Enlighten me

[BurningEGO]

umm no it didn't during the punic wars after its epic defeat at cannae Rome was forced to withdraw all its remaining armies due the fact there where no more reserves left. they had to wait until their next bunch of kids grew up to raise another couple legions.

Uh? Thats a good thing for me to review, but from what i knew Rome was still able to muster multiple armies after Cannae - after Cannae Hannibal managed to gain new allies, but these allies were for the most part defeated because while Hannibal was busy somewhere, the Romans attacked them. Syracuse is one example, the Samnites are another, and even far away Iberia, the main source of Carthaginian manpower.

And come to think of it... if they had to wait for the kids to grow up, Rome would have been defenseless and Hannibal would have taken it.

But yes you are right regarding the Phalanx - such formations required a wide open field. Still, both Hannibal and even Pyrrhus managed to lure the Romans into fighting battles under their conditions.

Oh and come on... Macedonia by Alexander's time was able to defeat the Achaemenid Empire, which was far, FAR bigger and could muster far more men then Rome... Now now, lets not exagerate. We all know that Rome was a Lernean Hydra that grew two heads for each one cut off, but even such a beast could be defeated. As it was.

[antisocialmunky]

Perhaps if Darius hadn't been assasinated after Gaugamela, it would have been more interesting...

And yeah, the Romans after losing 45,000 out of 80,000 raised another 80,000 men and divided them into four armies to deny Hannibal any more major pitched battles. They also invaded Iberia and Illyria during the same period.

It's always amused me as to how well the Romans multi-tasked.

[Cbvani]

If the Roman manpower advantage is universally acknowledged, shouldn't the Roman players get a few extra units in their stacks, going to 20 unit stack instead of a 14 uniter?
I'm kidding, I'm just Hellen baiting.

[Husker98]

And yeah, the Romans after losing 45,000 out of 80,000 raised another 80,000 men and divided them into four armies to deny Hannibal any more major pitched battles. They also invaded Iberia and Illyria during the same period.

exactly only those armies raised weren't roman more of their increasinly fewer local allies and remaining units. Scipio Africanus had been deployed with Roman Allies to Iberia to avenge Roman losses in the area. Illyria was a minor invasion to stop the Illyrian piracy that was raising heck.

And come to think of it... if they had to wait for the kids to grow up, Rome would have been defenseless and Hannibal would have taken it.

Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it -- Maharbal


Hannibal didn't have a siege train or siege equipment with him and a siege of rome would have taken YEARS, this thought of mind prevented a march on Rome. oddly enough though if he had besieged Rome (he marched near to the city once) he might have forced their hand and thus a favourable truce. Hannibal had a chance and his indescisiveness saved rome and killed Carthage.

Hannibal had them on their knees thats why Rome was bent on destroying carthage once and for all in the third war.

Macedonia by Alexander's time was able to defeat the Achaemenid Empire

Yes it was a leaderless empire with alot of man power... Give those men at Gaugemala good General like Cyrus the Great and maybe Alexander doesn't conquer all of the Persian empire..... the persians problem is similar to the Macedonian one in the Roma vs Makedonian war, a powerful country with no leadership.

[soup_alex]

Hannibal had a chance and his indescisiveness saved rome and killed Carthage.

Please tell me you didn't just blame Hannibal for the downfall of Carthage.

[Βελισάριος]

Please tell me you didn't just blame Hannibal for the downfall of Carthage.

Oh, dear... I feel a third Punic War coming...

You do have to admit that Hannibal didn't play his cards right in the end. Maharbal was right, He did not know how to use a victory. He could#ve taken Rome and spared the rest of us a lot of trouble.
And please don't say we'd all be speaking some kind of Semitic language.

And how is this anywhere near what the topic was originally about?

[Macilrille]

Hannibal was right, Rome was too large to be taken, just like Carthage was, note that Scipio did not march on it after Zama. With the resources available to hannibal, he could not have invested Rome.


BTW, Hellene lovers, I am now trying to compile a list of all Hellene vs Roman battles to answer your question, as well as trying to get a clear picture of what state Rome was in after the Punic wars, I suspect no better than macedon, probably even worse.

[soup_alex]

You do have to admit that Hannibal didn't play his cards right in the end. Maharbal was right, He did not know how to use a victory. He could#ve taken Rome and spared the rest of us a lot of trouble.

Perhaps, yes!

And how is this anywhere near what the topic was originally about?

That is a very good question.

Macilrille, I had thought that Scipio didn't move on to Carthage because he wasn't a total c*nt? the war was effectively over and the Senate wanted to make terms?