Trapped in an Ambush | Hannibal | BBC Studios

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 4 лют 2025
  • Historical drama charting the rise and fall of the great Carthage Warrior - Hannibal. Hannibal tries to barter with savage tribesmen to guarantee safe passage only to be led directly into an ambush.
    Watch more Hannibal from BBC Worldwide here www.youtube.com...
    This is a channel from BBC Studios who help fund new BBC programmes. Service information and feedback: www.bbcstudios...

КОМЕНТАРІ • 30

  • @glishev
    @glishev 12 років тому +5

    Great! From 00:25 to 00:40 the Barbarian leader speaks Bulgarian :)

  • @sidwills
    @sidwills 15 років тому +1

    The Roman army were not forced recruits, they were drawn from specific wealthy classes and willingly bought all their own equipment. They fought to protect Rome as and when required, then returned home between campaigns to their wives and business. Although they weren't a professional army at this time they were loyal to Rome and believed in what they were doing. Gaius Marius reformed the Roman army years later into the professional full time legions

  • @Shundra
    @Shundra 15 років тому +1

    The soldier who fight in the Roman Army didn't got a piece of land at this time. This was instigated by Julius cesar some century after Hannibal war.

  • @rosamirafly
    @rosamirafly 13 років тому +5

    @francsturz
    I'm glad someone else has noticed it - I agree 100%! It's totally inaccurate historically! And it's not the first time I noticed in English / American productions, whenever they want to represent a "barbarian" camp, they use Slavic languages -or sth that at least sounds similar. Talk about not spreading hatred in the world... I love BBC documents, but here I was really disappointed :((

  • @kivati
    @kivati 13 років тому +1

    @sushanalone Carthage was under the political control of the Barcids, those that opposed them were essentially few - certainly not enough to refuse requests for reinforcements - they could have done more, but they also raised large armies and sent them all over the place - Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, to Italy three times (twice to Mago in Northern Italy, and once to Hannibal) It's clear they fully supported the war.

  • @HenryLet
    @HenryLet 16 років тому

    Roma army werent forced recruits. The fought because they deeply believe in the cause of the might of Rome. The were free men who wanted the glory of Rome and extend its empire in order also to have new territories to rule and to farm. Each soldier who fight in the Roman Army, got a piece of land to farm and to raise his family after the was was over and victory assured.

  • @kivati
    @kivati 13 років тому

    @sushanalone reinforcements he would have recieved had his brother not been beaten by the brother Scipios in 215 BC. He was marching to invade Italy from the north, while Carthage were preparing an army to aid Hannibal for southern Italy - unfortunately, the loss in battle prevented Hannibal from using a two further armies, one destroyed, the other to shore up the defenses of Spain (not a bad call by any imagination)

  • @ThamMalaysia
    @ThamMalaysia 14 років тому

    That was Hannibal's greatest mistake, not to
    capitalize on his victory at Cannae and go
    straight for Rome.
    A preemptive strike was his best chance of
    victory, just as Maharbal, his cavalry commander,
    had urged, regardless of whether he had the
    siege equipment.
    Why go all the way across the Alps, lose more
    than half your army, only to languish in the countryside
    for the next 15 years ? What was his objective in
    the first place, if not to take Rome ?

  • @lucius1976
    @lucius1976 15 років тому

    @torongill80
    Rome does not lie directly at sea. It is somewhat inland. Only connection is the quite small river tiber. If someone had surrounded rome it could NOT been supplied by sea.

  • @GetenGeten
    @GetenGeten 15 років тому

    Good response, my droog.

  • @magnvsmarcvs
    @magnvsmarcvs 13 років тому

    @torongill80 Rome wasn t supplied by sea but the Ostian port that was north of the city , than the goods were transported by road or river Tiber

  • @ThamMalaysia
    @ThamMalaysia 14 років тому

    And if he couldn't take Rome with 40,000
    men in 216, what makes him think he can
    he could in 207, with 45,000 (his remaining
    15,000 plus Hasdrubal's 30,000, even if
    he had managed to join up) ?
    Hasdrubal's men wouldn't have made any
    difference, even if he had defeated the Romans
    at Metaurus, and join up with Hannibal thereafter.
    He had no siege equipment in any case. And
    he would have less than 30,000 for sure, after
    losses at Metaurus.
    Basically, back to square one right after Cannae.

  • @BobbyMan21
    @BobbyMan21 14 років тому

    what is this series?? where can i watch al of it?

  • @Biblington
    @Biblington 15 років тому

    because he hadn't enough men or resurses (the other leaders in cannae wouldnt give him more supplies)

  • @kaelim888
    @kaelim888 15 років тому

    Maybe there was an initial migration from western Europe, or let's say western Gaul, to eastern Europe. Before like you say, Yugoslavian Slavs moved west in 7th-8th century. So the slavic language came from the west maybe, then to the east?
    Or maybe the BBC just cocked up.

  • @3baxcb
    @3baxcb 14 років тому

    @ThamMalaysia Siege equipment was essential in those times to take a walled city like Rome. Otherwise, the best trained army of the time cannot take a city with a frontal assault which would be costly at best and in hostile territory very dangerous to do. Hannibal may have had more sense of the situation after Cannae than Maharbal.

  • @sondreus24
    @sondreus24 16 років тому

    the carthage army were mostly mercenaries.
    the roman army were mostly forced recruits,
    which is best ???

  • @darkdanu89
    @darkdanu89 15 років тому

    @Hallvardkristoffer99
    The carthaginian senators were afraid they would lose their power once the main enemy, Rome, was destroyed. And maybe they were right, maybe Hannibal would have started a carthaginian civil war after that, just like Caesar did after he conquered Gaul.
    So it wasnt because of stupidity, it was because of the senators greed, love of power and the fear of losing it.

  • @FiasaPower
    @FiasaPower 15 років тому

    Why didn't Hannibal crushed Rome after Cannae ? Rome was kneeling ...

  • @sushanalone
    @sushanalone 13 років тому

    @torongill80 Hannibal requested reinforcements form Carthage but they were refused due to jealousy and a weak attempt to reinforce new carthage. If he would have been re supplied he would have taken Rome. Instead the Carthaginian senate reinforced spain with its troops.

  • @Korianne75
    @Korianne75 15 років тому

    not enough soldiers

  • @rosamirafly
    @rosamirafly 13 років тому

    @francsturz
    And what an irony - English, so proudly spoken by Hannibal and all Roman characters - has barbaric origins, since it is a Germanic language. I would understand if all characters in the movie spoke English - it's a modern day documentary and English is an international language... but the distinction between English and Slavic?? I know I'm repeating myself but it's an outrage :(
    The director of this movie should try Latin, see if he can pronounce one word of it correctly :(

  • @joelmafonso
    @joelmafonso 17 років тому

    the barbarian rules

  • @ThamMalaysia
    @ThamMalaysia 14 років тому

    @3baxcb
    If that was the case, why go thru all the trouble
    and loss of men, crossing the Alps, to invade
    Rome then ?
    For what, in the end ? Languish in the countryside
    for 15 years, having his army cut down from
    40,000 after Cannae, to 15,000 ?

  • @KingoftheGods123
    @KingoftheGods123 15 років тому

    most of hannibals army was foreign aswell

  • @frozenfisherman
    @frozenfisherman 14 років тому

    is hannibal hugh laury =O?

  • @ThamMalaysia
    @ThamMalaysia 14 років тому

    That was Hannibal's greatest mistake, not to
    capitalize on his victory at Cannae and go
    straight for Rome.
    A preemptive strike was his best chance of
    victory, just as Maharbal, his cavalry commander,
    had urged, regardless of whether he had the
    siege equipment.
    Why go all the way across the Alps, lose more
    than half your army, only to languish in the countryside
    for the next 15 years ? What was his objective in
    the first place, if not to take Rome ?