Why didn't Hannibal attack Rome? ⚔️ Hannibal (Part 7) - Second Punic War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- 🚩 Go to bit.ly/thld_cs_historymarche and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
👉 Hannibal Playlist: • Hannibal (PARTS 1 - 5)...
🚩 Please consider supporting our work on Patreon: / historymarche
📢 Narration:
Alexander Doddy (www.AlexanderDoddy.com)
🚩 Graphics:
Many thanks to Fabio Naskino Fiorenza for allowing us to use his fantastic Hannibal portrait. Check out more of his work here: www.puttyandpaint.com/FabioNas...
🎼 Music:
"Peak of Atlas" - Omri Lahav
📝 Sources:
"Histories" - Polybius
"Carthage must be destroyed" - Richard Miles
"Fall of Carthage" - Adrian Goldsworthy
"Hannibal's Oath" - John Prevas
"Hannibal: The Military Biography of Rome’s Greatest Enemy" - Richard A. Gabriel
"Life of Marcellus" - Plutarch
"The Second Punic war at sea" - Boris Rankov
#hannibal #documentary #rome
🚩 Go to bit.ly/thld_cs_historymarche and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
After the battle of Lake Trasimene, Hannibal was at a crossroad. For the first time he had the opportunity to try to take Rome. We wanted to discuss this important issue in a separate video before the three important upcoming battles (Geronium, Ager Falernus and Cannae). Should he have tried to attack the Roman capital after Trasimene? Since the times of Polybius, historians argue about this issue and we'd love to see what your thoughts are.
🟥 HANNIBAL PLAYLIST: ruclips.net/user/playlist?reload=9&list=PLWwyDn76LiH0Cq8lqPuOlZevRlEywpbXf
🚩 If you'd like to support what we do, you can do so on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historymarche - By joining us on Patreon you get to see our videos before everyone else, ads free, and periodically you can vote to choose topics for our channel.
@HistoryMarche My bet is on the scourge earth tactics that were applied by Fabius Maximus (hence the name, the Fabian strategy). Hanibal's supply train was virtually non-existent (I mean from where it would go? :D) and so he was relying on plundering the lands for supplies. Meaning, that attack on Rome, where all supplies from the surrounding area would be destroyed, was not possible. Desertions of Gauls and diseases would overtake Hanibal's army and he would be forced to lift the siege. That is why he marched east towards the Adriatic coast where he could still plunder for supplies. :)
@@jiriminarik6702 Indeed, but the scorched-earth policy didn't come until later. Right after Trasimene, the area stretching from Tuscany to Rome and beyond was ripe for the taking/raiding. Hannibal could've just taken a walled city (just like he did a few months later at Geronium, but more on that in the next episode) and he could've turned it into a giant granary where all of the raided supplies would've been stored for the winter.
The disease argument is good though. Gauls certainly weren't going to stick around for long if there was nothing to plunder.
And I agree that the attack on the city would've been crazy, but to at least besiege it would've been a big political statement to Rome's allies. "Here's Hannibal besieging Rome, and Rome can't do anything about it". This would force the Roman Senate to recall legions from other theaters to drive Hannibal away from the city, in order to save face. And this scenario would've been perfect for Hannibal - to force the enemy into attacking him.
So Hannibal fought a war he was doomed to lose, due to his own indecisiveness.
Then make the battle of ager falernus
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 You're right about that.
It is possible that the precise location and strength of enemy armies was not known at the time for Hannibal. Or that he did not entirely trust that the Carthaginian navy could effectively block the transport of remote legions to the mainland until the siege is won. So he may have wanted to avoid risking to be attacked from two sides when engaged in the siege.. a challenge that Caesar, who was an even bigger risk taker would take on at Alesia. Another possible reason could have been that he didn't have full trust in the quality of his troops .. or had no siege specialists in his army.. as you also mentioned.. his ranks were swelled by gauls from local tribes.. He may have expected reinforcements.. In hindsight.. it is easy to point out that he missed an opportunity.. but when you are there in the field.. there are a lot of details that you just don't know.
Love to see comments from the Patreon army! Great points. Indeed, the location and movement of enemy armies is what's on my mind as well when thinking about why he didn't attack Rome in 218 BC. For instance, at Trasimene there are strong arguments that Hannibal proceeded marching away from Arretium, instead of fighting Flaminius there, because he didn't know how far Servilius' army was and he didn't want to be caught in between.
And yes, his ranks swell thanks to Gallic recruits, roughly 20k of them. But the core of his army was as good as anything the Romans had. In fact, I would argue that the African and Spanish infantry, Numidian cavalry, his various skirmishers (like Baelaric slingers) were hardened veterans. So Hannibal could sure count on a core of hardened veterans, some 20k of them. But I take your point, unlike the Romans, Hannibal couldn't replace his most valuable troops. That's why he relied on the Gauls so much, they were the 'meat grinder' troops hehe.
And I'm not sure about his engineering corps. Certainly they showed their quality in the Alps, at least according to Polybius and Livy. So if their accounts of the Alps crossing are somewhat true, Hannibal had fairly good engineers.
That said, you touched on the possibilty that he was suspicious whether or not the Carthaginian navy would be efficient enough. That could be true for a number of reasons. And one of those is politics. It's quite possible that even after Trasimene, political cracks appeared between Hannibal and the power-brokers in Carthage, due to different views on what should be prioritized. So while Carthage probably knew the general position of Roman fleets (or they probably wouldn't send 60% of their fleet (70 ships) to Rome if they weren't sure that they won't run into 150 enemy ships), but perhaps Hannibal wasn't aware of all this due to political tension with power brokers in Carthage. But this is just my speculation. However, certainly in later years it seemed like Carthage viewed Hannibal's campaign only as a minor part of their grand strategy - it seemed more and more as they see Italy as a way to distract Rome while they win elsewhere. Whatever the case, Carthage was certainly not as well organized strategically from top to bottom, as Rome was.
But as you said we simply don't know all of the details. Especially the details a commander faces when he's on the ground.
I think that it would've been too costly.Rome back then wasn t as small as Carthage was when the Punic wars had ended .In 149 BC.When the besiegement of Carthage took place ,for instace, they hardly had any military left ,any power left , at least compared to the Romans ,while here, Romans still posed a serious threat. I think that Carthaginians as a whole didn t really have an answer to the roman war machine ,which was better than its carthaginian counterpart ,at least when you see it as a whole : the philosophical ideas , the strategic and tactical objectives that derived from it aswell. Carthage was more of an economic civilization compared to the militarised and very expansionist romans.Still we have very few carthaginians artifacts ,anything regarding the war from their point of view , due to the burning of their empire.
The ideas of the romans were kind of like the same with the ideas of the mongols :destruction of the enemy.Look at what happended when 2 radical ideas about war met, in the discovery of America .
@@Anndrei02 I think you're correct in the sense that the city of Rome was certainly big enough to make any siege a long lasting affair. But certainly not so big to deter an attempt. A city the size of 13.5 square km is not much really, not for 50,000 troops. There might be other factors that we don't know about though, Hannibal's view of war is certainly one of them.
@@HistoryMarche I think Ioan-Paul made his point, but he didn't finish his argumentation. The half of Hannibal’s troops were at that time consisting of unreliable soldiers, as the Gaul. Unreliable mean not that he could not count on them on the battlefield, but he needed to keep them active, on move and plundering. He could not take the risk to undertake a long siege with such an army. The Gaul would have left him.
@@thanuv4064 Hm, that is a valid argument. I would imagine that a few months would be sustainable, as there would be plenty to raid. But once that is up Gauls would definitely begin to desert.
Damn i watched every single 2nd punic wars documentaries out there on youtube, but i'm still here since way of narrating and graphic quality is beautiful.
same hahahah
@@semprelazio8864 battle of Cannae isn't there as well...
I agree, graphics and animations are so cute !
Why didn't Hannibal attack Marseille?
@@TENGU13 Army of Scipio was chasing Hannibal. You can't beseige a city when there is an army on ur back.
That's why he moved to Alps where Scipio didn't persue him.
Personally, I've heard another theory which I like a lot.
Hannibal assumed that all of Rome's allies, short of Rome itself, would abandon them after a series of crushing defeats. He hoped to inflict more crushing defeats on the Romans, gather more local allies, and THEN attack Rome with a much larger army.
Yes, that's the most accepted theory. To starve Rome of its' allies. Hindsight is 20/20, and as you said perhaps at the time Hannibal thought it was better to try and win more victories, only to later realize that he had made a mistake.
I'm more puzzled by the presence of most of the Carthaginian fleet so deep in Roman waters. Remember, the Roman fleet was far superior in the 2nd Punic War. Carthage certainly wouldn't have risked most of their ships unless there was a planned operation. Which leads me to somewhat believe that even after Trasimene, cracks began to appear between Hannibal and the Carthaginian government.
Didn't hannibal basically rule his own mini-empire in iberia.
@@hazzmati Certainly, but as they say where I'm from: "When the cat isn't home, the mice run the show".
@Yaitz that is the idea I'm most familiar with as an explanation for why he didn’t attack Rome. Hannibal’s strategy was to break off Rome’s allies which didn’t really identity as Roman at that time.
Regarding the fleets, I think it’s important to consider the fact that Carthaginian leadership was much more fractured than some would assume. The political party controlling the city from what I recall was not much more interested in securing trade interests and didn’t much care for Hannibal’s obsession with defeating Rome once and for all. So who knows what that fleet off the coast of Rome was really doing and how likely it was to help Hannibal out with his plans in Italy.
Taking the Roman capital would have been a reason to abandon Rome.
Taking Rome would have been too hard, look at Carthage, Jerusalem.
Maybe Hannibal just wanted to build up some war score.
Ohh, you're making me run one of the Paradox games!! Damn you!
What better way than taking enemy's capital for warscore
@@thegreekdeal4747
That would have given them the "We are utterly defeated" modifier
🤮moron
Didn't have enough for the peace deal he wanted
"You are not defeated until you accept defeat" Roman Proverb.
@K1 Fighter-88 He defeated them 5 times on his way to Rome
@Dex4Sure Rome's tenacious culture imo makes them the greatest civilisation in history. I don't think any state im history would continue fighting after such losses
@Dex4Sure Nazi Germany never had the chance to surrender once they were at the backfoot or it was never in discussion anyway.
The russians fought to the bitter end when Napoleon invaded them. That is the only comparison I would make.
@@Stego1819 Why? Russians fled from Napoleon army, leaving their capital burned and empty. It was during IIWW when Germans defeated or captured virtually all their armies and were standing as close to the capital as Hannibal was. But Germans didn't make it and in the end Russians prevailed.
Dex4Sure to be honest if I were to enter in this friendly discussion
Comparing Rome and Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union(pre Warsaw Pact)/USSR (Warsaw pact)
This is a bad comparison considering the massive difference between the times so I would consider this a futile example.
In defense of the "Rome was too hard to take" argument, the siege of the much smaller Saguntum was a difficult challenge for Hannibal.
Good point. Saguntum was way smaller, but most of the city walls were literally on the edge of a cliff. The Servian Wall was lower than 3m. Although the much larger population and size would've certainly posed different problems, as you said.
he tried to take Nola 3 times and 3 times failed and Nola was a palisade
@@carlomagno7092 Although, Hannibal could've easily starved Rome into some form of submission through siege.
@@carlomagno7092 maybe but they did also have Marcellus and his troops as another line of defence.
@@homelessjesse9453 Not if Ostia didn't fall plus it would trap him in one place allowing for his enemies to strike his supply lines and overwhelm in detail
Hannibal’s main objective was, to force Rome to sign for peace (humiliation) not conquer it. His main force wasn’t an army to sustain a long siege, more like a huge raiding party not an occupation force. Half of the population on rebellion, fighting street by street, building by building for days, would’ve destroy his army. Like an ancient Stalingrad 😊. Just my humble opinion. Thank you for the always wonderful videos.
@Joseph Sosa That's quite an interesting comparison, and there are a lot of similarities with a few exceptions though. The Soviets had more resources than Germany just like Rome had more resources than Hannibal, however while one Soviet soldier was not as well trained or equipped as one German soldier, the best Roman soldier was arguably much more superior than his Carthaginian counterpart. Apart from this though, the Great Patriotic War is quite similar to the 2nd Punic war, with one side being successful at first, but losing in the end.
Ancient cities aren't the same as modern ones. It doesn't take much to sack a city when the majority of the buildings are wooden and the people mostly unarmed. Once you're in, you're in.
You right. 50.000 man to seige 10.000 in a fortified city and 30 ships defending in a river to 70 ships. And all of this behind enemies lines. Hannibal trops will be annihilated and that's the end of the invasion.
@Grey-Wolf 93 I fail to see that, almost everything is different in both events. There are some similarities but so they are between any other wars.
@@PiotrDzialak
I actually agree with the comparison -
In the eastern front, the germans won battle after battle, destroying huge armies through tactial superiority.
They got close to the capital, but couldn't deliver the final blow - with the soviet refusal to capitulate or collapse refuting their initial plans.
They then turned to a battle of means, trying to deny the soviets of the means to wage war by attacking other areas.
They won huge tactical battles, but again failed that.
With hope of capitulating the enemy lost, they then turned to a defensive battle, but were outperformed by the new, more competent soviet generals, and their mass resources.
There is two other reasons, first : Hannibal army was mainly made of mercenaries and Gaul tribesmen. When your army is composed of these kind of troops there is additional reasons aside from the usual difficulties of besieging a major city in hostile territory with almost no supply line. Desertion was the main concern of Hannibal; tribesmen are not professional soldiers, they have farms and family to look after and if there is no continuous loot for them they will want to leave. Scipio said it to his co-consul before the battle of Trebia. He advised that they should wait the end of winter before engaging Hannibal in battle because the Gauls won't have the patience to wait until spring and will start deserting the Carthaginian. For the same reason mercenaries need to be paid at least time to time during the campaign otherwise they become unruly. A long siege would have deprived Hannibal of much needed quick plunder.
Secondly Hannibal strategy to win was to tear apart the network of alliances and client states of Rome. He didn't need to take Rome to pursue this strategy so he didn't want to risk the siege.
The prize of Rome would've been enough to convince the mercenaries. However, you are correct about the Gauls perhaps.
And I don't think his supplies wouldn't have been an issue. There was no army opposing him so he could've have taken a fortified city near Rome (just like he did a few months after these events at Geronium) and turned the city into a giant granary, where he would store grain, fodder, supplies that are confiscated from the countryside.
@@HistoryMarcheWhen you face an incoming siege the defenders usually scorch the earth around the city and take all the food inside the wall to make it difficult for the besieger to replenish their supply, making forging party longer and riskier. The Carthaginian did this to the Roman during the siege of Agrigetum during the first Punic war, the Romans suffered huge causalities during foraging and barely survive thanks to the supply sent by Syracuse. An idle army can't live off the land for very long.
@@Cdeseco
Which brings up a question: If Romans were 100% expected to scorch a lot of land around their capital, why wouldn't Hannibal consider a detour? Let's say he marches in a general direction of Rome *before* pivoting east. Romans burn their countryside like madmen, while he wanders off, dealing an indirect blow to their economy.
It makes marching east longer, but it's not even close to routes Hannibal was willing to take in the past.
@@Saeronor There's no economy when you face total annihilation. It's quite hard to dispute what Croissance wrote about mercenaries. Hannibal just had a raiding party with extreme mobility that used wisely eastern tactics and exploited concepts like fainted retreats, "weak center", elephants used like tanks, ambushes against columns of slow targets... but not enough skills to build a successfull sieging machines, engineering abilities and how to block the supply sources without spreading his lines too thin. In other words Hannibal and his officials should have had to be able to siege Rome like Ceasar did in Alesia. Also, separating Rome's allies was a great part of his plan but this worked only with Gauls. All southern Italy tribes remained with Rome, since had nothing in common and nothing Hannibal could offer: freedom? Freedom from what? Rome was a model, positive of negative, but still with an idea of a common destiny, which obviously lacked in Carthage "vision" of the world: just stupid trades and not very much at all. Just being happy to trade. That's the same US model and that's why it still failing in this day in Middle East.
You also overlook that the payment was what SPAIN with it's many rich mines was meant for. That was the reason why the whole Barkas clan had gone there when exiled from Carthage, to build up a powerbase and income that could allow them to strike back against the enemy that had humiliated them in defeat.
With Carthage still mostly in control of the seas a steady supply of money wasn't that much of a concern. at least for the Mercenaries. Yet they'd not be happy about a siege due to other concerns like illness when thousands of people are staying in one place for so long without any amenities like the roman cloaka (sewers).
From what I can see, Hannibal always did what no one would expect and attacking Rome was expected.
subvert expectations
great point :)
Best point so far - Better than the ones on the video.
thats indeed an interesting thing to point out!
If Hannibal lived today he would be an Star Wars Director
When youre more hyped for HistoryMarche Videos than for GOT
That’s not hard considering the most recent season.
If this was GOT, Romans would have placed their army in front of city walls, though behind their siege engines.
Hannibal would have wiped them out, casually walked into city and then died to sneak attack of a bunch of rabid geese.
Romans go full Daenerys on Carthage, so basically 3rd Punic War happens anyway.
One episode later Romans elect Sibyl as a Dictator for life, with Tacitus as a close contender.
Roll credits.
@Lord Voldemort Attrition *specifically* due to army size is very far on your list of concerns if you are hiding in a city like Rome, where you are either going to be eaten by own citizens soon enough or go Full Alesia yourself.
Morale is hardly a pressing issue if your enemy is not going to attack anytime soon due to your force multipliers and lack of siege preparations. Conserving manpower is going to let you launch surprise attacks at the time of your choosing when enemy is stretched in multiple encampments. If your soldiers are going to capitulate instead just because you ordered them to stay behind walls then you hardly had a proper army to begin with.
GIven how shit writing compressed everything to a single night (who the hell accepts a battle outside of fortifications at night, *when the enemy can see in the dark???* ) , we are hardly able to squeeze anything reasonable out of 8x03 concerning one of the most important factor in a siege: time. Comparably speaking, Romans would certainly try recalling legions before risking a battle, even if they had similar numbers in Rome (or if they thought so).
@Lord Voldemort Ha, King's Landing shares one feature with Rome - both are highly populated cities. If you have provisions for a month, army of 40k and 400k citizens inside, then even losing entire army in a battle outside walls gives you barely a couple extra days of provisions. Which is why I said it's not army size - related attrition you are going to be worrying about. Now, if we were talking a siege of a proper castle, with relatively limited population of civilians - staying behind walls while enemy has similar numbers would be problematic.
Now that we're talking about it - there's one more thing I can poke at. Morale will not necessarily fall if few people are even aware of how many soldiers enemy commander has. Some are incapable of counting that high, so that's one problem less. Some won't even know how big is their own army, so that's two problems. Finally - Romans were in a position where Joe Schmoe would have their own counting method: *How many soldiers Hannibal has? Must be seven Gazillions! He clearly annihilates everything we are throwing at him.* With that mindset becoming more and more popular with each disaster on the battlefield I can imagine many Romans wouldn't exactly complain about *not* meeting Hannibal outside of their walls :)
@Lord Voldemort
Yeah, but once we're talking large cities, then you get Leningraded, which means even winning will taste like crap. I mean, imagine Romans lifting the siege and driving Hannibal away, but whooops, 250,000 Romans starved to death. This sort of result would probably have bigger strategic impact than everything Hannibal did in Italy post-Cannae.
As for 4-5 legions - I suppose they could've put them together using large number of citizens. Sure, manpower wouldn't be an issue, but training or even equipment (did Romans even have so much decent weapon & armor lying around after so many defeats?) Would you risk that against opponent, who repeatedly destroyed your crack troops seemingly without sweating?
One of the best history channels on RUclips, keep up the great work!
@Matthias D'Avila they have quantity but not quality. Their videos are good but not the best
Matthias D'Avila I said *one* I appreciate K&G too
the best one
this is the best one so far, the visuals and narrations is top notch plus the selection of some niche and obscure but interesting historical battles like the balkans series they made
@@ronank2432 yes love the Eastern Europe series
An excellent video. This video illustrates the very different mentalities of the two sides in the war; Carthaginians were fighting (in their minds) a limited war for specific goals. Romans, however, saw the conflict as "war to the knife", a fight that would only end when one side is utterly defeated. This is why Carthage was ultimately defeated; they failed to recognize that this war was a fight to the death.
It is very interesting. The fact that one decision could have changed the history of the entire world!
Indeed. There were a few of these events throughout history, and this one certainly qualifies in my opinion.
@@HistoryMarche Yeah same opinion. Romans gave the whole world a lot. Roads,parks.... They really shaped us into what we are today.
@@nikolatodorovic1898 Yes, one of Rome's greatest achievements! Thank you for the parks! That's why we will always remember you.
Would it really have? Rome was much larger than Carthage from my understanding, and unless Hannibal decided to slaughter all Romans even in a case of a successful siege it'd probably have been more of a delay than a complete point of divergence.
@@_SpamMe I disagree, Hannibal had effectively wiped out Rome's major Fighting force on the main peninsula, and had reduced rome to just controlling parts of Central and southern italy. By attacking Rome he would have forced roman legions from Sardinia, Cicily and Corsica, which Carthage could then send troops to conquer. Despite Rome's never surrender policy, their morale would be utterly shattered after the fall of their capital.
History porn . Damn those visuals , I could watch this all day .
@some guy wtf indeed
Hannibal : "then you will never win!"
rome: "but i could lose.. again again and again.. that makes you my prisoner"
Masinissa and his Numidian/Lybian army switching side and fighting with the Romans (Scipio) against Hannibal is probably what hasten the inevitable fall of CARTHAGE .
He defeated rome 5 times on his way to Roma🤪💀
Romeammu, I've come to bargain
Amazing, it's worth being notified to this channel.
The most perfect docu on Hannibal. Ever.
bro I nearly have a heart attack when I see these notifications. great series.
Remove your profile picture, cringe friend.
@@dawn-blade Do you even know what his pic is? Lmao
Hannibal was a genius and even he couldn't take Rome. Their cultural tenacity was second to none in that time period.
Indeed. Their moralistic and conservative values were unlike anything at the time.
Still waiting for Calugareni Part 2/2. Anyway, until then, let's watch this incredible video!
Writing the Calugareni 2 script right now. Research took much longer than usual as I was waiting for translations of a few Romanian and Turkish books. Great to see you here man!
@@HistoryMarche If you ever need translations in Romanian, don't hesitate to contact me. Alright buddy?
@@Knowledgia Sounds good! Thanks man! We could work on a collaboration as well at some point if you're up for that.
@@HistoryMarche Interesting. I am looking forward to. Let's give something epic to our audiences!
@@Knowledgia Sounds good. We have similar styles so I think it could work. We'll be in touch.
Hannibal learned from D&D and subverted Rome’s expectations
Haha, I think the GoT references won't die down for years to come.
I think, in order to understand Hannibal's decision, we need to focus on events before Lake Trasimene, not after. Despite all his brilliant tactics and bold maneuvering from Iberia to Italia, you barely see him stopping his rapid movement for a protracted siege, always staying on the move, pointing to the fact that he may have had a tendency to avoid sieges in general. This could be due to a host of reasons:
1) His force was mostly Gallo-Iberian who had little to no experience dealing with sieges and siege equipment.
2) He relied on continuous movement for foraging and ensuring that his enemies always caught him when he wanted to. A besieging army is a sitting duck, especially deep within enemy territory with no supply lines.
3) The Gauls likely had no patience for sieges and preferred plundering and raiding to extensive military operations.
4) He likely believed in a version of Fabian strategy himself. Relying on taking away an opponents resources than becoming the master of an abandoned capital.
Just my thoughts. To be fair, it's often hard to understand and predict bold, lateral thinking commanders like Hannibal
great analysis, it is funny to see that many people blame Hannibal for not attacking a great city like Rome especially after Cannae. A siege of larger cities is a costly endeavour and requires a fresh and large army to compensate desertion, alot of patience and stable supply lines. Hannibal didn't have any of those factors after Cannae at his disposal. He was amidst hostile territory, cut off from his homeland with a weakened and tired army who just lost 6.000 men and tens of thousands wounded on top of that.
Compare that to the Romans which are famous for their expert siege engineering: They needed 3 years to conquer a massively weakened and worn out capital city of Carthage in the 3rd punic war with an army of 16 legions (84.000 men). The Carthaginians at that point didnt even have a standing army anymore only a small citizen force of around 30-40.000 armed citizens and a cavalry force to defend the city. Yet it took them that long to take it. They even didn't manage to break through the walls they needed to invade through the harbour. According to Polybios the Romans lost 17.000 men during the siege, with an army that was twice the size of Hannibals, had massive siege weapons and a strong supply line.
Yet they assume that Hannibal should have attacked a city that at this time had around 450.000 inhabitants - which could field a significant citizen force too - with a weakened worn out army in hostile territory without any supplies. In his situation he would have been doomed if he attempted to besiege Rome.
He knew that in the future a visigoth named Alaric would do it :^)
Hehe
which took alaric like almost 2 yrs to breach rome defences in an unconventional way, not a direct siege effort
@@ronank2432 Hannibal's Rome was weaker and his own army was stronger. I think 8 months maybe.
Fabius about to flex on Hannibal with that Fabian Strategy
Indeed. More on that in the following videos. Two more battles before Cannae.
"if possible, avoid attacking cities with high walls" - Sun Tzu, Art of War. if he would have taken the city, probably with great casualties, could he have held it? Hannibal was probably aware that the Gauls, in spite of braking into the city, were unable to take the Capitoline Hill.
Hannibal could have catapulted some flaming pots into the city and burnt Rome to the ground.
Wonderfully comprehensive approach to a well known subject. Zooming out from the fields of great Carthaginian victories so that we can understand their final failure.
Thank you very much for watching. Episode 9 will be out this month or in March.
Your videos on the Punic Wars and Hattin have been amazing! I’m always checking to see if you’ve uploaded
I actually love the amount of history channels that have come to RUclips
There’s great variety, quality and content
Keep them coming!
I just hope to get to see the rest of Hannibal series soon! Brilliant work!
As for Hannibal's decision not to attack Rome: He was already involved in a siege, the Saguntum, where he was definitely facing a much smaller city, weaker army/troops and his supplies and reinforcements were abundant. Yet it was a costly and difficult siege that took a lot of time. You must also take into account that at that time and age, his information/intelligence was mostly hearsay, guesstimates and speculation, at best. Even with reliable spies, he could not have a full picture of entire Italy and other Roman holdings, despite that fleet marauding and controlling the Tyrrhenian Sea and Rome's coast. The fact that he also had that consular army at his back, made it quite a difficult task to simply siege Rome, with or without cavalry in it, and regardless of how occupied the other consul was with the Gaul incursions.
Once again, that time and age - he was not going to have proper, timely and instant information about situation, events and developments that we might have now or even in the last couple centuries.
With each re-read, re-watch and research of Hannibal, I end up with my fingernails destroyed, my nerves ruined.
I would also slightly disagree with you about Hannibal. Risk taker? Not really. A brilliant gambler, playing on good odds, yes. If we learned anything of him, it was that he wasn't a great besieger, and in the end, it's my opinion that he simply hoped to force Rome to it's knees outside of the walls, or get them so weak that he could finally and literally walk into Rome itself once all their armies were crushed. Not sure if he believed that Rome would sue for peace, ever. What also remains uncertain is - was he even aware of Carthaginian fleet controlling the sea access to Rome? And if he was, did he actually have faith in it holding it's ground (or water) against Roman fleets, since they didn't shine bright in previous battles, regardless of their seamanship tradition and prowess?
Hannibal series is definitely ongoing.
Magnifique! This serie will be the best when it's done.
A superb and informative series. I really appreciate the many nuggets included in the narrative, things that I DIDN'T know, like the details of the Ebro battle, for instance. I feel as though I've been reading a good book.
Imagine how different the world would be today if Rome was defeated in the Second Punic War.
That means the Hellenic empires would have dominant for 100s of years
That would mean you probably wouldn’t exist
The tower of Babble or we’d have more Greek instead of Latin derived words
@@chrisbula we would definitely have more Greek! The main reason the Greek city states fell was because Rome picked them off 1 at a time but without Rome the Greeks never would have fallen. Personally I believe we would have a different language and different alphabet at the very least
Your mean north Africaan words
finally! a new episode arrived, many thanks for you work !
Thumbs up and cheers! You have my respect for such effort to make these videos! Semper fidelis! And greetings from Romania!
The kind of video that you give like before watch it! Congratulations!
Top notch stuff buddy, the quality is improving with every upload. Hats off!
Thanks mate. Always great to see you here!
This is one of the best channel for these stuff and this story of Hannibal is awesome in itself and more awesomely it it presented hear waiting for the next part.😄
great animations love the style and content is excellent you've truly done your research look forward to next one
I'm waiting for Cannae battle!!..
I'm working on Part 8 right now, should be finished in a few weeks. Still two more battles before Cannae, then a few more episodes before Zama.
@@HistoryMarche greaat!! I can't wait!
TY
An earlier video notes that Carthage had spies inside Rome itself, so he must have had plenty of information to guide his decisions. Unless his spies conspired to trick him (or were captured and bribed) there can hardly be any excuse for failing to take advantage of a golden opportunity. So tactically brilliant but strategically wanting must be Hannibal's epitaph.
Hannibals ability to think up such strategic intelligence I feel lead him to overthinking the invasion of Rome. His own brilliance to think up so many details made him cautious, as he demonstrated before, he won’t charge into a battle unnecessarily until he’s calling the shots.
Brilliant video! Truly one of the most puzzling questions in history. Cant wait for the video on Cannae! Keep up the fantastic work guys 😉
Two more battles and then the big event :)
@@HistoryMarche haha the more Hannibal vids the better 😉
Bravo, very good [presentation. My personal thought is that Hannibal was severely affected by his sight. Loosing an eye because of infection is no joke, and he wouldn't feel comfortable to lead an army to a siege that it would easily cost him half of his army. So the attritional warfare was the best option he had, and Canne soon proved him right. he could only defeat the Romans on pitch battles. Perhaps he could have go straight for Ariminum, because he could then get control of the Adriatic fleet, perhaps, and baiting the Illyrian Legions into a trap.
Hm, that's an interesting point, the eye infection. This actually ties well into his situation. A lot of his men were suffering from scurvy after Trasimene, and it took them a month or two to recover.
But as far as pitched battles go. Remember, we have the benefit of hindsight, and to us it looks like victory on the field was a given, almost like Hannibal just had to show up and the Romans would be doomed. But in reality pitched battles were just as risky. Granted, Hannibal was probably better at conducting battles than sieges, but both were risky affairs - ie. he lost a few hundred Lybians at Trebia when the Roman center began crushing Hannibal's Gallic center.
So even at Trebia, such a stunning victory, yet he loses precious troops.
@@HistoryMarche I found quite amazing that sometimes a simple natural advantage or disadvantage could just change history. An aspect far too often neglected by classic historians. Hannibal and other greatest were masters of natural exploitations.
@@budibausto Indeed. Btw, thank you for your comments. I love comments that provoke me into thinking.
@@HistoryMarche I give you another favourite one. keep note if you ever gonna do another "Napoleonic" video. British ships were made mostly from Oaks, French ones with Pines. Besides the obvious strengths, guess which one makes more splinters after a broadside!!!
These videos just keep getting better. Keep it up.
It's wonderful how you analyse the actual grand strategy of the sides, compared to mainstream documentaries which just show Hannibal win three major battles and then just somehow losing.
Thank you. There is of course much more than this, and I'll try to show this in later episodes as more developments unfold. There is certainly a lot to be said about why Hannibal lost.
@@HistoryMarche That is great keep the good work, Hannibal is a long story take your time.
The best general I admire him!
marty rac Hannibal was mostly given a crap army (apart from a few veterans who still did damage at Zama) by his government to deal with Scipios well trained army who had everything to prove.
Your maps keep getting more and more detailed! Love it!
Thank you sir
I love your videos, I've watched them all. More please, I need the next installment of the punic wars!
What surprises me is that this channel has only 100k subscribers.
ikr , the quality is spectacular!
HistoryMarche is a YT hidden gem
Come on man. It's about time you came up with a new video of these series.
Working on two new episodes right now. I have a few projects that I'm doing simultaneously, so I hope to finish Hannibal part 8 and 9 during October or early November. Don't worry the series is ongoing, I'm a Hannibal fanboy and will definitely give some love to the series until it's finished.
@@HistoryMarche Thanks man and good luck with your projects! PS These are fantastic. Great job!
Amazing efficiency and a great video as always!
A fabulous page of History....and a great vid!🐘⚔👍
Please make a series about Magyars invasions in Europe. I just love this channel!!!!
Please make videos about the peloponesean war or about the Persian wars. Your content is just exellent
I just love these shows. Keep it up, and keep comming with more stories.
Awesome channel! Can't wait for more great content!
Great! as always, the best channel covering Hannibal.
btw u name all your video by the general name, could you consider Emperor Aurelian after you've done Hannibal life.
Hey man, great to see you back in the comment section. Aurelian is certainly an option as the next series. I'm still undecided there, but I am leaning towards a Roman or Greek leader.
Thank you for considering, all your videos are amazing, keep up the good work 😊
If you look up Sieg if Jerusalem you will see why he didn't.
Hannibal had already shown his brutality in burning villages and cities to the ground.
This was the Roman capital, and as you said they won't surrender.
Taking the capital would have been a very difficult task, and may have even been a defeat, I mean look at siege of Carthage as well.
But I still don't understand why Hannibal did not go to burn the houses and smaller towns around Rome, killing Roman citizens with impunity may have been a strategic option.
I think it was foolish not to attack heartland of Romans, instead he went for where the Roman Italian allies were, he may have tried to appeal to them so he can get more troops like he did with Gauls. And he did get troops from Italians, but not the way he did from Gauls.
Oh that's a great argument. I never thought of that to be honest. Attacking Rome's heartland, plundering, looting, destroying, burning the landscape outside of Rome could've have the same effect as an actual siege. Just imagine the hit to Roman prestige for an enemy army to freely march up and down around Rome, and Rome is powerless to prevent it. Imagine what their allies would think? Some might even defect. Further more, just like the siege, the destruction of Roman heartland that you suggested would've forced the Romans to act aggressively, there would be no Fabian strategy. And that's perfect for Hannibal - forcing the enemy to attack him on his own terms.
Great points Intescy Avenger, thank you.
@@HistoryMarche1st Roman navy would supply Rome actually
2nd Roman allies were almost all Latin allies or Greek which were culturally close. I don't see any reason for them to defect.
3rd Hannibal likely thought he would force a peace deal as you pointed out in video where he would get Sicily and Sardinia as he promised to get them to his father and actually that is where he went for after Rome.
This conflict is a particular love of mine. To see it in such fine detail and seeing the upcoming battles, most of which (Aside from Cannae) are never mentioned! Keep it up, this is number 1
Thank you sir. Indeed, there are two very important battles before Cannae. This episode kind of didn't fit anywhere but on its' own. But now we have 2 battles in a row + the big event :)
Thanks for all such great adventures,awesome man
Waiting for ep.8!!!!
Carthage and Rome: It’s free real estate
I was binge watching your vids about the 2nd punic war. Interesting stuff. Congratz on your work. 👌
Thank you sir. Hannibal part 8 is finished, it's currently available on my Patreon page and will be released on RUclips in a few days.
I’m not much for theories, but it’s comforting to know that even a great military general can make mistakes
Waiting for part 8!!!🤩🤩
It's coming in August :) Two more battles to go before Cannae.
Yes! Thank you! Was waiting for this like crazy! Love the voice and everything in the video! You are making amazing work!
"Hannibal Knows How To Gain Victory But Don't Know How To Use It! " - Maharbal
10/10 Amazing video, well done!
Hannibal: Ay caramba! My eye! 😂😂😂
Still I think another part about taking Rome is wondering what today would be like? Imagine the world developing without Roman influence. Makes you wonder. Great video as always!
Amazing video like always
Peace!
Very nice presentation.
Thank you.
Bucuresti, RO
Hannibal probably roll was dice, the madman 😂😂😂
Exams can wait, my boy is back!
Same !
This is by far the best 2nd Punic War series I've seen on youtube ! Great content ! As for why Hannibal didn't attack, maybe it was because he didn't have all the info on the amount of troops, garrisons etc waiting for him at Rome ? After all he avoided sieging all this time .
Thank you sir.
Great job! Keep up the good work.
Great video, but the knocking sound effect you use at 2:39 and several other times makes it feel like someone is knocking on a door behind me. It distracts from the video.
This channel is really impressive! this series has been very eye opening for me and Alexander Doddy is a great narrator ( and I always thought he was just a Games Workshop spokesperson)
I am *itching* for another episode of The Punic Wars series
Ager Falernus and Geronium are next, then it's Cannae - the big event :D I was delayed with my current project so I'm hoping to finish the Battle of Ain Jalut in August, then do another Hannibal episode, and then Calugareni part 3.
@@HistoryMarche Honestly i really cannot wait. Hannibal is my huge Idol not gonna lie.
Thanks for the documentary guys! You are the best!!
Thank you for watching.
At 13:36 should be "die in combat" not "dye in combat". Unless Romans had a large garment industry operating in the heat of battle.
Hahahaha! Yeah, I know, I know. Plenty of jokes have already been laid on me for this typo-error. My apologies. But on the other hand, just think of all those Roman legionaries with dyed blonde hair, dashing across the field! :D
Battle Of Cannae better be coming soon!
:-)
Love these vids so much!
Seriously, fucking well done!!
Amazing and beautiful!!!
Waiting with epic anticipation for part 8!!!
Thank you sir. Still 2 more battles before Cannae :)
@@HistoryMarche Looking forward to it!
Just signed up to support you on Patreon...
THANK YOU!!!
Now get back to work sir!!!
:-)
GRIN
@@gruntyboy Hehe, yes I saw that you pledged. Thank you so much for the support.
@@HistoryMarche where can I find the rest of the series?
@@evertaj8332 Part 8 will be out in 10-15 days.
This Channel is by far the best in all of youtube!
I used to read a lot more about Hannibal and the Punic Wars. While it's always been mostly speculation, I remember a few books that attributed Hannibal's decisions possibly being based on his lack of trust in the leaders of Carthage. Those in power had even opposed his father's decisions in Iberia. Due to the animosity of the leaders, they refused to truly support Hannibal. As such, Hannibal made decisions to avoid actions that required any level of trust on the rest of the Carthaginian leadership that wasn't in Iberia or with him.
I'm not certain, but I always found that explains a lot. Understanding that the second war seemed almost as much of a personal vendetta over one sanctioned by the Carthaginian leaders could explain why Strategy and Tactics did not align.
Hannibal was a G! Cant wait for more from your channel
Hannibal...is the man. yet a little unfortunate that makes me sympathize him even more :)
edit: simply astounding work. the way you put emphasize when telling the stories is amazing, e.g. this chapter was the question of many pieces of research for me. you are my personal #1, along with bazbattles and epic history channels, you are out of the competition. much love and big thanks !!!
That's very kind of you sir. Thank you!
@@HistoryMarcheWelcome! I wish you make some series on the Kingdom of Armenia, there are many fascinating stories to tell that are mostly untouched by popular reviewers (mostly the medieval kingdoms of Cilician Armenia, Bagratid Armenia, also the famous adventures of Tigtanes II the Great of the ancient kingdom of Artaxiad Armenia).
This is Amazing! I learned so much from this!!!! I have watched a lot of videos on Roman History. I did not know about this. Thanks, HistoryMarche.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for watching.
Thank you!
Great Series and really really good video's on your chanel !!! Again, thank you.
I have a couple of theories I just want to get out there. 🤔 since a large portion of Hannibal’s army was made up of Gauls i think that they weren’t as keen on being lead by Carthaginians. Everything could have hung in the balance, if they left the war would become harder and more of a stalemate, and knowing this could appreciate a status quo that favours them getting their lands and not being conquered by anyone. Italians were thriving and would rise up to defend themselves at any cost, i think it was decided and influenced more by the people than the thinking of Hannibal. Faced with this breakdown in communication and lack of favour he was stripped of the ability to use force and instead had to make it look like he still had loyal troops.
The other theory is if Hannibal attacked walls the brute effectiveness of the Roman troops could be employed and overwhelm them in a straight fight with no prospect of outmanoeuvre.
And finally, the other theory is that he was a strong believer in the Carthaginian cause but even after much effort at winning support at home came to near nothing, his actions were not approved and so he didn’t really have any orders. Killing Rome outright might have looked like butchery without it being firmly appreciated by other nobility so he simply had no reason to “finish them”. If you don’t get recognition, fame or be paid for it, what’s the point? It all could have been met with disapproval. Carthage were always finicky when it came to who was in a top position and who was leading them, they had to possess specific noble traits.
Yes, I agree. The Gauls were certainly a constant issue. They stopped be welcoming in the Po Valley as soon as the Romans were driven out, and they would've rather raided Roman territory than played host to Hannibal and his men. A similar scenario could've happened in a siege. One thing to offset this could've been plunder and the promise of more plunder. Namely, the entire area from Tuscany, to Rome, and further south was undefended rich land, so there would've been plenty to plunder. The only question is, for how long, because as we know, as soon as plunder runs out Gauls turn home. And the promise of plunder would be Rome itself, even if it never materializes.
As far as storming the city, I don't think that would've been necessary. Just a siege would've certainly forced Romans into action. There would be no luxury of even considering a Fabian strategy, but aggressive action would've been taken to drive Hannibal away from the city. Whether this would be by recruiting the young and old male population in the city (remember, strongest males were probably already conscripted and in the field elsewhere), or would it be legions that come back from other theaters to defend the city, both scenarios would've suited Hannibal - forcing the enemy to attack him on his own terms. And not to mention the fact that the withdrawal of Roman troops from other theaters would've exposed them to Carthaginian attacks.
Your third theory is perhaps most interesting, to me at least. Political infighting was probably a big issue in Carthage. Politically Carthage was fractured a lot, there were a lot of powerful and ambitious people who wanted a piece of the pie, glory, territory, more power, money etc. Each of these people had their own agenda, Hannibal included. My guess is that cracks began to appear between Hannibal and Carthage as early as after Trasimene. This became obvious after Cannae, where it became clear that the power brokers in Carthage were afraid of Hannibal becoming too powerful, and these fears were quite reasonable. I'm sure that if Hannibal defeated Rome he would've wanted to rule the whole thing, Carthage, Iberia, Rome, everything, and the conquests probably wouldn't end there. So your theory is definitely worth exploring, as it points to a rift between Hannibal and other powerful people in Carthage. This would certainly be a good explanation as to why MOST of the Carthaginian fleet came all the way to Rome, with the risk of being destroyed by the more powerful Roman navy, only to do nothing. It could be even possible that it was Hannibal who wanted all the glory for himself and essentially turned east, even though Carthage wanted to besiege Rome. We'll never know.
Absolutely and it’s fascinating to speculate on his decisions as this is such hard one to grasp. There might be a long list of causes, there might only be a few so it is interesting that Rome was given such a break and that the dictator was able to get the message out to people to wall up, burn crops and resist as much as possible. Their situation became even worse after this and yet somehow overcame it. The British has nothing on staunch Defense like these Latin people had. Future Punic war stuff would be very much welcomed by me 😎👍
Hannibal didn't march to Rome because "gods are wise, they never give all virtues to one man".
"as always, fuck you for watching"
13:26
Can't unhear it anymore :"D
rofl!
I loved the CuriosityStream ad ! Honest, examples for the viewers ,definitely a how to make an in ad !
Thank you sir.
I love you and your voice, my little brother has also taken interest in history because of you and your videos. 😁😁😁
Very glad to hear that.
Come for Rome, stay for the narrator's voice.
Ramadan Kareem !!!
?
Amazing video!
The middle scroll at the end scene spelled die incorrectly. Love your videos :)
My apologies. No idea why I typed dye instead of die. And now it's there :D Thank you for watching.
Great video from HistoryMarche.
Hannibal won in the battle of Cannae year after battle of lake Trasemine. Is that a proof he was asure he can win over any newly recruitet Roman army,unexpirianced and untrained? So he decaded to raid,keeping his army (at least half of it Gauls) in move and plundering,instead of just sitting and waiting for Romans to starve or surrender. Also, Romans assembled cca 80k soldiers at Cannae,meaning they still had numbers,Hannibal didnt wanted to be caught between big army and city of Rome itself. In case he try to stop reinforcement from land to Rome,his rear is exposed to attack from city in any time. Sure he was risk taker,but clever,expirianced and wise one..In my personal opinion, if he thought there is a chance to take city of Rome atm, he would go for it 100% .
Thank you sir. Yes, this is essentially what happened. I wonder though, had Hannibal known that Rome will implement a Fabian strategy, would he have done the same.
Such detail. Brilliant execution. Subbed
Welcome to the channel.
Amazingly done, a head above all the rest of these tactical documentaries.
Thank you sir.