Fricking elephants over brutally rigid mountains? Who would even come up with something so ludicrous?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Was Hannibal stupid or genius?
Fricking elephants over brutally rigid mountains? Who would even come up with something so ludicrous?
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Neither. Romans had naval dominance after the 1st Punic war so crossing the alps was naturally the best if not only way to get war elephants in to the Italian peninsula.
True. But the dash for Italy remains a risky decision. Hannibal achieved incredibly much gambling for a win on Roman home soil, though the strategic Situation just cried for a resumption of naval warfare.
Were there even any major naval battles in the 2. Punic war like in the first?
Yes, and all resulted in decisive Carthaginean defeat.
That’s not much compared to the 1st punic wars where there were like 300 ships on each side
Stupid because his efforts would have been better spend contesting Scipio in Hispana.
True but it's a standout moment in history. He cemented his place with that manoeuvre.
No it wouldn't. All that would do would stave off the inevitable. The whole reason Hannibal went into Italy was to break up its confederacy of Italian states so that rome's huge manpower pool would be negated and turn against itslef.
Staying in hispania would play into romes strength and Carthage weakness. By staying in hispania, rome could attack and pick apart carthage any angle it wanted, with as many men as they could throw. Hannibal may win in spain but soon enough he would be isolated and overwhelmed.
>Stupid because his efforts would have been better spend contesting Scipio in Hispana.
Hannibal spent like 7 years running around Italy virtually unopposed before Scipio started messing with Carthage's hold on Spain. The Punic strategy simply failed because it failed to account for the extreme Roman tenacity.
The whole "elephants over the alps" is a meme, all but one of his elephants died in the crossing. Not a single one of Hannibal's victories was thanks to his elephants, it was all thanks to his Iberian and Numidian cavalry [on a side note, everybody seems to forget about the Iberians, even though according to Livy they were superior horsemen to the Numidians everybody fawns about].
Who cares about that noise. Fricking elephants man!
Are there any accounts from polybius or livy on how the people of rome reacted to cannae? Surely it threw them into a panic, right?
Authorities banned public mourning and the mere utterance of the word "surrender" was punishable. They also buried four people alive because the sybilline books said so and sent a delegation to the oracle of Delphi to ask what to do next.
In other words, Romans were based.
>They also buried four people alive because the sybilline books said so
ooga booga tier
They won because of it you dumb bastard.
And an unga bunga to you too, my good man.
They won because they followed the Sybilline books. Rome would be still standing today if the dumb christians hadn't burnt them.
>mere utterance of the word "surrender" was punishable
damn, for hannibal to have demoralized them that far is nuts
Them Italians cowered in the face of the Black man
if a movie is ever made on the punic wars, and hannibal is depicted as sub saharan, i'm gonna lose my shit
Samesies. He was clearly of Semitic stock with substantial Mediterranean and maybe Berber admixture. There was no fricking way in hell he would have been a Black. His lineage and Carthage's sociopolitical structure make this abundantly clear.
unfortunately your average american believes that every african is dark as night
funny how you put berber admixture in the last position while it was probably the main element lol have you guys ever read anything about carthage's history ?
Carthage was founded by genetically Lebanese people and their upper classes were almost entirely based on the original colonists, like the patricians of Rome
that's false the aristocracy of carthage wasn't endogamous and used to marry aristocrats from Greek sicily and Numidia
>Very early on, marriages took place between Phoenicians and Numidians: Sophonisba, after having been promised to Massinissa, had to marry Syphax for political reasons; another king of Numidia, Oezalces, Massinissa's uncle, chose as his wife a Carthaginian of great family, undoubtedly Hannibal's niece (Titus Livius, XXIX, 29, 12). Amilcar Barca did not hesitate to promise one of his daughters to the Numidian prince Narhavas (Polybius, I, 78). Titus Livy (Epit. 1.L), Appian (Lib. 99 and 111), Orosius (IV, 22, 8) speak of a marriage which would have united a daughter of Massinissa to a Carthaginian. [...]
Hannibal was born more than 550 years after the foundation of the city.
Of course. Hannibal was Semitic with considerable Mediterranean and Berber admixture. I'd venture to say that many leaders in Carthage had a similar ethnic makeup. The only element of Carthaginian society I can imagine being entirely of Semitic Canaanite/Phoenician stock would be priestly families who traditionally oversaw sacrificial processions, administered temples and the tophets. I say that simply because amongst Levantine and Near Eastern cultures in general, it was common for priesthood and religious authority to have a strong hereditary component.
stop using "semitic" as if it meant something today tunisians speak arabic yet aren't genetically similar to "semites". Hannibal could have been many things genetically but certainly not a pure phoenician, european or black.
>stop using "semitic" as if it meant(*means) something today
It does. There are degrees of Semitic DNA in most people who are ethnically and culturally Semitic (Arabs, israelites, Assyrians, Mandaeans etc...). Further, there are Semitic cultures, religions, and languages. Basically, you are dumb and wrong to take issue with using the term "Semitic", and it objectively carries a lot of real meaning today, as it always has.
>Hannibal could have been many things genetically but certainly not a pure phoenician, european or black
See:
TLDR: Nothing I said contradicted this.
there aren't anything known as "semitic dna" semitic is a language family and that's it
You are clearly either ESL, moronic, or both.
>be of largely arab / israeli / abyssinian descent
>live in saudi arabia / ethiopia / israel / palestine
>have centuries of verifiable family lineage from regions predominantly populated by semitic groups
>belong to a semitic cultural/ethnic group
>practice a semitic religion
>sorry bub. you just speak a semitic language and there's no way on earth that you carry inherited traits which identify you as semitic. it's just language, buddy. nothing else.
>Main element
Motherfricker it wasn't even the main element before the Phoenicians got there let alone after lol
hahahah wtf who lived there then ?
Then who lived there then ?
what do you think the meaning is of the berber population moron? They are the native populations
>e was clearly of Semitic stock with substantial Mediterranean and maybe Berber admixture. There was no fricking way in hell he would have been a Black.
how are these 2 different lol
Put an Arab, israelite, Greek, or Berber next to a sub-Saharan African and find out. Not hard to tell the difference.
He was probably paternally berber because carthaginians married their girls and princesses to numidian/lybic kings and numidian/lybic officers
>Romans were civilized unlike your human-sacrificing ancestors
>Surely it threw them into a panic, right?
Given that it made them break their own ban on human sacrifices, they definitely felt that the situation was dire.
1. Hannibal was not a mulatto. He probably was pure white (northafricans were 100% caucasoid just 2000 years ago. And Hannibal´s mother was European.
2. Hannibal forces and edge was gained by "Spanish" soldiers, specially "honderos" (throw stoning) from Baleares islands. He took 9000 honderos for the battles. Honderos could kill any man with a stone. They were trained as the spartans since little child.
What Hannibal should have done was done a coup and declare himself absolute ruler of Carthage (a big reason why Hannibal lost was because the politicians in Carthage didn't fully support him). Then build up the navy to regain naval supremacy (the navy was neglected by dumbass Carthage politicians). Then gain allies like from Greece or Gaul or Egypt to fight Rome. Lastly make sure I have good siege ability.
moron. The navy was "neglected" because it was utterly impossible to compete with the Romans. They had the manpower to lose fleet after fleet. Carthage couldn't do that without total demographic collapse.
The navy was “neglected” because the peace treaty of the 1st Punic War forced Carthaginians to only maintain at most 12 warships
japs built the largest battleship to ever exist under complete secrecy in the age of the camera and aircraft
Even if Carthage could've hypothetically rebuilt its naval strength to what it was prior to the First Punic War, I doubt it would've made much of a difference. Carthage had complete naval superiority during the first war, not just in numbers but also in crew experience; despite this they lost almost every single naval encounter they had with Rome, only winning minor victories. I really see no reason why the same wouldn't have happened during the Second Punic War.
>try to coup carthage government
>supporters of Hannibals rivals just rally to fight him
>subjects of carthage who were on the fence now join the Romans since their old masters are fighting each other
>nobody else wants to join carthage since they pretty much shot themselves in the foot
I would agree that a Carthage under Hannabals dictatorial rule would have stood a much greater chance at winning. The carthaginian senate sent entire armys to Hispania and Sardinia while Hannibal was fighting in Italy (pretty much wasting them since the other Generals didnt enjoy any succes). Should Hannibal have had all those Resources at his disposal, it wold have become very scary for the Romans.
Ultimately it seems like this issue points to the superiority of the Roman state. When Rome was in grat peril, it appointed a Dictator for a year as was done because of Hannibal. Carthage instead seems to have been somewhat paralysed by squabbling aristocrats who would rather see their fathers city burn than their rivals succeed.
Hannibal being a military genius was propaganda by the Scipii to show that Scipio Africanus was even more of a military genius then Hannibal, even though Hannibal lost so many men on his disastrous crossing of the alps he was forced to commit to guerrilla warfare even with the extra manpower of his italic, Etruscan, and Gallic allies in Italy
>Hannibal lost so many men on his disastrous crossing of the alps he was forced to commit to guerrilla warfare even with the extra manpower of his italic, Etruscan, and Gallic allies in Italy
How else was he supposed to get to Italy? He couldn’t get there by sea from Carthage because he’d just get crushed like in the first war.
He wasn't. Invading Italy was a fricking terrible idea, and he, an educated man who knew how fruitless it was when phyruus tried it, should have fricking known this.
>Who would even come up with something so ludicrous?
Historians.
So the elephant feat didn't happen?
The original sources in which it was recorded have been entirely lost, with only Polybius' word really making it history. Other than that, there's no evidence.
The elephants were useless from a tactical point of view, but just doing it probably had a strong psychological impact, no matter that the last one died almost as soon as arriving in italy.
>if its stupid, but it works, then it isn't stupid
So, yeah, Hannibal was a colossal moron who let his ego get in the way of good decision making.
Only a Black would think to do something like that.
Almost Genius. But not far-looking enough to realise that Rome had to be destroyed if he wanted his people to survive.
>Fricking elephants
did he? massive bestiality right there.
>over brutally rigid mountains?
floppy mountains were in short supply back then. he did as best he could with what he had.
how was italy almost completely depopulated by belisarius's campaigns in italy (with armies that were only a few tens of thousands) yet italy survived hannibal and multiple civil wars and rome always came out stronger for it.
The seed was strong
Italics were gigacoomers who all put 5 or 6 babies in their wives bellies despite war and Hunger
Belisarius times italics were doomers who didnt want to make babies
Tactical genius
Strategic moron
He was a tragic figure