>muh elephants >muh elephants >muh elephants

>when normies simplify Hannibal's tactical genius into 'muh elephants'

Carthage was shit. I also think that it had to be destroyed.

>>2714595
This.
You just don't get it

>>2714128
The elephants were a big hinderance anyway

>>2714128
the elephants were just here to intimidate l think

File: Capture.jpg (126KB, 661x675px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 661x675px

>>2714128

File: african elephant.jpg (835KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 667x1000px

>Implying you would be saying "muh elephants" if you had this enraged beast dressed in full plate armor charging at you at 25 miles an hour.

>>2715077
Elephants were a legitimate force, but Hannibal was still a genius beyond anything Rome could produce at the time without them

Muh elephants.

File: 20170421_144504.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>2714128
>this is a Carthaginian's expression meant to display his disbelief at superior Roman numbers and determination throughout a war despite multiple crushing defeats at your hands this is usually followed by shuffling across the Alps, having half your men die, and getting routed by the Romans for your poor judgement.

File: maus.jpg (50KB, 800x484px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x484px

>>2715107
*blocks ur path*

>>2715107
african elephants have never been trained
there is no proof that carthage armored their elephants, that was something eastern empires with larger access to elefuns did.

>>2715146
>not posting bacon.

>>2714128
>"There are those that say no war can be won with elephants, and to them I say: It has never been trie and we shall see."
RIDE THE LIGHTNING HANNIBAL

File: battle of Zama.png (67KB, 360x685px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 360x685px

>>2714128
>muh elephants over the Alps
>muh Carthage
>muh tactical genius

laughing_scipio_africanus.gif

>>2714643
>Child sacrifices and crucifying everyone for any crime
>shit
No.

File: Pyrrhus.jpg (21KB, 389x475px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 389x475px

>>2714128

>>2715154
Hannibal's elephants were a different species that has since gone extinct. They were crossbred between Asian and African elephants, and could be tamed.

>>2715123
>beyond anything Rome could produce
Yeah, Rome only had that loser Scipio Africanus. Pathetic.

>>2715652
Scipio's defeat of Hannibal wasn't a particularly good tactical victory.

>>2715130
You do know he shat on the Roman army for years in Italy and absolutely annihilated them at cannae , right?

>>2715652
>Falling for Roman propaganda

File: 187979[1].jpg (54KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 225x350px

That retard Antiouchus III should have given command of his troops to Hannibal. History would have been different if he wasn't such a retard.

>>2715652
Scipio was trash. The only reason he won against Hannibal is because the Senate wouldn't allow Hannibal to pick where the fight would be at, what troops he was going to use and the betrayal of the Numidians.

AND HE STILL WAS QUITE LUCKY HE DIDN'T LOSE THE BATTLE.

>>2715659
Good enough to beat Hannibal.

>>2715705
Cause he had better cavalry
Not exactly a great tactical victory

>>2715670
And yet he lost and died in exile.

>>2715715
For reasons we don't know he didn't seize Rome after Cannae, if he did it could have very well been the end of the Republic

File: why i hate hannibal.jpg (255KB, 1425x833px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1425x833px

>>2714128

File: FaceApp_1493155218093.jpg (12KB, 191x191px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 191x191px

>>2715444

>>2715715
Napoleon must have been a terrible general as well then.

>>2715564
daily reminder Pyrrhus was killed by A FUCKING ROOF TILE

>>2715730
Kek. Quite a Hannibal fan but that was hilarious. I guess he tried to emulate Pyrrhus or something.

>>2715809

is that why he wore a helmet?

>>2715564
>well i can't say a roman general, obviously, so i guess i'll just tell him this guy

>>2715585
t. ancient elephant expert

Guiz, Ive been away for weeks. did u miss me.

>>2715585
Who cares almost all of the elephants died in the Alps

>>2714128
Did Handball had autism?

>>2715585
That is quite the shitpost

>>2715718
>For reasons we don't know he didn't seize Rome after Cannae
That reason is walls. Hannibal couldn't siege shit.

>>2715689
this is trolling right?
By the end Scipio was the better general, and he knew all of Hannibal's tricks and had learned everything like a dutiful son. Scipio was the blueprint for marius, sulla, caesar, etc.

If hannibal had command the Romans still would have won.

>>2716899
doubtful

>>2716903
he had no more tricks to play, all he succeeded in doing was making rome more powerful than it ever was before through a series of hard but well-learned lessons. By the time Scipio's brother is steamrolling greece and antiochus, the Roman war machine is just on another level from the classical macedonian phalanx army, they decisively prove this through multiple battles, hannibal wouldn't have changed much. Might have controlled the cav better but this was an entirely foreign army to h8m, not like he can just take the reigns and immediately be competent with an entirely different type of army, as far as you know he would have made it worse. He had nothing to offer the world after Zama, and it took decades of exile and rejection for him to realize it.

face it, your hannibal boner is clouding your judgement, Scipio was everything hannibal was and more by the end of it.

>>2716943
i though you were talking about the punic war not the seleucid war
hannibal was still better, scipio just used his tactics and got lucky with some numidian cavalry in zama

>>2716954
Scipio is far more than one battle, you clearly know nothing of history and are just historically LARPing right now. Go read about his career and you're realize he's just as great of a story. His journey faced just as much trouble from the senate as hannibal had from carthage. He basically built an army from the ground up with his own resources after taking part in multiple battles with hannibal as a younger officer under his father. He won a series of crushing victories in Spain and had accomplished far more in his efforts than hannibal ever did by the time Zama happened, and he walked away the better man after it. It's the classic movie story with the kid watching his people get crushed by the big bad, growing up with a chip on his shoulder, and defeating than the big bad that traumatized him as a kid, permanently changing the course of the republic and therefore world history in the process, inspiring the men that would build the empire.

Scipio was the first roman to do it all himself basically and go at it without the senate. He creating the model for independent power structures that all future great romans would follow.

childhood is idolizing hannibal
adulthood is realizing Scipio makes more sense

>>2716977
Jesus Christ stop larping you massive fag, scipio's tactics starts and ends with 'do what Hannibal did'

>>2717021
And he did it better. Scipio conquered spain and staged a counter-attack on Carthage. All Hannibal did was humiliate the Romans on their home turf but failed at capturing shit.

It doesn't even reflect that badly on Hannibal, it's just that his fellow generals sucked ass.

>>2717030
Hannibal made a strategic error but was basically unbeatable tactically. Scipio won cause he had better cavalry

>>2717058
Nobody is gonna argue Hannibal was shit at battles. But his entire invasion was built on the premise that Rome would keep throwing legions at him and destabilize themselves in the process, alienating its former allies. By 216BC the romans had learnt their lesson, Hannibal kept roaming Italy for another 12years.

IF the two Hasdrubals and Mago won the Iberia campaign. Then they could have sent him mass reinforcements and the war might have ended differently. Sadly it's just not what happened.

>Scipio won cause he had better cavalry
He was able to convince Masinissa to switch side when he was done conquering Iberia from the carthaginians and the Numidians started getting worried about who was gonna pay them for their service. Remember that Carthage was mostly outsourcing its military to foreign neighbours/allies, basically mercenaries. Rome did not have that problem since their confederacy was rock-solid for the most part. All the Romans had to worry about was not pissing off their confederate allies and not falling for Hannibal's bait.

At the end of the day, the romans started the war with stronger foundations and coupling that with Fabian tactics+scipio's success meant they won the war.

It's no shame on Hannibal, he was only one guy. But sometimes being a genius general just isn't not enough to win a war fought on multiple fronts.

>Scipio won because he had better cavalry

and hannibal won his battles because he had better cavalry. Are hannibal's victory's diminished because of his cavalry advantage in literally every battle besides Zama? No, so why discredit scipio's victory when the odds were far more equal than they ever had been on horse?

you have double standards for hannibal, forgiving him when he has a weakness during a dedeat whilst ignoring the opponents weakness when he wins

>>2717195
I say that to emphasize that in no way was Zama a victory for scipio because of better tactics, but because of external circumstances. It wasn't a victory like cannae

>>2717199
that is such a bullshit double standard. When Scipio wins it's inevitability, when Hannibal wins it's genius.

fuck off with your LARPing

You're both larpers, fuck off. Vercingetorix was the only good general because of his Celtic berserker heritage and druid magic.

>>2717204
So tell me of scipio's tactical genius of 'have better cavalry'

>>2717199
>Hannibal
40,000:
36,000 infantry
4,000 cavalry
80 war elephants

>Scipio
35,100:
29,000 infantry
6,100 cavalry

It was more or less even. Hannibal had 7000more infrantry soldiers. Scipio had 2000more horses. It's pretty memey to say Hannibal was in a weaker position.

>>2717199
>external circumstances

a battle is a battle, and when Hannibal is still general, he always has a chance, because that's the level of person we're dealing with. To say that Hannibal was incapable of winning is some revisionist bullshit and you know it, men had to fight and die for that result and nothing in battle is ever inevitable. You have a juvenile understanding of military history. It discredits the agency these men had in deciding their own fates, hannibal spent his entire career beating the odds, then suddenly he loses and people say stupid shit after the fact like it was inevitable.

I guarantee you that when the Roman soldiers lined up for battle against the undefeated Hannibal, the last thing they were expecting was an easy fight, and the sources say it was very close, so get out of here with your bullshit sweeping generalizations when you clearly haven't read enough about the subject.

>>2717218
And it there was no high quality tactics used on either side. It was just a boring battle, nothing that you'd expect from either general

>>2717220
I'm saying there wasn't any particularly good generating on either side, so it wasn't a GREAT VICTORY COMPLETELY BTFOING Hannibal

>>2717222
it was boring because they were both so good that they countered everything each other did and forced it to become a straight up slog, which was the first time the Romans actually got the fight they wanted. They got this fight because they did everything right up to that point, which they had not done in the previous battles with hannibal. To make it a straight fight is a victory for the Romans because they had never succeeded in getting to that point before.

>>2717229
*a tactical victory

>>2717228
He was btfo'd tho

Once the roman cavalry returned to the battlefield they hit his army from the back and broke the carthaginian's formation. At which point the romans did what they do best - the acis triplex (rotating their maniples at the front to keep up the stamina of the charge).

There was no "moments of genius", that's true. Just good old roman discipline. And the carthaginian losses were pretty damning 20k vs 3k.

>>2715709
Hannibal had fucking elephants. Kys.

>>2717103
Look man, the Roman resilience was unseen for their time and not until much later did someone match them in that regard (The Soviet Union). Any other nation would have surrender unconditionally after Cannae, but Rome was something else. Hannibal couldn't have expected this kind of stubbornness even if he was an extremely smart individual. Yes, the Pyrrhic wars and the First Punic war were some indication, but certainly nothing on the scale of the Second Punic War.

As for losing Zama, it was due to a couple of factors: First, Hannibal wasn't allowed to pick where the battle was going to be fought. He was forced to engage Scipio as soon as possible. Second, apart from a few veterans during his Italian campaign that continued following him, most of his troops were freshly raised and haven't seen a battle in their life. Third, Scipio studied Hannibal's tactics thoroughly and used them against Hannibal while Hannibal didn't have the opportunity to do the same. Fourth, the Numidian betrayal.

And even after all that Scipio barely won and the battle could have gone both ways. This wasn't some dominant victory. Don't get me wrong, Scipio is an amazing general, one of the best in Roman history, however he doesn't cold a candle to Hannibal's genius.

>>2717689
>Third, Scipio studied Hannibal's tactics thoroughly and used them against Hannibal while Hannibal didn't have the opportunity to do the same.

But that's fucking bullshit.
>Hannibal intentionally held back his third infantry line, in order to thwart Scipio's tendency to pin the Carthaginian center and envelop his opponent's lines, as he had previously done at the Battle of Ilipa

>And even after all that Scipio barely won and the battle could have gone both ways
20k losses vs only 3k. Hannibal's plan with the elephants failed and he was stuck with an inferior cavalry which couldnt compete. He just lost dude, get over it.

>Fourth, the Numidian betrayal.
Is it about muh horses again? So when Hannibal buys numidian cavalry and wins with it, it's his genius. When his opponent does the same, it's hannibal "not having a chance due to external factors". You know these sort of arguments don't hold to scrutiny right?

>>2718333
>>Hannibal intentionally held back his third infantry line, in order to thwart Scipio's tendency to pin the Carthaginian center and envelop his opponent's lines, as he had previously done at the Battle of Ilipa

That doesn't indicate in any way that Hannibal knew anything about Scipio. It's just basic tactics.

>20k losses vs only 3k.
If Hannibal won the casualties would have been the other way around. By all accounts the battle was extremely hard fought and Hannibal was even winning to a point, when the Numidian cavalry routed his own and then proceeded to attack his infantry. You have to take into account at what enormous disadvantage was Hannibal before and during the battle. It's extremely impressive from Hannibal considering Scipio won narrowly.

>Is it about muh horses again? So when Hannibal buys numidian cavalry and wins with it, it's his genius.
It's not only about the horses, man. Compare Hannibal's infantry to the Roman one and you'll see the great disparity in the quality. The only thing Hannibal had over Rome was his cavalry and now he didn't even have that. The elephants were a failure but they weren't the reason he lost. In fact I wouldn't even call them a failure, they did a good job on the Roman infantry, but in the end they were mostly untrained and freshly gathered.

>>2715107
>What is forced perspective

File: 1492368400000.jpg (120KB, 740x737px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 740x737px

>>2714128
>Muh elephants
>Muh elephants
>Muh elephants
>60 replies and 9 images omitted

>>2715165
>Loses war with elephants

>>2718638
> and Hannibal was even winning to a point
But he fucking didn't and half his army was killed. That's what actually happened. I'm done giving you (You)'s, carthagefags are fucking retards in denial.

>>2715444
>Captured or killed all footsoldiers and calvary
>Elephants unscathed
ELEPHANT STRONK

>>2719988
Well, obviously he didn't. The main point was that Hannibal is way above Scipio which was what started the discussion. Furthermore, I'm more of a Romefag so I really have no bias here.

>>2717689
>was unseen for their time and not until much later did someone match them in that regard (The Soviet Union)

Load of BS

>>2720094
HUH? Which nation did match Roman's tenacity for war even after all the casualties they suffered in both Punic Wars (20 years each, btw)?

>>2720094
Not really. It's really surprised Rome kept on fighting after Cannae alone.

>>2715774
There's no prize for second place in war.

Winning the battle is only half the war.

Besides, after Cannae Hannibal was reduced to the ancient equivalent of an insurgency/guerilla. Almost 20 years of it with little to no progress.

>>2720104

I was referring to the last part of the post

>>2720102
The French, The English (100 years war, Napoleonic wars) for instance

>>2715659
>retards think Zama was Scipio's crowning tactical achievment

File: 1111111.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>2720149
The absolute bullshit from this post. The French? What? When have they suffered the casualties (relative to their manpower and population) that the Romans did? The English? WTF? The 100 years war wasn't a constant one and the casualties were relatively small compared to the size of both countries.

The Napoleonic wars? Are you fucking serious right now? Napoleon won most wars by winning decisive battles. He won against the Austrians, Russians, Prussians numerous time by defeating them in battles even smaller than those at Cannae. Even Austerlitz, for all the military genius of Napoleon, didn't have close to the casualties of Cannae and it basically broke the Austrians and the Third Coalition.

Get your facts straight, mate.

>>2720193

The french kept the wars going in the 100 years war after they were dealt a crushing defeat

And the Brits kept fight Napoleon even though he defeated multiple collations against him

File: d.gif (2MB, 235x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x150px

>if he had won the Carthaginians would fill the same niche as the Romans and elephants would be a mainstay of warfare in Europe and the Med into the middle ages

>>2720149
My apologies then

>>2720144
He wouldn't be considered a guerilla by any means. He just didn't have the siege potential. If anything, Fabian was the one deploying those types of tactics.

Examples of guerilla warfare would be from Caratacus, viriathus, etc.

>>2720092
he's not though, scipio's victories in Spain are arguably more impressive because he actually managed to succeed tactically AND strategically, unlike hannibal who was a tactical genius and a strategic fool by his own men's account.

When Scipio was done with spain, it was roman. Carthage was fucking done in spain, all because of Scipio. Meanwhile Hannibal accomplished virtually nothing strategically in two decades. Scipio's victories are more important than hannibal's because his victories changed the strategic standing of rome and carthage, forcing hannibal to retreat from italy, giving Scipio the opportunity to invade africa. "external circumstances" my ass, Scipio set up his own fate with his own conquests and unlike Hannibal, knew how to obtain victory AND how to use it. The reason the numidians switched sides was because of Scipio's victories in Spain, it was not some lucky fluke but a real strategic move with real strategic results

However this all comes back to the original point, which is that you're a fanboy that hasn't actually read about Scipio and this explains why you think Zama was some lucky fluke when in reality Scipio forced everything to that point by his own decisions. You see a victory for Hannibal and give him all the credit, but when his opponent wins suddenly it's all external circumstance. You don't mention hannibal's cavalry advantage in all of his famous victories, but suddenly when Scipio has the advantage it's worth noting and detracts from his glory.

You're such a hypocritical shit

>>2720355
I agree with more of your points but sheesh, do you really have to insult a guy just for having a different opinion so much?

Hannibal had amazing victories but honestly shouldn't have even attacked saguntum, in my opinion. I think we was too concerned about becoming a legend. He was way too aggressive.

>>2720203
And what battle is that exactly? Even Agincourt was like a small skirmish compared to Cannae. The Hundred Years war weren't constant. They were multiple wars combined into one giant conflict.

>And the Brits kept fight Napoleon even though he defeated multiple collations against him
Nope. The Brits mostly used the land Europeans to deal with Napoleon while they financed the operations. They weren't actively participating in the military part.

>he's not though, scipio's victories in Spain are arguably more impressive
No, they were not. Scipio never dealt a crushing defeat to the Barca's he only prevented them from reinforcing Hannibal. Hannibal wasn't a "strategic" fool, he knew what exactly what had to be done, but the Romans were just a different beast from anything in ancient history. The First Punic war was arguably the bloodiest in ancient history and it pales in comparison to the second. The Romans didn't even think about having a relatively minor peace even after Cannae, they were going to fight to the death. That was unheard of back then and until WWI. In hindisght Hannibal refusing to attack Rome itself was a bad decision, however he couldn't have known that Scipio would defeat his brothers, it was out of his control. Carthage lost everywhere in the SPW in which Hannibal had no active part in.

>However this all comes back to the original point
When did I bash Scipio or underrate him? I only said he is not on Hannibal's level and that's a fact, whether you like it or not. His victory at Zama wasn't impressive considering that Hannibal was FORCED to attack Scipio, most of Hannibal's army were RAW recruits, the Numidians BETRAYED him, leaving him with no cavalry to speak of.

As I said in my previous post, the ONLY thing Hannibal had over Rome was his cavalry. Rome had the better troops through and through. So it's ridiculous to say that Scipio's advantage is comparable to Hannibal's. Scipio not ONLY had the better cavalry.

>>2720355
>>2720576
but he had the better troops, veterans from his previous campaigns, disciplined soldiers, not the African levies that Hannibal had to muster quickly. Hannibal didn't even want to fight at Zama, the Carthaginian Senate forced him to. Hannibal knew at what disadvantage he was back there and it's impressive that he was even close to a victory.

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, probably none of them could have won that battle. The war was lost and Hannibal knew that.

You're also ignoring the vast differences in resources of both nations. Carthage didn't have the manpower to compete with Rome. That's why Rome could muster armies even after getting wrecked in 3 battles one of which was one of the most devastating in history.

Please, don't be so ignorant. Hannibal never had the full backing of the Senate while the Roman Senate were mostly acting like one, fighting for their survival. It's good to take that into account.

>>2720576

Only the first two points are mine.

>>2720594
Yes, I forgot to quote the other Anon.

>>2715123
>beyond anything Rome could produce

Remind me again how the second Punic war ended?

>>2715670
He rekt the romans at cannae because of the two consuls in charge of the army, one of them was retarded and one wasn't. Guess which one was in command on the day that cannae happened.

>>2720306
Fabius read Hannibal and matched him. Literally by that time Hannibal was fucked because the Fabius had figured out not to just march right fucking at him, which was all Hannibal knew how to fight against.

>>2720593
>all this rationalizing and Hannibal dick riding

He lost bro

>Reminder that it's estimated that close to zero elephants survived the crossing of the alps, all of Hannibal's famous battles minus Zama didn't include a single elephant.

>>2717218
>Battles are only numbers
Real life is not a videogame. Hannibal's soldier's were mostly raw barely trained conscripts with no battle experience, with only his third line being veterans from Italy. Scipio's whole army were veterans from Spain.

>>2720870
Gee I wonder what happened to hannibal's veterans that he had

>>2720870
>hannibal deserves pity points for not having the men he needs delivered to him by his meany and uncooperative government, despite the fact that he lost all of his veterans and mercenaries in battles that were strategically futile and served only to harden and strengthen his adversaries
>meanwhile Scipio was conquering Spain and Africa with a literal volunteer army because the Senate would not officially back him
>muh superior Roman society
>muh cavalry
>muh veterans

cry more salty Carthaginian tears.

>>2720798
He lost, doesn't mean Scipio is better than Hannibal. Did you even read my post?

>>2720875
They were left back in Italy when he was recalled to protect Carthage.

>>2721071
>If your enemies defeat you, you win
Justinius Trudeius pls go

>>2721071
he was though. He accomplished far more and beat him when it came to it. He stood victorious at the end and was the inspiration for the powerful individuals to come in the next centuries. You might value tactical achievements, but strategic sense is the true mastery of military affairs, read literally any book on the subject. Scipio had superior strategic sense, learned Hannibal's tactical sense well enough to match him and was therefore a better man because he had both tactical and strategic prowess whereas Hannibal only had the latter.

All in all Hannibal's invasion was a strategic blunder, a man of his tactical prowess could have won the war if he played it right strategically but he was not a man of strategic prowess, you cannot argue that when the results speak for themselves. He literally doomed his society to destruction with his rash and strategically faulty invasion.

>>2721094
*former

>>2721072
sounds like a strategic blunder to me. In any case Scipio never would have let the Senate tell him what to do, he was just as much a self made man as hannibal was. It was hannibal's own strategic blunder to get trapped in italy when he could have left after Cannae, maybe consolidate some territory in Europe and then actually return to Spain to help his brothers, preventing the Roman counterattack. Then he could then come back to Italy with the full force of his army and the spanish armies, leaving no need for Carthage to recall Hannibal back to Africa, but that's just me thinking strategically ;^)

>>2721138
>Then he could then come back to Italy with the full force of his army and the spanish armies,
As if that Alpine trick was going to work twice. The next time they try that, they'd be welcomed by a well-rested army, after the exhausting crossing of the Alps.

Also, even after Cannae, or maybe even especially after a Cannae, the troops' lust for conquest wouldn't subside. Why turn back after a glorious victory? Over the Alps again, at that? The common soldier wouldn't understand. Mutiny and assassination is always possible after doing something outrageous.

>>2721072
in starcraft we have macro and micro. Hannibal is a guy with great micro and poor macro. He was doing real good, beat the enemy army in the field, took map control, but couldn't push in to take the enemy base. He kept hammering the base but neglected his macro, allowing the enemy to sneak behind him, destroy all his expansions, and attack his scvs. When his scvs called for help, his army was stuck on the other end of the map in a heated engagement and so he only had fresh troops to spawn from his base that couldn't match the upgraded enemies that had been busy conquering the rest of the map behind you. He couldn't raise an army in time to defend his base, lost his scvs, troop production buildings, and bases, and therefore lost the means to win, losing the match. A classic brilliant opening micro thwarted by poor macro.

>>2721176
there are ways to get in and out of italy without crossing the alps, he had many opportunities to do this throughout his campaign, beating a well rested army to get out of italy is nothing compared to what he would accomplish with strategically futile victories.

>>2721191
>there are ways to get in and out of italy without crossing the alps,
All of which involve naval supremacy. Naval supremacy the Romans had.

>>2716977
Scipio only defeated Hannibal once, in a battle that was supposedly really close, with a 4:1 cavalry advantage, and a more capable, homogeneous, and experienced army. Zama was his crowning achievement and he barely even pulled it off, Hannibal had at least 3 victories that were more impressive than Scipios victory at Zama

>>2721200
no retard you can literally walk from Spain to Italy under the alps, there is lowlands to the south between the alps and the sea you can pass through, but he avoided this route to avoid facing the Romans where they wanted to fight. He proved he could beat them in a head to head fight, he could have pushed through and won after beating the veterans in the south, there's no way the troops in northern italy could have mustered out onto the field and prevented his escape after Cannae.

>>2721212
Scipio's crowning achievement isn't Zama, it's the conquest of Spain and Africa as a whole strategic objective. Scipio was literally playing chess to Hannibal's checkers.

>>2717103
>>2717689
Why are you talking about Hannibal's motivations and grand strategies when NOONE KNOWS WHAT THEY WERE. Noone even knows if Hannibal was capable of capturing Rome, we don't know if he knew that, we don't know exactly why he stayed in Italy as long as he did, we don't know exactly what his intentions were upon crossing the alps...its all a wash.

>>2720279
>elephants would be a mainstay of warfare
First of all they weren't even a mainstay for the Carthaginians, second of all, Roman tactics didn't continue into the middle ages at all, they didn't even survive to the end of the Roman empire.

>>2721212
And how many times did Hannibal beat scipio

>>2721094
>Scipio had a superior strategic sense
No, he had superior soldiers, support, economy and society on his side.

so how come Hannibal couldn't march over the alps without losing half his army but Alexander crossed the hindu kush with insignificant losses?

>>2721247
t. guy who has never read about Scipio's brilliant Spanish campaign.

He'd be one of your all time favorite generals if you actually read about him, but instead you LARP on 4chan based on Wikipedia articles.

>>2721243
How many times did Hannibal have a cavalry advantage and fight with the nearest thing to a professional army at that time? How many times was Scipio forced to act military based on the whims of the Senate?
>>2721219
Thats such an asanine statement, the only proof anyone has to Scipios and Hannibals tactical and strategic minds are the results, and anyone with half a brain can tell you much of that is out of the control of a general. Hannibal is an idiot because he expected southern Italians states who were asking for help to actually help him? But Scipio is a genius because he Massinissa decided to defect, with a large cavalry force, to the Romans after they landed? Its all just pure luck.

>>2721264
>asanine

>>2721264
>pure luck
>changes in alliances based purely on military actions
>roman military actions are more strategically effective and so they vear more strategically effective fruit

go to bed hannibal

>>2721254
He is one of my all time favorite generals you fucking douchebag, just don't say he's definitively better than Hannibal when he never faced the odds Hannibal did and when so little is actually known about "why" and "what" he actually did in Spain, most of what you can read about either general is conjecture based on unreliable sources dated decades after the actual events

>>2721220
>Hannibal's motivations and grand strategies when NOONE KNOWS WHAT THEY WERE.
We can hazard educated guesses from what the sources tell us. Hannibal most likely wanted to break the roman confederacy apart (which was the reason why they could levy legions after legions) by encouraging more states to do what Capua, Syracuse, Aspri, Rhegium did. He even went as far as releasing all captured italian prisoners and only enslaving/executing the romans. The message was clear.
He also made open overtures to the gauls of cisalpina prior to his invasion through the alps in order to fracture the alliances as soon as he entered the region (and to rebuild his army). When in Capua he tried inviting the dignitaries of other roman-alligned states to negotiate. His grand strategy was pretty clear if you dare hazard a guess.

>Noone even knows if Hannibal was capable of capturing Rome
We know he wasn't because he failed to capture Nola in 216BC, 215BC and 214BC. When Rome recaptured Syracuse and Capua in 212 and 211BC, he made no serious effort to get them back.
If he had the means to siege a large city, he would have done so in 216BC right after Cannae. Instead he tried at Nola and failed repeatedly.

Pls stop larping and pretending there aren't valid mainstream theories about Hannibal's invasion. As you said people have been studying the punic wars for over 2000years and some theories hold much better to scrutiny than others.

>>2721264
Hastati were citizen soldiers man
As for cavalry, the numidians were on hannibal's side until scipio got them to switch to his side, something Hannibal tried to do with the Italians but failed.
scipio was also unsupported by the senate, all he had was the okay to go and attack if he was willing to gather and pay for his own army.

>>2721273
>muh sources
>never faced the odds hannibal did
>implying strategical brilliance isn't the art of playing the odds in your favor in the grand scheme of things

keep making excuses for your loser

>>2721272
wow you completely missed the point
>southern Italians/Greeks asks for help
>doesn't help at all
vs
>Massinissa offers to help
>actually fucking does
How is that not luck? The degree to which Masinissa helped is way more than Hannibal's allies, what part of that don't you understand?

>>2721302
>how is that not luck?

So you're Masinissa and you're deciding who to back when that man Scipio comes knocking after he shut the lights out of every single Carthaginian colony decisively. You back the romans, because strategy is more important than tactics and they've just proven that they can take punches and throw better ones. You back the one that just proved strategic dominance. This is not luck, it is power politics. Read a book.

>>2721287
>playing odds in your favor
Hannibal was handed a lottery ticket, not a hand of poker cards
If the Carthiginians had "played the odds" they never would have gone to war in the first place
Hannibals biggest mistake was listening to his father dying wish

File: 2014-11-01 22;09;26.png (95KB, 504x441px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 504x441px

>>2715585
>They were crossbred between Asian and African elephants

>>2721273
>when so little is actually known about "why" and "what" he actually did in Spain
But that's a fucking lie. We know his father was the proconsul of ths region, he know Scipio inherited it rather unorthodoxly by prorogatio decree (and setting a new precedent in the process). We know he only took official leadershipof the campaign after Baelis defeat in 211BC. We know he's responaible for capuring new carthage, we know he forced hasdrubal out of hispania ar Baecula in 208BC, we know he did the same to Mago at Ilipa in 206BC, we know he cut off carthaginian support to the iberian peninsula at Carteia, we know he was the one who challenged Fabius to launch a counter attack on Carthage (now that they lost their cashcow) in 205BC, we know he managed to convince numidia to turn on carthage in 204BC because they wouldnt be able to pay denbts in case of defeat.

Stop pretending Scipio is a mystery man til Zama.Your fandom is painfully obvious.

>>2721317
Holy shit, STILL missing the point, you keep talking about the same shit but you're not addressing my point.
Scipio earned Masinissa's help? It had nothing to do with Masinissa's desire to replace Syphax or whatever? It didn't have to do with Masinissa's family member who was a hostage? Ok, fine. But what happens when Masinissa is a bum and just doesn't help at all? Scipio loses, or even more likely he never engages with Hannibal at all and just retreats back to Spain.

>>2714128
The relatively small number of elephants that made t through the Alps all died shortly after making to the other side due to the weather anyway.

>>2721323
But the circumstances with which Scipio took each Iberian city, and to a degree, the circumstances by which he defeated many of his opponents in Spain is largely conjecture. You keep talking about my fandom without knowing jack shit about me or actually addressing my point, Hannibal arguably did more with less. You talk about fandom as if you're not being a blatant "hannibal sux XD" contrarian just to prove your highly subjective point.

Let me just make it clear I think both Scipio and Hannibal were amazing and I don't really care to compare who is better.

>>2720734
That's just a purposeful oversimplification of one of the most revered battles in history because people in this thread want to diminish Hannibal's accomplishments. He definitely made mistakes, but don't diminish his successes.

>>2720782
Ya, that's the issue with a mercenary army not equipped or supplied to siege. Fabius' tactic should show Hannibal's tactical prowess if the only way you can beat him is to not fight him and HOPE attrition will prevail

>>2721335
>numidians are mercenary vassals
>massinissa sees scipio btfo everyone in iberia
>massinissa sees scipio land shitloads of troops on carthage's shores
>massinissa sees scipio free his nephew
>massinissa sees his own rivals join carthage instead
It wasn't just luck. Scipio looked like the better horse to win the race and he made an educated guess to whom would win and back his own interests. It was not "lel so random".

>>2721351
Nah I think Hannibal would have won if the other barcids did their job in spain. If they beat scipio, then they could have supplied Hannibal with the troops necessary to siege Rome and it would have made it easier for Hannibal to argue to the roman confederates states that backing Rome was a lost cause.

It's just my opinion but it's the Iberia campaign which was the decisive factor of the war. When Hasdrubal and Mago failed, Hannibal would never hope to capture Rome.

>>2721180
>Equating SC2 to real life

>>2721253
>so how come Hannibal couldn't march over the alps without losing half his army but Alexander crossed the hindu kush with insignificant losses?

Alexander lost more men crossing the Hindu Kush than all subsequent central Asia campaigns

>>2721359
In my opinion fabius' strategy wasn't so much of a Hail Mary as you seem to imply, as it was an effective, if soft counter to his presence. Granted it does speak to his ability to win a battle, but what was he going to do once Fabius started fucking with him? Attrition is a reality, not a far-off hope.

>>2721411
Fabius had to rely on the divisions taking place in Carthage. There were two distinct factions at the time, one being the Barcids in control of Iberia and the other was anti-barcid (I can't remember the name of the guy off the top of my head sadly) and in control of North Africa. Hannibal lacked proper support because of it, which made attrition more possible. I'm the Anon that believed he shouldn't have even attacked seguntum, so he should have accounted for the attrition and that is definitely a mistake.

>>2721382

you're thinking of Gedrosia pham.

>>2720593
>Hannibal never had the full backing of the Senate while the Roman Senate were mostly acting like one, fighting for their survival. It's good to take that into account.

petty envy and mistrust aside, Carthage was fighting for their survival too, and they put all their cards in Hannibal, pulling him out of Italy, because they knew he was their only hope.

>>2721094
The difference in all of this is that the Second Punic War was the Barcids vs Rome. It wasn't really Carthage vs Rome. Scipio had the backing, most of the time, of Rome while Hannibal did not. See the difference?

>>2721138
Not really, he couldn't take them with him because the Carthaginians didn't have the naval supremacy in the SPW. Scipio was backed fully by the Senate. Sure, some of them feared him, but nevertheless they always backed him. Much later did people like Cato the Elder started going after him. This is different from Carthage's attitude towards Hannibal.

>>2721180
Cool way to look at it and it's somewhat accurate, however you can't put the blame entirely on Hannibal. His strategy was decent, the problem, as I said, was that the Romans were just different from every other nation that has ever existed. Plans are plans, reality is something else. You can make the greatest plan ever, implement it and when one small part of your plan suddenly goes wrong... the entire thing falls down.

>>2721220
We do know. His letter to Philip gives a pretty good indication of what his aims were.

>>2721445
>(I can't remember the name of the guy off
Hanno the "Great". He opposed a war with Rome and used every possible means to avoid helping Hannibal.

>>2721527
They were but they realized it way too late. The Carthaginians didn't back Hannibal enough, although they didn't exactly oppose him. They were just going like "We'll see how it goes, decide what to do depending on how things pan out".

The SPW was no more than the Barcid's private war against Rome with Carthage begrudgingly observing (because they had no power over Barca).

Carthage lost the FPW for the exact same reason - they just never took Rome seriously enough. Rome understood it was a fight for survival and future dominance, but Carthage didn't. They thought it was like any other war.

>FPW
>Largest Naval battle in terms of men participating, in perhaps all history
>Rome wins, controls the Med, Carthage held back to land operations in the future

>SPW
>Carthage loses Iberian Campaign, genius general cannot win without Iberian manpower and money
>Rome wins, Carthage never becomes as powerful again

>Battle of Trafalgar...

>>2722502
History truly does have the best poetry.

>>2721713
I should have just guessed his name, since they always used like 4...thanks

>>2716605
when he took it off, he died. They expected to find one of the brothers in the wreckage. But that doesn't matter now, what matters is their plan.

There seem so be some people with some good background here. What are the best books recommended for Carthage, Punic Wars, Hannibal, specific battles, etc?

Concerning books on the topic, I've read:
Carthage Must Be Destroyed
Carthage: A History
Ghosts of Cannae
Livy, Polybius
Cartago: Una cuidad, dos leyendas (Spanish)

I was looking at the Adrian Goldsworthy books on the topic, are those worth it? English or Spanish recommendations are welcome.

The best Spanish resource I have found is Carlos Wagner on Acedemia.edu
http://ucm.academia.edu/CarlosGWagner

>>2715146
*Mouse

FTFY, Deutscherbro.