Could Carthage Have Won the Second Punic War?

Too often people have thought what would happen had Carthage won the Second Punic War, but too few ever put forward a plausible scenario in which Carthage could have won. Was it possible for the ancient city-state to win the Second Punic War?

[@DuckSwagington]

Rome demanding that Hannibal paying rent for the land he's occupying after Canne is the most hilarious thing I've heard in a while

[@ProtomanButCallMeBlues]

'We may be at war sir, but Bureaucracy is more sacred than any religion" - Some Warhammer 40k Book

[@yunleung2631]

That’s Romans for you.

[@bladefox-ik5iy]

“The only two guarantees in life are death and taxes and I’m all out of death”

[@robland3253]

Imagine if Hannibal had paid

[@bugsplat2755]

Roman Messenger to Hannibal: "Sir, The Senate has issued a writ for overdue rent for your occupation of Appulia!" Hannibal: "Sure, send another four legions to collect. I'll be waiting with open coffers for Roman tribute -have a nice day now."

[@leoghigu]

While I agree with the gist of it, I do want to point out that Carthage itself did more or less nothing to actually support Hannibal. They didn't shop around for allies, they didn’t hire mercenaries by the boatload and send them to Italy, hell they didn't even finance Hannibal himself. Basically, it wasn't a war between Rome and Carthage, but between Rome and the Barcids. I wonder what would have happenned if Carthage also viewed the war as an existential conflict, as Rome did, and fought to the knife, using all they had and could get to fight it.

[@celdur4635]

That's also a lesson, don't go to war with a great enemy if you cannot unite your own people.

[@Byronic19134]

Also Rome was known to not take defeat likely and you would have to wipe Rome off map completely to win which nobody had power to do. So Carthage likely was pragmatic and didn't want that smoke.

[@leoghigu]

@@Byronic19134 It's the dogged determination during the 2nd Punic war that truly gave Rome it's reputation for not accepting defeat. Carthage wouldn't know that Rome wouldn't quite regardless of how much pressure it was under. The Carthaginian Senate didn't support Hannibal/the Barcids because of political considerations, not pragmatism (they thought that the Barcid family was getting too strong) - which was not the first nor the last time in history this kind of short-sighted politics happened. But again, I'm curious how the war would have looked like if Carthage, united in purpose, would have thrown it's full support behind Hannibal.

[@vynonyoutube1418]

@@leoghigu After the war, Hannibal became the head of state (before he went into exile due to knowing that he has political enemies in Carthage and that Rome will ask Carthage to hand him over eventually) and made reforms to curtail the power of oligarchs. If the Barcids showed intentions to reform Carthage before, then that's likely the cause of the Barcids' apparent conflict with some of the Punic elite.

[@leoghigu]

@@vynonyoutube1418 It definitely might be part of the reason, but I assume that the major issue that the Carthaginian leaders had with the Barcids was their overwhelming success in Iberia. When Carthage lost her 'empire' in Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily after the First Punic War, it gained another one, of nearly the same value in Iberia. Thing is, it was conquered by the Barcids, and de facto administered by them too. The Barcids and their holdings were basically a state in a state. The short sightedness of the Carthaginian Senate was that they were so blinded by the threat that the Barcids -might- reprezent that they didn't recognize the threat Rome actually represented. As such, their future involved ruins and a shitload of salt.

[@ronanshanley7829]

Hannibal: Yo, I've crushed your armies several times and am running around your territory without opposition, wanna settle for peace? Rome: Where's my rent squatter?

[@deviousalemanni4235]

Epic come back xD

[@redman4482]

Hannibal: you'll get rent when you fix this damn door

[@liviuganea4108]

@@redman4482 When we fix Hispania's ownership documents, you say?

[@redman4482]

@@liviuganea4108 i don't get this reference i am not hispanic

[@MorgenTheGreat]

@@redman4482 Hispania is referring to a province of the Roman Empire, not the race.

[@ryanrusch3976]

Also to put it into perspective, after Cannae, Rome would perform a human sacrifice due to the Sybaline books which the Romans never did which proves how dedicated they were to win this war.

[@kavky]

Tell me more about this human sacrifice.

[@ryanrusch3976]

@@kavky The Roman's are big on technicalities so if you brought them back they would argue that the sibylline books prophesised after a stunning defeat they would bury people alive in Roman Forum. To quote the direct translation from Livy "“in obedience to the Sibylline Books, some strange and unusual sacrifices were made, human sacrifices amongst them. A Gallic man and woman and a Greek man and woman were buried alive under the Forum Boarium. They were lowered into a stone vault, which had on a previous occasion also been polluted by human victims, a practice most repulsive to Roman feelings.”

[@Neomalthusiano]

Human sacrifice was frowned upon since before they got rid of the Etruscan kings. The closest thing they actually practiced at that time was the devotio. Livy tell us of how Publius Decius Mus thrown himself against the Samnites to turn the tide of the battle after offering his life to the Gods to grant Rome victory. Also, a couple of decades before, Livy and Varro tell of a citizen called Marcus Curtius who committed suicide by jumping into a chasm, after the augur has told the people of Rome that only the sacrifice of Rome's most valuable possession could save the city from being buried. So the expenditure of a live was more in the way of self sacrifice.

[@hakonandreasolaussen1949]

Caesar basically committed human sacrifice as well, by ritually slaughtering POWs (I think) at the steps of a roman temple. Fuzzy on the details, but Historia Civilis talked about it in a video

[@ryanrusch3976]

@@hakonandreasolaussen1949 Yes I do remember that, the Roman public viewed that as dangerously close to a human sacrifice. and to be quite frank with you it's hard to argue it isn't.

[@feastguy101]

The Tiber river would have indeed greatly hampered siege efforts; we can see this during Bellisarius’ defense of the city during the Gothic War. Rome was far bigger then, of course, but the same logic would have applied.

[@joseroman120]

good point

[@tubarao1143]

It wasnt

[@feastguy101]

@@tubarao1143 by population, not even close, but i'm pretty sure the wall perimeter was

[@artinrahideh1229]

Can't they deny the river from going into city? That is what Cyrus the Great did in siege of Babylon

[@Warmaker01]

Yes. By this time Rome had gotten very powerful. Very good job in showing Hannibal's campaign strategy being sensible for the time, and why it wasn't working with Rome. The Roman Republic of this time, and for quite a while after this was as you put it, STUBBORN. It was a period where Roman wars were only concluded with Rome having the upper hand. Even after Hannibal trashed Roman armies repeatedly, the Romans basically went, "I didn't hear no bell" and kept on fighting, refusing to go down. The big thing is how Romes Italian allies never turned, which had to have vexed Hannibal greatly. Lots of times through history around the world, you can carve up kingdoms, empires, etc. bit by bit as individual parts are subdued, turned to avoid destruction. Rome's latin allies remained steadfast.

[@bogdan3386]

Well, besides Hannibal the other Carthaginian generals were extremely incompetent or mediocre and after Cannae he could've had a chance if he got more reinforcements but those would've came from either Spain which was kept in check by the Scipio brothers or from Numidia which had it's own problems at the time. But in a way he kind of destroyed Rome because he killed a lot of old Senators which meant that Rome needed to disregard tradition and bring new Senators which were to young and inexperienced which lead to the death of the Republic later on.

[@stuartwald2395]

You have hit the key point; Hannibal was on his own except for the time when his brother Hasdrubal came in from the north, and he was defeated and killed by Claudius Nero. Carthage was tied up in aristocratic rivalries against the Barcid family, and while Rome had the same, they reached decisions and then all backed the policy. Certainly after Cannae, Carthage should have committed to reinforcing and supplying Hannibal in Italy, but that would have required other leaders to support and obey him which they would not.

[@IamnotfromUSA]

If Scipio lost that campaign then Rome most likly would have fallen

[@SimoLInk1698]

The other generals weren't incompetent at all. It just happened that Scipio was better than all of them.

[@IamnotfromUSA]

@@SimoLInk1698 Itspecially Fabian

[@nillynush4899]

indeed, those senator's descendants would go on to backstab Caesar 20+ times, the fools.

[@greatomeister675]

Hannibal was OP but he needed more help and sadly never got that.

[@tubarao1143]

Thankfully!

[@Maltesfilm]

The world would be so different if he won, I can’t even really imagine it.

[@tubarao1143]

@@mohamedelhediissa289 dude lol how can you take so many assumptions from nothing...

[@Centurion97]

@@Maltesfilm It's an incredibly fascinating alt-history scenario, but almost pointless to speculate about because it was so long ago and the butterflies would simply be too enormous.

[@N0TYALC]

He did need more help. Unfortunately for him, his stupid decision to enter Italy made it impossible to give him more help. What were they supposed to do, teleport reinforcements over to him?

[@peterfmodel]

This is very accurate. If Carthage used the same system of citizenship as Rome the manpower pool would have been much greater, but even if all the Punic territories were considered as full Carthaginian citizens and they formed mass armies like Rome, they were still outnumbered. Carthage had a population of 800,000, maximum, allowing them to form a total force of 80,000 men, of which half could be fielded. The Punic territories comprised of 15-20 major cities, none of which was as large but if combined could of given Carthage a manpower pool larger than Carthage. This is a pure guess, but its possible this could of totalled another 800,000 to 1.2million, giving the Carthaginians another field army of 60,000 men maximum. Now its true the romans also had a two tier system, with the Latin’s providing the core legions and the other cities providing the other half of the army. However the Romans did use their own troops is the core while the Carthaginians only used citizens in large numbers in the 3rd Punic war, when it was too late. In summary, if the Carthaginians engaged in total war, like the romans, they would have been still been outnumber by more than 2 to 1, however if you add in the mercenaries, allies and Hannibal, that may well have given Carthage the ability to match Rome. But Carthage only engaged in Total war during the 3rd Punic war and by then it was too late. The Romans understood that when you go to war you need to engage in total war in order to ensure you are put at risk in the future. It was a lesson Rome learned in Italy after some near-fatal defeats.

[@sacredband7089]

Good point , but bear in mind, even though carthage is numerically inferior, if those manpower was fully utilized and given to hannibal along with the wasted resources in spain and sicily, would have made a huge huge difference

[@sacredband7089]

The 2nd punic war is just like playing dota, with hannibal as the only skilled player in the team, whose teammates are always feeding and being toxic, while rome's heroes are late game whose only chance of winning is dragging the game long enough

[@firestrikerii810]

Nope

[@firestrikerii810]

they wouldn’t match Rome

[@firestrikerii810]

@@sacredband7089It wouldn’t have made a huge difference

[@kor8513]

The situation Hannibal was in was very similar to Nazi Germanys in the Soviet Union. Massively outnumbered in terms of manpower and material, fighting an enemy with no intention of surrendering in spite of horrific losses, no hope of any real local support, no hope of sieging down the capital, and massively overstretched supply lines. Hannibal, like Germany, did about as well as they possibly could have done militarily early on. Their cause was just hopeless and the smartest move would have been to never invade in the first place.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Good analogy bro

[@Perrirodan1]

Even better analogy when you see that the Soviet Union engaged in total war mode while Nazi Germany refrained to do so (I mean in the economy not in war crimes...) until it was too late. In major wars you need to engage absolutely all your assets if you wish to win, unity of the population is a key factor to lead to victory.

[@floflo1645]

@@Perrirodan1 The Nazis used forced labor from all the territories they occupied and their economy was already in war mode since the mid 1930s that could only sustain itself through war by pillaging. If that is not total war I am not sure what you mean? The Nazi plan was just too ambitious because they thought the Wehrmarcht alone could defeat the Soviet Union and did not seek to make the nationalists that hated USSR their allies. Divide to conquer is a basic rule of warfare and they refuse to apply it effectively (some idiots Ukrainians did fight along the Nazis) , just hating on all the slavs all the same.

[@supremereacter6453]

I was thinking the same thing they both had a swear to kill their hatred enemy

[@HarrDarr]

@@floflo1645 germany didn't enter a war economy until 1943

[@duxae1617]

Yeah Republican Rome is *nearly* unbeatable but only nearly, if he got constant reinforcements specifically from Mago after Cannae instead of being redirected to spain hannibal could likely have laid siege to rome or at least cause mass panic

[@victorconway444]

The greatest enemy of Republican Rome was Republican Rome. One which Republican Rome failed to overcome.

[@geordiejones5618]

No way he could have successfully cut off Rome. They're on the Tiber. He would have been surrounded by every Legion in Italy and then utterly fucked.

[@KroM234]

Rome had superior demgraphics and a FAR superior political system. Hannibal had no political backup at some point, he was also not that great at siege warfare and at exploiting victories.

[@N0TYALC]

How do you suppose Mago sends Hannibal these reinforcements? Teleportation? Book a flight from Carthage International Airport to Ravenna Regional? Maybe build a giant slingshot and launch them across the Mediterranean? Hannibal had to go through the Alps for a reason. Carthage no longer had a navy. Any reinforcements sent on ships would’ve ended up reinforcing the bottom of the sea. Should they have taken the same path as Hannibal? Not possible, they were fighting and losing in Iberia. I doubt Scipio would’ve been kind enough to let an army pass through the territory he just got from them so that Hannibal could get his reinforcements. Truth is, Hannibal lost the war. He gambled everything on an invasion of Italy, and he knew full well that he was going to be stranded when he got there. He needed to win the war with that army, but he had no way of actually doing so. If reality were a Total War game, Hannibal could do some truly amazing shit in the battles, but he’d need to turn the campaign difficulty down to easy.

[@rayzas4885]

@@geordiejones5618 Hannibal would fucking slaughter those legions with ease like what he did before

[@ElSayyidCampeador]

Ah a new contender to join the ranks of good history channels, I look forward to seeing you hit 10k and then onwards to 100k.

[@anonfaceless6088]

Impressive bud. Only just come to your channel. But I'm impressed so far. Keep it up bud

[@jonathanjohnson7743]

im not your buddy guy

[@anonfaceless6088]

@@jonathanjohnson7743 clearly wasn't to you. Lol

[@twomp5613]

@@jonathanjohnson7743 I’m not your guy pal

[@maximedekeyser5238]

@@twomp5613 I'm not your pal mate

[@paulusillyriusiudathaddaio2530]

I am actualy impressed by the quality of this video, great work

[@sonofnikator4819]

I think that Hannibal turned Rome into overdrive, and paradoxically, not delaying the destiny but rushing it. The roman generation at the time was stellar and established the foundations for the next centuries with massive territorial gains and thus, establishing the republic as a superpower from just a regional power.

[@firestrikerii810]

No he didn’t

[@serajahmad9088]

Victory for Carthage depends on a lot of What ifs. The best chance for Carthage came after Cannae in 216 BC. The Gauls had also destroyed a Roman army at Silva Litana, and Romans had Minimal forces guarding Cisalpine Gaul, concentrating their armies in South Italy against Hannibal. Carthage had sent 4,000 Numidian horse and 500 talents to Hannibal after Cannae, and Mago Barca was to follow with an army of 20,000 foot and 4,000 Spanish horse to Italy. There was a revolt in Sardinia, Carthage readied 12,500 foot, 1500 horse and 21 elephants to aid the rebels, where the Roman garrison had been weakened by desease. Spain was guarded by an army under Himilco, Hasdrubal Barca was to march to Italy with 25,000 soldiers and 20 elephants. Had Hasdrubal been able to defeat the Romans in Spain then reach North Italy overland, or marched past the Romans as he would do in 207 BC to Italy, and Mago joined Hannibal in South Italy, their combined armies could have carried the war to Central Italy, where Roman citizens and half citizen allies were located. Occupation of Sardinia would have cut off the Romans from crucial grain supplies, as with thousands of Roman farmers serving in the legions, and South Italy now supplying Hannibal, grain supply from Sicily and Sardinia was vital to sustain the Republic. Things went south in 215 BC. First, Hasdrubal was defeated at Ibera, and the Sardinia expedition was delayed by storms, giving the Romans chance to reinforce their garrison and then defeat the Carthaginians. Mago's army was diverted to Spain to reinforce Hasdrubal, no replacement army was sent to Hannibal in Italy although 25,000 foot and 3,000 horse were sent to Sicily to aid Syracuse. This political unwillingness to reinforce Hannibal's successes in Italy, or emulating Rome in taking losses until victory was achieved cost Carthage the war. Despite the Roman domination at Sea, which could not have been a factor given the difficulty to enforce blockage or intercept fleets in the oar powered age, as demonstrated by Mago's army sailing o invade North Italy in 203 BC, and both Mago's army and Hannibal's army sailing back to Africa in 202 BC without Roman Naval interference, and Carthaginian navy had supplied Syracuse during the war despite Roman naval presence. It was possible to reinforce Hannibal if the politicians in Carthage authorized it. The defeat of Hasdrubal in Spain in 215 BC was probably thus the turning point of the war. Hannibal's strategic situation changed after Cannae in 216 BC. Before his victory he was pillaging Roman and no Roman allied lands at will, now he needed manpower to defend his allies. He used combined arms tactics, so he needed Numidians, Libyans, Iberians in his army to maintain it's edge. He did not get these. As for siege warfare, had Hannibal had the manpower to guard his allies in South Italy, he would have been able to move on Rome. The Greek ship masters had supplied the Romans the skill to build their fleets during the First Punic War, Syracuse and these allies could have supplied Hannibal the necessary skills if needed. Hannibal had besieged and takes cities in Italy, and had started the war by besieging and storming Saguntum, so he had experience in siege warfare. All he needed was enough manpower to safeguard his allies, and ward of the relieving Roman armies as he blockaded Rome. The Second strategic opportunity came in 211 BC, after the Roman armies were destroyed in Spain, freeing up the Carthaginians to send reinforcements to Hannibal. In Italy, many Roman allies had become war weary, and 18 of the 30 Latin Rights colonies refused to contribute their quota of men and supplies to the Romans, who did not press the issue fearing the consequences - rebellion or defection to Carthage. Had Carthage reinforced their armies in Spain and Italy, and Hasdrubal managed to arrive in North Italy in 210 BC, like he had in 207 BC, the scenario might have changed with Hannibal and Hasdrubal advancing on Rome's power base in Central Italy, which was showing cracks in their willingness to continue the war under Rome. Hannibal was in a stronger position on 210 BC than in 207 BC, when the battle of Metarus took place, and Hasdrubal's defeat in that battle is taken by many as the decisive moment of the war.

[@firestrikerii810]

False

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@weirdguylol]

​@@firestrikerii810lies

[@amatorn]

​@@firestrikerii810 Rome fanboy

[@wyvrusgriffion3948]

I'm a bit dissappointed that you haven't mentioned his rival, the genius general himself, Scipio Africanus, he basically hard carry Rome to victory, and the Senate basically disagree with all his judgement. The time where war strategy is frowned upon by the Senate, as a symbolize of weakness, he basically need to learn through Hannibal himself.

[@jimmyandersson9938]

I dont think rome was this unbeatable juggernaught really, even tho i get your point. Its possible hannibal was closer than we think in destroying rome but scipio managed to turn it around before it was to late. Before stating Hannibal was on a impossible campaign we need to look on first how much weight Scipio actually pulled. Remove him and the damage on Rome could have been much higher and permanent.

[@vynonyoutube1418]

@@jimmyandersson9938 It was all about close calls. Hannibal's strategy seems to have been decimating Roman armies to either demoralize Rome into a surrender or turn up the pressure by demoralizing its allies into turning against Rome. Neither was enough, so the next option would be to siege Rome, which Hannibal wasn't capable of doing with the forces he had available at the time. He had to wait for reinforcements from his brother for a siege, but his brother was intercepted and defeated on the way. After that, Hannibal had nothing left to do to scare Rome into surrender.

[@jimmyandersson9938]

@@vynonyoutube1418 It seems Hannibal had atleast one viable option left, to invite the Macedonian army for help with the sieges, even tho it meant sharing spoils of war with them. This was likely the plan since Philip the 5th and Hannibal basically allied behind Rome back before they intercepted the messengers and found out. Not sure how close a Macedonian invasion was but maybe if Hannibal managed to remain in italic peninsula for a few more years it could have happend.

[@jimmyandersson9938]

@Ernest Khalimov Yeah that would have been terrible for the romans also. But I wonder if it would have made any big changes, Hannibals problems would have remained, he cant siege citys and allies refusing to leave Rome, Carthage was losing in Spain. Not sure how much impact the reinforcements would have made in the long run.

[@N0TYALC]

Scipio may have defeated Hannibal at Zama, but Fabian defeated him where it mattered. Amateurs study tactics, experts study strategy.

[@shaywright6608]

In 3 battles the Romans lost more than the Russians during WW2 (proportionally) and then said "tight, conscript literally every other man in the entire republic". That would be like the US losing 20 million men in 3 battles and saying "fuck it" and conscripting 50 million. Absolute mad men

[@ggqwowsdksdk1565]

good content dude keep these coming and you will become a big channel in no time

[@fanmovie357]

Ok but what if Hannibal had complete political backing in the senate of Carthage and had receive proper reinforcements instead of the measly 4000 troops he got. Carthage had well over 25k troops after Cannae to reinforce Hannibal, it was mostly Hanno doing that avoided this, you may say those troops were needed elsewhere but looking at the big picture, the best strategy for carthage was to knockout rome as quick as possible, like you said, Hannibal had few resoruces and men, but what if, instead of the 4000 men he got from Mago, he got the 25 thousand that went to spain?, would that not have changed the outcome if Hannibal could use them to make Rome accept terms? Genuine question, I love this topic of the second punic war, and you whole video was very good but I was wating for this particular scenario to appear.

[@spectrum1140]

Hannibal couldn't receive many reinforcements due to a) he was in enemy territory and b) Rome was in pretty firm control of the Mediterranean. Transfering troops to Italy was far more difficult and far more dangerous than transferring them to Spain, Sicily or Africa. A force of over 25k would mean utilizing a much larger fleet that could very easily be spotted and used as target practice for the Roman navy. The question of the Roman navy is often underlooked, but extremely important to the logistical limitations of both Hannibal and Carthage, as it severely hampers the capability to reinforce soldiers, especially in the Italian theatre. It's because of this I didn't even consider such a scenario in this video. Not that I think those 25k reinforcements would have mattered in the end anyway. Cheers!

[@Jon-wm3wp]

@@spectrum1140 Si el mediterraneo estaba controlado, como hizo hannibal para volver a Cartago antes de zama??

[@ricois3]

Great content. Subbed. How tf do you only have 2k subs? For videos like this, you deserve at least 50k.

[@travisgeorge2809]

imo, the single biggest failure that allowed the Romans to win the war was the Carthaginian failure to relieve the siege of Syracuse. As mentioned, Hannibal had no siege weapons. Syracuse had living within a man who to this day is famous for his inventions. The failure to lift the siege probably left he Greek settlements on the Italian peninsula little faith in the Carthaginians should they offer more than token assistance. Save Syracuse, get siege weapons, properly flip Greek cities, better chances for victory. But really, the problem here is that Carthage only had one Hannibal Barca. The rest of their generals are almost cartoonish in their failures. "Hey, the Romans are forming up to storm this part of our wall, let's not post sentries to make sure they aren't forming up anywhere else." "I bet this marsh would make a great place to make camp. By the way, what are camp diseases?" "Let's just form up our army and stare at their army every day for weeks and never reposition to a more favorable location and then lose it all in a panic one morning."

[@deeznoots6241]

The Iberic campaign was truly just pathetic from the Carthaginians, by all rights they should have stomped the Romans but just completely fumbled every step of the way

[@travisgeorge2809]

@@deeznoots6241 yeah, the loss of iberia was bad, but the carthaginians could have written that off for most of the war, most of their wealth came from the fellow Phoenician cities connected to their trade network... Iberia got raided/subjugated to pay for their war reparations from the first war. Syracuse, on the other hand, would have provided needed expertise and a rally point for rebellious ethnic Greeks.

[@maxbroberg5586]

Why don't you have at least 100 000 subscribers yet? You make some great videos man!

[@Gingy578]

The interesting thing is that in the middle of a defensive campaign against an invader, Hanibal, Rome chooses to invest resources and manpower on retaking Capua. That just proves, that Rome didn't see Hanibal as the main threat, but the collapse of the complex system of alliances that it worked so hard to create. The point which is well presented in this video, is that the Italians had to choose: who is better to live under, Rome, or Hanibal? They chose Rome, and they had a good reason to.

[@deeznoots6241]

Ehh it was less of a defensive campaign and more of a ‘avoid meeting Hannibal in battle’ campaign, the recapture of cities captured by Hannibals army was necessary in order to prevent Italian cities joining with Hannibal which would have left Rome isolated.

[@90skidcultist]

In other words, Hannibal was actually seen as the main threat, lol. They just went through another way of going about it. If the Alliance had broken apart, that would have been because of Hannibal! He was the problem!

[@firestrikerii810]

⁠@@deeznoots6241Not true it was more of a defensive campaign

[@firestrikerii810]

@@90skidcultistHe wasn’t seen as the main threatb

[@firestrikerii810]

@@90skidcultistNo they aren’t

[@michaelpresley1337]

Great video man. You deserve more subs.

[@nakaithewanderer6654]

If anyone is curious, Nakai suggest that you read a book called “escape from Rome” by Walter Scheidel. Nakai learned a lot and it examines things such as how Rome was insanely strong and unique in its rise and also “could have another empire taken over the mediterranean as Rome did?”

[@SimoLInk1698]

Didn't know Kroxigors could read

[@cfosburg]

As a fan of Hannibal. I really enjoyed this theory. I have always wanted to readdress Hannibal and deep dive into why he didn’t siege Rome.

[@RedOctober_]

Wasn’t it because the Carthaginian senate didn’t support Hannibal and refused to resupply him?

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@weirdguylol]

Yes

[@filipecasanova6719]

I just can't get how Rome could gather this amounts of men and in the late empire it couldn't with much more manpower...

[@oceanplanet8160]

I think it had more to do with the amounts of enemies the empire had and just the pure in-fighting that was going on that weakened the empire.

[@benjesterw]

According to the Layman's Historian using Livy and Polybius, Hannibal claimed to make Capua the master of Italy in order to win them over to his side, which undermined his propaganda of freeing the feoderarti from Rome. Rome after Cannae was a heavily fortified city and still had a small garrison, so Hannibal would've had to do a prolonged seige, which his army wasn't set up to do and he didnt have the supply lines to maintain. Im a big Hannibal fan but it seems it was nearly hopeless and he made a misstep elevating Capua.

[@supremereacter6453]

One of the samnite commander described how rome was by saying they don’t know how to shut up after defeat

[@rodripuertas]

pretty informative vid!

[@miguelconti2304]

Please make more if’s!

[@assassin335]

I am wondering what the source was that the roman garrison was greater than in saguntum because I remember in my readings that Rome's garrison had extremely few citizen soldiers and was backed up by about 6,000 slave conscripts who could have possibly turncoated once Hannibal was at the gates. For clarification this is directly after the battle of cannae

[@Mr.M88888]

Nice video 😎👍

[@wwpl8371]

I think a good analogue for the Second Punic War is the Great Patriotic War. Early on, you have one side practically wiping out entire armies of the opposing side due to sheer superiority on an operational/tactical level (Hannibal at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae; and the Wehrmacht at Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, etc). All the while, even right from the very beginning where Hannibal and the Nazis are scoring victory after victory on the battlefield, it's very clear that their strategic situation was completely untenable. This was due to the fact that no matter what, the Romans and the Soviets refused to capitulate even in the face of catastrophic losses -- even when the Wehrmacht was in the outskirts of Moscow, or even when Hannibal had a clear path to march on Rome. Thus, all the defenders had to do was weather the initial devastating strike, regain their footing, and the war was as good as won at that point. In both Rome and the USSR after the initial defeats had weeded out the incompetents, you were left with excellent military leadership that learned and improved from the war so much, that way later down the road they managed to apply the tactics of their enemies against them to score enormous victories (Zama and Bagration). Also, both wars ended with the initial defenders (Rome and the Soviets) sacking the capital cities of their invaders (Carthage and Berlin). I guess one could say that Hannibal was in a marginally better position to win the war than the Wehrmacht ever was, since taking the city of Rome is probably a more surefire guarantee of killing the will of the Romans than taking the city of Moscow for the Soviets, but even then I think a direct siege on Rome itself would be impossibly difficult for Hannibal to win. The sheer tenacity of the Romans guarantees a long, protracted siege, and Hannibal had no supply or siege train. Lack of support from Carthage meant that Hannibal had to keep his army moving and foraging, and staying in one place also kills off his main advantage: his ability to dictate the time and place of a military engagement. It's because of this that I don't really see any scenario in which Hannibal manages to successfully take Rome. He had about as much chance as the Wehrmacht did during the Great Patriotic War -- basically none.

[@Frendlu]

Yep. Maybe the Wehrmacht had some change to success if they did the things a bit better, like finishing first with UK, to deal later with the soviets and trying to make allies and not just destroying everything like they did. And didn't help that Germany didn't movilize completly until the "Sportpalast Speech" from Goebbels (1943🙄). But well, at that moment, was late and they lost all their momentum. Anibal, well, he lost from the beggining, no any little change. Chartage never helped Anibal from the beggining, so they didn't had they equivalent "Sportpalast Speech". His defeat, was just a matter of time.

[@KraNisOG]

Even when the Gaul's took the city earlier, all it did was strengthen Roman resolve. If they managed to take the city, then Rome would have utterly obliterated the city of Carthage. Hitler had a much more advantageous position than Hannibal had, seeing as he had no senate, or Rome to worry about.

[@andyying1770]

This is amazing content, the algorithm will pick you up very soon. I think the ability to just field endless armies with a bottomless pool of manpower has always been and will always be one of the greatest deciding factors for war and is often overlooked. Napoleon inflicted just as many losses to the Russians in 1812 as he suffered, but he could not replace the men and horses, while Russia and the rest of the coalition were able to. The exact same logic applies to Operation Barbarossa, which despite being able to encircle and destroy multiple Soviet armies at Kyiv, Minsk, and Smolensk, the Soviets were able to eventually replenish the lost manpower just like how despite being utterly destroyed at Cannae, the Romans were still able to keep raising new armies. Edit: You also make an excellent point about the Romans being so defiant and completely unwilling to surrender. This was another key point that led the Romans to "win" many wars because they would always win the war of attrition due to the aforementioned manpower reserves.

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@firestrikerii810]

Don’t put "" at wins, they DID win

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@alanetchetto8908]

Are you planning to do something like this with the first punic war? even if its a bit obvious that had gone a few battles in a right way, cartage could have held the upper hand, but it would be nice to see a video into that to make a comparision.

[@xenobackpains5800]

Carthage was plagued in that war by a similiar issue in the second Punic war They relied on a single general to win the war Hamilikar barca was a great general and from what I know,devasted the romans and by himself,stalemated the war,but Hannibal couldn't do this because multiple fronts were being fought The Spanish,eventually north African,Italian,it was too much

[@miguelconti2304]

Wonderful!!

[@redhood7448]

>Sees tittle >"No" >Leaves

[@arthas8121]

As an armchair general, I think yes.

[@laurenzbachmann4814]

what is the song which begins at 2:30?

[@jayalonzo7999]

Thanks. Good analysis. Have always wondered the reasons behind Hannibal's actions.

[@diabloturco8849]

Anyone have a link for the music playing around 6:16?

[@unclesam5230]

What’s the outro music?

[@rahadityap2375]

The Second Punic War defined "By the end, Logistic will always be superior then tactic"

[@firestrikerii810]

Nope

[@weirdguylol]

​@@firestrikerii810yes

[@cookiemonster3449]

How is the song called?

[@saratmodugu2721]

To be fair, the Carthaginians didn’t help him. If they did, he would have won. He was just out of resources and man power

[@Gabriel-ip6me]

Rome still had far more resources and man power than Carthage had. That's largely why Carthage itself didn't help, because they all realized they were fighting a superior opponent with very little chance of victory. For all his brilliance, it was Hannibal's hatred for the romans that blinded him to that fact. Besides, excellent as Hannibal was, the best general of his time was in the Roman side.

[@volbound1700]

@@Gabriel-ip6me Carthage did help, they just didn't send it to Hannibal. They went after Sardinia and sent troops to Iberia. Both were attempts were ultimately defeated.

[@johnmurdoch8534]

Rome conducted a total war against carthage in spain and italy while its allies tied down philip of macedon. It was able to do both despite Hannibal. Hannibals plan had to work perfectly at every step for a carthaginian victory. That it worked up to where it did is miracle wnough. It reminds me of the battle of the bulge where hitlers impossible timetables and goals required so much going perfectly for it to work..well Hannibal mansged to get far closer to his goals by his own brilliance alone. I think carthage fighing as long and successfully as it did was miracle enough.

[@aldrinmilespartosa1578]

If only Hannibal show up outside Rome , he might force the senators to call back the Scipio brothers who were rampaging in the Carthaginian colony in Iberia .

[@Gabriel-ip6me]

Rome was an extremely difficult city to siege. And Hannibal wasn't good at siege warfare. They would've likely just raised a new army from their clients.

[@alqamenesh7433]

Rome's endless pool of manpower would have been nearly impossible to overcome unless the Carthaginians had began a military reform decades prior. The Republic, in the midst of a series of massive military debacles, having lost allegedly 250.000 men, with the magna graecia cities revolting and Greeks flocking to Carthage, with parallel wars going on in the Po Valley and Iberia, still managed to free up to 23.000 men to quell a revolt in Sardinia. For an ancient state this is otherworldly.

[@gizel4376]

at one point sicilia was almost lost, corse was almost lost, south italy was lost, cisalpine ghaul was lost, their army in italy was compose of slave and teenager, in corse they were sick, in iberia they were outnumber, they only needed to defeat the scipio and they would have won. and of course if Rome would have throw away their last army, because i think they were pretty close to the limit of what they can recruit

[@Holybatman3603]

The Roman casualties were actually anywhere between 500,000 to 600,000 killed for 270,000 Carthaginian losses. Hannibal may have killed up to 300,000 Romans in 15 years of war if we push it that far and captured anywhere between 50,000 to 75,000.

[@causantinthescot]

If Proto-Marinette and Adrien ( Scipio Africanus and Gaius Laelius) died in Cannae it's possible.

[@murataubakir8437]

any further reading?

[@infidelheretic923]

My assessment would be no. Despite winning victory after victory and taking down over 20% of Rome’s adult male population Rome still prevailed. Hannibal would have been forced to pull back eventually.

[@wyattrota9070]

Maybe Hannibal should've usurped power in Carthage to better prepare and replinish

[@petersclafani4370]

I dont believe Carthage would have won. Rason being they lack numbers . They lost most of there veterans. And romans were now familiar with Hannibal strategy.

[@rezashojaee4606]

U forgot one simple fact, Imagine if Scipio would had died in Cannae

[@adambarys3190]

There was huge difference in mindset. For Rome it was All or Nothing. Destroy or be destroyed. For Carthage it was just a war to retake some land or just have a good treaty.

[@kan12372]

Lol yes. It probably would be if Scipio Africanus was killed at Cannae ( he was a military tribune) its a crazy comback

[@gguyllago]

One of the questions I was always curious about regarding the Punic wars was how different they would be(if they would happen at all) if alexender the great would have lived long enough to go on his planned campaign in Africa

[@degamegang8262]

I think the punic wars would have been verry diffrent Alexander might have (joined) rome in taking carthage only to later betray them and go for italy or the other way around

[@hia5235]

It was a Pyrrhic victory at Cannae

[@cloneofgramsci]

What you say at the end of the minute 5 is simply not always true. In Sardinia there were heavy taxes and tributes on the population due to their continuous rebellion to Roman rule. The video completely forgets one of the major causes of defeat of the Carthaginians. The Sardo-Punic population of Sardinia rebelled (again) to the Roman rule, and bands of southern sardo-punic and central sardinians built an army and started one of the most important battles there, the "Bellum Sardum", which the sardinian lost due to a continuous strain of errors from the sardo-punic army plus a missed reinforcement from Carthago. A win in sardinia would have changed the tide of war by a LOT, due to the strategic position and closeness to rome, together with an allied non roman population which was well known for their combat fierceness

[@alpha34098]

Another thing that could have changed the fate of the war is if Hannibal took advantage of fact that, Beyond Italy and the Mediterranean, Neither Rome or Carthage had no Knowledge of any territories in Europe at the time (heck the Romans didn't even knew that the Alps could be crossed through until Hannibal had done it) and actually took his time to expand further north into Gaul and the Northwest Iberian territories and reclute as many of the Gaulish tribes (as well as Breeding more Elephants) as well as creating (Building and Training them to prepare them for the Roman Naval Tactics with the help of some of the Sicilians from Syracuse that might have managed to escape the Romans) a Navy in the Gaulish coastline By the time he would have gathered a Massive Military Force (2 Armies (one led by Hannibal and the other by Hasdrubal) and the brand new Navy (led by one of the best Sicilian Generals they manage to recruit to his cause), Hannibal will launch his campaign against Rome by first sending the Navy and Hasdrubal's Army to Lusitania (Modern day Portugal), while Hannibal's Army (Composed by the Elite African Mercenaries, War Elephants, Elite Iberians and many Gauls (and even Germans that he manages to come across as he travels)) Marches to the Alpine Foothills. Once He's there, Hannibal will send a Message to Hasdrubal in Lusitania (with instructions to enter the Mediterranean Sea with the Navy and his Army and both clear Rome of it's Client States around Hispania (Modern day Spain) (such as Seguntum and (as you said) Sardinia and Corsica (and if possible Sicily), which will start the Second Punic War just by it's arrival, so no meddling of the Treacherous Carthaginian council) as they go and crushing the Roman Navy in the Western Mediterranean) and then he starts his crossing through the Alps to invade Italy from the North, distracting Rome from his forces in the West as he would be deemed the bigger threat and thus not much in his side will change in his side from the original timeline save for maybe the presence of his War Elephants for more longer due to having more younger ones by the time of his Invasion as well as having another objective in mind as well as getting allies in Italy, as Hannibal needs to clear an area on Italy's West Coast for Hasdrubal to land, after months of campaign in Italy, Hannibal gives Rome its disastrous defeat at Cannae. After this Version of Cannae as well as the destruction of it's Navy in the Western Mediterranean (Rome might have the biggest Manpower Reserves but that will not help it to rebuild it's Navies once destroyed because the always have lacked in Shipbuilding Capabilities on it's own) as well as the loss of it's Client States both in the West (by The Carthaginian Forces led by Hasdrubal) and the East (by Philip V's Macedonians which would surely take advantage of Rome's predicament like in our timeline and start his conquest in Greece, allying with Hannibal against the "Latin Barbarians" of Rome), Rome now might face the fact that they got bested very hard and in so many fronts at the same time (something that has never happened in our timeline until centuries later) that this might fully break their Determination for good for a second time in History (the first time was done by Gauls so many years ago when they plundered Rome) and now might face with 2 decisions: Either Accept this and Surrender to Hannibal or try to fight to the bitter end which in this timeline will end with Rome now getting Besieged (as Hannibal will get bolstered by Hasdrubal and his army and also engineers which would build Weapons for them to destroy the doors and also even take their time to Dam the Tiber) and Burned to the ground (as the Gauls will have no mercy this time in turning the beloved city of their bitter enemies into ash)

[@KraNisOG]

@@alpha34098 The problem with this theory is that it assumes that Rome doesn't expand, or make any improvements, or advancements in anything. Even in Carthage somehow magically conquered Hispania, and Gaul, they would have rebelled against Carthage once Rome started showing its fangs, especially when Scipio starts crushing the armies not directly commanded by Hannibal, even if Scipio never fights because the war is prolonged for so long, Italy would have been more consolidated, same with Illyria, and more territories outside of Italy. The Roman Navy was also superior to Carthaginian Navy, and would have continued to see improvements in order to protect its territories. What you propose is a literal fantasy land of what if everything that could possibly ever go right for Carthage does go right, and happens fast enough to where Hannibal is still in his prime, and able to fight. Zama was not Hannibal's only defeat, he was also defeated, horribly, by the Roman navy when he was put in command of a navy. Also, Roman determination was never broken, the Romans still managed to beat back the Gauls after they were in the city, at this point Rome has far superior defenses, more manpower on the walls, and a much stronger military, and fighting force. And even if by some miracle they managed to take the city, Rome still wouldn't lose the war. As shown later down the line by Emperor Heraclius, Rome didn't care about where the capital was, but simply about being Roman. If anything, Carthage would have lost too much taking the city, and the Roman fighting spirit would have been kindled far greater, obliterating what remained of their army (Assuming that magically the Roman Army doesn't go to siege, which it would easily break, even if Hannibal had siege weapons, and even if he knew how to use them.) It was utterly impossible for Hannibal to have won without literal divine intervention.

[@niki3tn476]

if hannibal was general during 1st punic war . im curious how the history would unfold ... also , there is some stretches here and there . one time roman cavalery didnt fail was in battle of zama (there is a reson why hannibal written them of before the battle even started ) 2. spain front was incompetent to the extreme levels on carthaginian side 3. spain front on roman side almost outpreformed and was very lucky 4. carthage didnt supply hannibal even though they could they just chose not to 5. carthage failed in marine warfere due to storms ( pure luck ) 6. already mentioned macedon ( also extreme luck romans captured macedonian diplomat twice)

[@artinrahideh1229]

Had Carthage sent Hannibal what he demanded via his brother, Hannival could have sieged Rome.

[@alangivre2474]

You have great future

[@celdur4635]

There was a big point of contention in Carthage, should they push more into Iberia, or unify Africa, or both and then go to war with Rome. Many in the Carthaginian aristocracy, were against war with Rome at this time, and in favor of unifying the interior of Africa the same way Rome had done with its hinterland. But the Barcids rushed to war.

[@deeznoots6241]

>Barcids rushed to war To be clear the 2nd Punic war started with Rome declaring war on the basis that Carthage had attacked Roman allies in Iberia, Roman allies that allied rome AFTER Carthage attacked them. Rome very much started the war but used a bullshit excuse to claim it was to defend Roman allies.

[@CliffCardi]

Rome: “I didn’t hear no bell.”

[@adr1686]

I'm glad to see you didn't put the Balearic Island under Carthaginian or roman domain. The fact that they remained under indigenous control until 123 b.C is something most videos of this kind omit. Congrats on the great video!

[@flavivsaetivs5738]

No *leaves without elaborating*

[@aarondemiri486]

Hannibal's lack of ability to wage successful sieges was a serious detriment in the second punic war

[@gizel4376]

that's because Hannibal was in inferiority the whole time, he needed to force favorable situation, he couldn't commit to a siege, he would have been crushed

[@liambrown3249]

Does anyone know how difficult it was to actually siege rome during this time? I mean, hadn't rome been sacked before and after even during its time as an empire? Wasn't the tiber river cut off by the king alaric alongside barbarians? Could Hannibal not have done the same? Apparently after the battle of tresamine, not only was hannibal very close to the capital but over half the carthaginian fleet was in the nearby vicinity to aid the siege. I don't get it.

[@KraNisOG]

Rome was only sacked because it outgrew its walls, and had no army close to defend it, unlike in the Punic Wars. the walls also hadn't fallen into disrepair, and were upgraded after that sack (But remember, the Romans managed to still beat them after it was sacked.) the fleet could not have reached Rome in time, and the military would have utterly crushed the land forces, and the Carthaginian fleet would have as well been crushed by trapping itself between land, and the Roman fleet. Hannibal's only chance at defeating Rome would have been to wage wars in Africa, and Spain to build up a stronger army, and gaining the respect, and admiration of the people, and government. Carthage could have never won the 2nd Punic War, and the 1st Punic War could have only been set as a stalemate at best.

[@bombasticbadassbrigade3552]

Assuming Hannibal defeats Scipio at Zama - Carthage still sues for peace. Their Numidian allies are gone, they lost Spain. Hannibal's brothers are all dead. Hannibal may have even beaten Scipio at Zama (some revisionists are proposing). This makes sense given he becomes chief magistrate (sufet) in Carthage a year after Zama. But his resources are drained. Hence why he was probably liaising with Antiochus III for a number of years before he fled Carthage in 195 BCE. Carthage's famed Cothon harbour may have also began construction under Hannibal's guidance as it was allegedly built after 200 BCE. All speculative but gives a bit more context.

[@anarrivingwingedhussar9692]

The fact that even Hannibal couldn’t defeat Rome is proof enough that Carthage never had a chance

[@xenobackpains5800]

The reason I think made Carthage lose was how dedicated the Romans were to the war,compared to Carthage,who didn't seem to care at all Look at other nations who defeated rome,the huns,Parthians,they won because they actually tried to,Carthage lost because it didn't give a fuck

[@lucaslevinsky8802]

This was a war about strategy and "unstrategy" Either side could win, but was more likely rome to win since the start, like what if Hannibal Barca died at swamps?

[@Onezy05]

They could have won if Hasdrubal won the battle of Metaurus and linked up with Hannibal

[@Stejers]

The first punic war was a war between two nations, the second punic war was a war between a man and a nation

[@yunleung2631]

read AD ASTRA the manga!!! Kinda generic but pretty much Polybius' history!!!

[@trevor8726]

yeah i want it to get animated so people gotta read it

[@drybrucke1]

Where do I read it?

[@SimoLInk1698]

Ad Astra is one of the best historical mangas of all times, and also surprisingly accurate.

[@trevor8726]

@@drybrucke1 mangakakalot

[@trevor8726]

@@drybrucke1 i can send the link if u want

[@theskycavedin]

If Hannibal or the Barca family focused on consolidating power in Carthage and conquering and subjugating all of north Africa and Iberia they could have built a proper army and a proper empire.

[@KraNisOG]

And probably cause a Civil War when they declare war on Carthage.

[@Chesstastic5000]

But what if, the Diadochi wars either didn't happen, or were significantly shorter. Wouldn't the remnants of the Macedonian empire want to side with Carthage. This is another question, why didn't those empires help Carthage. I am assuming it is because of the tensions of the Diadochi wars (once military would move away from deterring enemies resulting empires would be conquered). Due to the population size, Rome would have been considered a much larger threat (in comparison to Carthage). Therefore, I would like to state that the timing of these wars is quite important. If Greece was still a significant consolidated power in the Mediterranean region, Rome would have had serious issues in their conquest overall.

[@mohamedelhediissa289]

There was a very big chance like Carthage proved being able to win disadvantages battles which is a good strategy to win disadvantages wars instead of going all in But if it did oh boy would history change like there would be a very high chance of it surviving to this day since Carthage didn't really look for trouble and they were mostly focusing on trades

[@KraNisOG]

Carthage still would've been conquered by Rome, Hannibal had no way of conquering the city, and the terms placed on Rome would only strengthen Rome. Carthage was a dying state by this point, and the war with Rome would have put it under too much stress where a civil war would have occurred, like in our time-line, but more devastating.

[@thebenevolentsun6575]

Hannibal was just playing on deity difficulty. Outsmarted the AI at every point but just couldn't compete with the AI production bonuses.

[@eff_gee321]

I guess this is true about all great conquerors. Caesar attempted the impossible time and again, so did Alexander and Napoleon. But sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

[@akdele5]

If Carthaginian soldiers all had rifles, they'd win easily

[@henkstersmacro-world]

👍👍👍

[@petersclafani4370]

I dont believe so. Hannibal lack supplies and reinforcements that Carthage refused to send him.

[@alex_zetsu]

I think Carthage could have won, but factors were out of Hannibal's hands. It would be a string of unlikely events. First I'll redefine victory not as Carthage having a string of allied cities in Italy pried away from Roman influence since that wasn't going to happen, but for regaining Sardinia, which is what the Senate of Carthage really wanted out of the war. A lot of people give them flak for not supporting Hannibal, but the Romans controlled the sea, so any resupply fleets had to be fitted out for outrunning the Roman navy rather than cargo capacity. So the first thing that needs to happen is Hannibal needs to get a huge string of victories in Italia. Ok, after Cannae that's done. Next the Carthaginians needed to win the Battle of Decimomannu. The numbers don't look promising but Pyrrhus of Epirus did win against numerically superior forces even before he faced off against the Romans, so this is doable if unlikely. Third, the Roman attempt to use diplomacy to keep the Macedonians out of the war must fail. The fall of Illyrium and having to deal with all the defectors In Italia will be a huge headache for Rome. With Sardinia out of Roman control, the grain supply routes become limited and the Roman navy would be almost entirely committed just to keeping them open. While Italia will never be starved out and they could keep naval superiority, although not supremacy, they would no longer have the capability of mount naval offensives without risking their survival on a single battle and they can't even hire someone else's navy since Hannibal was busy torching a lot of their sources of wealth. Hannibal might be eventually forced to get on ships and go back to friendly territory after his army is depleted, but the Romans would probably sue for peace in 3 to 5 decades when they realize they're stuck in a stalemate.

[@spottiercamp8183]

Hamilcar (Hannibal’s dad) conquered Spain not Hannibal but good video

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of Could Carthage Have Won the Second Punic War momentum 100

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

Videos like this just shows how crazy stable the republic was compared to the empire. Rome could loose three battles in a row in the middle of their homeland and just wipe it off as if it was nothing.

[@Gabriel-ip6me]

It's not republic vs empire. It's rise vs decadency.

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

@@Gabriel-ip6me I think it due to the republic. There was no back stabing, almost no rogue generals, no random assassinations all the time, no wars over who would reign next. If the senate had just left ceaser alone everything would have been better

[@nicolasg8091]

@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 But Caesar himself was a culmination of the power struggles that were unraveling the Republic…

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

@@nicolasg8091 Yeah but Rome was pretty unlucky that they person who destroyed their republic also happened to be the second most successful General in history. In any other situation Ceaser could have been just an example as to why you must never rebel against the Republic.

[@celdur4635]

Manpower superiority is not always a decisive factor in a war, or Rome would never have fallen to the barbarians for example.

[@urban_phantom7750]

The Romans got lucky when they intercepted the message sent by Hannibal's brother, and if the two armies had linked together, the war might have dragged on. Also, the outcome of any conflict is never entirely predictable. For example, if a deadly plague like the one that was experienced during the time of Marcus Aurelius had swept through the Italian peninsula, it could have easily depopulated the empire at a critical time period, and Carthage might not have been affected and could have been provided with an opportunity to inflict defeat upon the Romans. Carthage didn't really use it's naval power effectively, despite having a huge initial advantage. Another problem was that the Romans were a culture not unlike the Spartans, and they embraced combat and militarization in every possible respect, where as the people of Carthage were mostly focused upon trade. Roman spirit was a reflection of the extreme discipline instilled in their male population at an early age, and involved the glorification of war and conquest at the expense of almost everything else. In one specific way Carthage did exceed Rome, at least in terms of cruelty - crucifixion. The Romans took this ugly and brutal method of inflicting death from their African rival. Anyway, the rest is history 😸

[@urban_phantom7750]

Also, I forgot to mention Scipio. He was the reason why Rome cleaned up in Spain, and defeated Hannibal at Zama because he studied the manner that Hannibal waged war.

[@imperialsneke8483]

Source: Imperator Rome.

[@irgendwer3610]

what about Carthage winning the first war?

[@C1914]

…on today’s episode of Whatifalthis

[@C1914]

*Not related to video* A good message in these trying times. I know it's weird to post a video instead of commenting it but it gives it a chance of spreading by the KZbin algorithm(even though the chances of that are low). kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6Ovk3yCeNeKbc0 I know it's a little cheesy but I want to do something good. I will probably have a channel about something different in the future. Spread the video (:

[@katherinegibson8791]

Well Hannibal might have won but he needed to attack Rome's food source not Rome. Then he could have sued for peace under favorable conditions

[@alpha34098]

That's what he did actually by seizing the grain stores of Cannae and blocking the South's Grain fields

[@bladeofcarella]

Roma: Reeeent! Hannibal: Not now, besides you lost. Roma: This is Roman Land, but not a free-rent Roman land! Hannibal: You'll get your rent when you'll fix these damn client states!

[@N0TYALC]

Hannibal is one of the most impressive figures of antiquity, sure, but “biggest”? I’m not so sure. To me, “biggest historical figure” means “most significant”. While Hannibal was incredibly impressive, it’s hard to see how history would’ve unfolded any differently had he never been born. He basically managed to turn a Roman victory into a hard-fought Roman victory.