Historian Reacts - The Battle of Cannae (216 B.C.E.) by Historia Civilis

[@RyanPetersonReacts]

Links: Twitch: www.twitch.tv/ryanpeteslive Wishlist: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/24FOSUMMSNUJW?ref_=wl_share Gaming Channel: kzbin.info/door/q93DC9Jrmz_tQY9jakgouA Main Channel: kzbin.info/door/A0d4wih_ecEWiLjy0Ws4Tg

[@shanenolan8252]

I think that other devastating battle might be adriaople. A massive Roman army plus the emperor died with the army . Or crassis with his army in Persia. Similar name to this battle.canie instead or carrea

[@randomperson6988]

1/3 of senators fought and 2/3 sent relatives to fight in that army

[@untruelie2640]

To be fair, Hannibal was a master of tactical and operational warfare, but his weakness was strategy. He failed to capitalize on his victories and didn't manage to secure a stable base of power in Italy. In the end, the Romans beat him strategically - he had to return to Carthage because Scipio Africanus threatened the city itself.

[@jejeakle]

He never got the support he needed. He always felt he needed more men and resources in order to storm rome

[@untruelie2640]

@@jejeakle Some historians say that he failed to use his victory at Cannae when the Romans were at their weakest point. But perhaps this entire line of thinking was the mistake. It wasn't about taking Rome, it was about isolating the Romans from their allies and resources. I mean, what did he achieve in all those years in Italy? Hannibal's army went from one point to the other, plundering everything in it's path, while the Romans cleaned up behind him and conquered Carthage's territories and allies in Hispania until the city had lost its resources and was threatened itself. Hannibal on the other hand never managed to achieve any strategic goals in Italy despite beating almost every roman army he encountered.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@untruelie2640 The entire point of Hannibal’s campaign was to get enough of Rome’s allies to defect that he could force the issue, winning battles was only ever the means to that. The problem wasn’t that he didn’t have a viable long-term strategy going in, the problem was that the Romans successfully countered his long-term strategy.

[@Sev7_omar]

Guys I recommend to watch the battle of Cannae at historymarche , the maps are breath taking and so many details about every battle👌

[@shanenolan8252]

I read hannibal position had more to do with convincing his men that his plan would work so he took the most dangerous position which also allowed him better communication or command and control

[@jordangalvis9695]

The other battle that comes to mind is Teutoburg Forest. Easily one of the worst in Roman History

[@RyanPetersonReacts]

I would definitely place that in the top 10. I don't think I'd give it top 5 though

[@josephguillerey4391]

i think the only one i'd place worse than cannae would be Adrianople

[@alekisighl7599]

Not really? 22,000 soldiers was nothing for the Romans. The Cimbri and the Teutones did much worse. Although it did stop the Romans at the Rhine.

[@xenotypos]

What you says about the anglo-saxons and the basic shield walls is interesting, because thanks to the 100 Years War we often have the opposite view (not the same era at all admittedly). Actually, when I heard the narrator saying that the (early) Romans hated trickery, it reminded me how the French viewed the English "shameful way of fighting" in the 100 Years War. It wasn't during the whole war of course, but at least at first it felt like the French often just wanted that honest, frontal battle, while England would just do anything as long as it works. While writing that comment actually, I realized there are some funny parallels between the 2nd Punic War and the 100 Years War, Hannibal/England winning some iconic battles because of innovative strategies, but losing the war because in the long term Rome/France had more ressources and adapted. I'm simplifying, Rome probably won mainly because they were politically far more sturdy than Carthage.

[@shanenolan8252]

I remember the roman roman commander didn't suffer any career consequences from this defeat, he used a classic roman strategy and it was considered bold a brave . Usually you would kill yourself but it was considered an honorable defeat apparently

[@shanenolan8252]

The roman commander varus , one of his descendants had a military disaster himself the varian disaster or the battle of teutoberg Forrest in Augustus period

[@alekisighl7599]

I think the guy is talking about the Cimbri and Teutones wars. Around 80,000 - 100,000 Romans died.

[@shanenolan8252]

The consuls had command on alternative days one didn't want to fight this battle at all . He had avoided the battle in previous days

[@shanenolan8252]

I read the american general in command of first gulf war based his winning strategy on this battle. I remember his name but cant spell it .

[@alin-razvanpodasca393]

I very much appreciate that you don't waste a whole minute or more reminding us, in every video, over and over again, to like, subscribe, support on Patreon and so on. Of course, I understand the motivations of those that do demand repeatedly those things, it's just nice to have a more "fresh" and disinterested attitude like yours once in a while.

[@shanenolan8252]

Oh another interesting fact , carre was the site of the military grain supply reserve. The Romans had been denying hannibal the battle he wanted but the grain was a stratigic resource and it feed hannibal's army for a long time . I believe the amount of Roman casualties helped kind they lost so many soldiers that a food crisis was prevented. From losing that grain .

[@DraconimLt]

I watched a documentary that said it was the consul who didn't want the battle that was killed, and the one who did want the battle was the one who survived. If thats true I think its awfully unfair don't you?

[@thatlawnmowerguy9]

Why are you so awesome??