[ he sought, a victory a decisive one and Cannae proved to be just that. i
are you really sure?
The decisive battle was won by Rome on the plains of Zama...
Printable View
[ he sought, a victory a decisive one and Cannae proved to be just that. i
are you really sure?
The decisive battle was won by Rome on the plains of Zama...
every EB player knows the Gauls had soap-makers :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
Hannibal kicked butt in Canea, but he had 4 problems that stopped him from winning.
1. Rome did NOT agree to negociate a surrender, or terms for peace. THAT was Hannibal's aim. Anyother kingdom would have negociated some kind of settlement after such a crushing defeat.
2. He was not strong enough to besiege Rome WHILE at the same time being in hostile territory, and no supply lines.
3. He NEVER recieved reinforcements from either Carthege or Phillip V. Instead he was left to his own accord, in hostile land, with an enemy that refused to engage him.
4. His enemy only punished anyone who helped Hannibal. Therefore, Hannibla was unable to keep Italian people under his command when his army was elsewhere. (hannibal knew that IF he spread his forces to "secure" those italic people's loyalty his army would be destroyed by a larger roman force).
In other words... without support from the outside Hannibal was encaged in Italy, all he could do was roam around, pillage and whatnot.
^ Yup, Italians did not defect to Hannibal's side as he had hoped due - due to Romans granting their allies citizenship and a large portion of Hannibal's army composed of "unappealing" barbarian mercenaries out to plunder.
Since when did commanders not find extra troops useful ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
That sounds suspiciously like the benefit of hindsight talking. Nevermind presuming rather a lot, of both Hannibal's line of thinking, his and the Carthaginian view of the war aims in general, and of his assessement of the strategic situation in Italy. And given that the Romans had fresh armies shadowing his movements quite soon after Cannae, it is difficult indeed to see how he could have succesfully marched on the city itself, reinforcements or no - right in the still nearly untouched Latin heartlands, where the Carthaginian force would quite literally be in the middle of enemy territory much of which could if need be in an emergency called to arms against the invader.Quote:
Hannibal is well aware of Romans treathening Iberia and islands he does still ask for reinforcement and gets rejected. the reason he asks is: he cant take on Rome wtith what he got left, but the second and most important reason is that it seems that everyone else fails to understand a simple truth - the key to victory in this war lies in Italy, at Romes gates! it is not so important to hold other territories but to strangle them right there and then, in their heartland! do it there and need for reinforcing Spain will be no more.
A commander of his caliber could certainly discern that much, and decline to commit suicide in such fashion.
The Romans had learned their lessons from the bloodbaths Hannibal handed them. They refused to give him straight set-piece battles anymore, and isntead used their armies to shadow his movements and block and contain him strategically; reinforcements from Africa would not have changed this (indeed, they would only have made it that much more important to avoid a straight fight unless absolutely necessary), nor done that much to improve the odds of a succesful thrust against the Roman heartlands.
If they would have bettered his chances of dismantling the Roman "world-order" in Italy is another question. Personally I sometimes suspect the folks back in Carthage concluded he wasn't going to, and instead left him to tie down as much Roman resources and attention as possible while the war went on in other theaters. They may also have been hoping that the resulting drain of Roman manpower out of Italy might have allowed Hannibal to start unraveling the Roman political arrengements, for that matter.
I believe Hannibal fell victim to "internal politics" ....now I know this is a broad statement, but I'll get more specific:
Hannibal did not have 100% backing and support from Carthege. His expedition was largely a sefl-made thing.
--This means that although his cause was "good" for Carthege there were probably a lot of other prominent individuals and politicians who saw Hannibal's posible victory against Rome as a threat. Reason being that with such a grand success his popularity and the number of loyal soldiers would be so high that he could EASELY come "King" of Carthege.
Also, Hannibal's aim was not 100% in tune with the aim of other prominent individuals in Carthege. As stated before, retaking Scisily(sp) and expanding commercial influences in Iberia were goals other groups/individuals had. So instead of supporting Hannibal to defeat Rome, it is easier to leave Hannibal dragging Rome down while they make inroads in whatever other goals they had.
So in my eyes Hannibal was F***ed over by his own people.
I gotta say... I don't know why in the hell Hannibal didn't say:
F* it! after he was denied reinforcements from Carthege. (u know the time his brother took all those gold rings)
... and take his army and spoils out of italy, sail to North Africa, buy more mercenaries, and KILL his opposition in Carthege. Become ruler, implement whatever reforms are needed. And then, with a firm base of support, strike back at Rome.
Right, that was the point of my post above; ‘But, simply the Roman defeat at Cannae was not a mortal wound, yet the Seleucid loss at Magnesia was indeed, over time, very fatal.’Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
I think it had to do with him feeling he was a republican and thus a servant of the government. Also he most likely understood the lesson of Sardinia, and knew the danger of too large a mercenary contingent.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
yep, keeping all those Southern cities garrisoned and running from one place to another was a real pain in the butt. thus reiforcements would make a difference. he could not, with a little he had, even succeed in helping besieged Capuans never mind march on Rome itself, which he eventually did to no effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Romes stubborn attitude really messed things up. it was complete opposite of Carthaginian reaction to when Scipio set foot in Africa. this Roman stubbornness and punishment of those ready to flee and surrender, really is what saved them in crucial moment.
reinforcement form Africa would force them to fight when city itself is besieged, thats the whole point. gather enough power for the final strike. no Roman allies were happy with ongoing war. constant pillage of the fields and rise of prices on simple thing like bread etc, kicked in stomach the Romans and their allies. heck, it even come to the point when these allies refused to field their part of the troops, arrangement that was always followed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
we forget how tense and difficult situatuion for Romans and their allies have become and inclined to only empasize Hannibals difficulties.
Romes armies shadowing him for years with those very few fools who dared to oppose him and lost. what would save Carthage iss further pressure on Rome and her allies WHITHIN Italy, where they recruit their amies. another Cannae, march on Rome. situation when no further lurcking abound is possible.
and the folks back in Carthage concluded wrong. situation didnt turn the way its been planned and they should have changed thir plans accordingly. the problem is they were never ready to go on fighting to such extend. Romes stubborness caught Carthage off guard.
You seem to forget that Hannibal's request for reinforcements was not denied. By the end of 216, the Carthaginian senate had decided that 1) a powerful corps of about 15,000 men and several dozen elephants would be raised, and under Mago Barca, sent to Italy the following year and 2) Hasdrubal would gather his Iberian forces, destroy the Roman army in Iberia (since the Romans lacked any long-time allies or bases, the loss of their field army would have driven them out of Iberia) and then march on Italy. The weakness of this plan was that it underestimated the strength of the Scipio brothers' army in Iberia; near Dertosa on the Ebro, Hasdrubal was heavily defeated by the numerically superior Romans (but then, weren't the Romans always numerically superior?). As a result, not only was he forced to defend the Carthaginian holdings in Iberia, but Mago's army was used to reinforce him, instead of Hannibal (and this was a sound decision: losing Iberia meant losing the war, as we can verify with hindsight).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
you are correct, by being rejected i wasnt specific to this particular occasion but refferred to the Carthaginian policies as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
there even was one tiny reiforcement including elephants but that was an exception to the rule where Hannibal mostly left to his own devises.
"For years past they have been trying to force me back by refusing me reinforcements and money; but now they recall me no longer by indirect means, but in plain words. Hannibal has been conquered not by the Roman people whom he defeated so many times in battle and put to flight, but by the envy and continual disparagement of the Carthaginian senate. At this unlovely and shameful return of mine it will not be Scipio who will be wild with triumph and delight, but rather Hanno, whose only way of ruining me and my house has been by ruining Carthage"
i rest my case.
Thanx Bovi, this might be just what i needed... I'll try my luck on wednsday:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
I've noticed during the weekend that in my country professors believe practicaly everything the romans wrote about themselves!!:furious3:
I'll just have to change their minds:laugh4:
good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
let us know how it went.
and sorry for hijacking your ttread.
No problem.... found some interesting stuff in the thread nonetheless:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
Well,
my few cents:
Hannibal's strategic assumption embarking on his war against the Romans was that he could induce the Roman allies to defect to him... providing him with a base and supplies to take on Rome.
This was based on the fact that not too long before the Romans had fought a civil war/war against their allies (and there would be a number of them in the centuries thereafter!). So his strategy was to crush the Roman forces, and hope that these defeats would induce the Roman allies to defect. Why this did not happen will never be known...
Hannibal had to resort to this strategy, and actively seek battle as he did not have the capabilities to besiege Rome.
To siege a city was (and still is) one of the hardest things to do, and many times the besiegers suffered as much as the besieged. Just as the besieged, the besiegers often suffered from disease and starvation. Even the Romans had serious problems with it, and major sieges were rare, and seemingly only resotrted to when physically feasible and storming the place was not an option. How many large scale (starvation) sieges are there in Roman history? Alesia, Numantia, Carthage, Jerusalem, Masada, and that might be pretty much it... and in some instances the Romans resorted to it only after attenpts to storm the settlement failed!
BTW, many nations time and again completely misunderstood the mindset of the Romans. to that extent Hannibal might have been one of the very few. The Romans were out to conquer (for much of their history until the reign of Augustus peace was rare!), waged total war (including rape, pillage and extermination) and might even have geared their society to that purpose (they seem to have recovered very quickly form the demographic onslaught that Hannibal caused among the male populationof military age).
*******
And as far as numbers of ancient historians goes, be very very careful. They had a tendency to round numbers (up or down depending on the side they were on), and exaggerate greatly... and most of them wrote a long time after the fact, and their reliability varies greatly. And to my knowledge, at least Livy and Plutarch are not considered among the most reliable... at least not to the standard of say Thucydides, Arrian or Ammianus Marcellinus (and even those have some serious flaws)!
A tip:Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
first talk to one of his ASSISTANTS!
From my experience, the Professor's assistants (at least one of them) are more or less deeply involved into the process of book writing. At least my Professors used to do this (Political Science, Sociology & [East European] History).
I've found out that talking to one of them provided in most cases the same (sometimes even more) information than the later talk to the Professors. And both of us being students made the discussion more relaxed and less/not at all formal. In 99%, there was no further need for a talk to Professor ...
Yours,
Treverer
P.S. I've studied in Germany.
The problem is that he doesn't have assistans... Dunno why... one of the few in my college... Perhaps they didn't agree with him as well:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
P.S I study a little more south than you:clown:
... and he doesn't even have "student-assistants" (called "HiWis" in German) ?? That would indeed be strange ...Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
T.
P.S. CH? A? I? Or even further south?
Not as far as i know... It's still my first year thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
P.S. Ch-South east, A south, I east :idea2:
.
Lichtenstein? :gah:
.
Slovenia?
Bingo!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
First, who is your professor? What is your university?Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
What country are you from? And believing everything the Romans wrote? Some of them can be believed, but many historians think a lot of personal interpretation went into the records. For example Suetonius is generally considered by some to be the tabloids of his day, and to be taken with a grain of salt.Quote:
I've noticed during the weekend that in my country professors believe practicaly everything the romans wrote about themselves!!
As for his book, start checking out journals. Go on J-Stor and search for his name and the book title, and see what his peers have to say about him. It might take a year for the reviews to really start seeing print, but it might be worthwhile.
Do not piss off your professor before you've graduated.
Criticise his work in a respectful way, noting points of difference with other authors if you have to, but do not make gutting his theses the basis of your work. He's only human and people don't like to be challenged by their own students.
University degrees are proof you can research and understand a range of information. Once you have proved you can research and understand his POV and have your degree, then load up and blow his work away.
I speak from experience.
I am no expert in history or miltiary matters, having only a humble BA. However my time at university led me to a couple of conclusions.
1. Many historians have embarrassingly little knowledge of military matters and are disingenuous and uncritical about battle descriptions, in a way they never would be about descriptions of social conditions, cultural acheivments or political situations.
Making a misjudgement about a battle doesn't make your Professor a bad historian. It just shows you where his attention is focussed and where you can perhaps add to his work for him.
2. An even higher proportion of Military historians seem to be amateurs and dabblers. Often their grasp of broader historical issues is shaky or incomplete, and there is a strong tendency to fixation or 'bee-in-the-bonnet-ism". Beware using such work as a resource.
If I read one more book about "decisive battles"....:furious3:
Take the Punic wars: in the first one, the Romans tended to defeat the Poeni on land but their sally to Africa was defeated: nevertheless their stamina ground the Poenis down and lead to a decisive victory and the acquisition of Sicily.
The second Punic war went differently, only the same. Hannibal won all these battles on land, especially Cannae (most beloved battle of military theoreticians), but the Roman invasion of Africa succeeded this time. Roman stamina ground the Kartis down and lead to a decisive victory and the acquisition of Spain.
How was Cannae decisive? How was Zama decisive? The outcomes were similar in both wars: I'd say the war was decided more politics and social issues than by economics and arms, (given of course that both sides managed a high standard of military proficiency).
I agree individual battles can "nudge" the course of events, and Hannibal is one of those utterly rare people whose talent seems capable of shifting the course of history, but even he failed to subdue the growing strength of the Roman system.
A bit Marxist I guess, somewhat determinist, but I don't give as much credence to battle outcomes as to the social and political aspect of the military.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I read the coordinates in reverse direction. :wall:
.
Oh, one last thing from me:
do talk to the secretary of the Institute (if she's nice/gentle and talkative) and/or talk to elder students or "students representatives" (sorry, dunno the English technical term; in German: "Fachschaft[svertretung]").
Both should be able to give you more information about your Prof., given you act diplomatically. So, please don't tell them (especially the secretary) first: "I want to challenge Professor XYZ."
Gather information, be nice and place some "strategic" questions here and there. After some time (= days or weeks or even months), you can ask more directly questions. Try to gain some "academic merits" (like good homeworks or good exam results).
Well, to resume: be patient and advance step by step.
Yours,
Treverer
P.S. But never underestimate your talking partners intellectually, after all, you are at university. Some might discover your "slow advance" immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
Good idea.
Also...
Have you actually checked the Latin and/or Greek source texts in question? I mean the texts in their native language, not translations. My experience is that all translations have some errors, thats because of the nature of rendering one language into another. The question is, does a given translation have major errors that pertain to your argument.
You might just find that one side or the other has based their conclusions on an incorrect or spurious portion of a translation? I've seen translations that contain entire lines inserted, but not indicated, to explain what they understood to be an awkward word or phrase. Again, my advice is; keep your powder dry and always follow Roger's 30th rule; never take a chance you don't have to.
Well i don't believe that numbers where translated wrong:juggle2: ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
However, the professor didn't show up yesterday, apparently he had an urgent matter to attend to.... I'm gonna try speaking with him next week:knight:
yes, he might have been attending the execution of the last lillyput-student that dared question him, the Magnificent Wizard of OZzzzzz?