws themselves right over by not supporting Hannibal. And the Eagle goes unchallenged for 1000 years.
When Rome defeated Hannibal, they weren't actually known just for the Eagle because they also had the Horse, Boar, Wolf, and Minotaur Legionary standards. The Eagle became the only standard after the Marian Reforms.
Also, Carthage did support Hannibal, they gave him commanders like his brothers, the elephants, etc.
@@Aemilius46 Did you watch the video? Hannibal had Rome on the ropes but pro Roman voices in Carthage basically got him cut off from supplies and reenforcements so he basically starved out and had to retreat back to Africa
@@samwill7259 Doesn't matter, because Rome had far more Talent, Supplies, Reinforcement, and Intelligence than Carthage and Hannibal.... It's why Carthage and Hannibal lost EVERY War against the Republic, and we're completely Wiped out, while Rome lasted for MANY More years.
Unchallenged? Are you fucking okay? 😂😂
@@remoliberati1076Dude’s a Roman Empire fanboy, for sure.
Well done Simon, this channel is great.
Nobody weaves murder and mayhem better, thanks for another chilling bed time story Simon.
The battle of the Chesapeake bay would be fun to see you guys tackle. Especially if you dig into people who have and should be blamed for the failure.
Good video 👍
Great video guys! I have a suggestion for a video Operation Totalize, it took place during the second World War
You know I just realized that in some ways the Roman Empire died the way the Carthaginian Empire died through the fall of Constantinople who just like the port city of Carthage is also magnificent major port city who became the last bastion of the Romans/Byzantines until the Ottomans had breached its gates.
Good observation. I suppose one difference was that Byzantine knowledge, history etc. was not lost after its fall. After Carthage fell nearly all traces of the Phoenician culture and science that had given us the alphabet we use today and naval navigation using the stars for example was nearly wiped clean from history.
Karma
@@martineldritch That's true, but when you mentioned the alphabet, I became a bit questioning. Can you elaborate on what you mean and what alphabet you are talking about? Phoenician, perhaps? Depending on what language you're talking about and the region, in the case of Latin, its alphabet is rather an important influence on English for example, something that is widely used/known. Phoenician is known to have had an impact on Ancient Greek, though some would love to contest that for certain reasons.
@@drakehashimoto685 From "Archaic Greek Alphabets" Wiki "All forms of the Greek alphabet were originally based on the shared inventory of the 22 symbols of the Phoenician alphabet..." Hope this helps. ?
@@martineldritch Thanks for the clarification of my question.
He simply won't stop, not until he has conquered the RUclipss. So many channels Simon, so many channels.
From what I learned in university, Cato would end any speech regardless of topic with "Carthage must be destroyed"
yeah he was cunt just like his Descendent
I am looking forward to you hitting the ww1 battles, as much as I love ancient wars ww1 is massively under represented
Excited about this since i saw the video of Africanus Scipio and Hannibal ❤️❤️❤️🔥🔥🔥
Well done .
one thing though , it was the Roman Republic that waged the punic wars , not the Roman Empire
came here to say this
Racyst
I love Simon's take over of youtube. I can't wait to see his make-up tutorials.
this is the 20th time and dozenth channel I watch a video on this topic, yet I still clicked immediately.
I feel like calling the burning of the Temple of Eshmoun "an act of final, belligerent desperation" isn't fair at all to the legacy of the Carthaginians. They had 3 choices: A humiliating execution, a lifetime of slavery, or one final act of defiance. The dictionary definition of "belligerent" is "hostile, aggressive." I don't see how someone could, when faced with the circumstances and aftermath of the Third Punic War, apply that term to anyone other than the Romans themselves. I feel that "an act of final, desperate defiance" would have been far more appropriate.
Awesome video, as always. 👍
Not to be “that guy”, but Rome wasn’t the Roman Empire during this time period. They were still the Roman Republic.
An empire by any other name
A Fantastic Lesson for today! If you LOSE!! YOUR CIVILIZATION DIES!!! So DONT LOSE!!!
One wonders how different the world would be had Carthage won over Rome?
Wasn't going to happen though.... Carthage lost all the Wars with Rome and there was no way Carthage would've held down the Roman Republic for a long time.
@@Aemilius46it could very well have happened, the rise of rome wasnt some inevitable outcome and at that time rome was far from being the powerhouse empire we remember it ad yet. Rome came very close to be defeated and conquered multiple times troughout history, guess they had plot armour 😂
@@hattorihanzo562Plot armor for real life that makes sense.... 🤦 Rome had incredible General's, Variety of Skills, Excellent Diplomacy and Politics, And we're able to conquer those who we're once thought as "Greatness"
It was a joke dude... What you say doesnt change anything. "wasn't going to happen though" is just wrong, Carthage couldve very well won against Rome and the rise of Rome wasnt some inevitable outcome of history. Its historical fact that rome had a lot of luck troughout it struggle to become the empire we remember it as and hannibal came very very close to conquer it.
@@hattorihanzo562Bro, look at his name. There’s no wonder he would believe in the notion that a Carthaginian victory is impossible.
The loss of any great civilization is horrible. But unlike other tragedies, Carthage was quickly, and mercilessly stomped on. I can't help but wonder what a world without Rome having such a profound impact would be like.
A world without Rome
Full of barbarians and backward
Roma Invicta !
Sometimes I wonder if Cato died painfully.
@@mercenarygundam1487 hopefully
It was a war of extermination. Either Rome wiped out or Carthage wiped out.
Since I have italian heritage I'm glad Carthage lost or I would not exist.
@@Andrew-w2q2m no it wasn't. This wasn't the second Punic War, Rome was safe from extermination by the time they did that.
I I would love to see an episode on the Falklands war. It’s fascinated me as both a relic of colonial times but also the lopsided powers involved.
I know he's already covered it on one channel of the 13 or so he's got, lol.
Cato didn't just end any speech on the subject with this, he ended any speech *period* with "ceterum censeo carthagine delenda est" (=also, I am of the opinion carthage has to be destroyed)
Definitely need to cover the Siege of Fredericksburg. One of the key battles of the US War Between the States; this battle had a significant moment of courage, heroism, and compassion when 2nd Lt. Richard Rowland Kirkland of the CSA brought water to wounded Federals despite major risks to his person.
Are you actually talking about a civil war that made no impact on the world, in a video about the move that changed history for all coming time?
@@jaypandya7441 this *IS* “Warographics” is it not? Can I not advocated for something that i would like to see?
@@Dank-gb6jn granted. But Fredricksburg? Chancellorsville would have been much better
@@jaypandya7441 Sure, so would Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, (if you’re looking for Federal victories), either of the Manassas battles, or Cold Harbor; but Fredericksburg is special, for the soldier I mentioned.
How about the Battle of Brunanburh? The last battle that created England (or Englaland at that point), culmination of Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Aethelflaed's attempts to reclaim England from the Danes and Norse. Aethelstan being crowned the first king of England.
Niiice, loving the thumbnails!
Alright first ten comments made it
Simon Whistler best RUclips host ever
"Somebody tell "Private Parts" to put his uniform back on. He's scaring the horses."
This guys got more channels than my skybox
Can you do a video about the balkan wars plz?
Is it really a mystery why Hannibal couldn't finish the war when he was in Italy? I thought it was common knowledge that the Carthaginian senate refused to reinforce Hannibal in fear of him growing too powerful, more powerful than the senate, a Caesar before Caesar. Forced to make do with whatever troops/mercenaries and to forage the countryside for food. Rome's principal allies refused to turn their back on her and the Carthaginian senate bought Rome enough time to mobilize and attack Carthage herself. Self checkmate.
They did but Rome did not have the walls it would later the story is this
Hannibal was an old school guy before this if you beat armies like him the loser would sue for peace but Rome was new for Rome they had all these cities in Italy allied to them form early under Rome they had protection and were citizen's of Rome Hannibal could not offer anything near that so they did not break with Rome and there man power kept going to Rome
and Rome used it to keep fighting over and raising new armies Hannibal was begged by his brothers just to go lay Siege to the city but he knew he did not have the men to do it so he went south
it was the same later with the Greeks when they met Rome in battle in the old days they would raise there long pikes to show we give up and both sides would let them go Roman Legions would cut them apart as Rome did not follow the old rules the world now would fallow new rules Roman ones
Hannibal was given lot's of help! The problem for Carthage was that Rome had greater resources and manpower and was able to intercept the reinforcements and destroy them before they reached Hannibals forces!!
Simon you should do a feature with armchair historian you two are brilliant at telling story’s absolutely brilliant my favourites are on modern war machines
I've never been on a video this early
@13:43 Adopted son (and cousin) of Publius Cornelius Scipio, who was the son of Scipio Africanus, the Roman general who finally defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. Scipio Africanus was therefore Scipio Aemilianus' adopted grandfather.
Additionally, Scipio Aemilianus' birth father was Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, whose father was Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the Roman consul was was killed in battle at Cannae, which was Hannibal's most famous victory (still studied in military strategy classes to this day,) and which was the biggest reason Hannibal became the Boogeyman to the Romans. The Roman army was 175% the size of the Carthaginian army, and yet not only did they lose, the army was virtually-annihiliated The Romans lost approximately 20% of their adult male population in a single day. During the latter part of the battle when the Romans' defeat had begun, 500 Romans died every minute. When you compare the two sides' casualties: for every 1 soldier of the Carthaginian army who died, the Romans lost TEN! Historians have come up with a bunch of ways of looking at it because it was that huge of a disaster for the Romans. Rome had never suffered a defeat this bad, and unbeknownst to them, this would be the worst defeat Rome ever suffered in its ~1,000-year history.
Sidenote: sooooooo yeah that's why Cato the Censor wouldn't shut up about destroying Carthage - he was one of the few people who were old enough to REMEMBER that day (he was 18 when it happened.) Cato, like anyone who lived during the rest of the Second Punic War after Cannae, lived in perpetual fear of one thing above all others: Hannibal Barca of Carthage.
Anyway: when it came to both birth family and adopted family, Scipio Aemilianus had a major bone to pick with Carthage.
ruclips.net/video/Beg3fo2pSEs/видео.htmlsi=jYKvV03FrqRRfrDz&t=949
ruclips.net/video/Beg3fo2pSEs/видео.htmlsi=jYKvV03FrqRRfrDz&t=949
ruclips.net/video/Q-nWA0WeF98/видео.htmlsi=zlS7ry5u0WCjmPTa&t=2051
Carthage was by no means the good guys but what Rome did was a dick move.
The same thing would have happened to rome so shut up
@@wankawanka3053this^ if Hannibal won
Please release future videos at 1x speed. Longer videos are fine.
Rest In Peace to those that passed away.
Nothing sends a chill down an Irish man’s neck like the posh English pronunciation of the word ‘empire’. Fair play Simon. “EMPAAAH!”
Well, Irish people gave a good reason to feel that way historically. Them and anyone from India lol
A lot of people like to make a big deal out of the victories of ancient Rome. No doubt they won some major and some amazing victories, but so have a great many other powers through history. The thing that makes ancient Rome much more unique than simply winning does, is the fact that they could take a hit that would kill another state. Time and time again, Rome would take a major loss.... lose 2 armies in an afternoon at Cannae, just raise more..... lose a fleet of a couple hundred ships in a storm because you don't know how to use a navy, just build more..... you can see this oh so many times in Roman history and for a thousand years, they just kept getting back up.
Hell, the same year they destroyed Carthage, they destroyed Corinth.... that just highlights the manpower they had at their disposal.
edit: and that is just talking about what we can consider the classical and later Western Roman empire. Not even getting into the Eastern or as we say, Byzantine Empire. Doing that adds another 1000 years. April 20th 753 BCE (the traditional date of the founding of the city of Rome) to May 29th 1453 (the fall of Constantinople).
You must be very high!! Rome ended the multiple Dynasties/Kingdoms/Empires, Rome was not just brilliant in Warfare and Politics, but victories like the Battle of Clastidium where they we're heavily outnumbered and only had a couple thousand Cavalry yet still won!
@@Aemilius46 *WHOOSH*
That noise was the point at flight level 600 as it went straight over your head.
You should do the story of 711aD when the strait of Gibraltar was crossed & the person who lead the charge!!
I think the correct quote would be "Ceterum censeo Cartaginem esse delendam". (Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.)
Cue the can can from Dovahhatty. And at long last Dido’s City got its salt.
Good effort to explain complicated historical events spanning hundreds of years in 18 minutes. Although the figures for population seem over exaggerated. 700 000 population? Rome at the peak of the principate is estimated between 500k and 1 mln.
I love the ancient stuff - how about the social war next?
Frequently? It is said that every time he would speak in the senate, he would end the speech with that phrase, even if it did not have anything to do with what he was talking about. tbh, that was smart, people are more likely to be warm to something they have heard a thousand times, even if they did not like whatever it was originally.
@6:13 you mean the Roman Republic, right?
Thanks for great video!
CETERVM CENSEO MOSCOVIAM DELENDAM ESSE
But what a rebirth they had when 500 years later, a Vandalic fleet sailed out of a reborn Carthage and sacked Rome.
That's the Germanic fleet. Not Carthaginians
@@jaypandya7441 so his story says we now wouldn’t know but to know directly the route from carthage takes knowledgeable native sailors
@@owusu369 but they weren't Carthaginians. The Romans mande sure that the Carthaginian culture was totally destroyed. Survivors were taken as slaves, who later assimilated with ethnicities from rest of the empire. The true Carthaginian bloodline was dead by the time we get to Augustus
@@jaypandya7441 you do know before the final siege n destruction 150000/200000 Carthaginian women and children escaped
@@owusu369 that number is impossibly bloated. The overall population was 750,000. Out of that, 200,000 cannot possibly escape
Another lesson in why you should never give up your arms . Prepare for peace but be ready for war
Human history is filled with savagery and brutality. Not much has changed. We're still at one another's throats somewhere in the world. Will we ever get past this tribalism and learn to live together peacefully? It hasn't happened yet.
The difference is now we have the technology to make our species go extinct. One way or another, we must become a global community if we are to solve the problems we all face. Otherwise Mother Nature may select us for extinction. We may select ourselves for extinction. It is remarkable how little we have learned in the 2,000 odd years since the Punic Wars. I pray we learn these lessons while we still have the time to save ourselves.🙏🏻☮️🇺🇸
Bro!? How many channels does this man have???
More maps please
Really enjoy this channel. I am however unable not to complain, so that being said you kept calling Rome an Empire, at the time it was the Roman Republic. I'm being pedantic, I know. But really enjoy the channel Simon, absolutely brilliant stuff 🙂
By this point, Rome already had an empire, it just didn't have an emperor yet.
@@deamon002 it had a king like Britain does in name only real power comes later
@@thewildcardperson Umm, no. Rome may have had a king at some point, but that was when it was just one city state among dozens, they're more myth than fact, since anything written about them came centuries after the fact.
But the Rome that took over more and more of its neighbors, and that came into conflict with Carthage once their spheres off influence collided, was a Republic. It was already an empire at this point, just still under a republican form of government. And the bigger the empire got, the less able the institutions of that government were able to effectively run it, which eventually led to one guy taking over all real power (while still pretending that the old institutions were totally still in charge), at which point historians start to refer to it officially as the Roman Empire.
Politics. Politics is why Hannibal failed to take Rome.
Carthage failed Hannibal and thereby doomed themselves.
Hannibal failed because of himself , he mistaken Rome for Persia and payed by destroying Carthage power .
Caesars conquests of Gaul and Britain ( via Asterix village ) should be Simons next Roman slab.
The only problem I have was with Simon repeatedly falsely calling it the "Roman Empire", which it was not at the time of the Punic wars! Rome and Italy was a Republic during the time of the three Punic Wars, not a empire. The Roman Empire wasn't founded until 27 BC, over 120+ years _AFTER_ the end of the Third Punic War, which ended in 146 BC.
You can argue the Roman Republic in that period was an empire in the modern sense.
@@TheTablePaper It wasn't though, the Roman Republic didn't become the empire until 121 years _after_ the sacking of Carthage which ended the Third Punic War.
@@Fleetfoot01 The definition of 'empire' you're using here isn't the modern definition. Roman history is divided between it's republican and imperial phase and that's the definition of empire you're using. A state under the rule of an imperator. If this was the only definition of empire then *only* the Roman empire was ever an empire in history.
I'm using the modern definition of empire, a state subjugating foreigners under their rule. The same way the British empire or Incan empires were empires.
@@TheTablePaper Yeah. In this case it was a bit like _the Empire Strikes Back_ and this time they mean business!
814-146 what a run for one of the most important Mediterranean cities of Antiquity. Only Athens and Syracuse could match their naval/trade prowess until of course Rome swooped in and took everything they all had.
The cathenginians messed up from start with surrender. Then the batshit crazy demands from Rome to relocate inland. Should have just said come and take our city if you can.
You linked the video on the Yugoslav wars instead.
Have you done a video on the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ad?
*Ceterum (autem) censeo Carthaginem esse delendam* ("Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed").
Rome was a Republic, not an empire at the time
Rome was not an empire in 200s BCE. It was still a Republic at this time.
Most people think Hannibal had planned to go over the alps beforehand, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. He was planning on attacking Italy straight away, but Scipio had shown up a day or two before Hannibal did, so the way was blocked thus forcing him to take the alps during winter. Lets be honest , taking the alps during winter with elephants , siege weapons , and men dressed for spring is not a "genius" plan. He lost half his army because of it... but he was just THAT determined to spill Roman blood. Based.
I have no idea, but cultic pseudo-science aside, regional climates have changed through centuries and millennium. And the Alpine area at the time, or maybe during that given Winter, might have been milder, or that particular season warmer.
Just as more than a thousand years later, Vikings launched on far-flung voyages, thanks to warmer milder Atlantic-weather. - And lo, not a carbon-emitting engine ever came into sight their Long-ships! ⛵
Who cares!!! It wasn't as great as people think, not only did he lose lot's of men and elephants, but he still lost. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and Marcus Claudius Marcellus we're able to protect Rome and other Cities!
Well done!! 👍 👏 I greatly Admire Scipio Aemilianus and his father, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus (Both we're Extraordinary and Brilliant Generals and Politicians) ironically, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus ended the Antigonid Macedon Dynasty, while his son Scipio Aemilianus ended Carthage!! Carthage was certainly Nothing compared to Rome and Greece!!!! Not to mention how Many people of Greatness come from Rome and Greece, compared to Carthage.... #GloryToRome #GloryToGreece
Partially, you're right about doing it because of Roman pride, but that wasn't completely or even mostly it.
Carthage and Rome obliterated each other in the first two wars. Rome put massive indemnities on Carthage, not unlike what the Allies did to Germany after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles and for the same reasons. To keep them down. Cato wanted Carthage destroyed because after both wars they paid the debts off extremely quickly and were back on their feet. It freaked the Romans out big time. They figured the only way they could ever stop worrying about Carthage was if Carthage was just completely wiped off the map.
They thought the same way about the Gauls who once sacked Rome. Even had a treasury set aside for if the Gauls came back. Shocking events stayed with them amd made them paranoid, which after Hannibal they had every right to be 😂
I think it's quite obvious Rome wanted Carthage to suffer for it's Many slights, AND to avenge the fallen Roman lives from the previous Wars!! 🛡️🗡️
I am waiting for you do do a video on the Mughal Maratha Wars
Cato was one of the few men of his time that listen to the priests of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Jupiter told his priests, the priest told Cato and then Cato told the Senate then Jupiters will was made manifest
Some sources argue that Hannibal was not in fact a good general, tactically speaking, especially when considering how catastrophic the crossing of the alps was with the elephants and many other small military mistakes that Hannibal made. Those sources argue that the only historian who glorified him and his achievements was Polivio, a Roman author who supposedly was paid by Scipio’s family to celebrate Hannibal, thinking that if they make Hannibal appear like such a great general, Scipio would appear like a much greater one for having defeated him.
Hannibal was a fascinating, formidable force that’s for sure. Tragically, he caused the end of his own nation.
Case of propaganda-spin, potentially then?
@@PC-Phobic-Jean-Rene when talking history, more often than not, it’s a “potentially” affair.
Dude, Hannibal didn’t rise through the ranks lol, his father was the top Carthaginian general, Hasdrubal. He inherited his father’s position and entire army upon his death. He didn’t rise through any ranks! He started straight at the top.
Not neccasserily top since Hasdrubal was lowkey getting rid of because the elites in carthage didnt Like him and His hawkish Attitude, the barcas Made themselves a Personal Kingdom in spain
Jeez another channel to subscribe too
Don't forget the one he launched yesterday
Ironically the people who sacked Rome that cause one of the major blows that destroyed the western part of the Roman empire came from Carthage.
Wasn't salt insanely valuable back then, as it is now? It would have been the same as sowing gold into the fields.
"daringly brilliant" he says, without mentioning that Hannibal lost 99 percent of his elephants in said alpine assault...
"Elephant Life" magazine gave the assault 1 star.
Sad story
For the Glory of Rome!
Qart-Hadesht hadn't been annihilated...it just changed Masters.
The Time hasn't ended yet...and a last assault is to be launched.....Rome has to dread the new Carthage.
Manius Sorearse What a Guy
A world with a Punic/Carthaginian rather than Roman victory would be extremely different from our own present one.
The first genocide? Those people have never read the Old Testament.
Who was that Roman politician that would speak about anything but always finished his speeches with, "in conclusion, we must destroy Carthage."?
Cato
He mentions it @8:02
Marcus Porcius Cato The Elder!
Dude how many fucking channels do you run 💀💀💀 good shit as always though
if only hannibal had siege engines
I think even Hannibal would be unable to bring siege weapons up and down the Alps.
@@resileaf9501 SMH, really ? Most siege engines weren't dragged all over hell & back most were built on site w only a few parts being bought from where they started mostly parts made from metal & rope don't forget Carthage was a master of prefab if you have engineers & the necessary parts prefabricated all you need is trees to cut down & italy has trees
@@celter.45acp98 Then I guess even Hannibal couldn't bring those parts over the Alps. :D
@@resileaf9501 it's actually the engineers although Carthage had amazing engineers for whatever reason there weren't many in the military & he didn't see fit to bring the few there were his plan was to get romes Italian allies to turn on them by making the countryside burn & it's people bleed but it didn't work obviously
He should have hired some engineers to make some.
Did they sacrifice thier children? That is the question that brought me here. I just don't want to believe that anyone could do such a thing. 😢
Because it's their faith it's happend thru out history sacrifices of children. It's not like you can have more you know.