There's no context here whatsoever. This was common practice at the time (and in fact for centuries afterward). If a city didn't open its gates to an invading army and instead forced that army to besiege the city, if the army breached the walls, the city would be sacked. That meant the inhabitants would be killed and/or sold as slaves. Alexander and Hannibal did the exact same thing. You can be sure that if Hannibal had ever been able to get his army into Rome, he would have killed everyone in the city and burned Rome to the ground. Here's an interesting fact about Scipio Africanus. After defeating Hannibal at the battle of Zama, he could have besieged Carthage and ultimately destroyed it and its inhabitants, but he decided not to do it and instead imposed harsh terms on Carthage. It's true that Rome destroyed Carthage in the third Punic War, but Scipio decided not to do it when he had the opportunity.
Agreed. siege of city was common with the destruction of the city and its inhabitants the outcome. This is evidence of how brutal was the war between Rome and Carthage.
I know its not her fault as she probably didn't write the documentary, but I swear the tone of this whole show is that of someone who has never heard of Rome, Its culture, or that of the wider ancient world.
Unfortunately, mechanically, destroying the enemy's supply base and lines is the most effective way to weaken and/or destroy and/or eliminate the enemy altogether. Its extremely brutal yet brutally effective...
Genocide, massacres and slavery were common atrocities in the ancient world. This was done not out of malice but out of logistical necessity. People did not have the technology to care for and stabilize masses of people after a conquest. The Romans never took prisoners of war, it was impractical for them to do so, thus they killed them.
Propaganda of the ancient world, still used til not many centuries ago. A population knowing the possible penalties from sagas could be swayed easily to lay down arms
@@ralphstern2845 That’s debatable. It definitely contributed to Romes population eventually being less Latin and more of different ethnicities. Much like modern American today
She is one stacked prof. Been keeping an eye on this hunny ever since first seeing her on a PBS program, many years ago. She and Nigella seem to have the same body type.
Every nation has its passage into manhood. America had Yorktown, Canada had Vimy ridge, Britian had waterloo. Rome had the invasion of Carthage. When the carthaginian empire fell, Rome was left to it's own destiny. That's when Rome became Rome.
Firstly, the Romans did not pronounce the letter C like the Greeks. British historians should really consider consulting Italian sources; the last time I checked Rome is in Italy and Greek and Latin are totally unrelated. Secondly, Scipio did not behave in a manner that was unusual for the age. To somehow argue otherwise is to judge Scipio by the standards of our age rather than the standards of antiquity. I might add that the commentator conveniently forget Hannibal's siege and destruction of Saguntum, which was just as horrible and bloody.
hfredydl actually it’s that they were awesome at absorbing cultures that they were able to do it. So I would imagine the less genocides the better. But I’m dumb so idk
I always wondered what happened if we brought all of histories greatest generals back from the dead and gave them all modern equipment and see how they would of fared against each other.
It felt a little disrespectful to come to that site and put on that ring. There was a massacre there by Roman forces, ooh a ring! Let me try it on. Idk, it’s probably just me.
Let’s see- Hannibal invades Italy unprovoked, and politely kills about 100,000 soldiers while marching south, and doesn’t lay a hand on a single civilian. He asks his government for more money and soldiers so he can politely and humanely destroy Rome. Later Rome seeks revenge by invading Carthaginian land and they’re committing genocide. Somehow the history here seems a bit lopsided, or possibly missing some details about a bitter war between 2 rivals to make one side seem like they’re minding their own business, and are reluctantly dragged into raising an invading force to obliterate (but nicely) their enemies.
The Smithonians did completely miss the point: THE SCIPIO FAMILY WOULD AFTER SACKING NEW-CARTHAGE AND TAKING SYRACUSE (imitating the Carthagian catapults and study Archimedes improvements), INTRODUCE SCOPIO'S IN THE ROMAN ARMY AS FIELD-ARTILLERY. THIS INNOVATION MADE THE VICTORY POSSIBLE OVER HANNIBAL AT ZAMA AND THE GREEKS AT MAGNESIA.
well, think about this fact. ALL Iberain languages, except for Basque, are extinct. Spanish, Catalan etc. are derived from Latin. Romans made sure to get revenge on Iberians for fighting in hannibals army. those are my thoughts. am i wrong? i have no side in this.
Well-in more recent times the whole male population of Paraguay was killed in their foolish war simultaneously with Brazil and Argentina. No David for Goliath there.
O tempora O mores. Italy was lucky that Hannibal was incapable of success at siege warfare. The town was sacked and the population that survived was sold into slavery.
Trouble with massacring people is that dead people don’t pay taxes or serve in your armies.i think the Romans kept this in mind generally but sometimes did make examples of enemies by treating them brutally.
Scipio was a Roman “hero” because he massacred so many Carthaginians. Kinda like our generals dropping bombs on 3rd worlders today. Imagine the history that future generations will read about us!
Hannibal was a great commander & gift man by grace of God after the battle of canna Rome was by military terms almost finished however rumors has it that when Hannibal with his army arrived closed to the gates of this great city said that he wet with tears because of her beauty & he there after he refused to attack & destroy her so Rome was saved but was not only this reason she saved by the leadership of the Senate & by her last army at her disposal now its an opened question even today what Hannibal may had been accomplished in the battle fields of italy if he had with him a larger number of elefans in action when he started to attacked the Roman lines because when he passing through the mountains from Spain many annihilated .
It's mind-boggling to think that the Romans almost entirely destroyed the Celtic world, a vast, Europe-spanning civilization. After centuries of war, genocide and cultural assimilation, the British Isles alone survived as reminders of what had once been, and everywhere else the Celts only lived on in archaeological artifacts and, ironically, in the Roman memory.
"Judging past historical figures by modern morality is ridiculous..." is quoted from the replies below. In my amateur view such judging is very appropriate as there is a common ground to the universality of the human condition whether it is in Roman times or present times. If someone or entity is brutal, then they or a country etc... are brutal and it doesn't mean you can't learn about what happened as historical fact is historical fact. "Modern morality": drones, their creators, their operators, their profiteering investors, the legislators approving of their use, and US Presidents who have death lists for their drone fleets to attack, are brutal. The Romans were brutal too.
Says the amateur who has directly benefited from Rome's conquest of Carthage. Had Carthage won we wouldn't have any of the benefits of Greco/Roman culture. Brutal as it was, it was culturally significantly more advanced than Carthaginian culture. Carthage practiced human infant sacrifice you know. It's why they had to use so many conscripts and mercenaries.
@@AbdelOveAllhan Hi Martin! Essentially what I'm regarding is that we have greater benefit, humanity, to learn from our past. I feel the universal applies like Reinhold Neibuhr said in regards to man's inhumanity to man. I feel war is the greatest error of humanity and like Gandhi said we can rise above that. We can do better.
There's no context here whatsoever. This was common practice at the time (and in fact for centuries afterward). If a city didn't open its gates to an invading army and instead forced that army to besiege the city, if the army breached the walls, the city would be sacked. That meant the inhabitants would be killed and/or sold as slaves. Alexander and Hannibal did the exact same thing. You can be sure that if Hannibal had ever been able to get his army into Rome, he would have killed everyone in the city and burned Rome to the ground.
Here's an interesting fact about Scipio Africanus. After defeating Hannibal at the battle of Zama, he could have besieged Carthage and ultimately destroyed it and its inhabitants, but he decided not to do it and instead imposed harsh terms on Carthage. It's true that Rome destroyed Carthage in the third Punic War, but Scipio decided not to do it when he had the opportunity.
Exactly right
It's also worth noting that after sacking Illiturgi, Scipio actually spared the populace of nearby Castulo after they surrendered to him.
Agreed. siege of city was common with the destruction of the city and its inhabitants the outcome. This is evidence of how brutal was the war between Rome and Carthage.
Yep. And judging past historical figures by modern morality is ridiculous.
A destroyed city can't pay taxes!
I know its not her fault as she probably didn't write the documentary, but I swear the tone of this whole show is that of someone who has never heard of Rome, Its culture, or that of the wider ancient world.
Yeah. She almost sounds shocked that warfare in the ancient world was violent.
This is to a broad audience not for history buffs. She is putting herself on a layman shoes in order to ppl identify themselves with her
I learned a lot about Roman Cleavage.. I mean tactics.. Roman Tactics..
Man of culture I see !! 😂😂😂
They are spectacular tactics, thats for sure.
@@jadeclothier8587 Used to be, in their heyday
Unfortunately, mechanically, destroying the enemy's supply base and lines is the most effective way to weaken and/or destroy and/or eliminate the enemy altogether. Its extremely brutal yet brutally effective...
Shocking how she handled these treasures of antiquity.
If Roman history isn't depicted with squares then I don't care
Invicta and Kings and generals do a great job regarding squares
Genocide, massacres and slavery were common atrocities in the ancient world. This was done not out of malice but out of logistical necessity. People did not have the technology to care for and stabilize masses of people after a conquest. The Romans never took prisoners of war, it was impractical for them to do so, thus they killed them.
Propaganda of the ancient world, still used til not many centuries ago. A population knowing the possible penalties from sagas could be swayed easily to lay down arms
They actually took many prisoners and sold them into slavery. This allowed the general to pay his army.
Romans took many slaves actually. Gladiators themselves were captive slaves
Rome was built on the slaves that were taken ,as the victors of battles.
This reliance on captured slaves was one of the causes of Romes downfall.
@@ralphstern2845 That’s debatable.
It definitely contributed to Romes population eventually being less Latin and more of different ethnicities. Much like modern American today
He was just paying Hannibal back in kind.
Are her chichis going unnoticed? No, Señor, noooooo!
She is one stacked prof. Been keeping an eye on this hunny ever since first seeing her on a PBS program, many years ago. She and Nigella seem to have the same body type.
Every nation has its passage into manhood. America had Yorktown, Canada had Vimy ridge, Britian had waterloo. Rome had the invasion of Carthage. When the carthaginian empire fell, Rome was left to it's own destiny. That's when Rome became Rome.
Don't forget the most bloody passage into manhood of the Soviet Union with ww2.
Or... that's when Rome, through great brutality, became Rome and built their barbaric colosseum...
I always loved Roman history, so much info
We must defeat hannibal burress
I agree, but, that's not the Hannibal they're speaking about!
Google...
Morpheus
Firstly, the Romans did not pronounce the letter C like the Greeks. British historians should really consider consulting Italian sources; the last time I checked Rome is in Italy and Greek and Latin are totally unrelated. Secondly, Scipio did not behave in a manner that was unusual for the age. To somehow argue otherwise is to judge Scipio by the standards of our age rather than the standards of antiquity. I might add that the commentator conveniently forget Hannibal's siege and destruction of Saguntum, which was just as horrible and bloody.
modern political thought process... so you know where she sides politically.
Yeah you don’t build an empire like Rome without a little genocide
hfredydl actually it’s that they were awesome at absorbing cultures that they were able to do it. So I would imagine the less genocides the better. But I’m dumb so idk
I always wondered what happened if we brought all of histories greatest generals back from the dead and gave them all modern equipment and see how they would of fared against each other.
Prob not well. Tactics changed with weapons..
Clickbait titles, wild interpretations of archaeological evidence, clueless meanderings....how low have Smithsonian Channel stooped over the years.
Hail Scipio the Great💪💪💪
Chad Scipio
Not sure about Roman weapons but Brit is wielding a couple of weapons i'd like to get hold of.............
Ancient Hannibal - “They are killing our town!”
Modern Hannibal - “Do you what its time for, History time Yay!.....”
Wow, Bettany's jugs are incredible. I need to watch the Smithsonian Channel more often
🎳🎳 😰
Kristopher Carmona weirdos
Nice, nothing like objectifying an intelligent human who is just trying to present information. Classy.
Epicurus A, She has both. Intelligence and beauty.
It felt a little disrespectful to come to that site and put on that ring. There was a massacre there by Roman forces, ooh a ring! Let me try it on. Idk, it’s probably just me.
Let’s see- Hannibal invades Italy unprovoked, and politely kills about 100,000 soldiers while marching south, and doesn’t lay a hand on a single civilian. He asks his government for more money and soldiers so he can politely and humanely destroy Rome.
Later Rome seeks revenge by invading Carthaginian land and they’re committing genocide. Somehow the history here seems a bit lopsided, or possibly missing some details about a bitter war between 2 rivals to make one side seem like they’re minding their own business, and are reluctantly dragged into raising an invading force to obliterate (but nicely) their enemies.
Carthago delenda est
The Smithonians did completely miss the point: THE SCIPIO FAMILY WOULD AFTER SACKING NEW-CARTHAGE AND TAKING SYRACUSE (imitating the Carthagian catapults and study Archimedes improvements), INTRODUCE SCOPIO'S IN THE ROMAN ARMY AS FIELD-ARTILLERY. THIS INNOVATION MADE THE VICTORY POSSIBLE OVER HANNIBAL AT ZAMA AND THE GREEKS AT MAGNESIA.
Should not have put the ring on.
Hard to break the curse now ....
Lol, I was thinking the same thing.
@@dreadlocksmapogo6822
Yup. That's how the movie starts ......
As though Henry V needed inspiration.
The city had betrayed Rome. That is not mentioned
I don't see how they surmise there was a massacre. Maybe the locals were enlisted in the Roman army or moved out of the town.
well, think about this fact.
ALL Iberain languages, except for Basque, are extinct.
Spanish, Catalan etc. are derived from Latin.
Romans made sure to get revenge on Iberians for fighting in hannibals army.
those are my thoughts. am i wrong?
i have no side in this.
After Scipio was bored of killing humans, he had his men cut every dog they could find in half!
Well-in more recent times the whole male population of Paraguay was killed in their foolish war simultaneously with Brazil and Argentina. No David for Goliath there.
Enslaved, not outright murdered. No value in dead bodies.
O tempora O mores. Italy was lucky that Hannibal was incapable of success at siege warfare. The town was sacked and the population that survived was sold into slavery.
Trouble with massacring people is that dead people don’t pay taxes or serve in your armies.i think the Romans kept this in mind generally but sometimes did make examples of enemies by treating them brutally.
Scipio was a Roman “hero” because he massacred so many Carthaginians. Kinda like our generals dropping bombs on 3rd worlders today. Imagine the history that future generations will read about us!
Hannibal the god of tactics all romain learned from him and even he did not lose in zama
Hmmm I don’t think the Carthaginians signed the Geneva convention
This is how Europe should be responding to the "refugee crisis" right now.
too late, millions are already in Europe, likely millions more than the millions that are documented.
@@JosephGibson
It's never too late, coward.
This lady comes across as disrespectful.
cool vid. very informative...
“Ballista bolt” okay honey haha
Yeah wasn't that a pilum?
Right. This was SOP for Romans. She would be shocked by the book of Joshua. Israelites burned and slashed their way to the land of milk and honey.
Can I try on this? Thank you, it's mine now.
Most 25 year olds today need safe spaces. Shows how the mental stability today has declined
Dude's struggling to maintain eye contact . . .
Reason why Rome won’t was because Rome promised the cartage horse king a kingdom and betrayed Hannibal for a kingdom
a peace of peli very rare
defeated them and wiped out all of them
Hannibal was a great commander & gift man by grace of God after the battle of canna Rome was by military terms almost finished however rumors has it that when Hannibal with his army arrived closed to the gates of this great city said that he wet with tears because of her beauty & he there after he refused to attack & destroy her so Rome was saved but was not only this reason she saved by the leadership of the Senate & by her last army at her disposal now its an opened question even today what Hannibal may had been accomplished in the battle fields of italy if he had with him a larger number of elefans in action when he started to attacked the Roman lines because when he passing through the mountains from Spain many annihilated .
That is pure fantasy
Update: The woman who tried the ring on was later hit by a bolt of lightning and died.
historians making documentaries all about themselves - no thanks
Where are the skeletons? The city might have been abandoned.... Genocides bring a lot of skeletons don’t they?
So.....where's the tactic????????????????/
They just found a Crossbow Bolt in Nova Scotia Oak Island Canada... TV SHOW "The Curse of Oak Island"
maybe it was planted there
It's mind-boggling to think that the Romans almost entirely destroyed the Celtic world, a vast, Europe-spanning civilization. After centuries of war, genocide and cultural assimilation, the British Isles alone survived as reminders of what had once been, and everywhere else the Celts only lived on in archaeological artifacts and, ironically, in the Roman memory.
Hannibal did not lose any battle even zama
why is the narrator narrating from the passenger seat of the car? seems like an odd choice
Iron teeth monarch
"Judging past historical figures by modern morality is ridiculous..." is quoted from the replies below. In my amateur view such judging is very appropriate as there is a common ground to the universality of the human condition whether it is in Roman times or present times. If someone or entity is brutal, then they or a country etc... are brutal and it doesn't mean you can't learn about what happened as historical fact is historical fact. "Modern morality": drones, their creators, their operators, their profiteering investors, the legislators approving of their use, and US Presidents who have death lists for their drone fleets to attack, are brutal. The Romans were brutal too.
Says the amateur who has directly benefited from Rome's conquest of Carthage. Had Carthage won we wouldn't have any of the benefits of Greco/Roman culture. Brutal as it was, it was culturally significantly more advanced than Carthaginian culture. Carthage practiced human infant sacrifice you know. It's why they had to use so many conscripts and mercenaries.
@@AbdelOveAllhan Hi Martin! Essentially what I'm regarding is that we have greater benefit, humanity, to learn from our past. I feel the universal applies like Reinhold Neibuhr said in regards to man's inhumanity to man. I feel war is the greatest error of humanity and like Gandhi said we can rise above that. We can do better.
Ok
Cant stand this presenter
Lol... come on, give us history not modern political thought process!
G
Lol archéological discouver discouvered that the batlle of Zama never existed Hannibal never lost to rome
@Kenza Cyrine Ben Debba proffeseur yozan mozig and Abdelaziz Belkhodja
@Kenza Cyrine Ben Debba There is also a book about it in Amazon