Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius:
, although from military point of view, after Carthage they didn't face an equal enemy that could threaten their very existence until the barbarian invasions of the late 3-rd century and onwards.
that is untrue, you are forgetting the parthians, the sassanids, the dacians and the ptolies were all very strong powers, at their peek during roman expansion, though i'm not shure about the ptolies.
Marcus Ulpius 18:29 27/12/08
Originally Posted by Cyrus:
that is untrue, you are forgetting the parthians, the sassanids, the dacians and the ptolies were all very strong powers, at their peek during roman expansion, though i'm not shure about the ptolies.
Well, the Ptolies were not very strong during Roman expansion. Ptolies were even seeking Roman help against Seleucids and after providing such help Romans made sure that the Ptolies would not be able to threaten Roman positions in the region.
At their peak Parthians were not defeated by Romans. Krassus expedition ended in utter failure. Trajan did defeat the Parthians and even conquered their capital, but when Sassanids took place of the Parthians both powers were stuck in a deadlock actually till the Arab conquest. Besides that neither Parthians nor Sassanids had far reaching Western ambitions. It looks Antioch was the limit of their plans of westward expansion. We also should remember that although Ktesiphon was conquered by Trajan, it was abandoned by his immediate successor Hadrian when the overall strategy of the Romans was changed from expanding to defending. It is an open question whether Hadrian thought that Rome can't conquer any new land or he thought there was nothing left that was worth attention of Roman armies?
If you're talking about Dacians, I would also add Mithridates of Pontus, but I think both lacked manpower and resources to pose real threat to Rome.
Did the Romans even have to fight any major battles for Egypt?
Did Parthia not conquer Antioch, Judea and parts of Egypt and Anatolia? Before being pushed back later on.Plus Rome had to fight the Palmyran and Gallic empires..though those could be seen more as civil wars.
It is a pity the Dacians didn't have the man power to stop Trajan despite some good victories...could have stopped the utter genocide of thier people and culture had they been more populus.
Originally Posted by KozaK13:
Did the Romans even have to fight any major battles for Egypt?
Besides Actium?
Originally Posted by KozaK13:
if he had maybe advanced on Rome after Cannae
Well on his defense, maybe he did it right, just take a look at these
[LIST][*]Saguntum took 8 months to fall (with a small garrison)
-In saguntum they already had many artillery pieces brought from Carthage [*]Hannibal didn't had any siege equipment after Cannae, by the time he built everything needed, the romans would have recalled the 2 legions from spain and several more soldiers from all italy. [*]Rome could levie (sp?) at least 2 legions form its citizens (about 10,000 men)[*]Rome was huge, compared to Saguntum.
Several other turning points of the 2nd punic war, would be the Battle of Ilipa, the battle of Metaurus, the fall of Capua and Tarentum.
If Hannibal had received more reinforcements...
Originally Posted by
||Lz3||:
Well on his defense, maybe he did it right, just take a look at these
- Saguntum took 8 months to fall (with a small garrison)
- In saguntum they already had many artillery pieces brought from Carthage
- Hannibal didn't had any siege equipment after Cannae, by the time he built everything needed, the romans would have recalled the 2 legions from spain and several more soldiers from all italy.
- Rome could levie (sp?) at least 2 legions form its citizens (about 10,000 men)
- Rome was huge, compared to Saguntum.
Added to that was that there were still about 20.000 Roman survivors of the battle of Cannae and another 20.000 or so campaigning in northern Italy (although they would be annihilated pretty soon by rebelling Gauls). And Rome was in the middle of hostile territory, so Hannibal's supply lines would be uncertain (especially with 40.000 Romans in his rear) and he did not have the manpower to properly invest Rome.
The Romans panicked after Cannae, and though that Hannibal's march on the city was imminent. Later Roman historians echoed these fears, but they were unfounded. Barring a miracle, it is unlikely Hannibal could have taken Rome directly after Cannae.
Well, if Rome's various enemies had supported Hannibal as they had promised he would have been in a very strong position. But believing they would have simply replaced the Roman Empire with a Carthaginian one the stayed at home. In hindsight we can all see this was the wrong choice as Rome quickly conquered the lot of them after Carthage sued for peace.
The thing with "what if" questions is where do they end? You have limitless possibilities almost by definition, so my answer to the original question is yes. A new Alexander could have re-united his predecessor's empire. A new Pyrrhus could have burnt Rome to the ground and Carthage too.
icydawgfish 07:02 28/12/08
I'm going to slim this down as it appears to have expanded beyond my intentions.
1. By the start date, was there any possibility of either the Ptolemies, the Maks, or the Seleucids gaining the thrones of the other two and reforming Alexander's empire. If so, what would they key points have been.
2. Could Carthage have won the first Punic War, and if so, how would this have affected Rome's fate and Carthage's expansionist policy.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO