This presentation is a lot better than just memorizing that on a certain day, ~80,000 Romans were killed by a smaller force of Carthaginians and allies. It is much more engaging and will certainly be more memorable.
@@LordCryptid is there any chance for u to do this again? I would love to see you explain and draw WW2 battles and explain the what-ifs and unit backgrounds. Love ya
@@mcbrians.8508 I am awaiting the numbers for the class. If enough students take it I can teach it again. I should know next week or so. I would like to do some tank battles for certain.
@@LordCryptid that’s awesome to hear! I hope the tank battle you’ll pick will be the “Battle of 73 Easting”. Lol the American Coalition destroyed 3000 tanks of Saddam’s elite republican Tawakalna-Medina division without any tank loss. 😂
But he should"nt make things up like the "Shuffling or stomping" of Carthaginian feet cause I"ve checked out evvery account of thiis battle and its not mentioned by anyone else,even Wikipedia that give the most detailed accounts claim thaat the thirst of the Romanss was due to an attack on their encampment by Hannibal the previous day.Nitpicking you say? Well if he"s so passionate about history he should stick as closely to the facts as possible and I"d really like to know where he has the "Foot shuffle" from;the wind was blowing dust in their faces anyway accompanied by the glaring morning sun in their eyes.
very well demonstrated. i think hannibal was one of the greatest military commanders of his time and if he had more resources he could have taken rome itself
really any sort of help from home. From what i've gathered Carthaginian politicians were corrupt and scared of Roman revenge. Which is understandable due to the first punic war but also. Hannibal took more from rome than even his father could have ever dreamed. Cannae was the beginning of the end. A very long end lol
Where was this teach when I was in high school? All my history teachers just went over stuff so generically. Not the actual tactics of the battles and troops involved.
This Thursday I am considering trying to get the students more actively involved by trying a choose-your-own-adventure type of lesson. My thought is that I will stop at critical junctures of a battle and give the students command options. It might be interesting.
@@LordCryptid These kids are very lucky I would imagine most people had a very uninspired history education in high school. I wonder have you ever seen Totalwar footage? It's a video game but it does a very good job of visualizing these battles from classical antiquity through to the late middle ages. There is a ton of footage on RUclips of attempting to reenact historical battles. Check it out here is one of Gaugamela: ruclips.net/video/z-d4AAoNsMQ/видео.html
Super, I have a 6 yo daughter and would like her to try your class... unfortunately we are in Bangkok Thailand. Please keep going, we will follow you on RUclips
Very impressed with this course. Watched about five of the videos so far. While it is simplified for the younger audience it's still detailed enough for me to enjoy watching and very detailed for their age. good teacher, those kids are lucky wish my boy could take this class I may have to make him watch them.
It is interesting to note how much you have to put into research to be able to make complicated battle strategies easier and interesting enough for 14-year-olds. But it is fun.
Our teacher had us act our the crossing off the alps and the battle off Cannae in the classroom. Piled desks became the Pyrenees and our satchels were booty. That was nearly sixty years ago and i remember it vividly. The Romans came out on top in that production.
Sir, very well done, You have surpassed my own small efforts ( taught AP Latin, spend an hour on Cannae, BUT used the elegant prose passages of T. Livius on the summary part of the battle; this was the psychological view of the legionaires when they realized they were surrounded, crushed together, and doomed. Such is one of the most artistic, elegant, powerful samples of Latin prose. I myself, had to simplify the structure & grammar; but years after students came to me and recalled how valuable was the lesson
A lot of mistakes here... Firstly, Hannibal wasn't trying to run away. In fact, it was Hannibal that was trying to fight. The first day where the two armies stared at each other that you described in the beginning of the video, didn't happen the way you portrayed. First off, Hannibal deployed his army in front of the Roman camp but the Romans didn't come out and deploy for battle. The Romans needed to fight because Hannibal had captured Cannae which was the only grain depot in the region and was supplying Hannibal and would slowly starve the Romans into submission. Both Paulus and Varro wanted to fight as soon as possible because they both understood that they would have almost no chance of keeping such a large army in the field for very long because of the logistical nightmare it would have caused. They also realized that Hannibal was trying to play the political game because if he could convince Rome's southern allies that the Romans were afraid of him then their allies would switch sides and support Hannibal. So Paulus and Varro wanted to fight asap because Hannibal could win the waiting game very easily. Second, Paulus wasn't a military genius. Polybius only writes positively of him and negatively of Varro because Paulus' family funded Polybius. So before you start claiming people are better because of a specific source you need to check for the biases. Plus, Paulus had really no military experience. He had led an expedition in Illyria but he didn't participate in any pitched battles and he didn't have to manage very many troops. Paulus was far from a military genius, and by normal standards he was the classic example of a newbie or an amateur. That isn't to say that Varro was a better commander however, as Varro likewise had almost no military experience in commanding large numbers of troops on a battlefield. Now, Hannibal wasn't trapped. His camp was on the opposite side of the river in a good defensive position. There were also 2 Roman camps, not just one... 2 Roman camps for the 2 Roman generals and their respective troops. Third, now we get to the battle. It is actually difficult to say which commander was truly in charge on that day. You can say that Polybius says Varro was in command, but Polybius has a lot of bias and barely mentions Varro as a general until the battle where verything goes wrong which could be Polybius' way of putting blame on Varro and not Paulus. Anyway, Paulus was on the right flank of the army, which was the traditional position of the commander of the army, and therefore it is difficult to say who was truly in command of the Roman army on that day. Your description of the battle is too sequentially displayed. Most of the movements by the cavalry and infantry were happening simultaneously. Gaulic and Spanish infantry weren't light infantry, you're just mistakenly calling them that because they were inferior to Roman infantry, but the Libyans were equally inferior to most Roman infantry. The Libyans weren't on the immediate flanks of the army, they were on the flanks but behind the crescent formation. They were concealed from the enemy behind the rest of the army in the tall grass. The numidians didn't rout the Roman cavalry on the left, they just kept them in place long enough for the spanish and gaulic cavalry on the right to force them to flee the battlefield. Now Varro was with the cavalry on the left flank as well. All while this was going on the Carthaginian crescent was being pushed back. Eventually though, they did break. Yes.... They actually did break, but as they did the onrushing Romans were too disorganized to realize what was going on and the center of the Roman formation now was hit on both flanks by the Libyan infantry that was behind the crescent formation for the entirety of the battle and had only just become viewable. The Gaulic and Spanish infantry then rallied and hit the Romans in the front while all the cavalry hit them from behind. The rest is history of course. The reason for Hannibal losing the war is extremely complex so I won't fault you for completely oversimplifying it to a group of teenagers. This also wasn't a classic envelopment either. You actually don't put enough significance on how Hannibal actually won the battle. Cannae was the first time in history, and still one of the few times ever in history, that a numerically inferior force was able to perform a DOUBLE ENVELOPMENT on a numerically superior enemy. Even after this battle not many people have been able to replicate such a feat. In reality, the way Hannibal won the battle of Cannae shouldn't have actually been possible, which just shows Hannibal as by far one of the best generals to ever live.
But you still have to keep it simple, remember these are highschool freshmen. There's a reason why we get taught about the bohr model in chemistry and not orbitals until much later.
@@forzaacmilan36 Well, to your point there's a difference between models and representations of reality that are supposed to serve as simplifications and complete falsehoods and lies. The Bohr Model for example was debunked a while back for its violation of the Heisenberg Principle and for the fact that we learned electrons weren't really particles so much as clouds with no definite borders. You can simplify things for highschool students, but you can't teach them falsehoods and call it simplified, that's just plainly disingenuous.
Fantastic on so many levels! How about an analysis of General Schwarzkopf flanking maneuver in Iraq. He often compared the following one side d victory to the Battle of Cannae.
That would be a good one and I could incorporate air power. The most recent battle I have done is The Little Bighorn...which was not recorded. Tanks as modern cavalry.
That one is often discussed after Isandlwana but I have never recorded it. I also discuss Little Bighorn but never on film. Both would be nice to have.
To be able to teach 14-year-old students about these battles is truly a blessing. I am not teaching that class this year but will attempt to make US Government interesting...probably a lessened chance of battle discussions.
I showed my high school friend the scene in Game of Thrones where Jon Snow and his army were surrounded by the Bolton’s and were crushed together and Jon coming up for air, same thing happened to the Romans that’s why they couldn’t raise their swords, they just couldn’t move.
It is great to see this class taught and the significance and, to a degree, insignificance, of the battle explained. Hannibal's brilliance gave him huge victories but he lacked the ability to capture walled cities and ports and was ultimately doomed to fail. The Romans adapted, stopped giving him the open field victories, and wore him down. Did the battle change history? It was hugely significant, militarily, but perhaps history had already been changed, by the emergence of a Roman state that would not accept defeat. My high school history teacher gave a wildly inaccurate account of Hannibal's campaign in Italy and it was twenty years before I learned it accurately. Great work!
Nik Tesla Hannibal could take cities - he took Saguntum being the most famous example and also Tarentum. But when In Rome he basically relied on cities defecting to him - see Capua, Apulia etc. So it’s a bit wrong to say he simply “couldn’t” take cities as he was quite effective at it. The reason you don’t see much if any on the Italian peninsula is because, remember, Hannibal was living off the land and relied on quick movement across the peninsula as Carthage just simply didn’t supply him adequately. That’s why he couldn’t take Rome - he didn’t have the men or the siege capabilities to take a city like Rome, as Carthage wasn’t supplying him at all.
@@Lionsbrood_ *THANK YOU!* These arguments for Rome’s “adaptation” & “refusal to quit” are always saturated w/subjective desire as opposed to the facts. Hannibal destroyed 2-300,000 men, took cities & goods and hung out in their backyard for another 10-12 years. They couldn’t do a single thing with that man😅
If you wanted to put that another way into perspective the Romans lost the equivalent of 9 months worth of US casualties from WW2 in one day and the US was fighting everywhere in the world this was just a few square miles.
My US History and AP Euro students would certainly get this astonishing number. The freshmen seem to find these numbers harder to visualize. I used the number of 9/11's that would equal the deaths and even then they reminded me that they had not been born yet. Unbelievable carnage in such a short span of time and such a confined space. Thank you Delogros.
Maybe pick a Football Stadium with a similar capacity? I see 70,000 humans regularly at Century Link Field, it's pretty easy to think of them as an army sometimes...
It’s even worse in terms of percentages and over the course of the entire war up to this point: by the end of Cannae, Hannibal had killed 20% of Rome’s adult male population. That’s WWII Axis powers levels of casualties, if not a bit worse, and in less time. It was bad enough that even though Rome managed to win the war, the massive population losses fundamentally broke Roman society and economy and ultimately led to the political and military shenanigans of the final decades of the Republic and the rise of the Empire.
When I played Age of Empires I also liked the added historical background I had. It encouraged me to look up more information. Way back--I became fascinated with medieval weaponry due to playing too much D&D in the early 80's.
at the battle of canne 90k of romans ware there of 90 romans who tok on that battle 75 k roman soldiers died 75.000 romans died ot was the most brutal defeat in roman history
Poitiers is quite similar in tactics (albeit not fully) to 1415’s Agincourt, which this dude has already covered on his channel. Essentially the Black Prince used English longbowmen to mow down the French Cavalry. The details are obviously going to be different, but the broad reason why the English beat the French so totally comes down to the same reason of: English Longbowmen. Hope that helps slightly!
The student vote was split because I didn't do a "primary" to lessen the overall choices. There was no clear winner. Alexander received the most votes but it was by one (my tie-breaker).
I cannot 100% guarantee that the drawing was accurate but we know where the city of Cannae was and where the river is. Using the descriptions of the survivors we have an idea of where it occurred. However, I have not looked into the archeological evidence--just anecdotal.
Seeing as how 200-300,000 men were obliterated in a matter of months (meaning full family generations being wiped from history). . .& we are still teaching/learning about 4 or 5 of Hannibal’s tactics during *ONE* campaign almost 3,000 years ago. . .& his destruction of Roman citizens led to the annihilation of the coward Carthaginians (once Hannibal was dead). . .& it directly affected Philip & his campaign against the Romans on the other side. . . . . .dude😅
interesting. though different sources seem to say different things. One states the battle occurred in 216 BC, others say 215, Others 212. Then some say there were 80,000+ Romans vs 50,000 Carthaginians. Other sources say it was 50,000 Romans vs Hannibal's 40,000. Which source is the most reliable?
Details but good overall: Numidians are greatest light cavalry. They never pushed the cavalry in front of them. The regular Carthaginian cav circled behind the Roman infantry to help rout the cav facing the numidians. Then together all Carthaginian cav attacked the rear of the Romans.
@@LordCryptid let’s observe the counter attack this spring but my hunch is that the outcome would be the same. Russian will pretend to back off until they encircle and pin down the remaining nato-Kiev forces
Genius might be a bit much. More like he was experienced enough to know when he was being played. Scipio Africanus was probably more to the genius level.
The blond kid had clearly already read about what happened in this battle. No way he would suggest EXACTLY what Hannibal actually ended up doing. Good job doing your homework but not cool pretending you are as smart as Hannibal with war tactics.
I am currently teaching a mini-course on Urban Legends. Also, in class today we made torsion catapults out of rubber bands and popsicle sticks to teach Roman Engineering.
The Romans learned that they could simply wait out Hannibal as he would not receive what he needed from Carthage. Then Scipio bought off Hannibal's mercenaries and brought the fight to North Africa via Zama. It was not decisive for Hannibal but it was a turning point for Rome. Plus, is it not the most studied battle in war colleges throughout the world? I completely understand your point and Hannibal could have pressed the advantage and won the war, not just the battle. Who could have known the resilience of Rome?
And, thank you for your comment. It is always important to question these things and it makes me think of how I can better teach the next lesson. I should have added what I typed above for the lesson.
Rome did enjoy a significant manpower advantage over its Punic invaders. We have record numbers of legions from 216 and onward in Italy and Spain. 12 legions in 215 BC, 18 in 214 BC, and 25 in 211 BC. That is a theoretical strength of at least 105 000 men and 7500 cavalry, supported by an equal number of auxiliaries. Let's take a look at the number of men killed and captured. Battle of Ticinus 218 BC: 2300 men lost Battle of Trebia 218 BC: 32 000 men lost Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC: 30 000 men lost Battle of Aeger Falernus 217 BC: 1000 men lost Battle of Cannae 216 BC: 80 000 men lost Total number of men killed or captured: 145 300 In 215 BC the Romans had 12 legions and auxiliaries left, approximately 108 000 men of a total force of 253 300 men. In other words, Hannibal killed or captured almost 1/3 of their standing army at Cannae. Despite these heavy loses, the Romans raised 6 new legions and auxiliaries in 214 BC, 54 000 men, and increased the standing army to 162 000 men. Hannibal continues to defeat the Romans in battle. Battle of Tarentum 212 BC: 13 000 men lost Battle of Silarus 212 BC: 15 000 men lost 1st Battle of Herdonia 212 BC: 16 000 men lost In 211 the Romans had 25 legions and auxiliaries, approximately 225 000 men, so Hannibal manages to kill or capture 44 000 men during the same time it takes the Romans to raise 13 legions and auxiliaries, 117 000 men, so they are one step ahead of him. Now the Romans had lost 189 300 men as a total, and the remaining force was 108 000 men and the newly recruited force numbered some 117 000 men. That is a total of 414 300 men, and still they had more to draw from. Battle of Castulo and Ilorca 211 BC: 20 000 men lost to Hasdrubal Barca 2nd Battle of Herdonia 210 BC: 13 000 men lost In all Hannibal killed or captured a total of at least 202 300 men, just short of half their force. If they were unable to raise new soldiers the way they did, they would have lost after Cannae. The total force was 253 300 and Hannibal and Hasdrubal managed to killed or captured 222 300. That is only 31 000 left of the original force to guard Italy, defend against Philip V and attack Spain at the same time. With such depleted numbers after Cannae they would not have gone on the offensive in Italy or Spain in 212 BC and onward, was it not for their ability to recruit new men. Hannibal could not afford to lose 189 300 and win. The Romans could. Scipio Africanus came later, and these events follow a timeline, so by 215, without the manpower reserve, Hannibal's brothers would have been able to reinforce him in Italy. With new men Hannibal could besiege cities, defend conquered cities and maintain a standing army at the same time. The Roman manpower reserve, willingness to fight and his own lack of siege engines explain why Hannibal lost in the long run! He defeated more than 202 300 Romans and allies on the field of battle.
LordCryptid There's a very dark point to make as well. Hannibal was so successful that he kinda ended up killing many of the incompetent commanders. Essentially leaving behind their rivals who preached a different strategy that still took many years & Hannibal being betrayed by Carthage repeatedly to defeat him.
This guy is an excellent teacher.
^agreed..
i guess I am kind of off topic but does anybody know of a good website to watch newly released tv shows online?
@Archie Louis i would suggest Flixzone. Just search on google for it =)
I appreciate hearing the minutia that many professors don't mention, like the shuffling of the Carthaginians' feet. Great work!
This presentation is a lot better than just memorizing that on a certain day, ~80,000 Romans were killed by a smaller force of Carthaginians and allies. It is much more engaging and will certainly be more memorable.
I hope to grab at least some attention. History is too easy to make boring. It takes a bit of effort to grab modern young people. Thank you.
Really glad I chose the cameraman I did...his comments are hardly annoying.
The camera kid suggest the romans escape to the mountains lol
@@mcbrians.8508 I would pick in that camera kid to this day if I saw him.
@@LordCryptid is there any chance for u to do this again? I would love to see you explain and draw WW2 battles and explain the what-ifs and unit backgrounds. Love ya
@@mcbrians.8508 I am awaiting the numbers for the class. If enough students take it I can teach it again. I should know next week or so. I would like to do some tank battles for certain.
@@LordCryptid that’s awesome to hear! I hope the tank battle you’ll pick will be the “Battle of 73 Easting”. Lol the American Coalition destroyed 3000 tanks of Saddam’s elite republican Tawakalna-Medina division without any tank loss. 😂
Great teachers like this raise people genuinely curious and passionate about not just history :)
But he should"nt make things up like the "Shuffling or stomping" of Carthaginian feet cause I"ve checked out evvery account of thiis battle and its not mentioned by anyone else,even Wikipedia that give the most detailed accounts claim thaat the thirst of the Romanss was due to an attack on their encampment by Hannibal the previous day.Nitpicking you say? Well if he"s so passionate about history he should stick as closely to the facts as possible and I"d really like to know where he has the "Foot shuffle" from;the wind was blowing dust in their faces anyway accompanied by the glaring morning sun in their eyes.
What a fun teacher.
"the Roman's turned around and there was cavalry and the Roman's were like: 'that's unpleasent'" 😂
Love this guy. Great explanation and what might have happened theories.... Great job sir...
very well demonstrated. i think hannibal was one of the greatest military commanders of his time and if he had more resources he could have taken rome itself
Agreed. Even a modicum of support from home would have tipped the balance.
True that!!!👏👏👏🙌🙌🙌
really any sort of help from home. From what i've gathered Carthaginian politicians were corrupt and scared of Roman revenge. Which is understandable due to the first punic war but also. Hannibal took more from rome than even his father could have ever dreamed. Cannae was the beginning of the end. A very long end lol
This is pretty good. Should do some of Alexander's campaigns.
I wish I had a friggin awesome teacher like that.
Well done sir!!!
Where was this teach when I was in high school? All my history teachers just went over stuff so generically. Not the actual tactics of the battles and troops involved.
This Thursday I am considering trying to get the students more actively involved by trying a choose-your-own-adventure type of lesson. My thought is that I will stop at critical junctures of a battle and give the students command options. It might be interesting.
@@LordCryptid These kids are very lucky I would imagine most people had a very uninspired history education in high school. I wonder have you ever seen Totalwar footage? It's a video game but it does a very good job of visualizing these battles from classical antiquity through to the late middle ages. There is a ton of footage on RUclips of attempting to reenact historical battles. Check it out here is one of Gaugamela:
ruclips.net/video/z-d4AAoNsMQ/видео.html
The students featured in this film have granted permission for it to be shown.
Make fun of the puffy jacket large nose kid, on my behalf, if you get a chance.
@@davidr1122 Which one?
Hannibal: I have no traps *I AM THE TRAP*
Super, I have a 6 yo daughter and would like her to try your class... unfortunately we are in Bangkok Thailand. Please keep going, we will follow you on RUclips
I am working on the curriculum of the class today because we start next week.
Very impressed with this course. Watched about five of the videos so far. While it is simplified for the younger audience it's still detailed enough for me to enjoy watching and very detailed for their age. good teacher, those kids are lucky wish my boy could take this class I may have to make him watch them.
It is interesting to note how much you have to put into research to be able to make complicated battle strategies easier and interesting enough for 14-year-olds. But it is fun.
Our teacher had us act our the crossing off the alps and the battle off Cannae in the classroom. Piled desks became the Pyrenees and our satchels were booty. That was nearly sixty years ago and i remember it vividly. The Romans came out on top in that production.
That would have been epic.
Our masters all wore black gowns and we nicknamed that master Caesar! He was very pleased with the name when he found out!
These are amazingly good.
These are a great deal of work to make happen but are fun to teach.
Sir, very well done, You have surpassed my own small efforts ( taught AP Latin, spend an hour on Cannae, BUT used the elegant prose passages of T. Livius on the summary part of the battle; this was the psychological view of the legionaires when they realized they were surrounded, crushed together, and doomed. Such is one of the most artistic, elegant, powerful samples of Latin prose. I myself, had to simplify the structure & grammar; but years after students came to me and recalled how valuable was the lesson
Teaching Latin using this instance would be very impactful for students. I should add that.
A lot of mistakes here...
Firstly, Hannibal wasn't trying to run away. In fact, it was Hannibal that was trying to fight. The first day where the two armies stared at each other that you described in the beginning of the video, didn't happen the way you portrayed. First off, Hannibal deployed his army in front of the Roman camp but the Romans didn't come out and deploy for battle. The Romans needed to fight because Hannibal had captured Cannae which was the only grain depot in the region and was supplying Hannibal and would slowly starve the Romans into submission. Both Paulus and Varro wanted to fight as soon as possible because they both understood that they would have almost no chance of keeping such a large army in the field for very long because of the logistical nightmare it would have caused. They also realized that Hannibal was trying to play the political game because if he could convince Rome's southern allies that the Romans were afraid of him then their allies would switch sides and support Hannibal. So Paulus and Varro wanted to fight asap because Hannibal could win the waiting game very easily.
Second, Paulus wasn't a military genius. Polybius only writes positively of him and negatively of Varro because Paulus' family funded Polybius. So before you start claiming people are better because of a specific source you need to check for the biases. Plus, Paulus had really no military experience. He had led an expedition in Illyria but he didn't participate in any pitched battles and he didn't have to manage very many troops. Paulus was far from a military genius, and by normal standards he was the classic example of a newbie or an amateur. That isn't to say that Varro was a better commander however, as Varro likewise had almost no military experience in commanding large numbers of troops on a battlefield. Now, Hannibal wasn't trapped. His camp was on the opposite side of the river in a good defensive position. There were also 2 Roman camps, not just one... 2 Roman camps for the 2 Roman generals and their respective troops.
Third, now we get to the battle. It is actually difficult to say which commander was truly in charge on that day. You can say that Polybius says Varro was in command, but Polybius has a lot of bias and barely mentions Varro as a general until the battle where verything goes wrong which could be Polybius' way of putting blame on Varro and not Paulus. Anyway, Paulus was on the right flank of the army, which was the traditional position of the commander of the army, and therefore it is difficult to say who was truly in command of the Roman army on that day. Your description of the battle is too sequentially displayed. Most of the movements by the cavalry and infantry were happening simultaneously. Gaulic and Spanish infantry weren't light infantry, you're just mistakenly calling them that because they were inferior to Roman infantry, but the Libyans were equally inferior to most Roman infantry. The Libyans weren't on the immediate flanks of the army, they were on the flanks but behind the crescent formation. They were concealed from the enemy behind the rest of the army in the tall grass. The numidians didn't rout the Roman cavalry on the left, they just kept them in place long enough for the spanish and gaulic cavalry on the right to force them to flee the battlefield. Now Varro was with the cavalry on the left flank as well. All while this was going on the Carthaginian crescent was being pushed back. Eventually though, they did break. Yes.... They actually did break, but as they did the onrushing Romans were too disorganized to realize what was going on and the center of the Roman formation now was hit on both flanks by the Libyan infantry that was behind the crescent formation for the entirety of the battle and had only just become viewable. The Gaulic and Spanish infantry then rallied and hit the Romans in the front while all the cavalry hit them from behind. The rest is history of course.
The reason for Hannibal losing the war is extremely complex so I won't fault you for completely oversimplifying it to a group of teenagers.
This also wasn't a classic envelopment either. You actually don't put enough significance on how Hannibal actually won the battle. Cannae was the first time in history, and still one of the few times ever in history, that a numerically inferior force was able to perform a DOUBLE ENVELOPMENT on a numerically superior enemy. Even after this battle not many people have been able to replicate such a feat. In reality, the way Hannibal won the battle of Cannae shouldn't have actually been possible, which just shows Hannibal as by far one of the best generals to ever live.
But you still have to keep it simple, remember these are highschool freshmen. There's a reason why we get taught about the bohr model in chemistry and not orbitals until much later.
@@forzaacmilan36 Well, to your point there's a difference between models and representations of reality that are supposed to serve as simplifications and complete falsehoods and lies. The Bohr Model for example was debunked a while back for its violation of the Heisenberg Principle and for the fact that we learned electrons weren't really particles so much as clouds with no definite borders. You can simplify things for highschool students, but you can't teach them falsehoods and call it simplified, that's just plainly disingenuous.
Very good!
My history class never got into any battle details or tactics, not that I can mind anyway
Fantastic on so many levels! How about an analysis of General Schwarzkopf flanking maneuver in Iraq. He often compared the following one side d victory to the Battle of Cannae.
That would be a good one and I could incorporate air power. The most recent battle I have done is The Little Bighorn...which was not recorded. Tanks as modern cavalry.
I'm a bunch of years too late but the battle of alesia is classic.
Feel bad for Paulus... such a classic and tragic situation.
There was little he could have done.
Don't know if you are still doing presentations. Might want to consider Rourke's Drift.
That one is often discussed after Isandlwana but I have never recorded it. I also discuss Little Bighorn but never on film. Both would be nice to have.
well done professor
To be able to teach 14-year-old students about these battles is truly a blessing. I am not teaching that class this year but will attempt to make US Government interesting...probably a lessened chance of battle discussions.
I wish I had a teacher like him!
The kids make the effort worth it. Thank you.
Excellent explanation.
I showed my high school friend the scene in Game of Thrones where Jon Snow and his army were surrounded by the Bolton’s and were crushed together and Jon coming up for air, same thing happened to the Romans that’s why they couldn’t raise their swords, they just couldn’t move.
Sounds like a good excuse for me to show that scene next time. It would be hard to comprehend the utter helplessness one would feel.
That shield wall and the Stark army being trampled and suffocated was actually based off Cannae according to the producers.
do a video on Thermopylae, Marathon, or Verdun PLZ
I hope i have a teacher like you in High School
It is great to see this class taught and the significance and, to a degree, insignificance, of the battle explained. Hannibal's brilliance gave him huge victories but he lacked the ability to capture walled cities and ports and was ultimately doomed to fail. The Romans adapted, stopped giving him the open field victories, and wore him down. Did the battle change history? It was hugely significant, militarily, but perhaps history had already been changed, by the emergence of a Roman state that would not accept defeat.
My high school history teacher gave a wildly inaccurate account of Hannibal's campaign in Italy and it was twenty years before I learned it accurately. Great work!
Nik Tesla Hannibal could take cities - he took Saguntum being the most famous example and also Tarentum. But when In Rome he basically relied on cities defecting to him - see Capua, Apulia etc. So it’s a bit wrong to say he simply “couldn’t” take cities as he was quite effective at it. The reason you don’t see much if any on the Italian peninsula is because, remember, Hannibal was living off the land and relied on quick movement across the peninsula as Carthage just simply didn’t supply him adequately. That’s why he couldn’t take Rome - he didn’t have the men or the siege capabilities to take a city like Rome, as Carthage wasn’t supplying him at all.
@@Lionsbrood_ *THANK YOU!* These arguments for Rome’s “adaptation” & “refusal to quit” are always saturated w/subjective desire as opposed to the facts.
Hannibal destroyed 2-300,000 men, took cities & goods and hung out in their backyard for another 10-12 years. They couldn’t do a single thing with that man😅
If you wanted to put that another way into perspective the Romans lost the equivalent of 9 months worth of US casualties from WW2 in one day and the US was fighting everywhere in the world this was just a few square miles.
My US History and AP Euro students would certainly get this astonishing number. The freshmen seem to find these numbers harder to visualize. I used the number of 9/11's that would equal the deaths and even then they reminded me that they had not been born yet. Unbelievable carnage in such a short span of time and such a confined space. Thank you Delogros.
Maybe pick a Football Stadium with a similar capacity? I see 70,000 humans regularly at Century Link Field, it's pretty easy to think of them as an army sometimes...
well bombing civilians don't get you lots of casualties
It’s even worse in terms of percentages and over the course of the entire war up to this point: by the end of Cannae, Hannibal had killed 20% of Rome’s adult male population. That’s WWII Axis powers levels of casualties, if not a bit worse, and in less time.
It was bad enough that even though Rome managed to win the war, the massive population losses fundamentally broke Roman society and economy and ultimately led to the political and military shenanigans of the final decades of the Republic and the rise of the Empire.
great video. Cannae is one of the worst military blunders ever.
Thank you Matti. Hubris went unchecked.
amazing teacher!
This topic is so interesting that I try to bring it to as many of my students as possible. This is not the normal curriculum.
Congratulations... very good teacher, i hope my history class was like that.
Thank you, Marco.
I wish I had this class in highschool, that's when I started playing the Total War series
When I played Age of Empires I also liked the added historical background I had. It encouraged me to look up more information. Way back--I became fascinated with medieval weaponry due to playing too much D&D in the early 80's.
I love your channel keep it up.
you should do the battle of carrhae
Parthia and Crassus. Good idea.
@@LordCryptid battle of pharsalus caesar vs pompey
I loved learning about the Battle of Gergovia! You could do that one next.
Caesar could be beaten. I have always been interested in Vercingetorix.
Well said
Soon I will get to create more of these videos. It has been too long.
Mr. Sherman when are you going to post the video with sloth girl
this dude is good
The students choose the class so I have the benefit of kids excited to learn.
at the battle of canne 90k of romans ware there of 90 romans who tok on that battle 75 k roman soldiers died 75.000 romans died ot was the most brutal defeat in roman history
It was not the worst defeat😏The Romans lost nearly 100 000 againt the cimmbrians a century later on
At this time Roman citizens and Italian allies made up the cavalry.
Thank you.
Could you please do the Battle of Poitiers? I've heard it on podcasts but can't get a picture of the battle's lay out.
Poitiers is quite similar in tactics (albeit not fully) to 1415’s Agincourt, which this dude has already covered on his channel. Essentially the Black Prince used English longbowmen to mow down the French Cavalry. The details are obviously going to be different, but the broad reason why the English beat the French so totally comes down to the same reason of: English Longbowmen. Hope that helps slightly!
Who was chosen as the greatest Commander after all?
The student vote was split because I didn't do a "primary" to lessen the overall choices. There was no clear winner. Alexander received the most votes but it was by one (my tie-breaker).
Can I please be in this guy’s class?
it was a fun class to teach and the students were always awesome.
Hannibal barca is the best general in human history. My god what a legend.
Imagine if he had the full support of his own government.
kuzzzitoz doritozzz Nah, Im better than him
scipio couldn't beat Carthage three times
Hannibal actually caused the doom of Carthage.
no, the GOVERNMENT caused the doom of Carthage
Can you do one for the battel of Yarmok
That is a good one. Wasn't it a six or so day battle? Led to Muslim dominance in the area of Syria. Now I am interested and have to do more research.
@@LordCryptid yes after the battle the door's of Syria and palestine were opened the forces of the calfate were autnumberd 3 to one
How do you now what side off the river the battle was on???
I cannot 100% guarantee that the drawing was accurate but we know where the city of Cannae was and where the river is. Using the descriptions of the survivors we have an idea of where it occurred. However, I have not looked into the archeological evidence--just anecdotal.
Arguably Cannae is one of the biggest, most famous and most one-sided battles that did NOT change history. Otherwise very nice lecture!
Seeing as how 200-300,000 men were obliterated in a matter of months (meaning full family generations being wiped from history). . .& we are still teaching/learning about 4 or 5 of Hannibal’s tactics during *ONE* campaign almost 3,000 years ago. . .& his destruction of Roman citizens led to the annihilation of the coward Carthaginians (once Hannibal was dead). . .& it directly affected Philip & his campaign against the Romans on the other side. . .
. . .dude😅
Good. Demography beat the Carthagians. The Romans raised legions after legions after each defeat.
Good presentation. Excellent teacher. Too bad about the bad video and whispering camera person
I used a tripod after this lesson. Kids......
interesting. though different sources seem to say different things. One states the battle occurred in 216 BC, others say 215, Others 212. Then some say there were 80,000+ Romans vs 50,000 Carthaginians. Other sources say it was 50,000 Romans vs Hannibal's 40,000. Which source is the most reliable?
Roman sources will place Hannibal's troop numbers higher and downplay their losses. I often assume an average is probably most correct.
Was this filmed in Fargo?
With an extremely "steady-handed" cameraman. I used a tripod from then on.
How are you so good at this
Details but good overall: Numidians are greatest light cavalry. They never pushed the cavalry in front of them. The regular Carthaginian cav circled behind the Roman infantry to help rout the cav facing the numidians. Then together all Carthaginian cav attacked the rear of the Romans.
Awesome. Thank you for the additional knowledge.
Looks like Bakhmut strategy 🤓
Interesting.
@@LordCryptid let’s observe the counter attack this spring but my hunch is that the outcome would be the same. Russian will pretend to back off until they encircle and pin down the remaining nato-Kiev forces
This guy would be a a great teacher for 1619 project and critical race theory.
Teaching is fun when you get to teach the things that interest you.
I wish the same happened in India...
Hmm, what does this button do?
I wanted to be a history teacher
Smart kids. This some Enders Game type shit or something?
One day some will advance to Command School.
I wan't him to be my teacher :(
Paulus is a genius LOL. Okay.
Genius might be a bit much. More like he was experienced enough to know when he was being played. Scipio Africanus was probably more to the genius level.
The blond kid had clearly already read about what happened in this battle. No way he would suggest EXACTLY what Hannibal actually ended up doing. Good job doing your homework but not cool pretending you are as smart as Hannibal with war tactics.
You obviously feel so bad for the roman loss, man this sucks ! U shouldn’t pick sides in history man
You were rooting for the romans man that’s not cool
I actually really like Hannibal. Apparently I was overcompensating.
Guy is a great teacher
However stop moving the camera!
It’s giving me a headache
I have the student as a senior now and I picked on him for that today. He is a good kid.
Jesus Loves You
Only thing is that at the time it was the roman republic, not the empire.
You are extremely correct. Generally, the Republic lasted from about 509 to 27 BC. Thank you.
LordCryptid thanks, I guess. I know it's kind of nit picking. Great video still man
70 000 losses not 75 000
why is my history not as interesting.
I am currently teaching a mini-course on Urban Legends. Also, in class today we made torsion catapults out of rubber bands and popsicle sticks to teach Roman Engineering.
Not the way of our school system. But nice.
Terrible camera person... great lecture
The worst...possible...choice.
The battle of Cannea was indecisive for the 2. Punic war and consequently did NOT change history !!
The Romans learned that they could simply wait out Hannibal as he would not receive what he needed from Carthage. Then Scipio bought off Hannibal's mercenaries and brought the fight to North Africa via Zama. It was not decisive for Hannibal but it was a turning point for Rome. Plus, is it not the most studied battle in war colleges throughout the world? I completely understand your point and Hannibal could have pressed the advantage and won the war, not just the battle. Who could have known the resilience of Rome?
And, thank you for your comment. It is always important to question these things and it makes me think of how I can better teach the next lesson. I should have added what I typed above for the lesson.
Rome did enjoy a significant manpower advantage over its Punic invaders.
We have record numbers of legions from 216 and onward in Italy and Spain.
12 legions in 215 BC, 18 in 214 BC, and 25 in 211 BC. That is a theoretical strength of at least 105 000 men and 7500 cavalry, supported by an equal number of auxiliaries.
Let's take a look at the number of men killed and captured.
Battle of Ticinus 218 BC: 2300 men lost
Battle of Trebia 218 BC: 32 000 men lost
Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC: 30 000 men lost
Battle of Aeger Falernus 217 BC: 1000 men lost
Battle of Cannae 216 BC: 80 000 men lost
Total number of men killed or captured: 145 300
In 215 BC the Romans had 12 legions and auxiliaries left, approximately 108 000 men of a total force of 253 300 men.
In other words, Hannibal killed or captured almost 1/3 of their standing army at Cannae.
Despite these heavy loses, the Romans raised 6 new legions and auxiliaries in 214 BC, 54 000 men, and increased the standing army to 162 000 men.
Hannibal continues to defeat the Romans in battle.
Battle of Tarentum 212 BC: 13 000 men lost
Battle of Silarus 212 BC: 15 000 men lost
1st Battle of Herdonia 212 BC: 16 000 men lost
In 211 the Romans had 25 legions and auxiliaries, approximately 225 000 men, so Hannibal manages to kill or capture 44 000 men during the same time it takes the Romans to raise 13 legions and auxiliaries, 117 000 men, so they are one step ahead of him.
Now the Romans had lost 189 300 men as a total, and the remaining force was 108 000 men and the newly recruited force numbered some 117 000 men. That is a total of 414 300 men, and still they had more to draw from.
Battle of Castulo and Ilorca 211 BC: 20 000 men lost to Hasdrubal Barca
2nd Battle of Herdonia 210 BC: 13 000 men lost
In all Hannibal killed or captured a total of at least 202 300 men, just short of half their force.
If they were unable to raise new soldiers the way they did, they would have lost after Cannae. The total force was 253 300 and Hannibal and Hasdrubal managed to killed or captured 222 300. That is only 31 000 left of the original force to guard Italy, defend against Philip V and attack Spain at the same time. With such depleted numbers after Cannae they would not have gone on the offensive in Italy or Spain in 212 BC and onward, was it not for their ability to recruit new men. Hannibal could not afford to lose 189 300 and win. The Romans could.
Scipio Africanus came later, and these events follow a timeline, so by 215, without the manpower reserve, Hannibal's brothers would have been able to reinforce him in Italy. With new men Hannibal could besiege cities, defend conquered cities and maintain a standing army at the same time. The Roman manpower reserve, willingness to fight and his own lack of siege engines explain why Hannibal lost in the long run! He defeated more than 202 300 Romans and allies on the field of battle.
LordCryptid There's a very dark point to make as well. Hannibal was so successful that he kinda ended up killing many of the incompetent commanders. Essentially leaving behind their rivals who preached a different strategy that still took many years & Hannibal being betrayed by Carthage repeatedly to defeat him.
henrikhansen but certainly changed the warfare forever