Unironically? Lack of support from the short sighted carthaginian ruling class. If those idiots had been as single minded conquerors as the romans instead of just uppity merchants, western history may have been killed in the crib.
Luckily for us, Rome won and here we are.
It's a tale as old as time: people that are poorer and less succesful than us are uncivilized barbarians, people that are richer and more succesful are snivelling, weak cowards.
unlikely they ever would have been able to kill off Rome, the issue Carthage had with its armies compared to the Romans is how much harder it was to build an army in Carthage compared to Rome. Carthages armies were multiethnic and more importantly multilingual and a significant amount of time spent building those armies was spent acclimating them to Carthages leadership structure and teaching them how to actually speak their language and understanding their orders. Rome did not have as much of an issue with their fellow Italians client states/allies. Another flaw with Carthages military is over reliance on mercenaries which was a constant threat in Carthage or abroad if they couldnt pay for their services so in general Carthages armies were less loyal unless you did have someone like Hannibal at the helm.
Rome pretty much was the opposite of Carthages military in many ways, they had very loyal troops as all of them were levies or volunteers. the armies were much more organized both in make up and logistics compared to Carthage who pretty much used what they had available from there various clients allies, and dudes the army happened by who were willing to fight. Rome at the time wasnt perfect either, they had pathetic cavalry compared to Carthage and they didnt win a Cavalry engagement with Hannibal until Scipio hired his own Numidian horseman, and Romes electoral system meant that only the consul a elected official could lead and IIRC Rome couldnt have a back to back consul so leadership experience was weaker compared to Carthage.
He underestimated the Romans' autism. He thought inflicting horrific defeats one after another would bring them to the negotiating table, but, like Pyrrus of Eprius and Mithridates the Great, he learned that Romans only get more determined when you kick their ass.
>Those filthy Romans cannot into boats >They only know land combat >We could easily show 'em some >Oh frick, they start boarding our ships >We're fricked at land combat
Not even sure this is the right Punic war, but oh well, it's not like I give a shit
Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else. Were Rome to get into a conflict they would not truly stop until their opponent was all either dead or completely captured from all the times the city was attacked since its inception. If it faced a catastrophic defeat it would simply fall back and regroup to either prepare for a siege or to bolster forces to attack again.
>Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else.
It's not their fault everybody else was a filthy barbarian
>Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else
I'm sure this sounded cool in your head, but it doesn't really reflect any kind of reality. It certainly had xenophobic and ethnocentric tendencies, but its ability to co-opt other races and cultures into its imperial project was its real strength.
Hannibal honestly didn't give a frick about Carthage, he was just mad that the Romans illegally allied with Saguntum which meant that he couldn't expand his holdings in Spain, which he and his family ruled pretty much independently from Carthage. Hannibal basically started the 2nd Punic War by himself and drug Carthage into it even though they were in no state to fight Rome at that time. When he came to defend Carthage just before Zama that was the first time he'd even been in the city since he was 9 and he refused to even speak to the local troops that Carthage sent him because he knew they were useless and didn't have the experience that his army in Italy had had.
All in all, he's one of the greatest men who ever lived.
>All in all, he's one of the greatest men who ever lived.
Besides mountain hiking and slaughter, what did he accomplish? Like for real. Alexander the Great at least built the library of Alexandria in Egypt.
I'm not one to usually wank over historical figures, but Hannibal is on another level.
Reading about him is like some sort of ridiculous anime. >Gets into perceivably terrible situation >Battle starts >Oh no Hannibals losing >Actually JustAsPlanned.png
Not just once or twice, but for like twenty fricking battles in a row while in Rome
homie. Everyone in the ancient world knew that Carthage worshipped some demonic entity Baal, and that they sacrificed kids. Even some Greek orator condemned them for doing so
He didn't live in Carthage. The Barcids left for Spain to do their own shit.
True. But you know what I mean. Leave them kids alone is what I'm saying
They weren't. That's not to say it wasn't fricked up, but what people consider demons or demonic is a post Judaism thing. To them it was just how they honored their God, like the Greeks sacrificing animals or Black folk smoking crack. Baal was just a sun god
>Leave them kids alone is what I'm saying
That's what I was saying though. I don't think the Barcids were doing that shit in Spain. Hannibal married an Iberian woman and most of the other Carthaginians there did as well and that sort of thing wouldn't have been very well received there.
>kill 1/5 of all roman adult males in a day >alright time to negotiate a surrender >nah
It's hard to deal with such gargantuan levels of socialized autism.
>tactical success >strategic failure
Repeat until you die in exile, having watched your home nation burned to the ground and completely eclipsed by an enemy it had previously been wholly superior to
Who said it had zero effect? Like all of Hannibal's victories, he failed to leverage his tactical success to achieve strategic goals. He spent over 15 years in Italy, bleeding his men and materials dry while Rome figured out how to deal with him. He never figured out how to deal with Fabian tactics and his first success after Cannae came only when Fabian's populist successor wanted to make a name for himself and went toe to toe again. Once again, he won the battle but failed to leverage that for strategic success. This was Hannibal's greatest failure throughout his career
alps too tall for fants 🙁
fants would have been kino if they made it.
lead in wine
every time i read about him and his dad i hope he wins
like the first time
very odd emotional entanglement all the way from childhood
>What was his problem?
A bit too salty.
Unironically? Lack of support from the short sighted carthaginian ruling class. If those idiots had been as single minded conquerors as the romans instead of just uppity merchants, western history may have been killed in the crib.
Luckily for us, Rome won and here we are.
>merchants
when will they learn.
It's a tale as old as time: people that are poorer and less succesful than us are uncivilized barbarians, people that are richer and more succesful are snivelling, weak cowards.
unlikely they ever would have been able to kill off Rome, the issue Carthage had with its armies compared to the Romans is how much harder it was to build an army in Carthage compared to Rome. Carthages armies were multiethnic and more importantly multilingual and a significant amount of time spent building those armies was spent acclimating them to Carthages leadership structure and teaching them how to actually speak their language and understanding their orders. Rome did not have as much of an issue with their fellow Italians client states/allies. Another flaw with Carthages military is over reliance on mercenaries which was a constant threat in Carthage or abroad if they couldnt pay for their services so in general Carthages armies were less loyal unless you did have someone like Hannibal at the helm.
Rome pretty much was the opposite of Carthages military in many ways, they had very loyal troops as all of them were levies or volunteers. the armies were much more organized both in make up and logistics compared to Carthage who pretty much used what they had available from there various clients allies, and dudes the army happened by who were willing to fight. Rome at the time wasnt perfect either, they had pathetic cavalry compared to Carthage and they didnt win a Cavalry engagement with Hannibal until Scipio hired his own Numidian horseman, and Romes electoral system meant that only the consul a elected official could lead and IIRC Rome couldnt have a back to back consul so leadership experience was weaker compared to Carthage.
his name means: by the grace of Baal
He underestimated the Romans' autism. He thought inflicting horrific defeats one after another would bring them to the negotiating table, but, like Pyrrus of Eprius and Mithridates the Great, he learned that Romans only get more determined when you kick their ass.
Not just the Romans, their Italic allies as well.
Didn't the majority side with Hannibal? I think only the Etruscans were consistently reliable while the Socii system was in place
>Centuritrans
KYS NOW
>Those filthy Romans cannot into boats
>They only know land combat
>We could easily show 'em some
>Oh frick, they start boarding our ships
>We're fricked at land combat
Not even sure this is the right Punic war, but oh well, it's not like I give a shit
I always loved how Rome's solution to be being shit at navy combat was to turn it into land combat
Yeah, they were autistic in the best way possible.
Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else. Were Rome to get into a conflict they would not truly stop until their opponent was all either dead or completely captured from all the times the city was attacked since its inception. If it faced a catastrophic defeat it would simply fall back and regroup to either prepare for a siege or to bolster forces to attack again.
>Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else.
It's not their fault everybody else was a filthy barbarian
>Rome was built from its earliest history with a pathological hatred of nearly everyone else
I'm sure this sounded cool in your head, but it doesn't really reflect any kind of reality. It certainly had xenophobic and ethnocentric tendencies, but its ability to co-opt other races and cultures into its imperial project was its real strength.
It coopted them by wiping out everything that there was to them before, anon. And even then it sure as hell wasn’t out of a sense of benevolence.
Hannibal honestly didn't give a frick about Carthage, he was just mad that the Romans illegally allied with Saguntum which meant that he couldn't expand his holdings in Spain, which he and his family ruled pretty much independently from Carthage. Hannibal basically started the 2nd Punic War by himself and drug Carthage into it even though they were in no state to fight Rome at that time. When he came to defend Carthage just before Zama that was the first time he'd even been in the city since he was 9 and he refused to even speak to the local troops that Carthage sent him because he knew they were useless and didn't have the experience that his army in Italy had had.
All in all, he's one of the greatest men who ever lived.
>All in all, he's one of the greatest men who ever lived.
Besides mountain hiking and slaughter, what did he accomplish? Like for real. Alexander the Great at least built the library of Alexandria in Egypt.
>OH MY SCIENCE HE KILLED PEOPLE THAT'S SO EVIL!!!!!!
Shut the frick up and go back.
>BUT MUH HECKIN LIBRARY
The Ptolemies built it, not Alexander.
I'm not one to usually wank over historical figures, but Hannibal is on another level.
Reading about him is like some sort of ridiculous anime.
>Gets into perceivably terrible situation
>Battle starts
>Oh no Hannibals losing
>Actually JustAsPlanned.png
Not just once or twice, but for like twenty fricking battles in a row while in Rome
He and Carthage worshipped Baal and sacrificed kids. They had a cool harbor but overall frick em, glad Rome wiped them
No proof of that ever
>believing roman propaganda more than 2000 years later
nice try semite defender
Yeah they did.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children
homie. Everyone in the ancient world knew that Carthage worshipped some demonic entity Baal, and that they sacrificed kids. Even some Greek orator condemned them for doing so
True. But you know what I mean. Leave them kids alone is what I'm saying
Baal wasn't a "demonic entity" by the time of the Punic Wars.
Baal hands typed this
Baal wasn't "demonic" or "evil". That's just literal israelite propaganda
>literally sacrifice children
>tHeY WEren'T DemONic
No, he wasn't a demon, he was a deity. Baal as the name of a demon didn't come about until much later.
They weren't. That's not to say it wasn't fricked up, but what people consider demons or demonic is a post Judaism thing. To them it was just how they honored their God, like the Greeks sacrificing animals or Black folk smoking crack. Baal was just a sun god
Anything that isnt, our Lord, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is demonic you pagan Black person
>the holy mother of god, Mary, is demonic
have a nice day so you meet Satan sooner, protestant.
>worshipping a woman
Go molest little boys, papist simp
>Leave them kids alone is what I'm saying
That's what I was saying though. I don't think the Barcids were doing that shit in Spain. Hannibal married an Iberian woman and most of the other Carthaginians there did as well and that sort of thing wouldn't have been very well received there.
He didn't live in Carthage. The Barcids left for Spain to do their own shit.
>kill 1/5 of all roman adult males in a day
>alright time to negotiate a surrender
>nah
It's hard to deal with such gargantuan levels of socialized autism.
>lose 1/5 of your adult male population in a day
>'tis but a scratch
That just means you have 4/5ths left.
Honestly thought that inflicting as much misery on everyone BUT the city of Rome would cause everyone to hate Rome and not Carthage.
>tactical success
>strategic failure
Repeat until you die in exile, having watched your home nation burned to the ground and completely eclipsed by an enemy it had previously been wholly superior to
Why dont historians shut up about it if it had zero affect on the war?
Who said it had zero effect? Like all of Hannibal's victories, he failed to leverage his tactical success to achieve strategic goals. He spent over 15 years in Italy, bleeding his men and materials dry while Rome figured out how to deal with him. He never figured out how to deal with Fabian tactics and his first success after Cannae came only when Fabian's populist successor wanted to make a name for himself and went toe to toe again. Once again, he won the battle but failed to leverage that for strategic success. This was Hannibal's greatest failure throughout his career
He appears to be made of stone