The wars that made the Roman Empire | Gregory Aldrete and Lex Fridman

[@LexClips]

Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqrSh4mJnMyDoLs Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: lexfridman.com/sponsors/cv7897-sa See below for guest bio, links, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. *GUEST BIO:* Gregory Aldrete is a historian specializing in ancient Rome and military history. *CONTACT LEX:* *Feedback* - give feedback to Lex: lexfridman.com/survey *AMA* - submit questions, videos or call-in: lexfridman.com/ama *Hiring* - join our team: lexfridman.com/hiring *Other* - other ways to get in touch: lexfridman.com/contact *EPISODE LINKS:* Gregory's Website: gregorysaldrete.com/ Gregory's Books: amzn.to/3z6NiKC Gregory's Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/gregory-s-aldrete Gregory's Audible: adbl.co/4e72oP0 *SPONSORS:* To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: *LMNT:* Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to lexfridman.com/s/lmnt-cv7897-sa *Shopify:* Sell stuff online. Go to lexfridman.com/s/shopify-cv7897-sa *AG1:* All-in-one daily nutrition drinks. Go to lexfridman.com/s/ag1-cv7897-sa *BetterHelp:* Online therapy and counseling. Go to lexfridman.com/s/betterhelp-cv7897-sa *ExpressVPN:* Fast & secure VPN. Go to lexfridman.com/s/expressvpn-cv7897-sa *PODCAST LINKS:* - Podcast Website: lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: kzbin.info/aero/PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: kzbin.info *SOCIAL LINKS:* - X: x.com/lexfridman - Instagram: instagram.com/lexfridman - TikTok: tiktok.com/@lexfridman - LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: facebook.com/lexfridman - Patreon: patreon.com/lexfridman - Telegram: t.me/lexfridma - Reddit: reddit.com/r/lexfridman

[@julieta_solayao]

Juliet is my name.. ICARUS#20

[@julieta_solayao]

Julieta Napaño Cruz Tolibas Solayao❤❤❤ #MyIDOL Podcast Host

[@frethero19]

"How often do you think about the Roman empire?" Yes

[@edricdayne3571]

It pisses me off how few Historians give Scipio any credit. "Hannibal's men were old by this time" Yeah that's why they're called veterans. Caesar's troops were almost in Gaul for the same length of time as Hannibal was in Italy, that didn't stop their old asses from mopping the floor with Pompey. "Scipio had all the advantages" They always makes it sound as if Scipio had an army running around with AR 15s and grenade launchers. Scipio was outnumbered and fighting an enemy on their home soil, An enemy led by the most feared general since Alexander, leading an army comprised of veterans who had been killing Romans when Scipio was still wearing the Toga praetexta and he had all the advantages???

[@monkemode8128]

Yeah, the men were old, but those old men had how many years of fighting experience?

[@kfc2180]

And when they say old they dont mean 95 year olds with walkers charging into battle haha, I imagine them to be like a 45 year old farmer today, he aint winning no 100m dash but you would not want to go hand to hand with him and his tools.

[@65stang98]

exactly. Men that are soldiers that live to be old are not to be messed with.

[@alexfoote8518]

old men don't fight wars

[@waynewilliams2563]

The book "Hannibal" by Patrick Hunt paints a different picture. According to him, there were a lot of inexperienced troops in Hannibal's army by this time. He met with Scipio before the battle to try to come to an agreement because he didn't think the new soldiers could handle their adversaries (according to Hunt).

[@AVFromgaming]

Scipio was undefeated and one of the top 2 Roman Commanders of all time that held the rank of Imperator when at war.

[@careyfreeman5056]

No. 1 in my book. It's just that historians don't trust the story because it's simply too good (almost mythical) to be true. That from my professor who is often credited with finding the site where his father and uncle were killed.

[@charleslamb5435]

His conversation with Hannibal was epic

[@eddievangundy4510]

Well Hannibal the more impressive under the circumstances. It is obvious that Rome had the material and population advantages.

[@gg_plays7647]

every general held the title imperator genius

[@Napkinatorz]

This guy is really interesting to listen to! Very knowledgeable and great story teller

[@davidnguyen4353]

history teller* . It is based on real history.

[@AmateurPlays]

@@davidnguyen4353 "Story teller" can also refer to true stories

[@noone3367]

I'm Tunisian, I can never get enough of the Punic wars, love Italy and the Italians tho

[@Justvibes82]

thanks for clarifying you dont hold a grudge two thousands years later

[@noone3367]

@@Justvibes82 No I don't lol But we had many other wars during that 2000 years

[@audit_the_fed]

@@noone3367”we”?

[@noone3367]

@@audit_the_fed yeah, does that confuses you?

[@audit_the_fed]

@@noone3367 Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians who were spread from the Levant. After the Punic wars, the survivors were enslaved and shipped to the empire’s far corners. But if modern day Tunisians want to claim the same ancestry, then let em I guess

[@Magplar]

I love listening to Gregory's passion for Rome. I have never seen him before this podcast which is such a shame. He's great!

[@EugeneHerbsman]

Cant stop watching these clips. So glad to see you continue to tackle history on your platform. You're the perfect person to question historians that gets answers we can all digest.

[@rachidbenyedder8996]

Something he forgot to mention about the military tactics used in Cannae, was that contingents of Libyans, Hannibal’s best infantry, were place on the sides, hidden by the smoke raised during the battle, waiting for the Roman legions to push the frontline and the cavalry to come back to attack. He often capitalised on the surprise effect using terrain to his advantage to maintain initiative but it wasn’t enough, due mostly to lack of support from Carthage Senat fearing his influence, and as Maharbal said "You know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it."

[@davidwells4903]

Correct re: ambush. Hannibal loved the surprise.

[@davidwells4903]

Hannibal, Alexander, and Sun Tzu, the 3 great ancient generals and who literally wrote the playbook for large scale combat. They still use maneuvers invented by those 3 to this day, effectively. During Desert Storm, Gen Schwartzkopf gave full credit to using Alexander's flank maneuver to defeat one of the largest armies on earth (6th) with the largest tank army. Using Alexander (and having some good armored vehicles) Gen S didn't lose a single tank to enemy fire. Sometimes the old ways are still the best.

[@MrSeidurman]

​@@davidwells4903 comparing Alexander the Great battling with the largest empire of its time with American inadequate army beating third world armies..... dude

[@agmcroom2374]

Always a Mr know it all in comment section

[@Ollie1807]

That quote from Maharbal is almost certainly just made up fiction from Livy

[@archiethebold2000]

*You forgot to mention probably a battle MORE important than Zama, that’s the battle of METAURUS, where Hannibal’s brother was captured and Killed by the two Roman Legions, and his Head was thrown in Hannibal’s tent.*

[@riddell74]

Hannibal is an amazing military mind. But he also fell victim to the weather of the geography losing half his numbers and most of his elephants going through the Alps. Napoleon underestimated the winter in Russia. Some of the greatest foiled by the elements and geography.

[@LiberRaider]

Totally. Interesting that both of them we born in the western Mediterranean too. Makes you wonder if a life in that climate makes it harder to imagine just how deadly the cold can be.

[@tristancombes9658]

Didn’t help he wasn’t fully supported by Carthage. It was seen more as a “Barca family war” on Rome by some carthaginians, and they just didn’t have that dawg in them like he did

[@Ollie1807]

I mean... Hannibal *knew* that there would be heavy losses when crossing the Alps. He recovered his army because he beat the Romans at Ticinus and Trebia which meant that the northern Gallic tribes that had been conquered by the Romans not too long ago switched to his side.

[@Dru517]

He messed up by not attacking Rome. He never went to Rome. He never tried to capture the city. He had no plan. He had no support. He had no money. It was just a matter of Time.

[@eliwerner2951]

⁠@@Dru517he had a plan, he just didn’t have the ability to attack Rome. The city was way too big and way too strong, there was no way he could have put it to siege without massive support from the Senate

[@strider-pubgmobile757]

The victory from the terrible odds that Hannibal was facing is by far the most impressive of any general in history and yet he is the least known in modern culture. I wonder why

[@CamBoone]

Because history is written by the victors, and Rome outlasted Carthage

[@HorFell]

I'd argue he isn't the least known. Almost anyone with a coursery knowledge of history knows who he is. Its just not recent enough to us today and ultimately he lost.

[@pasofino9583]

Maybe because Carthage don’t exist

[@Theimperialone-o2g]

​@@pasofino9583huh?

[@Captain_Insano_nomercy]

All history fans pretty much worship him and love Carthage. Rome total war fans love using them to destroy the Romans But the Phoenicians were generally seen as "other" to western powers like Greeks and Romans, hence why we don't sing their praises

[@Nvr_Lucky_Rubber_Ducky]

Hannibal knew the enemy better than they knew him. He would know if an enemy general had a temper or if he was being goaded by the senate to do something. He would exploit this time and again to make a battle on his terms

[@fuferito]

The book, _The Ghosts of Cannae_ by Robert L. Connelly is a great take on Hannibal's exploits, but also Scipio's (and Rome's) ability to learn from mistakes and redeem themselves from catastrophe represented by the surviving veterans of Cannae, whom Scipio rescues from disgrace years later into the Roman lines and who prove their worth against Hannibal finally, once more, at Zama in Africa.

[@careyfreeman5056]

New Carthage is the Midway of the 2nd Punic War. Completely flips the script in 2 days and with tactics that reminded me of things like Inchon.

[@aadityapratap007]

Besides, there are Gallic Wars (58-50 BCE)Macedonian Wars (214-148 BCE)Dacian Wars (101-106 CE) and others that shaped the empire.

[@nishensemble]

I mean and Arausio and the Marian Reforms, etc etc. But he’s giving an overview.

[@robertgiardino3314]

Oversimplified does fantastic breakdown of the Punic wars

[@Ollie1807]

If you're looking for KZbin documentaries about the 2nd Punic War i'd recommend checking out @HistoryMarche videos. They're excellent

[@CraveSnowForGold]

This guy is amazing fr fr

[@fijimanjim]

Great guest and great interview, Lex!

[@mikerichards5610]

I love this history. SPQR!!

[@eric8381]

Wouldn't you say Carthage had a head start being they were a colony of Phoenicia?

[@fuferito]

Arguably, Rome was an Etruscan colony or trading outpost.

[@Captain_Insano_nomercy]

Yeah, Rome was heavily influenced by the Etruscans

[@alcaponescpa]

Carthage only mainly took the oligarchs from Phoenicia, which turned out not to be sustainable.

[@BWhit-ni5uc]

Carthage was exploring west Africa an the Albion islands in the Atlantic when Rome was still exploring the Tiber.

[@BenEnlet29]

Im surprised Hannibal stayed in italy for so long without trying to acutally conquor the major cities and integrate more men into his army

[@airborngrmp1]

The Somme 1916, the British lose 60,000 casualties (about 19,000 dead) in a day/morning. The Battle of Antietam sees about 19,000 casualties (about 5,000 dead - counting both sides) in a day, making it the bloodiest day in American history. The Carthaginians manually slaughtered about 60,000 Roman legionnaires in a day during a pitched battle in an open field. After the Battles for Lake Trasimene and the Trebia were both also lost decisively by the Romans, leaving about one quarter of all Roman contemporary manpower dead. That's not even the unbelievable part - the Romans won that War, and later destroyed the city of Carthage so thoroughly that in the 20th century "Carthaginian Peace" was a term used to describe initial postwar plans for the German Reich during the Second World War.

[@HUMANEXCELLENCE210]

Hannibel deserves an epic movie..

[@edupbeat]

Danny Glover has had a script floating around Hollywood for years but for whatever reasons, it’s never gotten green lit. Heard it’s a good script too..

[@samdefore2692]

Supposedly there is movie being made on streaming site with Denzil Washington as Hannibal.. not only is he too old he is the wrong race. Seriously why it ok for blacks to culture appropriate a Mediterranean culture that wasn’t sub-Saharan African which is what blacks are .

[@morgant.dulaman8733]

I don't know if it's quite fair to say Hannibal being of Carthage was just luck. His father, the man who trained him as a general, had spent years fighting the Romans in Sicily, and was one of Carthage's more successful generals in that theatre. As such, he would have picked up on the legions' strengths and weaknesses, while some of the naval battles of the First Punic War suggest the flanking maneuver's Hannibal favored where already present as a naval tactic: he just adapted them to land battles, possibly also drawing lessons from that time a Spartan mercenary helped the Carthaginians save their city in the same war by using the calvary to flank Regulus' troops. Mind, I'm not trying to detract from Hannibal's brilliance. I just think it's worth noting that the foundations where there for him to work with, and he used them expertly.

[@Josh-gy8zi]

Roman history is the worlds "Godfather"(The movies) Its said that there is an answer for every problem a man will face in life in the movie "The Godfather" Roman's loved to write everything down,in detail. Any situation that would come up in a current government. Any question if an approach towards something would be correct. The Roman's probably faced it , tried it, succeeded at it, failed at it and wrote about it.

[@jseaman256]

I'm wondering if Gregory Aldrete could comment on whether Julius Caesar could beat Hannibal during the 12 years he's in Italy.

[@FragLord]

The first map shown isn't entirely correct. That is the map AFTER the first punic war. Corsica, Sicily and most of eastern spain is then Carthiginian. Most of those territories they lost to Rome or became independent after the first Punic war. Hannibal is the second Punic war. Also Rome wasn't interested at all in Seguntum. But they had a defensive alliance with Rome. So when Carthage attacked Seguntum, they left Rome no choice but to retaliate. The 3th punic war was hardly a war at all, it was a one sided massacre of the city and destruction of the entire area. He also glossed over the most important thing about Zama and it's where Scipio basically used Hannibal's tactics against him. He knew that Hannibal's playbook was to win the cavalry fight and then make them charge in the back of the enemy. That's why Scipio made sure to have the better and larger cavalry and then used that very tactic on Hannibal, winning the day. I mean that's what great generals do. Patton didn't invent the blitzkrieg, but he learned from it, adapted it and used the same tactic when necessary. Hannibal didn't invent envelopment or even perfected it. It's an ancient tactic even used by cavemen to hunt large prey. So his take is a bit nonsense to be honest. The cavalry was and has been many times the Achilles heel of the empire. Even centuries later, Caesar had to rely mostly upon Germanic and Gaulish cavalry, just because Romans didn't care cavalry. When the Huns came, they had great trouble again dealing with their cavalry shock tactics. The eastern roman empire learned those lessons and they kind of had to, since they would be fighting Turkic and Mongol tribes everywhere.

[@Ollie1807]

You mostly speak well but couple of things. 1. Rome didn't gain anything by creating a defense pact with Saguntum, true, but you should also mention how that deal was a direct violation of the territory limit made just some years prior. What I'm trying to say is, the Romans knew what they were doing. You say Rome had no but to retaliate? Same goes for Carthage. 2. Hannibal very much knew of the superior enemy cavalry at Zama, most notably Masinissa. It was Hannibal's strategy to lure the enemy cavalry away from the battlefield for long enough time so that he could deal a decisive blow with his most experienced Carthaginian troops (this would take time since he needed to weaken the Roman legions first with his weaker troops, he tried to sped up that process with the elephants charge which didn't quite work). In the end, the strategy failed because his own cavalry had routed too early and Masinissa returned to the field in the nick of time. Scipio did well to recruit Masinissa's Numidian cavalry earlier in Africa, but Masinissa joined because he knew which way the wind was blowing. The war was already over and a Carthaginian victory at Zama would've only bought more favorable peace terms. Both Polybius and even Livy agree that with the troops that he had, and in short-notice, Hannibal did everything he could to win at Zama.

[@FragLord]

@@Ollie1807 1) Yeah indeed it goes both ways. But it was Carthage's decision to attack, that left Rome with a choice. Not the other way around. And there was still plenty of Spain and Africa left to conquer. They chose to attack an ally of Rome. And the prideful Romans had to choose between defend our ally or not. Which is not much of a choice at all, especially from the Roman pov. Rome broke the treaty several times. Corsica wasn't part of the peace deal initially. In the subsequent peace treaty in 241 BC between the Romans and the defeated Carthaginians, there was no indication that Corsica or Sardinia would pass into the Roman sphere of influence. But, since the Carthaginians were occupied with the Mercenary War, they had no ability to defend them, even when the unrest spread to the nominally Carthaginian island of Sardinia. In the end, the Romans retained both islands. It is not entirely clear whether this control began in 241 BC, but it is certain that the consul for 238/7, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, expanded their dominion over both Corsica and Sardinia, at least in theory. Matter of fact, Rome broke treaties whenever it suited them. Whenever someone else did it, they saw it as a just cause of war. Romans were immensely hypocrite when it came to those things... The fact that Carthage didn't reinforce their position is their own fault and mistake. So that made it only easier for them to be a bigus dickus. It's a bit like Russia today. Where we let them go ahead with small violations, but at the end of the day we were sending them the wrong message... 2) Correct, it would always have been a tough fight for Carthage. Yet the fact that they were in this predicament is because of Hannibal's mistake of not attacking Rome directly. He roamed around in Italy for years, thinking that military success on the battlefield would be enough to cave the Romans. And that was a capital mistake. Looking at Caesar, which was in a the same predicament sort or less. What did he do? He kind of marched straight to Rome and what did the senate do? Abandon the city... Cartage made it hard on themselves by not capitalizing on their massive successes on the battlefield. Also the Carthaginian nobels didn't help Hannibal much either and their other allies, like the Macedonians weren't that big of a help either. Cartage didn't lose the war at Zama, they lost the war in Italy. Scipio, like most great generals in history, adapted to the strategies of the enemy. And like I said before, Rome always had trouble with quality cavalry or cavalry in great numbers. All empires, kingdoms and invasions they struggled with were almost all (nomadic) horse people. Scythians, Mongols, Huns, Turkic tribes, Parthians and many many more staved off the empire thanks to their superior cavalry. My reply was mostly directed towards the fact that he said that Hannibal "invented" the double envelopment, which is entirely false... And the Punic war isn't just studied because of it. Scipio and the Fabian strategy are equal reasons why that war is studied until this day...

[@Ollie1807]

@@FragLord I mean that's fair to say. Although I think we do also need to look at the reasons why Hannibal did not march on Rome directly. A) We can agree that the only time it would've actually been feasible and could've won the war was after Lake Trasimene. - Entire Roman army destroyed. - Consul killed. - Other Roman army in the rear with its cavalry destroyed. - Only 10 days march away from Rome. - Perfect strategically and tactically. Regarding Cannae, it wouldn't have been as feasibly. They were way too far away from Rome, the men were exhausted, and Rome would've had time to strengthen its garrison, bring troops back from Spain, and levy new armies. Just wasn't the perfect time like Lake Trasimene was. Also, Hannibal would've also acted on the perception that *surely* the Romans would now accept the peace delegations. But why didn't he attack after *Lake Trasimene* ? B) I guess we have to look at these things • Lack of coordination with the Carthaginian fleet. • Prolonged siege would've been an issue for the army with its mobile troops, Gallic allies, lack of siege equipment and engineers, and Hannibal might've had the terrible siege of Saguntum still in mind. - Might have been acting on imperfect information regarding the location and size of other Roman armies in the area + its garrison. - Remaining static outside of Rome would've led to dessertion, disease, and the fear of getting sandwiched by the Romans. Hannibal depended on maneuverability and ability to defeat the Romans on the field. - Hellenistic ideology, and Hannibal probably didn't yet have the understanding of Rome's ideology. All-in-all, not marching on Rome after Lake Trasimene *was* a missed opportunity, both strategically and tactically. However, I don't think that is the reason they ultimately lost the war, which imo, wasn't down to Hannibal's ineffectiveness.

[@FragLord]

@@Ollie1807 Well its a bit like football. If you don't score or even try to score, you can't win either... Then the best you can have is a tie. Remember I know very well that i'm talking from hindsight. But that's what studying history is all about... Hannibal had sound reasons not to attack, but he overestimated them all. Just like Dunkirk, the Germans didn't realize how beaten the English and French were. And out of fear of a counter-attack and stretched lines. They waited. Sound for the knowledge they had. In hindsight, it was a capital mistake... We know this now, he didn't. But that gives us the position to judge it, wither it was right, smart or not... Caesar had a fraction of the forces of Hannibal and the Senate straight up abandoned the city. Imagine a foreign army that destroyed the largest Roman force ever assembled in it's history is sieging down or marching to your capital. That would've toppled most empires. It would've been utter chaos, not to mention that the people in Rome might not have stood behind the Senate at all. Not to mention that Rome wasn't that large back then either. There weren't entire theatres where they could hide or restart the fight like the Senate vs Caesar. I think not marching on Rome, heck not even threatening the city was a HUGE mistake. Not to mention, without an Roman army present in the city or the countryside. NOTHING would stop Hannibal of living off the land for an extended period of time. Caesar went to Britain, a region he knew close to nothing about and he managed to survive mostly by scouting and foraging. Also the Spanish legions couldn't abandon Spain either. They were fighting Carthage there too, taking away those legions would've brought all the Carthaginian forces straight to Hannibal. And it's thanks to the successes of the Romans in Spain that it all came crashing down for Hannibal. Rome did the same thing that the allies did to Napoleon. Simply don't fight him, but fight their forces everywhere else. Because Hannibal can only lead 1 army in 1 theatre. Hannibal occupied Northern Italy for 15!!!! years... I mean how much time do you need to create supply lines... He simply didn't capitalize on the success on the battlefield. There is 0 doubt in my mind if he would've marched on Rome, we would not have this conversation. The state was decapitated and the army destroyed. What more do you want/need? Not to mention that Rome was not that fortified at this point in history. The city was also hardly prepared for a siege too. Sure we know these things in hindsight. But after taking sooooo much risks and them paying out each and every time and after ALL that success, to not march on Rome. Is in hindsight a capital mistake. We can disagree on this and that's ok. Rome won because it adapted and because they were flexible. Hannibal had one strategy and as soon as the Romans changed things up, he didn't know how to counter it. He NEVER expected the Romans to go scorched earth on him and that was only possible because he let the war slip into a stalemate. In English we say, you have to strike the Iron when it's hot. And the iron was never hotter for Rome than in ANY point in history. So yeah, I'm still behind the decision that it was a capital mistake not to march south. It is his Hitler at Dunkirk moment...

[@Ollie1807]

@@FragLord You're kind of forgetting the fact that Hannibal's strategy was still extremely solid, and against literally any other enemy in the world at that time, or maybe even any time, he would've won the war after Cannae regardless. Rome just was that fucking guy.

[@peterlynchchannel]

During the years Hannibal was in Italy after Cannae there were several more battles and the Romans suffered some huge losses. Nothing like Cannae, but still significant. Hannibal did also succeed in raising a lot of Italian troops.

[@benjaminassveikata9825]

Why did several major losses in battle didn’t end Rome, but the Battle of Zama ended Carthage?

[@ChristianAuditore14]

Because rome had more men

[@john-j7e7e]

my questions is why would anyone think hannibal can sack rome after cannae? it took him like 8 months to take saguntum with 90plus k army. he had half that after cannae. punic wars are interesting

[@ka-boom2083]

Hannibal survived the battle of Zama in North Africa, his until-that-point undefeated soldiers were old and slaughtered. He escaped east, all the way to modern day Libya, where he pled to the Libyan court to provide him safe refuge, but the Libya court captured him and planned to turn him over to Rome as a gift… while in prison, Hannibal drank poison and died. His last words written in a death note were: “Let us now relieve the Romans of their fears by the death of a feeble old man”. He was 66.

[@goldwold]

Gregory Aldrete rules!

[@kurtmiller1689]

Ya'll just forget about Fabius?

[@imagineparadisecostaricadi5134]

Everyone should know the history of the Punic wars

[@majorquimby]

I like this guy but I don't think Hannibal invented going around both sides in a battle.

[@aakashboom]

Hannibal's allies numidians changed sides to Rome he didn't tell that

[@DeathBySploot]

Who you taking if they meet in their prime and under best circumstances for both Hannibal Barca or Julius Cesar?

[@johndoe-fq7ez]

Love this nerdy history shit

[@SuperCiacho0]

Hannibal attacked an Italian peninsula or Italia, but not an "Italy". There was no such a thing back then.

[@wilsontheconqueror8101]

Gettysburg deaths 15000? I thought it was 50,000?

[@Ollie1807]

Death toll and casualties (death, missing, wounded) are different things

[@jseaman256]

hannibal was viewed as unbeatable. Could Julius Caesar have beaten Hannibal in open battle

[@careyfreeman5056]

Everything you know about Hannibal comes from the Romans. Always keep that in mind. Scipio beat him in open battle and actually schooled him in terms of overall strategy. Hannibal spent over a decade in Italy and didn't gain a single significant ally. Scipio turns over half Carthage's Spanish allies in a matter of a week and even woos 1/2 of the game-changing Numidian cavalry to Rome.

[@Ollie1807]

Put Julius Caesar at Cannae and the result wouldn't change. Caesar was a master Roman military textbook user and he would've been caught the same way Varro and Paullus was. The problem was the Roman mindset and strategy of simplistic and "honorable" battles where the best troops fight the enemy best troops in a head-on melee and the victor is decided by that. Hannibal changed the game.

[@Ollie1807]

@@careyfreeman5056 Lie. And without context. A) The various Spanish tribes had been only recently conquered by Carthage (Hamilcar Barca) over a period of 25 years, while the central and southern Italians had been allied to Rome for more than just a few decades, some for centuries. You can't compare the two scenarios. Scipio was brilliant no doubt, but Hannibal faced cemented Roman allies compared to their own more fragile Spanish allies. B) What do you mean Hannibal didn't gain a single significant ally? That's just a blatant lie. First off, he turned Rome's recently conquered Gallic allies against her by couple quick victories in 218 BC (granted this is similar to Scipio's victories in Spain). But he also turned *most* of Rome's southern allies against it, and the ones who didn't turn they took by sieges. Thus, Hannibal and Carthage basically dominated southern Italy and all its major port cities. The most notable city that joined Hannibal's side was in fact Rome's 2nd biggest city, Capua. Regarding external allies, Hannibal managed to gain those too by diplomacy. Philip IV of Macedonia joined the Carthaginian cause, aswell as Hierenomys of Syracuse. Hannibal had made allies in Sardinia, Sicily, Macedonia, and Greece.

[@careyfreeman5056]

@@Ollie1807 Thanks for illustrating in that first paragraph why he was Scipio's inferior and a strategic moron. Maybe scout better (like Scipio did). Maybe KNOW YOUR ENEMY. You are correct, the alliances in Italy weren't purely coercive and tended to benefit the allies too, which is why they flipped Capua and a couple others, while the rest of the towns stayed allied to Rome or just flip flopped based on who's armies were closer. Again, complete strategic failure (and we won't bring up throwing away 1/2 an army that took a decade to build on some ham-handed trip through the Alps). Phillip? Think he wishes he stayed out of it? (LOL, I can't believe you brought up Philip). Lastly, he never made an "ally" as consequential as Massinissa. Game over!!! Collect your parting gifts at the door.

[@Ollie1807]

@@careyfreeman5056 You're actually dumb wow.

[@tuattiuri]

The Romans used maniples, not phalanxes during the Punic wars

[@luigiistratescu2756]

People don't understand that the descendants of the Romans are the Northern Italians and Romanians. Romania means "from Rome". We're a Roman colony, and we settled in that part of Eastern Europe after the conquest of Dacia. Romanians have NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with Dacians. Our tongue is a Latin tongue. In contrast, the Southern Italians are GREEK in origin. There's a lot of nuance here and there that I just can't afford to explain in this short comment, but the truth is that today's generation is superficially educated based on Wikipedia articles. I, on the other hand, truly wanted to know the truth about my origins and the history of this world, so I studied the ancients and I read the Universal History volumes written during the British Empire, where many affirm that indeed the Romanians are but a colony of the ancient Romans who settled in Eastern Europe. Then slowly the Roman Empire changed leadership and became The Holy Roman Empire. By this time the Germans had taken over and really they have been the head, energy and soul of Europe pretty much from the Middle Ages up until now. The French and Scandinavians are TOTALLY DIFFERENT and they have nothing to do with what I'm saying. Then of course, the 6th century AD is marked by the arrival of Slavic people into Europe.

[@seanskywalka5172]

Where did the Slavic ppl come from in 6 century AD? And isnt it possible that the Romanians are a mix of ethncities from the Roman Empire that mixed with the Dacians? Or even majority Dacians mixed with a minority Roman invading population?

[@luigiistratescu2756]

@@seanskywalka5172 no, there are very few, VERY VERY FEW CASES IN HISTORY where people are mixing. And even if they mixed, they would retain their own language. Look at northern Italians and Romanians, facial traits etc and language. SO SO SIMILAR. Dacians were blondes and blue eyed and tall. They are the ancestors of the Scandinavian peoples. Sweden, etc. Look at the map, Dacia was where Romania was today and they were also in Denmark. Getae/Goths are one and the same people! I can give you the quote from the book but I’m lazy right now but it explains how they migrated from Sweden to what we know today as Romania. The Slavs came through the Caucasus and turned left into Europe. Bro, read An Universal History. It has 20 volumes. You will find your answers there.

[@nerminsnowhuseinbasic9340]

​@@luigiistratescu2756People in your opinion don't mix yet people in Serbia and in Turkey look the same.

[@TP-gx8qs]

​@@luigiistratescu2756 wrong. With a few clicks you can check haplogroups of Romania.

[@lukeforks9134]

Rome: Hard times make hard men. Greece: Easy times make weak men. Middle East: Hard times make hard men. The West: Easy times make weak men.

[@WHALEBOY777]

The late great Hannibal Barca

[@mike4526]

Big guy, strong guy, had tears in his eyes when he was going to have a friend for lunch

[@weisthor0815]

the old carthaginians have very little in common with modern tunesians, in culture and dna.

[@TheStarwar5]

I’m sorry but the point of the second Punic war was not to “see who got Saguntum”. That is not just a correct reading of that event.

[@elvisrodriguez2935]

The reason rome survived was because Carthage politicians were nore focused on making money

[@LorolinAstori]

Did this historian ever hear of the Silver Shields?

[@TheColombiano89]

Completely overlooks the Persians, which captured Roman Emperors in battle 😅

[@SH3V3K_14]

Cannae is pronounced "Ka-nai", not "Kay-Nay".

[@callum4450]

Sucks he glossed over the actual unification of Roman Italy it wasn't all Italians on the peninsula there were tons of Greek colonists who end up getting Pyrrhus of Epirus to lead a coalition of Greek colonies and an army from Epirus with veterans from the Diadochii wars along with war elephants from Egypt. He ends up losing and flees back to Epirus but puts up a hell of a fight and his name is where Pyrrhic Victory comes from.

[@thelonewolf1894]

aeternum et semper.

[@THCWorldWide]

This expert on Rome looks lioe Tony Soprano.

[@claymang]

Cannae isn't just fascinating because Hannibal (once again!) whups Rome's butt brilliantly.. but.. ~60,000 soldiers being literally slaughtered in an afternoon... That's.. a lot of fuckin work. Like, the sheer amount of manual labor required to simply execute that many people in an afternoon - but these guys were armed and desperate... The type of blood lust that would require... GEEZZZZ

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Someone should figure out why Rome failed in education, teaching Latin & Culture.

[@rafaelborrego36]

Failed?? Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese Latin derivative languages, Roman Law, Roman Architecture?????

[@careyfreeman5056]

Meanwhile, Scipio accomplishes more in his first 2 weeks in Spain than Hannibal does in over a decade in Italy. Hannibal: Tactical genius. Strategic and Political moron. Scipio had all 3 and that's why he's the greatest Roman ever.

[@Comradcommodore]

As someone who loves history I absolutely hate that Scipio is largely unknown. His story is insane and as you said, he basically does everything Hannibal does but better. If Hollywood was trustworthy these days I'd love a 2 part movie on Scipio

[@careyfreeman5056]

@@Comradcommodore or a miniseries. There's so many in history. Take William the Conquerer. It's like Hollywood fiction.

[@Ollie1807]

You my friend should study more instead of spreading lies and Roman propaganda.

[@careyfreeman5056]

@@Ollie1807 And you shouldn't attach so much of your personal pride to events - and people - that happened over 2 millennia ago. Especially when all of the evidence you have about that person comes from the people you don't like in the story. They sold up Hannibal for a reason. Because defeating the "greatest ever" makes Rome look better.

[@Ollie1807]

@@careyfreeman5056 I will when somebody spreads falsely interpreted information to others who don't know about the subject. And now you're even just making things up in your head.

[@blablabla13344]

Hannibal MVP

[@samdefore2692]

He seems biased against Rome,….. roaming Italy for 12 years, defeating his main objective for being in Italy, stopping Rome for raising armies doesn’t seem like he wanted to fight Rome again either. Why didn’t he attack the capital, sack it and take over. …….. “ The surname Aldrete has multiple origins, including Anglo-Saxon and Galician and Portuguese:” … hmmm

[@cazhgacel]

Joe Rogan was here

[@pikiwiki]

this is the most pithy description of the Punic wars I've ever listened to

[@tajabdullah.malaysia]

Russian was doing this

[@keysersoze9592]

Oversimplified did it better.

[@termita358]

How is Hannibal a great general. He won battles but lost the war and his people were erased from the map (as it should be😂) how is that a great general???? Scipio is 1000 times a better commarder ans strategist. This guy says some crap i cant belive it. 😮😮😮

[@maaxx441]

Rome pulled every resource it had to defeat him, while he did not even have the support of Carthage on top of that he was partially blind from his eye infection, so yeaah it was truly an empire against a general so in the end he lost what a shocker! fast forward...his last words before he killed himself to avoid being a captive to the Roman emp were : "Let us now relieve the Romans of their fears by the death of a freeble old man" he was 66! thats why most historians dont give much credit to scipio...simply Hannibal Barca was far more greater than him on all levels...

[@UpstateGardening]

Just watch OverSimplified