The Battle of Cannae
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 бер 2010
- One of the most accurate ancient battle depictions in modern media.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_o...
Swearing vengeance against Rome for the humiliation they inflicted on Carthage, Hannibal Barca in his Iberian kingdom set out on an audacious plan to strike at Rome's heart in Italy, by marching an army of between 60,000 and 80,000 men overland through southern Gaul and over the Alps.
Somewhere over 40,000 arrived in Italy with Hannibal some months later.
With inferior numbers, Hannibal wielded a tactical and strategic genius which allowed him to twice outsmart and defeat the Roman armies at Lake Trasimene and the River Trebia.
Appointed Dictator by the Senate of Rome, Quintus Fabius Maximus was not about to let Hannibal demolish and humiliate the Romans again. He began a policy of "delaying", a war of attrition which would starve Hannibal's army out of Italy.
This policy lasted as long as Fabius Maximus's Dictatorship. After it expired, the new Consuls for the year, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, raised an army of some 16 legions numbering between 80,000 and 90,000 men, Roman and Italian, to meet Hannibal Barca and defeat him once and for all.
The ensuing day's battle would be the turning point for the Second Punic War, and the course of Roman and Carthaginian history. Hannibal's tactics would be studied and admired by Rome for hundreds of years to come.
The strategy, as it unfolded, began by presenting Rome with an unavoidably appealing target---the Carthaginian infantry line, slightly ragged, shaped like a crescent. The cavalry met first, with Hannibal's Iberian, Gallic, and Carthaginian cavalry quickly defeating the Romans, and chasing them off the field completely. The Roman army pressed into the infantry, which gave ground steadily, flexing the crescent shape around and creating a sort of crater for the front lines of the Romans to crash into. Much of the center would be stuck in place by the sheer mass of the army moving forward.
On cue, the elite African and Libyan troops of Hannibal's army extended the lines and attacked the Roman flanks, leaving one line of escape. This was sealed shut by the returning heavy cavalry. While virtually every Carthaginian line could fight the Romans, only the Roman lines on the extreme flanks, rear, and front could fight while the rest were crushed in the center, left to panic that they were surrounded, and undoubtedly losing the battle.
Estimates put the Roman casualties at 50,000, with Consul Paullus dead, and over eighty Roman Senators killed. Carthage lost 6,000 dead and 10,000 wounded.
Despite the stunning victory, Hannibal Barca did not press on Rome itself. Theories range, claiming Hannibal could have taken Rome by force, while others put forth that because Barca had no siege equipment, he would have bled his army out on the walls, as the Romans had left a garrison in the city, and would scrape together all the troops they could to defend the city to the death.
Hannibal was ultimately defeated by Publius Cornelius Scipio at the Battle of Zama, after spending over a decade in Italy, victim of returning Dictator Quintus Fabius Maximus's "delaying" tactics, an entire Roman army keeping Hannibal pinned in Italy while Scipio led another army to ultimately destroy Hannibal's "kingdom" in Iberia. Hannibal risked the journey to Carthage with his ragged army when Carthage itself was threatened by Rome.
It's so accurate, it's even filmed in authentic Roman 240p.
Lol
back then they had only 240p
😂😂😂
😂
Wow I didn’t even realize it but you’re right.
Thats what happens when you don't upgrade your hastati
+xRsAtx total war rome 2 lol
Ali Al Ubaidi no, rome 1
+xRsAtx ahaha , good one :)
+xRsAtx no kidding.
+xRsAtx best comment
People play Rome Total War and suddenly they're experts on ancient warfare.
"Get a view of the battlefield the generals wished they had!" --from _Decisive Battles_
Trollsif Stalin I agree, but you know, at least we learn the basics
I'm doing re-enactment so it's okay, but you're right they're all for legates.
+
Trollsif Stalin
Agree TW has a lot of inaccuracies, but its still historicaly the best game series out there.
many act smrat yes.
but look at that this way... i like history only coz of tw
Reading the comments, I would say that too many have been playing too much Rome - Total War
+falcons1988
But you can never play too much Rome Total War...can you?
+HisHolyMajesty never!
I love RTW
exactly !
falcons1988 your general lies dead because of his foolishness
The men are wavering.....
xd
Michael Castro Shamefur dispray!
the enemy attacking our general!
keep him alive!
Roma Invicta!
Michael Castro Gawd! An entire unit is dead sir!
Oh my god...a front line! My goodness! An actual front line. Not just armies running at top speed at each other, doing spinny moves and choreographed all around "Badassery" but actual historically acurate frontlines :D :D :D That was nice to see. Thank you!
that was nice but about everyting else didn't make much sense though
Yeaaaa well, sometimes you take what you can get, right?
even better frontline and formation. Well, Pullo breaks formation... but he is later FLOGGED for doing so.
ua-cam.com/video/J7MYlRzLqD0/v-deo.html
What is this, line, you speak of? My monkey brain learned everything about a historic battle from movies.
@@rachdarastrix5251 line is where people fight side by side with their ranks not a big brawl
No wonder the Romans lost, they brought an entire stack of Triarii against sword infantry!
+HisHolyMajesty Hah!
that was the only thing they had.
+HisHolyMajesty Yah they underestimated the tactics of the Carthaginians. Eventually Rome got their revenge
+HisHolyMajesty
Roman Triarii are better than Chartaginian sword infantry.
+HisHolyMajesty A lot of times, a spear can outclass a sword, due to it's reach.
Cannae, the measuring stick by which all military victories are measured and the kind of victory that all military leaders aspire to.
Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display. :D
Total War PTSD flashbacks
Roose Bolton LOL Rome 2 Total War
He is no true Roman he runs!
Roose Bolton aha dost Kayaoğlu sen Total war oynarmıydın
"The tide of battle is turning against us! We must do something!"
It's about time that an Ancient Rome military documentary NOT show Republican Legionaries wearing Lorica Segmentata. Well done,
Yep. But they wear pants, and they don't throw their pila before clashing against the enemy.
Better than usual but not perfect.
@@ilmaio no they do. Pillas were invented just 10 years before this battle.
@@ilmaioi think during this time most legionaires still use hoplite style spear borrowed from the greeks
At 4:00 when Hannibal says "Let them taste victory" with that 'fuck the world' smug: so bad ass.
The first double envelopment maneuver in recorded military history. It is still studied in all military academies.
Hannibal was truly revolutionary. One of the top 5 commanders ever surely.
Mike Cimerian Technically that was the battle of marathon not Cannae, its actuilly a difficult manauver to qualify because essentially the same thing happened at marathon, the centre folded back and the flanks forced its way forward then into the enemies flank its just they had to fight for and through the manouver where as hannibal was sneaky and managed to spring a trap essentially.
This is mainly coz the definition only accounts for the flanking force not the complete surrounding which is an encirclement and this has also been done before Cannae however i believe there have only ever been 2 encirclements by a numerically inferior force and Cannae has the honour of being one of these, and against rome which is bloody impressive.
The other big deal was that Hannibal actually had smaller numbers. Until this, encirclement on the battlefield was only achieved with greater forces.
Generals from Napoleon Bonaparte to Erwin Rommel, to Norman Schwarzkopf studied Hannibal. Even they are surprised by Hannibal's accomplishments.
@@artemisfowl52 Hannibal had far greater numbers at Cannae than the Greeks had at Marathon...
Slight misrepresentation of Hannibal's strategy- the center of the line (which was under the control of not only Mago but also Hannibal himself, in person) did NOT break, but perform a controlled retreat to draw more and more Romans in. If the line had broken, the Romans might have actually won. Also, the flanking troops that performed the encirclement weren't a "hidden reserve"- Hannibal's true genius in this battle was how he deployed his troops to take best advantage of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and while he put his weakest troops in his center (bolstered by his and Mago's presence to ensure they _didn't_ break), he put his best troops on the flanks, so they'd remain where they were when the center of the line bowed in, so the trap was less obvious. The Romans were baited into encircling _themselves._
Precisely correct
Exactly, I was waiting for the center front line to start retreating, but sadly didn't happen in this depiction
It was a "controlled desperate" retreat. Hannibal took lots of risks here but knew his men well. At times they were just hanging on in the centre, but Rome lost 20% of its adult male population that day. Unbelievable!
Oh you were there?
@@johnboy2349 lmao love morons like you
Remember, this was the battle with the most casualties on a single day up until World War One, over a thousand years later. To say that the Romans took heavy losses would be a massive understatement, like saying that having your arms and legs blown off is only a flesh wound ;-)
But Hannibal made some serious gambles here! He gambled that his infantry could hold long enough for his cavalry to defeat the Romans and that his cavalry could actually defeat the Roman cavalry. There was always the danger that the Roman's superior numbers would tip the scale.
Let's call it a tie
't Is but a scratch!
He gambled, but it was a quite reasonable gamble really. His cavalry has always proven superior to the Romans' in the past, having covered themselves with laurels at the battles of the Ticinus, Trebbia and Lake Trasimene, besides numerous skirmishes. And on his left wing his 6,000 Gauls and Iberians outnumbered the 1,800 Romans more than 3:1, so the odds were stacked in his favor. On his right wing it was a more equal fight, 4,000 vs 3,600, but Maharbal and his Numidians were not expected to defeat the cavalry of the socii anyway, but simply to keep them busy with their skirmishing tactic until Hasdrubal's heavy horse did their job and came to help them out. Finally, cavalry battle were generally decided much faster than infantry ones, in fact according to Polybius before the infantry of the two sides met the cavalry combat on the left wing had been decided already.
Hannibal's biggest gamble was simply that the Romans would keep to their traditional and predictable tactical plan, without adding any new invention. If for example the Romans had simply covered their whole front line from mountain to sea with their legions with their cavalry held back to act as a mobile reserve, Hannibal's plan wouldn't work at all. However given how unimaginative he found most Roman commanders so far, that too was a reasonable guest.
***** most people in a battle were killed in the rout. thats where the big numbers come from
+Telsion Dude I know you from WT videos and now I ended up here and found you here again.
These romans should have played more total war
Yeah Cannae was a really disaster for Roman Army, though usually they won every battles because they were far superior skilled fighters, the strongest in Europe at the time. Though usually Hollywood makes some shitty scenes with romans loosing battles like they weren't a true professional army, it's indeed the opposite. Just watch the battle scene of the movie "Centurion" where almost 130 Pits defeat an entire Roman Legion in a scottish wood, a Legion of 9000 soldiers, that's quite impossibile isn't it ? Even with an excellent ambush is still impossible
+Frank -97 rain in the days of the early republic the romans didnt have standing armies. They were conscripted in times of crisis and had to pay for their own equipment.
+Frank -97 nope, they only had good formations and lockstep discipline, and that is effective
Sorry, but You dont have right.
Rome, had only two cards to play.
01. Universal, "manipular" formation. Manipuls, were universal formation, where even fresh recruits, could easy find their place.
02. Great demographic reserves.
Ad 1.
Hellenic "combined arms warfare", was much more powerfull, than roman manipular sistem, but it was hard to create fully equiped army in hellenic style (you needed well trained trops, a lot of horses and other stuff for approvisation).
The other part was that, hellenic combined army, was very hard to command, so, you need not only good support, but good commanders too.
It was kind of warfare, created by Philip II of Macedonia and Hannibal for me, he was master of that kind of warfare.
Ad 2.
Rome had such big demographic reserves at 2 Punic Was, that never before, and as i think, never ever after.
If there wasn;t roman demographic baby boom of that time, Rome would fall, if not to Hannibal, than to other Ittalics.
You must remember, that during only 3 battles, Romans lost nearly 100k soliders. Later, almost 50k more.
150k of young men lost in antient times in 2-3 years.
Such demographic loss would mean destruction of almost every mediterenian country at that time, but not Rome, who had great reserves of people.
You must remember, that Rome not only fought with Cartage in Italia. Rome, as well send almost 50k men army to Spain, to cut off Hannibal supply lines. There wese fleet, as well to provide support for spanish contingent, and that is not all, becose, Rome didn't rulled all Iralia, at that time, so there were needed forces, to maintain order in Italic cieies as well. So it was a lot of soliders, and a lot of people to support and army maintain.
I gues, you can say, that baby boom of 100 years, was crucial, to achive victory.
Wiez4 yes i am right, good formation and discipline will beat many foes in war lol
I love this so much. The fact that every unit keeps its formation. The slight pause at 3:09 before the lines meet, making the soldiers feel like humans rather than pieces on a chessboard as they so often do in dramatizations. It’s so good.
Cannae was an example of Hannibal's overall strategy: inflict crushing defeats on the Romans until they sued for peace to avoid further unnecessary casualties. Unfortunately for him, the Romans still had a lot of advantages and they knew it, and so did he. Some people like to say that Hannibal could have marched on Rome after Cannae, but such a campaign would have been doomed to failure, something he was all too aware of. And when he sent peace overtures to the Romans, they shut the gates to the city, showing him that they knew it, too.
Tricking the Roman’s into basically entrapping themselves was absolutely brilliant.
The coolest and most badass fact about this battle is that Hannibal didn't sit somewhere high a top of a hill overlooking the battle but was actually on foot in the front lines fighting with his troops to inspire them and make sure that the line wouldn't break completely - that's some fucking balls to the wall badassery right there
i doubt it. It was likely that he was riding in a horse in the last minute urging the Gauls and the Spanish then rode right behind the crescent and mounted his one and only elephant Surus posted in the centre.
'coolest and most badass', what does his mean in plain English?
@@mcbrians.8508he lost all his elephants by Cannae, so riding his horse was more likely. Though the Gaulish and Iberian warrior culture respected the idea of the commander fighting along his men.
Hannibal lost because of the following factors:
1) He had to rely on an army of not-well-trained mercenaries who only won battles thanks to his tactical brilliance. They weren't particularly loyal, well-armed, or disciplined (he kept them in line by holding their families hostage).
2) Carthage refused to lend him any support, forcing him to essentially conduct the war by himself.
3) The Romans, thanks to the above factors, could withstand anything he threw at them.
People say that Hannibal was a great tactician but a terrible strategist. I'd have to slightly disagree with the latter. He wasn't a bad strategist, but he lacked the resources to strike more decisive blows against Rome. Some people say that he could have invaded Rome after his victory at Cannae, but he didn't have the resources or strength to mount a campaign of that magnitude and he knew it, so he didn't.
The first point is kinda wrong. What the Romans called mercenaries were pretty much levies from Carthaginian client states, akin to Rome's own Socii and Alae auxilia. And at this point in time, actual mercenaries were typically better armed and equipped than most soldiers as well as being true professional soldiers. Until the Marian reforms, Roman soldiers had to pay out of pocket for their own equipment, with the Hastati making up the bulk of the army typically having just a small circular or square breastplate and fabric for protection aside from their shield. While the noble Triarii were almost indistuinguishable from hoplites. Professional mercenaries could often afford a complete set of Greek crafted greaves and body armor. For similar reasons, this is why mercenaries remained in widespread use up until about 1500. In many cases, such as the Swiss pikemen or Italian condotierre, they were just straight up better than whatever the state could drum up on short notice.
And Hannibals cavalry were 100 times better than the roman cavalry could ever hope to be
all correct! mercenaries of those times effectively were the only professionals of their job. that's what they did for living. thus, they were better equipped and more skillful than an "army man" summoned from time to time.
Cheapsunglasses hannibal lost the war because carthage didn't give him reinforcements after the battle of cannae.
Two months after The Battle of Cannae Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s second brother, returned to Spain and smashed two more Roman armies, 4 more legions. Incredibly the Roman’s would raise 9 new legions by next summer, 5 more by next spring.
Its like the german tigers against the allied tanks. "One of ours could destroy 4 of theirs, but they always had 5."
That seemed to happen a lot in the Punic wars, Rome would lose battle after battle but still be able to replenish and push on regardless. Also pro-tip to Carthage, pay your damn mercenaries on time!
the roman found the best exploit in the game, just spawn more soldiers somehow
@@gamerland2317 that's like what the soviet did to the german army in ww2 more meat shield
@@SamDurkSheff they came close to depleting their manpower reserves, though.
The Genius of Hannibal. The bow was allowed to reverse so forming an envelopment of the Roman legions moving forward and committed to it. My understanding is that Hannibal placed his 'weakest' troops at that point knowing that they would be pushed back. As the envelopment was about to be completed, the Carthaginian Cavalry returned from driving off the Roman Cavalry to 'shut the door' and so complete the action. It then became a 'Battle of Annihilation' and the compression on the Roman legionnaires meant they were increasingly unable to wield their swords and so were all cut down in about 8 hours. The plan was very similar to that used by Gen Norman Schwarzkopf in Gulf War 1.
Shwarz tactic was an undetected movement and deployment of an outflanking heavy force to his far left. The marines breaching the berm were the holding force,as the army and airborne swept deep into the Iraqi rear. They actually sped up the time table of the out flanking move because of the quick progress at the border. He called it his "hail mary" play. Coalition achieved a rout and shot up the retreating jumble. Shwarz credited Alexander. Hannibal managed a complete envelopment and annihilation with only a single force...I would say the the closest thing to Cannae would be Marathon. The similarity between GW1 and Hanni battles is more like Trebia..
The most heartwrenching part of this video
7:03
"And yet i felt no sense of triumph"
3:37 Total War: when your first line is wavering
and next you hear : your men are running from the battlefield . a shameful display! (rome 2)
*then u remember, you got no damn reserves*
Not in Napoleon. No such thing as first line there. Everybody is formed a single line, no reserves.
He knew too well his opponents, the two consuls switched overall command each day. One was more temperate and the other aggressive. He chose to attack on the day when the latter was in command.
Hannibal didnt initiate the battle... How many armchair historians we got here
Yup. It was until Scipio Africanus that Romans learnt a lesson. You cannot just use brute force, you need to play smart.
he did@@WilliamLawrence7
Another very important strategy was Hannibal's use of the elements. The sun was in the Roman's eyes and the wind was blowing a fine sand in their faces. They had no depth perception and could not see behind them, making the calvary trapping their rear successfully. He used every aspect of his army and the element perfectly, sealing the fate of the Romans.
like the Qadissiya battle between the Muslim caliphate and the Persian empire, a battle that triggered a chain reaction that undermined Persian rule in Mesopotamia. After 4 days of grueling battle that didn't have clear result, suddenly came a sandstorm facing the Persian troops on the 5th day, this was used by the caliphate troops to attack and destroy the Persian troops who were in disarray.
Hannibal, the Sun Tzu of Carthage. Simply glorious,
This comment is an insult to Hannibal. We can't even tell if Sun Tzu was a real person, let alone compare Hannibal's feats to him.
@@MiguelRodrigues-wf4hy scipio Africanus is the real deal
@@paolocane3654 who was finished after zama
Who is after Oversimplified video?
No matter what movie you watch the camera man never dies.
1:53 a mounted slinger?!
well i never...
Me neither, but it was kinda cool.
+Radickly Rick The Greeks had arpodoxtorat, mounted slingers, that predates this. So why not?
And most of hannibal's cavalry was from North Africa, where berbers, maurs and numidians were renowned for their skirmisher cavalry
Trollsif Stalin
i never seen that before.. i wonder how effective they were.
i cant imagine someone being accurate with a sling while riding a bouncing horse.
and in this video there is a rider and slinger on horse... fuck, how slow would they move.
moebiusraptor
horse archers... yes.
bu sling.. like how they did it... isn't a horse head in a way of a sling..?
i would love to see this in action.
Soldiers in antiquity were truly men with giant pairs of balls. The way they fought to the death, knowing that surrender meant slavery (or worse) that being captured if wounded meant death, & it could be a long battle, injury could come from any angle..
the real difference between The ancient Romans and us modern Italians is they always learn from your mistakes we do not
no is a mistake.....the invaders were few in number to "contaminate" the gene pool Italic
the main difference is that they are latin and you have german and blood of arabs
first Rome was invaded by the Gauls in 300 a.c then the Romans also had blood gallic
second:: the Arabs occupied Sicily for only a short period
third:.the invaders were few in number to "contaminate" the gene pool Italic
a.c in in italian is before Christ
***** in fact it is not so....the conquerors never replace the native, only if there is a genocide but this has never happened
Hannibal - good tactician, bad strategist
Romans - bad tacticians, good strategists
Absolutely. This isn't as readily apparent though to the casual viewer/reader as his overall desultory nature regarding his grand strategy was overshadowed by the brilliance he showed on the field. I think he was more focused on whipping Rome's little bitch-ass-bitchass in a set-piece battle than he was on setting and defining clear strategic objectives to form an overarching strategy designed to achieve said goals. I don't think Hannibal ever considered "unconditional surrender" by Rome an option, but had he done so it's not outside the realm of impossible that a game plan could have been put into play to make it happen.
SloveintzWend Come on man, you can't say Scipio or Caesar were bad tacticians. Romans adapted, learned, overcame the difficulties.
At this stage Rome's army used a single method in battle, every time, because their army were short-service militiamen. But they trained and fought a lot, so every man knew the whole drill well. It was a pretty effective method. This approach also allowed their political leaders to lead armies in the field. It took a leader of genius to defeat them regularly. Not bad tacticians at all, the Republican Romans developed a method that worked and dominated Italy with it.
It is pretty clear that Hannibal meant to subdue Rome and break its power by stripping it of subject allies. The Romans saw it as an existential struggle between Carthage and Rome, which I think Hannibal probably failed to understand.
in fact, romans just copy hannibal strategy of attacking the enemy in his territory
Looks like Varron turn off the fire at will on the hastati
Its Varro
@@cesarruiz5507 Gaius Terrentius Varro
hannibal one of the worlds greatest millitary tactitian
And he was black too
@@tierracooper3356
Actually, Arab.
It’s debatable what race Hannibal was, buuuut chances are he was a mix of Phoenician and African. I’m glad that they didn’t make him white tho.
Right, tactician. But strategy tramples tactics...
@Matricx700 they’re two different things
Are those Hastati wearing pre-Marian Reform armor? With actual spears? Forming an actual line? And better armored Principes and Triarii being send after the first line broke? My God. Too bad we didn't see any pilum being throw, but this is amazing.
they didn't start throwing pilums till the marian reforms
@@waliddrissi8370 We think the Romans used javelins for a long time and picked up the pila from Spanish mercs in the first or secound punic war.
Hannibal Barca was an excellent tactician; he knew how to fight and win battles, but he failed to exploit these victories, and thus lacked the strategic oversight of someone like Alexander, whom captured numerous cities and provinces, founded dozens more, and won over a hundred battles. Alexander possessed both tactical and strategic brilliance. As Maharbal said "You, Hannibal, know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it."
Much like Japan versus the United States thousands of years later, Carthage's only chance to defeat the much more wealthy and populated Rome was to force it to surrender early after quick losses. Just like the United States in WW2, the Romans won by drawing the war out into a protracted conflict, where their numbers and economic superiority could make a difference.
That view is incorrect. Hannibal was defeated because he never received proper support from the Carthaginian government. His army was never large enough to surround the city of Rome, he had to use much of his army to garrison cities loyal to him.
I'm reading a book about this.Hannibal was one of the greatest military minds in history and this is one of histories most decisive battles.
What's most fascinating is that Hannibal could win battle after battle with his army composed of several different people who spoke totally different languages and still hold it all together. That sure is a feat of it's own.
Hannibal is that Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Doctor Bashir actor, Alexander Siddig. That guy had a lot of TV and movie roles. Did you know one of his uncles is actor Malcolm McDowell, and another uncle was a former Prime Minister of Sudan? He is very connected.
It is my head cannon that this is all happening in a holo deck. O'brien is also there but he is playing the role a roman grunt being slaughtered.
Thanks for pointing this out.I thought that was Siddig. He did a superb job in his role as Hannibal.
Dr Bashir also played the Ayyubid officer, Imad, in Kingdom of Heaven lol. Now he's doing holodeck programs set in the crusades, O'brien is probably playing a Hospitaller or a Kingdom of Jerusalem Man-at-Arms haha
It's funny how people love to quote that, and completely ignore that whole thing about Alexander always having a secure supply line to Macedon and tons of siege weapons, whereas Hannibal Barca had an army half his size, no supply lines, and no siege weapons. How do you recommend an army with no extra supplies and no siege weapons besiege a city as massive and heavily fortified as Rome?
Hannibal honestly thought the Romans would surrender and sue for peace the moment he turned up outside the City Walls. Strangely, they didn't, and from then on Hannibal had lost the iniaitive. As his brother rather curtly told him : 'You know how to win a victory, but not how to use it.'
@@xj900uk Not strangely the Roman's didn't surrender, Rome was still fairly well enough to not surrender for the following reasons.
- Rome was behind walls, along with most major cities in the Italian Peninsula was still under Roman rule despite Hannibal being there. Sieges are extremely costly and the cities are easily supplied through ports; Hannibal knew this and it was futile to even try.
- Despite the debacle at Cannae, Rome fielded 3 more armies led by Fabius, Gracchus, and Marcellus just to keep an eye out on Hannibal's army, although the quality of the troops is a different story.
- Even if the quality of the troops was not up to par, Marcellus and his army alone was able to fight Hannibal head on and keep him at bay ensuring the cities are still safe under Rome's protection.
- Rome knew that Hannibal and Macedon was negotiating for an alliance which is self-evident that Hannibal knew he didn't have the numbers to lay a costly siege.
Now Rome didn't know about this but this didn't help Hannibal in anyway.
- Hannibal's political rival Hanno II doubted his victory was so effective because, Rome was still not willing to surrender, no major cities defected. He delayed every single effort to reinforce Hannibal. Hanno II believed for the best interest of Carthage, Spain was the best investment because that is where their source of income is at, especially Hanno's income.
- Hasdrubal Barca was on his way to Rome to reinforce Hannibal which would have been enough to end Rome but, he was stopped by the Gnaeus and Publius Scipio's armies in Spain.
Easier said than done; If Hannibal's brother was given command, he wouldn't have done any better. Hannibal was a good general but his situation in Italy, he was logistically and politically broken.
Source: HistoryMarche
Cntrl alt +s is how!
FACT: Hannibal was a complete failure. he never even sieged Rome.
Now Scipio Africanus was a great general. Sacked Carthage 2x and destroyed it utterly (see the punic wars). and was the first Roman general to be named after the place he conquered. not lauded as some dolt who ran around for like 16 years accomplishing nothing
@@vonn4017 Actually Hannibal did lay siege to Rome, briefly, but he knew he couldn't maintain it so it was more symbolic than anything. I am sorry but Hannibal, even by the Roman Republic's admission, was the greatest general they ever faced. But they learned from their failures and shortcomings, and how he had beaten then on the battlefields. Hannibals' main problem was that North African Carthage tended to look down their noses at him, as he was from the 'lesser' Spanish Carthaginians, and hardly ever gave him any support or supplies whilst he was campaigning on the Italian peninsular. No wonder he had to ask Gallic mercenaries for help to swell his depleted ranks.
Dr Bashir is a badass
The good old double envelopment maneuver that is the first in recorded history. Hannibal was a genius and had Carthage not pussied out and sent him the reinforcements he needed, he could have very well won the war.
Actually, the first was in Marathon. The difference is that the persians actually got pushed, Hannibal just tricked the Romans.
Prior to Hannibal, the Roman's used basic battle tactics at this time, later it was to become the major force by introducing better equipment, weapons and a professional standing army. Mainly at this time the steamroller effect was used to overwhelm the opposition by sheer force and numbers. Hannibal however didn't play that game using the sun the dust and terrane to his advantage. His was a mobile army mainly mercenaries, with tactics used Hannibal was able to manoeuvre his army quickly whereas the large Roman army was a lumbering herd bogged down by their own mass.
Varro the Roman Co-Counsul took the rap for the defeat whereas Scipio Africanus survived and made himself a hero by self promotion, later to go on and sack Cathay.
Why he didn't attack Rome I believe because his wasn't an army equipped for that type of prolonged war. Hannibal had no siege machines, no artillery and virtually supply lines back to Carthage, his was fully mobile force, this he showed in all his major battles, get the job done and retire.
This is a really good depiction of the battle, showing well the diversity of equipment used by Hannibal's troops, raised from Iberia, and Gaul, as Carthage contributed little of its own troops. The only mistakes are: Romans with pants(Aesthetic) and the Romans not using Pilum javelins before their charge.
The only problem I have is that the Romans are dressed like Romans, which is understandable, but probably inaccurate. In the 3rd century BC the Roman soldier paid for his own equipment, so as long as it was cheap he wasn't really bothered if it was a bit different from whatever his mates were using.
Sticking a Pilum in the enemy shield was a important step in degrading the front ranks. Makes it near impossible to manuver the shield. The short Gladia sword was not commonly used by the Romans until after the Punic wars. The made it standard after seeing how Iberian soldiers used it in close combat.
the Carthaginian depiction here is not particularly accurate
2:31 Their marching thud is intimidating, seeing 90,000 men march forward is a quite an impressive sight.
53,500-75,000 Romans killed against 5,700 Carthaginian Republic. Difference tells it all about.
I can't imagine how awesome and terrifying it would be to be in those battle lines
That's why I always go for upgrades over more units.
the crucial difference was not the quality of the troops, but the mind behind the commanders
god i love this battle. I wish they showed the looks on the enemy general's faces when their entire army got surrounded.
Oops nevermind. I just read that the Carthaginian cavalry had killed one of the two generals and sent the other fleeing back to Rome before returning to encircle the roman infantry.
I still don't know why the BBC decided to put Hannibal up a hill watching the battle. I've read many articles written by historians and professors on this battle with all of them stating Hannibal was actually commanding the front line. In fact, many of them theorize that if he had not been in the front line inspiring his troops, the line would have broken for real and would have been routed.
Tactics win battles, but strategies win wars.
The battle of Cannae is one of the three major battles General Hannibal Barca won against the Romans- the other two were called Trebia and Trasimene...
After this victory he ate all the Roman corpses and changed his last name from Barca to Lecter.
Victor Davis Hanson estimated that, each minute, nearly six hundred legionaries died at Cannae until darkness finally came.
There were so many Romans to kill that legionaries who were stuck in the center had no where to go - often with their fathers, sons, brothers, and friends. All they could do is wait until the Carthaginian line reaches them for their turn to fight and die. Some decided instead to commit suicide or bury their head in the ground.
They were"nt all killed because Hannibal stopped the massacre;the rest were hamstrung instead if you know what that is,so they could never msrch again and useless as soldiers
The rumble as the Roman line aproveches Hannibal’s supposed weakened center was MAGNIFICENT!
The problem with confidence is that with over confidence you do not see the plans of your enemys that are before your eye
I'd say it's quite accurate, a few minor things are off, but other than that this is great!
In the end Rome turns Carthage into dust
Well, military victory isn't everything, especially since Hannibal was so far from Carthage and he had trouble at home. Still, Rome lost around 20% of its male adult population in this battle alone, its truly amazing how they came back and defeated Hannibal in just 13 years after this. Rome truly was one of a kind empire in history.
They destroyed an entire civilization and have the audacity to call others barbarians
Also, the Arabs avenged their Semitic Carthaginian cousins and sacked Rome in 846 and conquered Sicily 😂
Wow what an awesome clip! Thank you for posting this!
So awesome, what a great depiction. Thanks for the upload.
And the Oscar for Best Picture EVER goes to..... HANNIBAL:Rome's Worst Nightmare!
The Napoleonist very good documentary-drama, the British are past masters of this kind of thing. I would like to see one made on Athelstan, the Father of England. I think he deserves far more credit than he gets. Great acting though
likesmilitaryhistory Alan Moore Yup,that's right. But just look at the battle m8! It's bloody ace!
The Napoleonist Yep
Its a shame Hannibal was an amazing general, but Carthage was a useless faction. If it weren't for Hannibal the war would have been over in a couple of years.
Hannibal forgot to bring siege engines over the Alps.
Raluyen Skylance He probably couldn't. He did his best considering Carthage was useless.
actually if it werent for hannibal carthage would never have been in the war. he started the war without the approval of carthage. they just backed his play after the fact
the thing was hannibal was such a great general, he could win every battle he fought but, he was unable to use his victories in the campaign, and it was for that , that he fails and his empire with him
ruben g e Its not that he was unable to use his victories, he couldn't be resupplied or supported by Carthage, since they were losing everywhere else in the war. However I do think he should have risked it and marched straight to Rome after Cannae, even if his army was exhausted.
This was from a BBC Drama Historical Documentary called 'Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare', which was shown on the BBC a few years ago, you can get the full one on UA-cam.
Peter Connolly books got me into this when i was a kid. awesome !
"Computer, end Bashir program 'Cannae'."
Total war fandom, game of thrones fandom, haha. These types of videos always have such colorful comment sections
You forgot the Trek Fandom.
Was waiting for Dr Basir to say “computer end program”..and Miles to say “well played”
This almost the same thing happened to me in Shogun 2, except I was the one who was outnumbered and I was ambushed by two large armies. They basically trapped me in the middle of a *U*.
You know what I did? I forced my troops to charge at one side of the enemy army, while deploying a spearwall to save my archers and move the rest of my troops into a better position. It was a Heroic Victory XD
"The gods have given to man no sharper spur to victory than contempt of death" Hannibal Barca
Nice video.
Now, is that Doctor Bashir from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? Because it sure looks like him.
spasjt Yes
steeden54 Man he's out of his usual acting circle isn't he? Swords and sandal is a long way from phasers and transporters. He does a good job.
Good eye!
They got him in the end regardless of how many victories he had. Excellent video and thank you please have a good evening 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊.
2:40
Imagine the sound of tens of thousands of heavy infantry marching in solid formation against you, feeling the trembling well before they're in fighting reach...
It's a shame that even when you use the same tactics in any total war game, the enemy still manages to beat you :/
Yeah, because
1) The AI, instead of breaking your center, always tries to outflank you...so it NEVER falls for this strategy trick.
2) When you make your fighting unit go even only a few backward, they turn and give their back to the enemy, thus they get slaughtered.
3) Your units rout too early to resist against such an overwhelming force.
Why is Dr. Julian Bashir commanding the Carthaginian forces at Cannae?
guess all those lunches with garak finally paid off!
That casting call jarred me right out of my immersion because I know Siddig as Bashir, and made me think I was watching one of Bashir's holosuite power fantasies.
He's playing in the holo-room.
Well we do know he liked to roleplay various events in military history. I just assume that's what he was doing. Makes me wonder which Roman Miles was playing:p
What are you talking about? It's Doran Martell, the Prince of Dorne.
I can only think of a few generals in history with the skill of Hannibal. An incredible battle
I'm always thankfull that the time travelling cameraman gets out safe in the end
SO apparently this is what Doctor Bashir and Chief Obrien were doing in the holosuites on ds9.
The Romans were a mainly barely trained militia of about 60 000 men (40 000 Romans + auxiliaries), while Hannibal's men were professionals and about 32 000 strong. Hannibal could ask his men the impossible and they did it. The Roman generals could not do that with their untrained men. Hannibal's tactic was brilliant, but he could not have done it with Roman troops. 60 000 dead is greatly exaggerated, but 10 000 up to 15 000 is possible. After the battle the Romans reassembled two legions, some 20 000 men, auxiliaries not included. (A legion counted 10 000 men in those days).
How mistaken you are. If you actually had done any research on the Battle of Cannae you'd know that most historians like Livy agree that Hannibal could have had as many as 50,000 soldiers at the battle, including as much as a fifth of that being cavalry. At the time there were no such thing as auxiliaries as Gauis Marius had not even yet existed to enact his consular reforms in the Roman Army. There were what you called allied soldiers, soldiers from roman client states sworn to fight with Rome whenever she needed them. There were more than 40,000 Polybian Roman Cohorts and another 40,000 allied cohort infantry, alongside as much as 5,000-6,000 combined Roman-Allied cavalry. Hannibal's men were by no means professionals, simply experienced. After the battles of Lake Trasimene and Trebia, Hannibal's troops had won two decisive victories against Rome and by then knew what they were doing. Also, 60,000 dead is not greatly exaggerated, it's greatly UNDER exaggerated. Livy states that at least 68,000-75,000 allied and roman infantry perished in the battle. There is a reason they know the battle as the "Disaster at (of) Cannae" rather than just a simple battle. 10,000 to 15,000 is just plain incorrect, to be very honest, because after the battle Capua, Tarentum, Rhegion, and other city states of Rome revolted against the Republic and swore their allegiance to Carthage, stating that they had lost all confidence that Rome could protect them anylonger. Since when does a loss of only 1/8th of the force that the Romans brought result in several major city states expunging roman troops from their garrisons and welcoming Hannibal's men? After 19 months of fighting Hannibal had destroyed SIX CONSULAR ARMIES (SIXTEEN LEGIOS AND NINETY SIX TRIBUNES MILITUS) which amounted to over 160,000 men. Rome had lost almost a fifth of their total manpower count and was in complete and total disarray. I'm beginning to think that you are atttempting more so to discount Hannibal in his victory against the romans than state something factual and accurate, because all of the data you presented in your hypothesis is either completely or partially false, to be very truthful with you.
***** Again, untrue. You stated that if I asked Scipio Africanus if it took a year to train a legionnaire, he wouldn't be able to tell me. Scipio Africanus died 30 years before Gaius Marius was even born, and he was the one who started the proletarian Legionnaire system. The Romans at this time would have used the Polybian Cohort system, which combined the former Hastati and Principe infantry into one unit of cohorts because too many of the Hastati were being killed off in the Punic Wars. THAT as a unit would be actually BETTTER than an early legionary unit because you had a good mix of experienced troops and inexperienced troops. To say that the Roman Principe was a mediocre warrior is blasphemous and strictly incorrect. It took six months to train a polybian cohort and even less time to train allied soldiers since they were already previously employed as warriors in another nation. What proof have you that Hannibal had professionals? You haven't disputed my claim that he had 50,000 men, all you've effectively done is said that I'm wrong. You haven't drawn from any information from antique historians like Livy or Cicero. All you've basically said is that you're right and I'm wrong, and anyone who has even done a lick of research could know that you are simply incorrect. In fact, I dare you to name one reason why Hannibal wouldn't have had 50,000 soldiers. Explain to me your reasoning for why you think Hannibal either could not or would not have had 50,000 men? I mean, that's nothing at Cannae. He took thousands of them and ELEPHANTS over the ALPS, what possesses you to think that he couldn't lead 50,000 men in a relatively flat, temperate climate like Cannae? The consuls had all the men they could have possibly wanted and more, Hannibal was just the better tactician, and his victories at Trebia and Lake Trasimene show it.
the romans had plenty of hastatii and triarii, (very) trained soldiers by the standards of that time. The professionals in the Hannibal army were the spearmen and the cavalry (spanish heavy cavalry and the numidian mercenary) the rest were allies from different tribes. His army was clearly outnumbered, no question, however, it counted at least 45000 men, 10000 from them was the cavalry.
Roman legions never changed size, they were always about 6000, 4800 Heavy infantry 1200 auxiliaries, not to mention camp followers.
I would agree if your statistics were anywhere near right.
Dr bashir..... you were sworn to save lives.
"They will be surrounded on three sides" - brilliant!
Great Battle Plan. Great Victory. And it all went for nothing. Hannibal could not capitalize on his victory, and he learned the sad lesson so many Roman adversaries had to learn - the Romans' wealth and incredible flexibility, their enduring persistence and their absolute confidence in the idea which was "Rome." Zamma was the victory, not Hannibal's masterpiece at Cannae.
+Blueboyo1 Agree but I still could not understand how they could have continued the fight after losing so many men. How the fuck do you replace those numbers in such a short time and just stall Hannibal from winning. And this pre industrial we're talking about which means populations weren't huge back then. Was it a no surrender/retreat strategy or were romans really headstrong/stubborn?
nimmivids well then I can conclude the carthaginians (except hannibal) were a bunch of pussies unfit of ruling an empire and deserved to get destroyed by their adversary
+hazzmati I believe after a series of defeats in Rome, the Romans refused to to fight a pitched battle against Hannibal, thus his army had to live of the land (not ideal) and then upon hearing of Carthage being attacked had to head back home.
Had he attacked Rome itself there is a lot of citizen's that would take up arms against him.
@@hazzmati Hard-liners won the debates back in the Roman Senate after news of the battle, and they adopted the strategy of win or die. They knew there was no retreat, within their own nation. They took dire measures, but it was the right one. Rome had more population and more economic power, therefore stretching the war out into one of attrition was a winning strategy. Hannibal was also hamstrung by Carthage's own ruling class, who feared his popularity with the commoners, and refused to send him adequate men or supplies to continue his offensives effectively. They pretty much cut their own throats.
Stirrups in 216 bc? Bullshit.
Its hard to get insurance for actors without stirups
fl333r So watch "Rome".
+MichalBreslau "Rome" was produced on a way higher budget
Hannibal army casualties
5,700
Roman army casualties
67,500
Hannibal should be in the top list greatest generals ever
I agree with you
He is the greatest one ever
How terrible it must’ve been to be a Roman and die by being asphyxiated by your own comrades who were pressed into a human crush or just standing there not even getting to use your weapon while you looked on helplessly just waiting to get stabbed.
the armors and weapons look indeed good, too bad that the romans dont throw javelins before charge as it would be accurate.
Edit: Ok, the outfit of the Numidian cavalry at 1:20 sucks aswell. Looks like the stereotypical Arabs with turbans and other unhistorical stuff.
While this is indeed a good depiction of the battle, I am most disturbed by the lack of javelins. We know that javelins were common in infantry upon charging.
+Philipp Christmann Probably too dangerous to depict without CGI
He seriously overestimated how long his infantry could hold.
The first thing that I learned about the Battle of Cannae was that, in the aftermath, *every* household in Rome went into mourning.
likely propaganda
Hannibal doesn't get the credit he deserves. he was a brilliant commander. as the old saying says, history is written and explained by the victor. usually they would dog their defeated foes, but even the Roman writers had respect for this "barbarian" commander. Hannibal used Caesarian tactics long before Caesar ever existed.
His own leaders feared him, they believed taking power after the defeat of Rome. So they sent nearly no reinforcements because of politic reasons. they so gave Rome time to recover and counter-attack in Spain. you could say, Carthage defeated itself in the end. Hannibal was betrayed by his own leaders, his Family killed. He was one of the best Commanders in history, but also a tragic figure.
right right. he could've taken Rome if he had his country behind him. its pretty amazing reading about him. any time you say the name "Hannibal" everybody always thinks youre talking about the movie because most idiots hate history heh but they would hate it less if they read about men like him.
Ohio Against The World I read Hannibal treated the bodies of fallen Roman commanders with great respect.
yep heard the same, non-Roman historians don't talk too bad about the Parthians but some talk bad about Hannibal lol makes no sense. I don't ever remember reading about Hannibal pouring molten gold down their defeated foes throats and stuff, yanno? hell Spartacus probably would've treated Marcus Crassus better if HE'D captured him as opposed to the Parthians. but according to all the non-Roman writers, Hannibal was a horrifically bad general. seems like BS considering the Romans themselves didn't even think that.
Well... Not very accurate. They got the cavalry wrong, it only shows half the story. And the flanking infantry "reserve" as well, they were heavy infantry and were not hidden.
The battle took place of a perfectly flat plain. They were hidden behind the front line. But yes, they should have been Liby-Phoenicians probably.
this battle was a disastrous defeat of the Romans. but we must still compliment them for being honest and saving the records of this disgrace - the ultimate winners always make up the history by portraying themselves in the most positive way.
Not one Wilhelm scream. Take notes Hollywood, this was A+
yet where is Carthage now. Rome had its revenge, and it was sweet and bitter.
+Internetbutthurt , Carthage was totally destroyed with salt sown into the soil so nothing grows.
+Piotr Chin Probably not though since the Romans settled there soon after. It's unlikely they'd destroy Earth they soon planned to inhabit
+joebates93 A new "Roman" Carthage was funded a few miles away the original city, that never attained anything resembling the former's prosperity
+pancholom Yup. Modern day Tunis.
Tunisia.
If this scenario looks somewhat familiar to Game of Thrones fans, see the Battle of the Bastards, where Ramsay Bolton *almost* defeated Jon Snow's forces with a similar encirclement tactic, until the Knights of the Vale rode to the rescue.
Romes biggest and most shocking and most dire defeats
Cannae by Hannibal in 216 B.C
Teutoburge Forest in 9.A.D
This is a great narrative.....Great job!
The cheese is strong here
what the fuck doran martell is doing here ?
+Manjo hello rato
+Mathieu Capet Winning!
You mean Doctor Bashir?
Great to see Dr Bashir enjoying the DS9 holosuites😊
The smell coming from that area even 30 minutes after the first death would be fucking horrendous