سلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته اذكروا الله وصلوا على سيدنا الحبيب المصطفى محمد اللهم صلِ على سيدنا محمد و على آله وصحبه كما صليت على سيدنا ابراهيم وعلى آل سيدنا ابراهيم في العالمين انك حميد مجيد❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ياحي ياقيوم برحمتك استغيث اصلح لي شأني كله ولا تكلني الى نفسي طرفة عين❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ اللهم اغفر للمؤمنين و المؤمنات و المسلمين و المسلمات الاحياء منهم و الاموات🌹❤️ في حديث رواه مسلم في الصحيح: ثلاثة لا يكلمهم الله ولا ينظر إليهم يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: المسبل إزاره، والمنان فيما أعطى، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، هذا من باب الوعيد عند أهل السنة والجماعة ليسوا كفاراً بل من باب الوعيد والتحذير والترهيب، المسبل يدل على أنه كبيرة من الكبائر، والمنان في العطية الله جل وعلا قال: لا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالأَذَى [البقرة:264]، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، اللي يقول: والله إنها علي بكذا، والله إني شريتها بكذا، والله إنها ...... بكذا وهو يكذب حتى ينفقها يمشيها ويأكل أموال الناس بالباطل هذا وعيد شديد يدل على أن هذا من الكبائر من كبائر الذنوب مثل الحديث الآخر: ثلاث لا يكلمهم الله ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: شيخ زاني -شيخ شايب- وملك كذاب، وعائل مستكبر، هذا يدل على أن الزنا مع الشيخوخة مع كبر السن يكون أعظم من الزنا في الشباب أكبر إثماً، وهكذا الملك الكذاب إثمه أكثر؛ لأنه قد أعطاه الله الملك وأغناه الله عن الكذب فما الحاجة للكذب، وعائل مستكبر مع فقره يستكبر، الغني قد يحمله الغنى لكن هذا مع كونه فقير يستكبر هذا يدل على أن الكبر طبيعة له وسجية له نعوذ بالله فاشتد بهذا إثمه نسأل الله العافية لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله. نعم. المقدم: جزاكم الله خيراً سماحة الشيخ.
@@SandokanBattles سلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته اذكروا الله وصلوا على سيدنا الحبيب المصطفى محمد اللهم صلِ على سيدنا محمد و على آله وصحبه كما صليت على سيدنا ابراهيم وعلى آل سيدنا ابراهيم في العالمين انك حميد مجيد❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ياحي ياقيوم برحمتك استغيث اصلح لي شأني كله ولا تكلني الى نفسي طرفة عين❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ اللهم اغفر للمؤمنين و المؤمنات و المسلمين و المسلمات الاحياء منهم و الاموات🌹❤️ شد
"They think they are our enemies, our equals...I think they are waiting to die." Never expected to hear the most bad ass speech in a video game mod mini movie. Damn I got chills from it lol
Sandokan Battles nice job! Loved the video and that was indeed some incredible camerawork. One thing I might add would be that the initial infantry clash at 5:38 had an insanely awesome zoom over of the clash but I think it was slightly undercut by the fade cut right before the lines meet. Still a great video though and I always love watching these historical battles!
The fact that u redid the battle to record the cinematic, instead of using the already done recreation in the game, shows how much effort u put into them
The consideration is that Scipio learned his art originally from Hannibal in previous battles on the Italian peninsula. Trickery and surprise, as well as the decider of battles at the time, superior cavalry.
It was actually in Spain where Scipio copied Annibal's tactic. It doesn't seem here....given that that was about having legions not compact as one but flexible and divided in littler manipules
Very well done. Again this is the best reconstruction of this battle I've seen. Accurate from what I have learned also. The javelin tossing unit was among the most important as they were the most effective counter to the War Elephants. Most people don't understand anymore the importance of this battle's outcome. Had Hannibal won, the Romans would have been in deep trouble. Scipio had proven to be the only leader they could find who could handle the Carthagian war machine of that time. He goes down and they are back to besieged by Hannibal. This victory enables them to control all of the Western Mediterranean region, and this makes the world as we know it possible. France, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Germany. none of those countries are possible without the Romans controlling and organizing those territories. When I think about it, NO LONDON, NO PARIS, NO VIENNA. No Charlemagne's Empire, no Spanish, no British Empire, so no USA, no Mexico, maybe the Aztecs or a successor state is still the strongest in Mexico, as with the Inca in Peru. Would the "New World" even been explored and developed to the extent it was by China or India. Would some powerful Islamic Caliphate even made the trip across the Atlantic by now? Columbus was sort of a crazy dude who took a terrible risk with the lives of his crew. If the Earth had remained Pangea, they would have perished before reaching the other side of the single landmass, supplies would have run out, they barely made it as it was. With no crazy, reckless adventurer, maybe there still wouldn't be a "discovery" beyond the very minor Viking event that made very little impact in the 529 years since 1492. It's actually a similar timespan between his time and the Viking event. No Western European culture period as we know it, there would have been Celts, the Goths and Huns were still going to do their thing, but Modern Western Civilization is merely a modified form of 400's Christian Western Roman civilization, and a surprisingly great amount of it is still preserved intact or almost completely intact in our day to day lives from the calendar and clocks system we use to measure our lifespans, to religion, to the letters we use in our written languages, to our art and architecture rooted firmly in the Roman tradition, even down to furniture making. The Romans had sedan chairs! Augustus apparently had as a "throne" a presumably very comfortable sedan chair!
Roman culture was basically Greek culture. Had Rome never existed, Greek culture would still have thrived. Other nations, of whom we have never heard because they were conquered by the Romans, would have taken up Greek culture, and eventually a different "renaissance" might have occurred. History is so complex that it is impossible to say "without this event" the world would have been completely different. It would have been different, but not necessarily unrecognisable.
@@DieFlabbergast No. The Romans were different, unique. The Romans absorbed the Greek technology, and their high arts, and philosophy, but other things were because of a shared Indo European origin. The Romans were capable of conquering and uniting the all the lands that surrounded the Mediterranean. The Greeks proved they were not. Alexander could, but he was going to die at age 32 in Babylon having conquered territory in the opposite direction, towards India. They couldn't outfight Carthagians the way the Roman could. The problem with most historians and even wanna bees like myself is we say "Romans", when it's really a series of close calls and some amazing leader jumps up and turns the tide. Even when it has slipped and was just the Eastern Empire, this still happened, Heraclius, Basil the Bulgar slayer, then, they stopped generating these gentlemen at last. Roman history is all about "great man history" that many people these days claim wasn't a thing, but is was. No Scipio Africanus, the Romans and Carthage eventually end up in inconclusive stalemate when Hannibal and his brother die. Of course, then the Romans wouldn't have had the strength to clobber Greece as they did right after winning the 2nd Punic War. Scipio's rise was therefore, the beginning of the end of both Carthage and Greece as independent realms. He was able to totally replace Carthagian Spain with a Roman Spain, then conquered North Africa outside of the immediate territory surrounding Carthage itself, a fatal wound inflicted on that huge city, then defeated Hannibal himself, the only man apparently capable of doing so. One of the only times in history when two of history's great military geniuses actually live at the same time and go head to head. Hannibal was surely still the tactical superior, but Scipio was the superior strategist. He created a battle where there was no room for tactical brilliance to change the outcome. He trapped Hannibal's army, and disallowed anything but a retreat or straight up head on battle. He handled the Elephants, and used the superior Roman infantry to hold the Carthagian Army in place, and uses the Numidian Cavalry to flank and destroy that army. Hannibal must have felt very frustrated witnessing the way the battle progressed, no room to do anything his clever mind could have done to change the outcome, just this inescapable box. I wonder what he thought about the sudden emergence of a Roman military leader capable of totally dismantling Carthagian Spain, and ending his brother Hasdrubal. Here, was his greatest strategic mistake in the entire war, not going to the aid of his brother. Scipio might not have prevailed with Hannibal himself present with his army or part of his army to build a whole new army. I think Hannibal might have thought the move just a diversionary tactic to draw him out of Italy, so the Roman could fortify the passes through the Alps so he couldn't return that way with an army. However, preserving Carthagian control of Spain was the more important than maintaining the inconclusive stalemate he had achieved in Italy. Which he learned when his brother was dead, Spain was in Roman control, and the Romans finally had a commander of a quality that could truly challenge him. I'm certain he would have looked forward to the first battle with Scipio, because this man ended his brother, and was the Roman's last, best hope, Hannibal crushes him, and he could retake Spain, and the Romans are worse off, with a destroyed morale to boot. Unfortunately for Hannibal, Scipio knew how to defeat him somehow, as he too, were a certified military genius. Thus history was put on the path that leads to our current world, which if the battle goes the other way, would have been utterly impossible. Why? Because the Carthagian Phoenician Civilization becomes the dominant Western Mediterranean culture, not Greek, not Roman. They eventually control Spain, Gaul, and Britain, the desire for wealth, resources, would drive them as it did the Romans, and they had good enough armies to own the Celts and beat back the Germans as the Romans did. Unless the Carthagians do it, no single great power rules the entire Mediterranean lands, in the East, the Seleucid Empire probably prevails in the end, with no powerful Roman Empire to defeat them, they probably absorb Asia Minor, Macedon, Greece, and finally Egypt, reuniting Alexander's Empire. This increase in wealth and manpower probably enables them to defeat the Parthians soundly, and absorb the Bactrian realm in the East. The Mauryan Dynasty might not fall with a friendly, very mighty Empire on it's Western border, shielding it from dangerous steppe warrior tribes like the Kushan, or Parthians. If the Seleucids and Carthagians decide to fight together to reduce the Romans, they would then be doomed. It's not impossible, Hannibal, fled to the Seleucid Empire. So in this scenario, they decide, they are tired of the troublesome Romans, and just sandwich them between two hugely powerful Empires. So, possibly by 100 B.C. equivalent, there is no independent Greece or Italy, no Roman Civilization. It was obliterated by the terrible power of a Carthagian Empire that controls the Western Mediterranean, and the huge Seleucid Empire, which controls the Eastern Mediterranean all the way to the border with the still extant Mauryan Empire. Well, maybe the Seleucid Empire overpowers even Carthage and creates a gigantic Empire that stretches from Southern Britain to India, and they are the ones who continue Western Civilization, but the present would be incredibly different. Unless they adopted the Roman alphabet, no modern alphabet used in the USA and in Western Europe in general, does Christianity emerge and become what it is today? No, the Seleucid Empire wasn't like the Roman Empire, so Christianity's history would have been different. It would be a very different religion right now, Islam wouldn't exist, it developed during the rivalry between the Sassanian Empire's rivalry vs the Eastern Roman Empire, in lands neither had a strong presence in. They then rose up and conquered the entire Sassanian Empire, and huge parts of the Eastern Empire, and never looked back. Here, though, the Sassanian Empire controls all of the territory involved, no Eastern Roman Empire, no Sassanian Empire, no war in the 620's A.D.. No way a small cavalry army of Saudi Arabian desert Barbarians can overcome the terrible power of such a Seleucid Empire. They could easily through 200,000 men at that force with ease, instead of the 40,000 the Sassanians were apparently able to muster. No chance of victory, and as that army was wiped out, the religion they championed goes with it. So the modern world is a very different place without this event happening.
Schöner kleiner Aufsatz mit viel wenn und aber. Aber wenn wir mal erlich sind was haben uns all die Entdeckungen gebracht wir sind momentan dabei uns selbst zu zerstören da ist es auch egal ob Rom verloren hätte ich denke früher oder später wäre die Lage genau so unangenehm wie sie momentan ist. Es liegt in der Natur des Menschen das wir neugierig sind doch diese Neugier führt dazu das wir in viel zu vielen Dingen zu weit gehen. Allerdings erkenne wir das meist erst viel zu spät.
@@stefanoamodio8943 I can't help it, I've learned enough true history to understand Rome/Roma's true GREATNESS AND INFLUENCE UPON ALL OF HUMANITY FROM THEIR TIME TO NOW!!!. With true understanding of such, I must be an ADMIRER of IMPERIUM ROMANUM!
Wow , something amazing! I have not seen for a very very long time such a fantastic battle from you. Really I am impressed. I am glad that you, your creativity and your skills got back! And SOUNDTRACK FINALLY IS ADJUSTED, MY DEAR JUPITER YOU DID IT ;D
Ich weiß zu schätzen, dass ein Video, gefertigt mit diesem Game, unterhaltsamer ist, als trockene Literatur. Danke, Sandokan, dafür! Dass 100% Akkuratesse dabei nicht machbar ist, ist mir selbst als Laie bewußt. Danke trotzdem den Nörglern! Mußte mal sein. ;)
What a sad moment for Carthage. They had been against the adventurism of Hannibal who, like Rommel, far exceeded his orders. Now, Carthage was down to a vast army of ill-trained and poorly motivated home troops. It was an indictment of Hannibal that it had come to pass. The general who he himself regarded higher, Pyrrhus, had always secured his home base before venturing against Rome. Now Scipio and the disgraced legion from Cannae could recruit Hannibal's light cavalry for his own and win the day...
@@karabiner9819 So was Scipio. Hannibal let his hatred for Rome blur his mind and this made him unable to take the city of Rome when he had the chance.
If Hannibal had his own army of veterans that he had to leave behind in Rome because he was rushed home to defend Carthage against Scipio, which was a brilliant move on Scipio’s behalf to not have to deal with veteran soldiers but instead unexperienced soldiers who Hannibal was rushed home to defend with against the invasion
Well he did bring back his veterans with him, it was only a small portion of troops that he left in Italy from the port of Mesopotamia if i remember the name correctly. It was Scipio father who left his troops in Iberia so that he could rush and defend Italy from Hannibal. Also Hannibal second line at Zama was actually decent and trained infantry. It was the first line that were the raw recurits.
@@SandokanBattles the elephants were too raw to be used in any other way and elephants are always used that way in ancient battles. Because they have an unpredictable nature that they could bulldoze their own line which is always why hellenistic armies used them first in the battle.
@@robertburnett5561 Sadly, that's good strategy, disrupt the ability of the enemy to communicate and you hinder their ability to coordinate their movements. If your side retains this capability, they are in trouble.
8:03 When you though that your friendly cavalry is charging in your back and killing some Roman soldiers. Some soldiers: Why are they charging at us instead of the enemies? 8:08
You did very well on the pausing after the first line was gone, there were historically pauses called "battle-pulses". You fight for a while, back up, then go back at it.
Actually the strategy ROme used was to scare the elephants, which turned around and trampled upon the Carthaginian lines. THen they (as they usually did) bought off the Numidian Cavalry on the Carthaginian side which turned to the Roman side. Great recreation of the battle! Very interesting to watch. If you would have shown at least one or two elephants saved I would have been a lot happier!
Accounts of the battle I have read agree: The Romans Formed the 2nd line with gaps between the Maniples (units of roman soldiers). When the elephants approached, the first line made gaps to match the 2nd line which adjusted the gaps to let elephants pass through. The elephants may have done some damage, but largely passed through the Roman ranks dealing little damage. what account says they returned toward the Carthaginian line ? link ?
@@scene2much they turned towards and scared off the hannibals left flank cavalry, but they always intended to flee so as to drag away Scipios cavalry, the Roman cavalry and Numidian Auxiliary jav cav realised this when the right flank carthaginain cav broke and extremely out of character for cavalry, returned to smash into Hannibals lines just as he was beginning to eek out a phyrric victory
Game of thrones Season 6 episode 9 you’d really be impressed, just found out they took ideas from this battle so I’m here lol. I highly recommend it if you enjoyed this!
@@conradburdette Hate to say it but I didn't find the battle of the bastards impressive at all. But I suppose the cavalry charge was the best part of it, not that it made -any- sense at all because of poor plot. Teleporting knights of the vale are my favourite things in the universe. Guess it looked 'ok' but the bullshit value eradicated that scene for me personally as a book fanatic.
Wikipedia... According to Appian, several years after the Second Punic War, Hannibal served as a political advisor in the Seleucid Kingdom and Scipio arrived there on a diplomatic mission from Rome. It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia". To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus", because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible", he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these". Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "to myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Hispania and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules." As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "in that case I should have put myself before Alexander". Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in an indirect manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander. At the end of this conversation Hannibal invited Scipio to be his guest, and Scipio replied that he would be so gladly if Hannibal were not living with Antiochus, who was held in suspicion by the Romans. Thus did they, in a manner worthy of great commanders, cast aside their enmity at the end of their wars.
VITO VITTUCCI What he meant was that Scipio and Hannibal cast aside their hostility to each other after the war. Which is true. Rome and Carthage hated each other even after the war but not the 2. They even held meetings together during their times as administrators after the war.
@@retardcorpsman It was a wiki paste about the intriguing conversation, not the whole story. Rome flattened Carthage and salted the earth. Hounded Hannibal until suicide. I think he said something like "These bastards won't let this old general have peace even when not at war"...or no/
rascalferret I was talking about Vito’s comment and how he said the your excerpt (and the last part of your comment) could be false. Im also assuming that he might be claiming that Scipio’s victory made Hannibal salty and kill himself out of anger by adding that last bit. While the following conversation might not have indeed happen as it was a claim of a roman historian (Roman historian claims are sometimes fictional.), Scipio and Hannibal did indeed take each other with high regard. For example, many of these historians talked about how Scipio and Hannibal met before the battle and talked about their victories too. As for the cause of Hannibal and Scipio’s death, coincidentally, the roman senate did in fact spite the 2 with resentment and even removed them from positions of high power. The 2 also insulted Rome as a whole on their death beds too (Hannibal insulting rome for not being patient enough to wait for him to die and Scipio labelling rome as ungrateful for removing his position because of fear of his increasing influence.)
@@retardcorpsman Ya, I replied to yours. senate was miffed at Scipio for giving support or rapport to Hannibal. The salted Carthage after the 3rd Punic may be fabrication, but the place and its people were rekt. Hannibal was like, exiled and active simultaneously. He got a gig with king what's-his-name in Turkey, but was never successful as before. Losing favor and never truly safe, unable to escape, he emptied the cup. Unraveling the stories of the time. Like really old timey tabloids. I glad somebody pours through it...Rome seemed to smite their great statesman and generals as often as those leading men seized power/ were elected, and they smote each other. Roman stateman were always generals first, some didn't stick...I think because the loyalty of legions could be swayed to their generals rather than the senate, everyone was on about it...shot from the hip history, is the teetotaler's drunk history. lol
What has always amazed me is how Hannibal was able to train men from different cultures to fight as one unit. Who were the men and their mindset to create this management? Rome is easy to understand but Carthage had to rely upon mercenaries who had different languages and fighting skills.
@@digge2210 well Numidia only joined Rome because Carthage let the Libyans crush them and do nothing about it. Not like Carthage had much choice by that point
Thumbs Up! .....mmm...but..... No account I have read shows the elephants fighting, killing and dying in the first line of Romans. They passed through prepared gaps in the Roman lines and were dealt with in the rear. Your graphics are always awesome. Research on many of the battles often vary from accounts, where the actual accounts where remaining faithful to corroborated/accepted accounts of the battle are equally if not more dramatic. This video showed one gap early in the battle, however the gaps were many, and coordination between the first and second line would have been a great show.
Sometimes I just can't show everything exacly like I wanted to, becouse of engine limitaton, but i try always be closest to history. Trust me i try many variants with this elephants and this is the best i can do, Greetings
I have read before in accounts of Zama that Scipio trained his troops to separate into thinner units and let the elephants run through the open spaces in the ranks til they were behind the lines and then Roman troops would close in together again. I didn't see that here.
Carthage could have defeated Rome had they actually sent support to Hannibal when he requested it. However he was denied time and time again which lead to their downfall. Had Carthage sent support and defeated Rome it would be interesting to see how world history would have been changed by all that.
Frank Wong Christianity wouldn’t exist as a world religion. The west would be completely eastern and no Europe as we know it. Possibly no United States.
@@Anglo-Brit After the Battle of Cannae Rome had lost 3 generations of men and approximately 1/5 of their population fighting Hannibal. It wouldn't have been too hard to take Rome had he been reinforced with Siege equipment.
@@IPendragonI He would have needed a lot of reinforcement- Rome was huge with a huge and fortified population to defend it. He did not attack for no reason, but yes I get your support lacked any real support which in the end cost them the very existence they once enjoyed.
Even if Hannibal won this battle, it's not knowable what would have happened afterwards. Rome (especially in its early years) was able to take a lot of hard hits without going down. They may have been able to come back from it
As many soldiers died in these battles in one day as died in Korea or Vietnam. But would still want to go back in time and witness some if these battles.
I literally don't even understand the 2nd Punic War, how the heck did Rome lose 60-70k men at Cannae, 30k at Trebia, 15k at Trasimene and then somehow pull another 30k men out of their butt to invade Zama and win lol and THEN go to Greece and dumpster Macedon a few years later.
*Historians vastly underestimate the value of months and years of training in tactics involved with the 'Legions'* *Rome's forces were professional soldiers, no different from the modern era, and no enemy could hope to defeat their skills as individuals and more importantly, reinforcing discipline involving 'fighting as a coherent unit'* *Tactics using 'force multipliers' involving groups of men meant only vastly superior numbers could overwhelm them, and even then it would be a 'costly victory'* *It's quite true that Rome can and did 'lose battles' but many of those defeats involved poor strategy on the part of Officer leadership, or Roman forces that were suffering disease, starvation, thirst, or other 'non-combat' influences* ( *The political leadership of 'Then' was no different than 'Now' in terms of sacrificing the military to achieve some goal* )
The Republican army of this period did not maintain standing or professional military forces, but levied them, by compulsory conscription, as required for each campaigning season and disbanded thereafter. It was not until 30 BC when Augustus transformed the legions from a mixed conscript and volunteer corps (serving an average of 10 years), to all-volunteer units of long-term professionals serving a standard 25-year term (conscription was only decreed in emergencies). In essence the Empire was created by citizen soldiers but was defended (and eventually lost) by professional armies.
@@casualbrowser407 *You can argue semantics all you wish, 'No Name'....but to imply there was no cadre of trained military forces at all times is 'ad absurdum'* *To state that "Rome had no military in any formal sense" and then explain "They did, but they were paid-for so it doesn't count!" and other such observations of vacuity in an attempt to somehow discredit the idea of "No formal military because..." is pointless*
@@gerrynightingale9045 almost every army (save peasant rebellions) has a certain cadre of professional soldiers. The question is what amount of these you need to describe the whole army as "professional"? Was the Wehrmacht for example a professional army ? IMO, at that time (circa 200 BC), it was Carthage who had the professional army - not the Romans.
@@casualbrowser407 *Think & believe whatever you like, because for reasons of your own, you had nothing until you read an observation from me and decided to 'cut me off at the knees' with spurious observations and references that you believe were 'needed' to discount what I wrote* *Obviously, there is always a trained, professional Officer corp available and 'Sargents' to train incoming men along with experienced 'Old Guard' elite troops* *THIS is the 'Army' of which I wrote of, who had the skills to train recruits into a fighting force in much the same manner as U.S. Marines* *I never stated the 'Legions' existed in such numbers as tens of thousands at all times, because Rome rarely needed that many men under arms...yet a hundred 'Praetorians' can easily train a thousand men into elite formations in only months if the need arises* ( *For example, the boy who became 'Justinian the Great' was not Roman, and never even saw 'Rome' itself until late in life...his uncle who was a 'Sgt.' took-in the boy at perhaps 12 or so after a trek with merchants along what now is called the 'Silk Road' of antiquity* ) Contrary to 'Hollywood', the ability to become a 'Citizen of Rome' was highly valued, seen as a 'privileged position' rather than being subservient to local chieftains and so-called 'Kings' who took whatever they wished from anyone without appeal or recourse. ( *Even a 'Slave' could become a 'Citizen' by act of benefit to society thru works or teaching or even proper public speaking, since an 'Oratorio' was considered intellectual and gifted* ) *Btw, yes, the 'Wehrmacht' was as 'professional' as Armies can be, in peace or in war...the Germans are firm believers in 'Militarism' and their current 'standing Army' are as good or better than our own or any other Nation...yes, they still train recruits just as America does in time of need, and those recruits are instilled with the same vigor used for hundreds of years in 'Germania'* ( *They were feared even during the 'American Revolution' because they knew 'how to fight' and were fierce in battle...no group wanted to face 'Hessians' in a 'one-on-one' confrontation* )
@@casualbrowser407 It was Marius who made the roman legions from Militia-citizens/Levies to Professional Soldiers in 107 BC which was known as the Marius/Marian reforms in order to compensate the lack of eligible men. Augustus made adjustments to the reforms.
Are there any animation mods? I swear I’ve never seen some of these animations before. I also think it’s because I have a mod where I have mostly blood animations show up and you can see the same animation every 8 seconds it kinda ruins the feel so I turn it off but these animations look so much more fresh.
I read through Polybius that it was the elephants, that retreated from the roman fusilade of spears and arrows, who crashed back into the Carthagenian line adding to its confusion and disarray. The video portrays all elephants killed, not so, some elephants survived which the Roman infantry utilized in future campaigns especially the later "Macedonian Wars."
La batalla de Zama, librada el 2 de agosto del 202 a.C. decidió una guerra que ya duraba 16 años. Se enfrentaban los mejores generales de cada bando, Aníbal por Cartago y Escipión por Roma. La ventaja numérica se inclinaba a favor del primero (45 mil cartagineses contra unos 33 mil romanos) Ambos bandos contaban con jinetes númidas en sus filas, además de que Aníbal disponía de 80 elefantes de batalla, pero el gran general cartaginés no confiaba mucho en estos pues aún estaban poco entrenados. Aún así salió a enfrentar al enemigo y puso a a los paquidermos en vanguardia mientras ideó envolver a los romanos con un movimiento de pinza similar al que catorce años antes le dio su más grande triunfo en Cannas, donde con un ejército inferior en número y ya sin elefantes aplastara a un ejército romano casi tres veces más grande que el que ahora tenía enfrente, pero Escipión descifró la maniobra y puso en vanguardia a sus trompeteros y soldados con teas encendidas en la punta de sus lanzas, y cuando los elefantes se le fueron encima, asustados por el escándalo y el fuego, se dieron a la fuga por los flancos donde ya avanzaba la caballería númida de Aníbal, la cual tuvo que huir apresuradamente, perseguida por sus paisanos del bando de Escipión. Pocos elefantes llegaron hasta las filas romanas, que se abrieron para dejarlos pasar luego de que los lanzadores de jabalinas romanos mataran a sus conductores, por lo que causaron muy poco daño. Arriesgando un último envite, Aníbal mandó a su infantería selecta, sus 14 mil veteranos que se trajera de Italia, por el centro. El choque fue terrible y casi rompieron la formación romana, pero en ese momento los númidas del bando romano dejaron de perseguir a sus paisanos del bando cartaginés y, volviendo grupas, cayeron sobre la retaguardia cartaginesa. Fue el final para Aníbal. Cayeron en Zama ese día 20 mil cartagineses, incluido un hermano de Aníbal, Magón, mientras que Escipión perdió menos de 3 mil hombres.
Creo que esta mal contextualizado, Magon no llego a participar en la batalla de zama, de hecho muere antes de socorrer a Aníbal su hermano, puesto que se encontraba en la Galia cristalina, muere en el mar, le recomiendo que lea a Serge Lancel, para inmiscuirse mas en la historia.
I'm Italian, the story is almost correct. but the Romans did not fight like this. they also did not deal with the elephants that way, they had frightened with fire the elephants, the frightened elephants fled back overwhelming the Carthaginians.
The Romans fought in the triplex acies and indeed killed hannibals elephants by opening their ranks and have the elephants run through the gaps where the velites waited to hurl their javelins at them. How in the world would they have used fire? Please dont say arrows
@@gaius3766 this is partly true. Part of the elephants were pushed back with fire. The Romans now knew about attacks with elephants. The final collision and the final victory was given by the Roman veterans, who had lost against Hannibal in Canne. They could not go back to Rome because they had been dishonored. Die or win to return to Rome winners. Carthage soldiers were almost all mercenaries. Most of them were Ligurians and Gauls, without discipline. However Hannibal was a great general. In that battle there was the fate of the world. History has chosen the victory of the West.
Finally haven't found a Zama cinematic anywhere! Great work!
Thank you Cian
Cian sus
Max Morgan what?
سلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته اذكروا الله وصلوا على سيدنا الحبيب المصطفى محمد اللهم صلِ على سيدنا محمد و على آله وصحبه كما صليت على سيدنا ابراهيم وعلى آل سيدنا ابراهيم في العالمين انك حميد مجيد❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ياحي ياقيوم برحمتك استغيث اصلح لي شأني كله ولا تكلني الى نفسي طرفة عين❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ اللهم اغفر للمؤمنين و المؤمنات و المسلمين و المسلمات الاحياء منهم و الاموات🌹❤️ في حديث رواه مسلم في الصحيح: ثلاثة لا يكلمهم الله ولا ينظر إليهم يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: المسبل إزاره، والمنان فيما أعطى، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، هذا من باب الوعيد عند أهل السنة والجماعة ليسوا كفاراً بل من باب الوعيد والتحذير والترهيب، المسبل يدل على أنه كبيرة من الكبائر، والمنان في العطية الله جل وعلا قال: لا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالأَذَى [البقرة:264]، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، اللي يقول: والله إنها علي بكذا، والله إني شريتها بكذا، والله إنها ...... بكذا وهو يكذب حتى ينفقها يمشيها ويأكل أموال الناس بالباطل هذا وعيد شديد يدل على أن هذا من الكبائر من كبائر الذنوب مثل الحديث الآخر: ثلاث لا يكلمهم الله ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: شيخ زاني -شيخ شايب- وملك كذاب، وعائل مستكبر، هذا يدل على أن الزنا مع الشيخوخة مع كبر السن يكون أعظم من الزنا في الشباب أكبر إثماً، وهكذا الملك الكذاب إثمه أكثر؛ لأنه قد أعطاه الله الملك وأغناه الله عن الكذب فما الحاجة للكذب، وعائل مستكبر مع فقره يستكبر، الغني قد يحمله الغنى لكن هذا مع كونه فقير يستكبر هذا يدل على أن الكبر طبيعة له وسجية له نعوذ بالله فاشتد بهذا إثمه نسأل الله العافية لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله. نعم. المقدم: جزاكم الله خيراً سماحة الشيخ.
@@SandokanBattles سلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته اذكروا الله وصلوا على سيدنا الحبيب المصطفى محمد اللهم صلِ على سيدنا محمد و على آله وصحبه كما صليت على سيدنا ابراهيم وعلى آل سيدنا ابراهيم في العالمين انك حميد مجيد❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ياحي ياقيوم برحمتك استغيث اصلح لي شأني كله ولا تكلني الى نفسي طرفة عين❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ اللهم اغفر للمؤمنين و المؤمنات و المسلمين و المسلمات الاحياء منهم و الاموات🌹❤️ شد
"They think they are our enemies, our equals...I think they are waiting to die."
Never expected to hear the most bad ass speech in a video game mod mini movie. Damn I got chills from it lol
Rome Total War
Great work! The camerawork at 8:08 is phenomenal!
trying my best, greetings Caellum
Sandokan Battles nice job! Loved the video and that was indeed some incredible camerawork. One thing I might add would be that the initial infantry clash at 5:38 had an insanely awesome zoom over of the clash but I think it was slightly undercut by the fade cut right before the lines meet. Still a great video though and I always love watching these historical battles!
The shots before it are perfect as well. The sun behind the cavalry is just amazing.
it was fucking badass
Do many times and is a Train
The fact that u redid the battle to record the cinematic, instead of using the already done recreation in the game, shows how much effort u put into them
Disclaimer: No elephants were harmed in the making of this video
Phew because I love elephants I am ok with horses diein but elephants
That is good I am ok with horses dieing but not elephants
Ohh thank god
I am OK if people are dying but not elepehants and horses
I am satisfied Rome exterminated this civilisation that used elephants and slaves as war instruments while their “brave” soldiers waited at the back.
The consideration is that Scipio learned his art originally from Hannibal in previous battles on the Italian peninsula. Trickery and surprise, as well as the decider of battles at the time, superior cavalry.
Love the Rome 2 Historical Battles, Nice video BTW
*When some roman general copies your strategies to great effect*
Hannibal: Wait, thats illegal
日本が慰安婦を奴隷にし強カンしていたのは事実。2年ぐらい前に韓国に行ってきたが、日本人が慰安婦に何をしていたのかが、石牌に書いてあってゾッとしたよ。日本が中国の南京で大虐サツしたのにも頷けるぐらいの暴行行為が書かれていたわ。そりゃぁ、韓国も怒って石像を建てまくるわ。日本が原爆資料館を作ったのと同じ理由だわな
It was actually in Spain where Scipio copied Annibal's tactic.
It doesn't seem here....given that that was about having legions not compact as one but flexible and divided in littler manipules
Copied by improving it
@@不老不死のフリーザ-l5w
あなたの許しを請う、しかし私はあなたが間違ったビデオを持っていると信じている。あなたのコメントは、ザマの戦いの再現では少し文脈から外れています。
また、私が行った可能性のある文法上の誤りはご容赦ください。これは私がうまく管理している言語ではないからです。
Carthage/Rome wars were the first true world wars.
Very well done. Again this is the best reconstruction of this battle I've seen. Accurate from what I have learned also. The javelin tossing unit was among the most important as they were the most effective counter to the War Elephants. Most people don't understand anymore the importance of this battle's outcome. Had Hannibal won, the Romans would have been in deep trouble. Scipio had proven to be the only leader they could find who could handle the Carthagian war machine of that time. He goes down and they are back to besieged by Hannibal. This victory enables them to control all of the Western Mediterranean region, and this makes the world as we know it possible. France, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Germany. none of those countries are possible without the Romans controlling and organizing those territories. When I think about it, NO LONDON, NO PARIS, NO VIENNA. No Charlemagne's Empire, no Spanish, no British Empire, so no USA, no Mexico, maybe the Aztecs or a successor state is still the strongest in Mexico, as with the Inca in Peru. Would the "New World" even been explored and developed to the extent it was by China or India. Would some powerful Islamic Caliphate even made the trip across the Atlantic by now? Columbus was sort of a crazy dude who took a terrible risk with the lives of his crew. If the Earth had remained Pangea, they would have perished before reaching the other side of the single landmass, supplies would have run out, they barely made it as it was. With no crazy, reckless adventurer, maybe there still wouldn't be a "discovery" beyond the very minor Viking event that made very little impact in the 529 years since 1492. It's actually a similar timespan between his time and the Viking event. No Western European culture period as we know it, there would have been Celts, the Goths and Huns were still going to do their thing, but Modern Western Civilization is merely a modified form of 400's Christian Western Roman civilization, and a surprisingly great amount of it is still preserved intact or almost completely intact in our day to day lives from the calendar and clocks system we use to measure our lifespans, to religion, to the letters we use in our written languages, to our art and architecture rooted firmly in the Roman tradition, even down to furniture making. The Romans had sedan chairs! Augustus apparently had as a "throne" a presumably very comfortable sedan chair!
Roman culture was basically Greek culture. Had Rome never existed, Greek culture would still have thrived. Other nations, of whom we have never heard because they were conquered by the Romans, would have taken up Greek culture, and eventually a different "renaissance" might have occurred. History is so complex that it is impossible to say "without this event" the world would have been completely different. It would have been different, but not necessarily unrecognisable.
@@DieFlabbergast No. The Romans were different, unique. The Romans absorbed the Greek technology, and their high arts, and philosophy, but other things were because of a shared Indo European origin. The Romans were capable of conquering and uniting the all the lands that surrounded the Mediterranean. The Greeks proved they were not. Alexander could, but he was going to die at age 32 in Babylon having conquered territory in the opposite direction, towards India. They couldn't outfight Carthagians the way the Roman could. The problem with most historians and even wanna bees like myself is we say "Romans", when it's really a series of close calls and some amazing leader jumps up and turns the tide. Even when it has slipped and was just the Eastern Empire, this still happened, Heraclius, Basil the Bulgar slayer, then, they stopped generating these gentlemen at last. Roman history is all about "great man history" that many people these days claim wasn't a thing, but is was. No Scipio Africanus, the Romans and Carthage eventually end up in inconclusive stalemate when Hannibal and his brother die. Of course, then the Romans wouldn't have had the strength to clobber Greece as they did right after winning the 2nd Punic War. Scipio's rise was therefore, the beginning of the end of both Carthage and Greece as independent realms. He was able to totally replace Carthagian Spain with a Roman Spain, then conquered North Africa outside of the immediate territory surrounding Carthage itself, a fatal wound inflicted on that huge city, then defeated Hannibal himself, the only man apparently capable of doing so. One of the only times in history when two of history's great military geniuses actually live at the same time and go head to head. Hannibal was surely still the tactical superior, but Scipio was the superior strategist. He created a battle where there was no room for tactical brilliance to change the outcome. He trapped Hannibal's army, and disallowed anything but a retreat or straight up head on battle. He handled the Elephants, and used the superior Roman infantry to hold the Carthagian Army in place, and uses the Numidian Cavalry to flank and destroy that army. Hannibal must have felt very frustrated witnessing the way the battle progressed, no room to do anything his clever mind could have done to change the outcome, just this inescapable box. I wonder what he thought about the sudden emergence of a Roman military leader capable of totally dismantling Carthagian Spain, and ending his brother Hasdrubal. Here, was his greatest strategic mistake in the entire war, not going to the aid of his brother. Scipio might not have prevailed with Hannibal himself present with his army or part of his army to build a whole new army. I think Hannibal might have thought the move just a diversionary tactic to draw him out of Italy, so the Roman could fortify the passes through the Alps so he couldn't return that way with an army. However, preserving Carthagian control of Spain was the more important than maintaining the inconclusive stalemate he had achieved in Italy. Which he learned when his brother was dead, Spain was in Roman control, and the Romans finally had a commander of a quality that could truly challenge him. I'm certain he would have looked forward to the first battle with Scipio, because this man ended his brother, and was the Roman's last, best hope, Hannibal crushes him, and he could retake Spain, and the Romans are worse off, with a destroyed morale to boot. Unfortunately for Hannibal, Scipio knew how to defeat him somehow, as he too, were a certified military genius. Thus history was put on the path that leads to our current world, which if the battle goes the other way, would have been utterly impossible. Why? Because the Carthagian Phoenician Civilization becomes the dominant Western Mediterranean culture, not Greek, not Roman. They eventually control Spain, Gaul, and Britain, the desire for wealth, resources, would drive them as it did the Romans, and they had good enough armies to own the Celts and beat back the Germans as the Romans did. Unless the Carthagians do it, no single great power rules the entire Mediterranean lands, in the East, the Seleucid Empire probably prevails in the end, with no powerful Roman Empire to defeat them, they probably absorb Asia Minor, Macedon, Greece, and finally Egypt, reuniting Alexander's Empire. This increase in wealth and manpower probably enables them to defeat the Parthians soundly, and absorb the Bactrian realm in the East. The Mauryan Dynasty might not fall with a friendly, very mighty Empire on it's Western border, shielding it from dangerous steppe warrior tribes like the Kushan, or Parthians. If the Seleucids and Carthagians decide to fight together to reduce the Romans, they would then be doomed. It's not impossible, Hannibal, fled to the Seleucid Empire. So in this scenario, they decide, they are tired of the troublesome Romans, and just sandwich them between two hugely powerful Empires. So, possibly by 100 B.C. equivalent, there is no independent Greece or Italy, no Roman Civilization. It was obliterated by the terrible power of a Carthagian Empire that controls the Western Mediterranean, and the huge Seleucid Empire, which controls the Eastern Mediterranean all the way to the border with the still extant Mauryan Empire. Well, maybe the Seleucid Empire overpowers even Carthage and creates a gigantic Empire that stretches from Southern Britain to India, and they are the ones who continue Western Civilization, but the present would be incredibly different. Unless they adopted the Roman alphabet, no modern alphabet used in the USA and in Western Europe in general, does Christianity emerge and become what it is today? No, the Seleucid Empire wasn't like the Roman Empire, so Christianity's history would have been different. It would be a very different religion right now, Islam wouldn't exist, it developed during the rivalry between the Sassanian Empire's rivalry vs the Eastern Roman Empire, in lands neither had a strong presence in. They then rose up and conquered the entire Sassanian Empire, and huge parts of the Eastern Empire, and never looked back. Here, though, the Sassanian Empire controls all of the territory involved, no Eastern Roman Empire, no Sassanian Empire, no war in the 620's A.D.. No way a small cavalry army of Saudi Arabian desert Barbarians can overcome the terrible power of such a Seleucid Empire. They could easily through 200,000 men at that force with ease, instead of the 40,000 the Sassanians were apparently able to muster. No chance of victory, and as that army was wiped out, the religion they championed goes with it. So the modern world is a very different place without this event happening.
Schöner kleiner Aufsatz mit viel wenn und aber. Aber wenn wir mal erlich sind was haben uns all die Entdeckungen gebracht wir sind momentan dabei uns selbst zu zerstören da ist es auch egal ob Rom verloren hätte ich denke früher oder später wäre die Lage genau so unangenehm wie sie momentan ist. Es liegt in der Natur des Menschen das wir neugierig sind doch diese Neugier führt dazu das wir in viel zu vielen Dingen zu weit gehen. Allerdings erkenne wir das meist erst viel zu spät.
Bravo,bravissimo,best regards from Roma!
@@stefanoamodio8943 I can't help it, I've learned enough true history to understand Rome/Roma's true GREATNESS AND INFLUENCE UPON ALL OF HUMANITY FROM THEIR TIME TO NOW!!!. With true understanding of such, I must be an ADMIRER of IMPERIUM ROMANUM!
i'm impressed about the camerawork, love these kind of roman battles, the realistic and historical ones. Good video!
Bravo,bravissimo!
"You dare use my own spells against me, Scipio?"
Is no one gonna comment on how badass Scipio’s battle armor is?
Wow , something amazing! I have not seen for a very very long time such a fantastic battle from you. Really I am impressed. I am glad that you, your creativity and your skills got back! And SOUNDTRACK FINALLY IS ADJUSTED, MY DEAR JUPITER YOU DID IT ;D
Oh thank you very much Walfadr, glad you like it
Ich weiß zu schätzen, dass ein Video, gefertigt mit diesem Game, unterhaltsamer ist, als trockene Literatur. Danke, Sandokan, dafür! Dass 100% Akkuratesse dabei nicht machbar ist, ist mir selbst als Laie bewußt. Danke trotzdem den Nörglern! Mußte mal sein. ;)
Ahhh good old Rome II......the last TW game that Ive really enjoyed:-) Thanks my friend for this awesome cinematic, really enjoyed every second of it!
What a sad moment for Carthage. They had been against the adventurism of Hannibal who, like Rommel, far exceeded his orders. Now, Carthage was down to a vast army of ill-trained and poorly motivated home troops. It was an indictment of Hannibal that it had come to pass. The general who he himself regarded higher, Pyrrhus, had always secured his home base before venturing against Rome. Now Scipio and the disgraced legion from Cannae could recruit Hannibal's light cavalry for his own and win the day...
Thanks god Hannibal lost
@@therealfilip577 No way Hannibal is a great general
Ahahaha. Idiot should have thought twice before attacking a Super Power.
He was like Alexander but with shitty support
@@karabiner9819 So was Scipio. Hannibal let his hatred for Rome blur his mind and this made him unable to take the city of Rome when he had the chance.
If Hannibal had his own army of veterans that he had to leave behind in Rome because he was rushed home to defend Carthage against Scipio, which was a brilliant move on Scipio’s behalf to not have to deal with veteran soldiers but instead unexperienced soldiers who Hannibal was rushed home to defend with against the invasion
and if he not waste elephants….
Well he did bring back his veterans with him, it was only a small portion of troops that he left in Italy from the port of Mesopotamia if i remember the name correctly. It was Scipio father who left his troops in Iberia so that he could rush and defend Italy from Hannibal. Also Hannibal second line at Zama was actually decent and trained infantry. It was the first line that were the raw recurits.
@@SandokanBattles the elephants were too raw to be used in any other way and elephants are always used that way in ancient battles. Because they have an unpredictable nature that they could bulldoze their own line which is always why hellenistic armies used them first in the battle.
@@SandokanBattles Fantastic work on the video though
You're wrong Hannibal brought most of his veterans.
It was Scipios father who rushed to defend Italy incase Africanus failed.
Awesome video dude!
Thanks Nasgul :)
Man I love those opening speeches. ROME TOTAL WAR will always be the best total war game closely followed by medieval 2.
Try it with lead figures on the table. It's even more satisfying.
Great work as always Sandocan!
A great honour to be apart of this!!!
PS. A far better job on my voice narration at 8:38 compared to our last collab.
You really sound great my friend
Cool voice mate
I feel bad for the signifiers they always die when the first javelin barrage hits
meaby not always but yeah they die pretty often, Greetings Nadim
F
Interesting. The same today. The radio man is a target in battle.
@@robertburnett5561 Sadly, that's good strategy, disrupt the ability of the enemy to communicate and you hinder their ability to coordinate their movements. If your side retains this capability, they are in trouble.
Como sempre ROMA era superior a qualquer nação 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹💪💪💪💪
8:00 the impact is real... And shocking
Im glad you like it Flaming Sychic
@@SandokanBattles nice
You did an excellent job with this video!! And outstanding camera work!
Thanks Defender373
Awesome! Great work man.
Thank you my friend
8:03 When you though that your friendly cavalry is charging in your back and killing some Roman soldiers.
Some soldiers: Why are they charging at us instead of the enemies? 8:08
When you though??
You did very well on the pausing after the first line was gone, there were historically pauses called "battle-pulses". You fight for a while, back up, then go back at it.
love your work mate! this is what we wish all total war battles looked like!
Thank you Wileon ;)
This was 8 months ago and he is STILL replying
this is amazing well done man
Cheers man :)
Wow, such an amazing work!!!! Thank you so much for this kind of job youre doing. Very informative and entertaining.
Im glad you like it DonR ;)
Actually the strategy ROme used was to scare the elephants, which turned around and trampled upon the Carthaginian lines. THen they (as they usually did) bought off the Numidian Cavalry on the Carthaginian side which turned to the Roman side.
Great recreation of the battle! Very interesting to watch. If you would have shown at least one or two elephants saved I would have been a lot happier!
Accounts of the battle I have read agree: The Romans Formed the 2nd line with gaps between the Maniples (units of roman soldiers). When the elephants approached, the first line made gaps to match the 2nd line which adjusted the gaps to let elephants pass through. The elephants may have done some damage, but largely passed through the Roman ranks dealing little damage. what account says they returned toward the Carthaginian line ? link ?
Actually thats a bag of bullshit friendo
@@scene2much they turned towards and scared off the hannibals left flank cavalry, but they always intended to flee so as to drag away Scipios cavalry, the Roman cavalry and Numidian Auxiliary jav cav realised this when the right flank carthaginain cav broke and extremely out of character for cavalry, returned to smash into Hannibals lines just as he was beginning to eek out a phyrric victory
rome total war original has the most bad ass inspirational battle speeches in game.
Great video! I would have liked a little more narration while the battle is happening but still good
This is better than a movie where you see the same 3-4 hero’s do most of the fighting.
thank you very much viking
Heroes, or hero is? (if you can manage a legion, surely a simple apostrophe isn't going to defeat you!)
dunruden
Spot on, you got me mate. You’ve found your great calling life.
Onimushu Warlords was like that.
Hats off to the camera man who had to go through a lot of trauma to record this
Helmets off
Great work!
Köszönöm Péter Gulyás :)
I see they upgraded the graphics and animations since Rome: Total War
a little, yes :)))
Scipio's voice during his speech sounds like Alex Jones'
Alex Africanas
@@TexasViking_INFP-t_5w4 fake history!
The aqueducts are turning the friggin' horses gay!
Great work, dude. I am thinking of getting into Rome II and this definitely helped tip the scales in favor of getting it
Hope you got it. It’s a solid game from CA
@@Martian_Maggot I have, and have over 2000 hours on it. It's great
I've not seen a cavalry charge that satisfying since watching lord of the rings.
Z
Game of thrones Season 6 episode 9 you’d really be impressed, just found out they took ideas from this battle so I’m here lol. I highly recommend it if you enjoyed this!
@@conradburdette Hate to say it but I didn't find the battle of the bastards impressive at all. But I suppose the cavalry charge was the best part of it, not that it made -any- sense at all because of poor plot. Teleporting knights of the vale are my favourite things in the universe. Guess it looked 'ok' but the bullshit value eradicated that scene for me personally as a book fanatic.
These are great, keep em coming 👍
Brilliant work. Thanks for that.
You welcome Raphael
Excellent camera work and I love playing Rome total war 2. Also, équites to the rescue
They must cover their elephants with armour
Great video, I really like this
4:11 he already knows that he would die XD
Love this! Well done!
Thanks so much!
6:42 we witness a Hastati become a Pricepes.
Those are plurals!
The only time Carthage came full support on Hannibal is when Scipio Africanus is at their doorstep...
Wikipedia... According to Appian, several years after the Second Punic War, Hannibal served as a political advisor in the Seleucid Kingdom and Scipio arrived there on a diplomatic mission from Rome.
It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia".
To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus", because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible", he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these".
Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "to myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Hispania and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules."
As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "in that case I should have put myself before Alexander". Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in an indirect manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.
At the end of this conversation Hannibal invited Scipio to be his guest, and Scipio replied that he would be so gladly if Hannibal were not living with Antiochus, who was held in suspicion by the Romans. Thus did they, in a manner worthy of great commanders, cast aside their enmity at the end of their wars.
No true. Hannibal poisoned himself.
VITO VITTUCCI
What he meant was that Scipio and Hannibal cast aside their hostility to each other after the war. Which is true.
Rome and Carthage hated each other even after the war but not the 2. They even held meetings together during their times as administrators after the war.
@@retardcorpsman It was a wiki paste about the intriguing conversation, not the whole story. Rome flattened Carthage and salted the earth. Hounded Hannibal until suicide. I think he said something like "These bastards won't let this old general have peace even when not at war"...or no/
rascalferret
I was talking about Vito’s comment and how he said the your excerpt (and the last part of your comment) could be false. Im also assuming that he might be claiming that Scipio’s victory made Hannibal salty and kill himself out of anger by adding that last bit.
While the following conversation might not have indeed happen as it was a claim of a roman historian (Roman historian claims are sometimes fictional.), Scipio and Hannibal did indeed take each other with high regard. For example, many of these historians talked about how Scipio and Hannibal met before the battle and talked about their victories too.
As for the cause of Hannibal and Scipio’s death, coincidentally, the roman senate did in fact spite the 2 with resentment and even removed them from positions of high power. The 2 also insulted Rome as a whole on their death beds too (Hannibal insulting rome for not being patient enough to wait for him to die and Scipio labelling rome as ungrateful for removing his position because of fear of his increasing influence.)
@@retardcorpsman Ya, I replied to yours. senate was miffed at Scipio for giving support or rapport to Hannibal. The salted Carthage after the 3rd Punic may be fabrication, but the place and its people were rekt. Hannibal was like, exiled and active simultaneously. He got a gig with king what's-his-name in Turkey, but was never successful as before. Losing favor and never truly safe, unable to escape, he emptied the cup. Unraveling the stories of the time. Like really old timey tabloids. I glad somebody pours through it...Rome seemed to smite their great statesman and generals as often as those leading men seized power/ were elected, and they smote each other. Roman stateman were always generals first, some didn't stick...I think because the loyalty of legions could be swayed to their generals rather than the senate, everyone was on about it...shot from the hip history, is the teetotaler's drunk history. lol
Nice vídeo!
thanks :)
Now i feel like i need to get rome 2. I love the first game and i still play it from time to time.
Play Rome II with DEI enabled from the Steam workshop. You won't regret it.
Wonderful animations!
thank you, Greetings
The narrator is doing a great James Mason. Keep it up.
Awesome bro 😍
Thanks 🤗
@@SandokanBattles love from india
What has always amazed me is how Hannibal was able to train men from different cultures to fight as one unit. Who were the men and their mindset to create this management? Rome is easy to understand but Carthage had to rely upon mercenaries who had different languages and fighting skills.
Can you believe that guys used to just line up in rows by the thousands and slaughter each other on a massive scale can you imagine
Cool! Will you make Battle of Canne
of course mate,it's difficult to show on rome 2 how this battle was fought, but i will try
Another great video mate ⚔👍
thanks, im doing my best, greetings
1:58 using the pre-battle talking from Rome Total War was a nice touch. Try to use it more in your videos
thanks Corey, i love them to, never skip when play first rome, greetings
The moment where a game and its mods make a better and more accurate film than most media
Rome is the best Empire of history
Thank you for this great and educating video! :)
The music really enhance the epicnes of it.
Thank you Kevin, Total War sountracks are great
Me raiding my friend on Rise of Kingdoms for the last slice of pizza:
Damn those traitors Numudians. Great video, been a while
Thanks Berserker :)
Not by choice but by loyalty to their king
Roman Numidian province>Numidian Cartaghe client state
@@digge2210 well Numidia only joined Rome because Carthage let the Libyans crush them and do nothing about it. Not like Carthage had much choice by that point
Thumbs Up! .....mmm...but.....
No account I have read shows the elephants fighting, killing and dying in the first line of Romans. They passed through prepared gaps in the Roman lines and were dealt with in the rear.
Your graphics are always awesome. Research on many of the battles often vary from accounts, where the actual accounts where remaining faithful to corroborated/accepted accounts of the battle are equally if not more dramatic.
This video showed one gap early in the battle, however the gaps were many, and coordination between the first and second line would have been a great show.
Sometimes I just can't show everything exacly like I wanted to, becouse of engine limitaton, but i try always be closest to history. Trust me i try many variants with this elephants and this is the best i can do, Greetings
I have read before in accounts of Zama that Scipio trained his troops to separate into thinner units and let the elephants run through the open spaces in the ranks til they were behind the lines and then Roman troops would close in together again. I didn't see that here.
He also formed his troops into one thick line, here they are in triplex acies, which is not historical.
fabulous work !
Great work!!! Battle of Zama is one of my favorites dattles in Ancient Times.
Thanks panos
wxcellent video! Great work.
Thank you very much Alex
Carthage could have defeated Rome had they actually sent support to Hannibal when he requested it. However he was denied time and time again which lead to their downfall. Had Carthage sent support and defeated Rome it would be interesting to see how world history would have been changed by all that.
Frank Wong Christianity wouldn’t exist as a world religion. The west would be completely eastern and no Europe as we know it. Possibly no United States.
Not really.. Hard job taking Rome
@@Anglo-Brit After the Battle of Cannae Rome had lost 3 generations of men and approximately 1/5 of their population fighting Hannibal. It wouldn't have been too hard to take Rome had he been reinforced with Siege equipment.
@@IPendragonI He would have needed a lot of reinforcement- Rome was huge with a huge and fortified population to defend it. He did not attack for no reason, but yes I get your support lacked any real support which in the end cost them the very existence they once enjoyed.
Even if Hannibal won this battle, it's not knowable what would have happened afterwards. Rome (especially in its early years) was able to take a lot of hard hits without going down. They may have been able to come back from it
Love that you used RTW's general speeches.
Thanks, I love them as well !
The sounds and visuals were well donr indeed
Thanks ;)
@@SandokanBattles why the Roma can't speak Latin 😜😜😜
A rikshawalas Fight for 25 years To 100 years,A Show Of 3 Italian Bull.
Different and Interesting actually am Enthralled! Cheers
thanks Vi Si
Very well done!
Thank you! Cheers!
As many soldiers died in these battles in one day as died in Korea or Vietnam. But would still want to go back in time and witness some if these battles.
I literally don't even understand the 2nd Punic War, how the heck did Rome lose 60-70k men at Cannae, 30k at Trebia, 15k at Trasimene and then somehow pull another 30k men out of their butt to invade Zama and win lol and THEN go to Greece and dumpster Macedon a few years later.
Next BRITISH,Autro-Hungary,Troy-Rome,15 middle brother,AND greatest sadness.
*Historians vastly underestimate the value of months and years of training in tactics involved with the 'Legions'*
*Rome's forces were professional soldiers, no different from the modern era, and no enemy could hope to defeat their skills as
individuals and more importantly, reinforcing discipline involving 'fighting as a coherent unit'*
*Tactics using 'force multipliers' involving groups of men meant only vastly superior numbers could overwhelm them, and even then it would be a 'costly victory'*
*It's quite true that Rome can and did 'lose battles' but many of those defeats involved poor strategy on the part of Officer
leadership, or Roman forces that were suffering disease, starvation, thirst, or other 'non-combat' influences*
( *The political leadership of 'Then' was no different than 'Now' in terms of sacrificing the military to achieve some goal* )
The Republican army of this period did not maintain standing or professional military forces, but levied them, by compulsory conscription, as required for each campaigning season and disbanded thereafter. It was not until 30 BC when Augustus transformed the legions from a mixed conscript and volunteer corps (serving an average of 10 years), to all-volunteer units of long-term professionals serving a standard 25-year term (conscription was only decreed in emergencies). In essence the Empire was created by citizen soldiers but was defended (and eventually lost) by professional armies.
@@casualbrowser407 *You can argue semantics all you wish, 'No Name'....but to imply there was no cadre of
trained military forces at all times is 'ad absurdum'*
*To state that "Rome had no military in any formal sense" and then explain "They did, but they were paid-for so it doesn't count!" and other such observations of vacuity in an attempt to somehow discredit the idea of "No formal military because..." is pointless*
@@gerrynightingale9045 almost every army (save peasant rebellions) has a certain cadre of professional soldiers. The question is what amount of these you need to describe the whole army as "professional"? Was the Wehrmacht for example a professional army ? IMO, at that time (circa 200 BC), it was Carthage who had the professional army - not the Romans.
@@casualbrowser407 *Think & believe whatever you like, because for reasons of your own, you had nothing until you read an observation from me and decided to 'cut me off at the knees' with spurious observations and references that you believe were 'needed' to discount what I wrote*
*Obviously, there is always a trained, professional Officer corp available and 'Sargents' to train incoming men
along with experienced 'Old Guard' elite troops*
*THIS is the 'Army' of which I wrote of, who had the skills to train recruits into a fighting force in much the same manner as U.S. Marines*
*I never stated the 'Legions' existed in such numbers as tens of thousands at all times, because Rome rarely
needed that many men under arms...yet a hundred 'Praetorians' can easily train a thousand men into elite formations in only months if the need arises*
( *For example, the boy who became 'Justinian the Great' was not Roman, and never even saw 'Rome' itself until late in life...his uncle who was a 'Sgt.' took-in the boy at perhaps 12 or so after a trek with merchants along what now is called the 'Silk Road' of antiquity* )
Contrary to 'Hollywood', the ability to become a 'Citizen of Rome' was highly valued, seen as a 'privileged position' rather than being subservient to local chieftains and so-called 'Kings' who took whatever they wished from anyone without appeal or recourse.
( *Even a 'Slave' could become a 'Citizen' by act of benefit to society thru works or teaching or even proper public speaking, since an 'Oratorio' was considered intellectual and gifted* )
*Btw, yes, the 'Wehrmacht' was as 'professional' as Armies can be, in peace or in war...the Germans are firm
believers in 'Militarism' and their current 'standing Army' are as good or better than our own or any other
Nation...yes, they still train recruits just as America does in time of need, and those recruits are instilled with
the same vigor used for hundreds of years in 'Germania'*
( *They were feared even during the 'American Revolution' because they knew 'how to fight' and were fierce
in battle...no group wanted to face 'Hessians' in a 'one-on-one' confrontation* )
@@casualbrowser407 It was Marius who made the roman legions from Militia-citizens/Levies to Professional Soldiers in 107 BC which was known as the Marius/Marian reforms in order to compensate the lack of eligible men. Augustus made adjustments to the reforms.
awsome video
and what beautiful hammer and anvil strike
SPQR the great!!!
Nice content
thanks mate
Very good as usual 💪😂
Verry good.....spartacüs and roma army we wait👍👍👍👍👍
this is incredible animation of a battle centuries ago, i'm hooked>
Is not an animation, is a game! Total War Rome 2 is the name
BEAUTIFUL SOUNDTRACK!
Rome total war :)
🦾💥💪 🔥
Cannae had its revenge on Zamma !
The Roman ARMY's disciplined payed off over unorganized forces...
Beautifully done
Thank you so much 😀
Are there any animation mods? I swear I’ve never seen some of these animations before. I also think it’s because I have a mod where I have mostly blood animations show up and you can see the same animation every 8 seconds it kinda ruins the feel so I turn it off but these animations look so much more fresh.
Yes i use few from steam workshop
Nicely done! 👌
I read through Polybius that it was the elephants, that retreated from the roman fusilade of spears and arrows, who crashed back into the Carthagenian line adding to its confusion and disarray. The video portrays all elephants killed, not so, some elephants survived which the Roman infantry utilized in future campaigns especially the later "Macedonian Wars."
The Roman's also used trumpets to spook the elephants as well.
Hannibal lost many battles in southern Italy, but this video is great!!!
thank you ;)
What a great victory for Rome well done man.
This is not true this is fake
La batalla de Zama, librada el 2 de agosto del 202 a.C. decidió una guerra que ya duraba 16 años. Se enfrentaban los mejores generales de cada bando, Aníbal por Cartago y Escipión por Roma. La ventaja numérica se inclinaba a favor del primero (45 mil cartagineses contra unos 33 mil romanos) Ambos bandos contaban con jinetes númidas en sus filas, además de que Aníbal disponía de 80 elefantes de batalla, pero el gran general cartaginés no confiaba mucho en estos pues aún estaban poco entrenados. Aún así salió a enfrentar al enemigo y puso a a los paquidermos en vanguardia mientras ideó envolver a los romanos con un movimiento de pinza similar al que catorce años antes le dio su más grande triunfo en Cannas, donde con un ejército inferior en número y ya sin elefantes aplastara a un ejército romano casi tres veces más grande que el que ahora tenía enfrente, pero Escipión descifró la maniobra y puso en vanguardia a sus trompeteros y soldados con teas encendidas en la punta de sus lanzas, y cuando los elefantes se le fueron encima, asustados por el escándalo y el fuego, se dieron a la fuga por los flancos donde ya avanzaba la caballería númida de Aníbal, la cual tuvo que huir apresuradamente, perseguida por sus paisanos del bando de Escipión. Pocos elefantes llegaron hasta las filas romanas, que se abrieron para dejarlos pasar luego de que los lanzadores de jabalinas romanos mataran a sus conductores, por lo que causaron muy poco daño. Arriesgando un último envite, Aníbal mandó a su infantería selecta, sus 14 mil veteranos que se trajera de Italia, por el centro. El choque fue terrible y casi rompieron la formación romana, pero en ese momento los númidas del bando romano dejaron de perseguir a sus paisanos del bando cartaginés y, volviendo grupas, cayeron sobre la retaguardia cartaginesa. Fue el final para Aníbal. Cayeron en Zama ese día 20 mil cartagineses, incluido un hermano de Aníbal, Magón, mientras que Escipión perdió menos de 3 mil hombres.
Creo que esta mal contextualizado, Magon no llego a participar en la batalla de zama, de hecho muere antes de socorrer a Aníbal su hermano, puesto que se encontraba en la Galia cristalina, muere en el mar, le recomiendo que lea a Serge Lancel, para inmiscuirse mas en la historia.
*cisalpina.
How do u make the battles cinematic? I have rome total war 2 but yet i still dont know
I'm Italian, the story is almost correct. but the Romans did not fight like this. they also did not deal with the elephants that way, they had frightened with fire the elephants, the frightened elephants fled back overwhelming the Carthaginians.
Yes but this are just details, there is always something that can be shown better
The Romans fought in the triplex acies and indeed killed hannibals elephants by opening their ranks and have the elephants run through the gaps where the velites waited to hurl their javelins at them. How in the world would they have used fire? Please dont say arrows
@@gaius3766 this is partly true. Part of the elephants were pushed back with fire. The Romans now knew about attacks with elephants. The final collision and the final victory was given by the Roman veterans, who had lost against Hannibal in Canne. They could not go back to Rome because they had been dishonored. Die or win to return to Rome winners. Carthage soldiers were almost all mercenaries. Most of them were Ligurians and Gauls, without discipline. However Hannibal was a great general. In that battle there was the fate of the world. History has chosen the victory of the West.
I stayed up all night playing this game
3:29 The guy in the elephant: Eh What? they already gave me?