Which one of the 3 Punic Wars was the most important for the future of Rome, in your opinion? Consider supporting our work and Join this channel to get access to perks: th-cam.com/channels/uCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q.htmljoin
That's not true though.. they conquered all of Italy beating each of their neighbors like the Samnites who were just as war like as the Roman's. Rome had plenty of wins inside Italy.
When I hear the concept of Italy used in this context I find myself getting rather irate as Italy as we now know it didn't unify as a singular nation state until the 19th century. It was infact very similar to Greece in the respect of numerous City states that sporadicly and sometimes constantly at was with one another. The empire was distinctly Roman not Italian and the historian who narrated this blog probably doesn't fully understand that even Sicily had similar issues even until the 11th century and beyond when it was more Greek than the mainland as the Normans found out whilst taking it from North African Muslims. Italy to this day is still politically regional, for instance the difference between Milanese in the north are a world away from the Neapolitans in the south
Sorry brother I just wanted to add that the Greeks called the region Italy and the area was only the tip of the boot, it wasn't until Diocletian that central Italy was added and the north like Milan wasn't even considered Italy as was Sicily Sardinia and some other regions were not considered.@@AmericanTough
@@senurilsvicrai3708 Im not denying that brother, so I'll try to clarify what I mean. The Greeks called it Italy but the local inhabitants didn't, many saw themselves as Roman. For instance it was an honour to get Roman citizenship, not Italian. Similar situations would be Rome calling Israel Palestine but the Jews always called it Israel, the three regions called Judea Samaria and Galilee. I'm Irish so we know historically that Tacitus referred to the land as Hibernia ( the cold or dark land ) hence the word hibernate, but the Ancient Celts never knew such a name existed, We simply had four regions or provinces, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught.
@@wastelander4015 for me, channels like Knowledgia and Kings and Generals or even smaller creators tend to be more straightforward and down-to-earth in their presentation of information without much concern for entertainment value, which is what I prefer.
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 understandable, I like Knowledgia for the reasons you mentioned and also they post more often. Oversimplified I like because of a mix of entertainment and an overview of the topic at hand.
The biggest irony about Hannibal is how his military career ended. Fighting for another empire in naval combat(which he was terribly suited for). One of the greatest generals in history went out with a whimper.
Hannibal was completely outmaneuvered in every aspect by Scipio. Hannibal would never had been able to pull off Scipio’s siege on both land and sea for the first time ever and succeed. As good as Hannibal was, Scipio was better in every way.
Carthage didn’t have the ability to send supplies to Hannibal at that point. Their fleet from the 1st war was gone, and Rome had absolute naval superiority. If Carthage had engaged in massive military spending before the war and built up a navy with experienced sailors, then maybe Hannibal could’ve been supported, but without that fleet? Not a chance. Also, Hannibal’s Italian Front’s importance gets inflated quite a bit when talking about the Second Punic War. The REAL war was fought in Iberia, which was a long slog fest, and one of many reasons for Rome’s total victory over their Punic rivals.
Carthage couldn't? The Roman was still in control of the sea, and 2 brothers of Hannibal did tried to reinforcements him 1 of them even crossing the alps and both of them got cut down before even meeting Hannibal
@@sometingwong2733 Hannibal shouldve stuck to fighting in Iberia, utilising familar ground and play the role of the Romans while having complete traversal domain over the Iberian landscape while establishing influence. Despite the Low winrite in Rome and high win rate out of Rome theory, Hannibal could've done the most logical thing at the time nad not push his troops over the alps. I mean he could use the river as a good defensive point. It would defintley mean Rome would begin to send more troops to iberia and soon overwhelm Hannibal but at that time the Carthaginians literally had more troops as in mercenaries but Rome had more manpower. Anyways there can be only two scenarios to this war 1) hannibal stays in Iberia and goes on the defensive, obliterating aggressive Roman legions with his tactical expertise while utilsing strategic homefield traversals and superior supplies 2) Cross the Alps but in this scenario his brother hanno does not join him later in the war but rather stays committed on the defenisve while hannibal eventually forces Fabius to do another tactic of war of attrition with the means of doing scorched earth, thus ending Roman grain supply. 3) Getting some outside help like extending the war to Greece and Egypt with some prior diplomacy in which would start another cause for the 2nd Punic war rather than it being the fact that Saguntum was taken and against Roman treaties but more so on engaging wtih Rome's enemies which would anger Rome and cause the punic war but with Rome on another front and stretched supplies. The main problem with this is that the Carthaginian navy was bad compared to the Romans in the 2nd punic war so yeah Carthage would have to militarise, I mean the senate would have to know that their Suffetes Hamilcar and Hannibal would be militaristic fanatics.
The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC. For 17 years the two states struggled for supremacy, primarily in Italy and Iberia, but also on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia and, towards the end of the war, in North Africa. After immense materiel and human losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated.
One of the core elements I cover when discussing the Punuc Wars is how the wars showed the amazing ability of Rome to adapt and adopt, and solve problems. I have a very cute video of my 4 year old discussing the 2nd punic war
Carthage lost because of (1) its own deep structure of power. Hannibal was an outsider, a land general disconnected from the maritime power and political power. The Carthage power was focused on trade and not on military. The rise of Hannibal family was considered an internal threat and so Hannibal was not supported in his actions. (2)In defense Carthage didn't had in depth defense - was heavily dependent on its marine; (3) Carthage didn't have the commitment to win this war. Carthage didn't envisioned ever to destroy Rome to the ground, just to subdue and to trade from superior position. (4) Human resources - this is debatable, Roma had the superiority but with alliances Hannibal could match this. (5) Carthage missed the opportunity to make alliances by consider them equals; Rome allows his allies to become romans.
Too bad literally none of this was in the video, which is titled "Why couldn't Carthage defeat Rome". Sad, when a comment does more to try to answer the actual question, when the video didn't go into ANY of the why's, and just told us what happened.
@@Fearmylogic I get what u saying fam, but the video kinda does answer why.... why didnt carthage beat rome? Cause this happened ----> video Ik yall wanted the actual answer, the subjective factors that answer why things went the way the went
Well said I think #3 and #5 are the most critical here. Carthage didn't have that dog in them like Rome did, and it showed in each of the wars. Just as important was the fact that their close allies shot them in the back a lot
Your #5 is wrong in this era; Allie’s of Rome included the Socii which were NOT ROMANS (despite some even being Latin). It wasn’t until after the Social war ( which occurred after the Punic wars) that Rome allowed Socii Allies to become citizens.
From what I understand, there were only two Italian cities that sided with Hannibal during the Second Punic War, namely Capua and Taranto. Both of these cities were heavily punished at the end of the war. All the inhabitants of the city of Taranto, including women and children, were employed for life in the salt mines.
Not much different. If Carthage won the wars probably just created some colonies in Italy and Spain. But the romans eventually would come back and won again and again. Just to put it in context, Carthage won in fact a lot of wars before the Rome was a thing. Their internal structure didn't allow it to become a larger empire. You need to be able to incorporate the "others" as "romans". All tribes from Italy becomes romans, gauls becomes romans, etc. The neighbors of Cartagena didn't become Carthaginians. The same issue had it the other enemies of Rome. The only way of wining is to make the enemies your friend (or kill them all). Romans did that both.
The Battle of Zama was very decisive for western civilization. If Rome would have lost that battle, there will be no Spain no France no Britain no European no USA all that will not be.
Carthage and Venice (the republic) were quite similar in that they cared way more about profit than empire building. These merchant states rarely held onto large swathes of land because it was never their priority. I wager Carthage wouldnt have ever beaten Rome, but if they did i douby they would have had an impact on the world like Rome did
Rome was lucky. Geographically but also insane amount of wealth, resources and most importantly man power. Hannibal killed over 200 000 roman soldiers, rome loses thousands at sea, yet they still have an army in spain and around 80 to 100k men in italy. Anyone can be great when they have that kind of advantage.
Carthage had similar number of troops, they were just not a unified state but a conglomeration of many city states that all fought for their pwn interests. They ignored Hannibal destroying Rome from inside when they could have sent reinforcements in fear of his influence and power had he won the war
those wealth and resource didn't came from thin air, they conquest of land with military power made those lands. The Carthage was also much richer than the Roman with trade So please armchair historian, sit down
Rome started as one of the many barbarian cities in the middle of Italy. they had to fight for their advantages. They didn't just get lucky and start with them.
Rome wasn't perfect, but relative to that time, Rome had more flexibility and a power structure that seemed to be less centralized and more merit based than Carthage's fragmented mercantile culture of self interest. Carthage had money, and resources, but Rome had a unifying idea of what Rome was and pragmatically knew how to disseminate it to other members of its hegemony.
They had a very strong sense of unity, purpose and society which is whats so fascinating about them, so early in human history yet so "civilized", not to forget their archicture and technology
@@JayCocalari Have You never learned Roman History, their culture was modeled to point of plagiarism of the Greek city states, the Etruscans and many other civilizations they had conquered
Hannibal couldn’t conquer Rome (the city). Besides the very costly venture he was totally isolated from his homeland. No logistics, no replenishment. Carthage only managed to send Hannibal’s brother (Asdrubale) to his rescue , but alas he was intercepted and killed. The only strategy open to Hannibal was the isolation of Rome from its Allie’s and vassals but even that did not work.
Carthages government refused to help Hannibal. That’s the reason he was unable to do anything more. They feared his influence and did not want to help him anymore with his victories over in Italy for fear of what he would become when he came back.
@@Dex4Sure I mean they also were probably still recovering from the Mercenary Wars, plus the fact that Macedonia was not yet prepared for War and most of the Greek cities were actually friendly to Rome at the time, it wasn't till sometime after the second Punic war that Rome and the Greek Cities would have issues.
Regarding, "Hannibal"...as his guidance counselor, I think the kid has potential. We did some aptitude tests and I think I've narrowed down his career choices to cook, or General. Will be interesting to see which he settles on...
Till 900-1000AD Italy was the most populated place in Europe. Italy was helped by warm roman era, Sicily was the breadbasket of Italy. Now in Sicily they plant just oranges and lemons
23 Odd that the sea battle of Ecnomus is not mentioned. A Roman victory and some ascribe it as being the largest naval battle in terms of ships and manpower the world has ever seen.
"doesn't" not don't. Ecnomus featured (according to Wikipedia) 330 ships and 140K men for Roman, 350 ships and 150K for Carthage. Leyte Gulf featured (according to Wikipedia) 330 ships for the Americans, 67 ships for the Japanese. Not even an approximate difference. Ecnomus is recognized by at least 5 other video streams as the largest sea battle in history.
The main reason rome won is because they did not believe in giving up and was willing to go as far as it took to get to where they were going I tell people sometimes how far will you go for who you are and what you believe in how far will you go.
@TeeSpells Hahahaha which is why Rome survived first as a republic and then as an empire for over a thousand years, completely influenced the Mediterranean and the whole Western World as well as putting the basis for laws, principles and engineering ideas that we still use? Are you dumb?
The main reason Rome lost the 2nd Punic war was when Hannibal sent his brother Mago to Carthage to request reinforcements, he was met with displease by Hanno II, the wealthiest aristocrat in Carthage. Hanno II feared that if Hannibal defeated Rome, he would become the Emperor of the Mediterranean. Placing Hannibal above him in authority. He rejected the proposal by saying" If Hannibal is so good at winning against Rome, then why is he requesting reinforcements". He further insisted that they should establish peace with Rome instead of war. He was also accused of helping the Romans build their fleet while he kept the Carthaginian navy at bay to buy some time for Rome to complete their fleet. Also, he bribed aristocrats who were in favor of Hannibal and made every possible move to prevent reinforcements to Hannibal. This was the main turning point of the war and Rome took advantage of this situation. They knew Hannibal would not attempt to attack Rome so they assigned Scipio Africanus to attack Spain and force Hannibal out of Italy.
That’s incorrect. The reinforcements that were meant for Hannibal were later diverted to Spain because the Carthaginians were on the verge of losing their Iberian territory and alliances there after several heavy losses to the Romans
more like Carthage only sent reinforcements because spain was being taken over by Rome. I don't think those reinforcements were ever for hannibal but spain
The reason the cartaginian had not the capacity to defeat Rome was something they didn't undestood. Carthago used the defeated nation as a source of mercenary. Rome was totally different. When the romans conquered another town or country, they forbidden them from the possession of an army but obliged them to sends every year some young man to Rome and be trained to become part of a roman legion they had to wow loyalty to Rome and fight for at least 10 year under the simbol of Rome. This legionaries has in some way installed in to them the loyalty to Rome. When they got back to their town, they bringed the loialty to Rome back with them. That's why the social war was fought . 60 years after the 3rd punic War, the italian 'soci' fought against Rome to get citizenship . They won, and Rome gave them citizenship. Annibal hoped in an Italian rebellion against the roman .he was thinking as a cartaginian he didn't understood that the relationship of the Italian peoples with the romans was different.
What Hannibal did at Cannae was Brilliant. Drawing in heavier numbers into a trap where on both sides they were attacked then the rear closed with what Rome thought was retreated cavalry
One day your city exists, the next day some old geezer name Cato takes a morning stroll in your gloriously beautiful and wealthy city and takes it personally
3rd punic war was a genocide, not a war, trying to defend their territory from an invading force, Rome committed war crimes by attacking Carthage in that weakened state.
If you look at any images and carvings after the war, you'd see its all a war crime. Quarterings, beheadings, torture, enslavement, rape, infanticide... all tend to be the norm
I know they killed carthagians but I think it was the resentment of the 2nd punic war which killed 200,000 Roman soldiers. Because of this romans want to completely annihilate carthagians.
If Alexander hadn't died so young, spent a year networking his empire and levying, he had designs to turn west. If he had done so, Rome never would have even become a thing. The later much weaker Macedon had several chances to defeat Rome, but made hilariously boneheaded decisions both on the battlefield, and at home when the armies were out. Carthage obviously had chances. It's amazing how small moments shape the course of history. SIDE NOTE: How does every channel covering ancient history have access to maps and military boxes and general icons and such (without using Photoshop)? Is there some sort of secret historical software out there??
Lucia's Cornelius Sulla Scipio Africanus Gauss Marius Pompey Marcus Crassis Marcus Aureliu Augustus Etc,Etc, Etc. There were Hundreds of GREAT ROMAN GENERALS WANKA!!!
Something sounds off with your audio. Did you intend to record it this loud, or did you use some other method to increase the volume before posting? in my opinion you need to use a de-esser to make it sound more pleasing at that level and cut back the loudness at least a little bit. And no people just turning down their volume doesnt fix the issue. It's really noticeable after completing your Story of Vlad series. Anway, just some constructive criticism, big fan of this type of history.
They lacked cohesion and focus. They refused to go all in when Hannibal had Rome on its back foot. Meanwhile Rome focused on gong all in as they always did
With the privilege of hindsight, I think Hannibal only last small chance to defeat Rome was to leave the Peninsula once battle of Metaurus happend. With Hasdrubal gone and no possibilty to get reinforcements from gaul anymore, Carthage understandble unwillingness not to send any due to Roman naval superiority and invasions in Hispania along with Hannibals inability to close the deal in Rome he should have went back to Hispania and aided there before it fell. Easy to say now but I still think you could argue a smart general would see he cant achieve nothing more on the peninsula at this point. Maybe Hannibal could have played the long game instead, slowly but steady weaken Rome using his superior skill as a commander, but how he would solve the biggest problem of all which is named Scipio, I dont know.
Except the soviets in world war two there's no nation in history suffered such defeats and casualties like the Romans suffered in the first three years against Hannibal , so Hannibal had already reached his limits against Rome . Why Carthage couldn't defeat Rome ? 2 main reasons for that First the population of Rome is six time the population of Carthage Second reason is because the Roman army was composed by citizens soldiers instead of the Carthaginians full of mercenaries . And yet the Punic wars were a formidable extraordinary fight . In these wars we saw the biggest naval battle in history before the age of gun powder ( battle of derpana ), we saw the crossing of the Alps the most wild move , the biggest ambush in history , Cannae , the extraordinary come back of the Romans in the two first wars , and finally in the last stand of Carthage how the Carthaginians women's cutted their hairs to made ship robes and their mass suicide after the surrender crying " fire and not the shame"
@@ziedhmili7196 If you wanna find worse defeats than what Hannibal did to Rome you should look at the mongol expansion. Khwarazmian empire lost around 80-90 % of its population for example. When they invaded Jin / song ( china ) their population was 1 to 100 but still managed to conquer it. Battle of Derpana is no way near biggest naval battle, the largest are Ecnomus, Artemesia and Salamis.
@@jimmyandersson9938 the mongols killed civilians , womens and children's and they destroyed the irrigation systems in persia and Iraq which caused famines. The casualties of the Romans were military casualties. That's the difference , I agree with you that the amount of casualties in the Mongolian conquest were horrible but in terms of military casualties the Roman losses were horrible
@@jimmyandersson9938 about derpana , I was wrong, I meant the battle of cape ecnomus . Both battles were in the first Punic war. Battle cape ecnomus was the biggest in history in terms of military personnel and crew.
Short answer: because Hannibal was stupid enough to trap himself and the majority of Carthage’s military behind enemy lines with no way to actually win the war.
He wasmt stupid. He did beat down romans but had no plan on taking over rome itself unless he though winning battles would somehow let him enter rome with no fight
Struggling between Romen Empire and Carthaginian ..punic wars tooks several deeply clashes....on Aebrian peninsula and northern Italy..Hannibal threatened rome capital itself...Romance invaded Carthage and imposed its conditions on Carthaginian state...Carthage became subdued vassals while nombedians skirmishes was humbled Carthaginian...
As a tactician, Hannibal was sound. As a strategist, he was severely lacking. He has just one plan. Invade Italy and Rome's Italian allies will join him. He had no backup if this didn't materialize. Many Roman allies actually stayed loyal, more so than Hannibal planned for. So it was only a matter of time before he lost. No amount of reinforcements could help Hannibal. Fabian tactics were to avoid Hannibal. A bigger force would only make this easier. Meanwhile, Scipio Africanus gained most of his tactical acumen from studying Roman losses to Hannibal. But he had the added advantage of being a solid strategist. Basically eliminated Carthaginian Iberia, Hannibal's only true stronghold as Carthaginian Africa was filled with political rivals. He then turned his attention to Carthaginian Africa itself and prompted Carthage to call back Hannibal. At this point it wasn't so much about Hannibal being obedient and returning to Africa, but more so the realization that his campaign in Italy was going nowhere and staying in Italy would mean certain defeat after the Romans were done with his vulnerable African homeland. So he was left with no option but to throw all his cards into one decisive battle in Africa, which he lost, and this sealed the fate of Carthage. Quite simply put Hannibal thought it was a game of checkers, Scipio outwitted him by playing chess.
Yes, I think that pretty well describes it. You have the United States of America, and it's interests, and then you have the American World Empire and it's interests, which are often quite different things. Geroge Washington summed up the foreign policy of the United States as "No entangling foreign alliances." A more recent President of the United States summed up the foreign policy for the United States even more concisely ---- "America First." The foreign policy interests of the American World Empire are quite different from the foreign policy interests of the United States. Does that help answer the question mark you posed?
Yes, that is the am bition of far too many of the leaders of the United States: the ambition to tell everyone else in the world what they must and must not do. It is not my ambition for the United States. My ambition is for the United States to abandon the American World Empire and return to being the United States of America, with the ambition of having no entangling alliances. Or, as a recent American President proposed ---- "America First." Let the world sort out it's own problems. I can guarantee you that it will. I always need a good laugh anyway.
lack of manpower, different mindset carthage was an economic and naval powerhouse while rome was a very militaristic country also thr war had far more popular support in rome
I’m sorry but I have to complain about the photo for this video. During carthages entire time as an empire Rome never had conquered Macedonia or any Greek territories, that was after the third Punic war
The same reason they killed Ceasar at first. Then after they lost spain they had to focus on Carthage defense. So going with this frame of mine. You could conclude that he thought he could defeat rome by himself. Ignored his chances to escape and lead his country to ruin. As an overall leader. Not a very good one. As a raider he was successful but didn't know when to quit raiding.
It's quite simple. They were a trade nation while Rome already was a military power. Carthage had no real army and relied heavily on mercenaries while Rome had a military culture. And this was the cause for many mistakes Carthage made. Like the half hearted support of it's armies.
Not a word about the Mercenary War and its devastating effects on Carthage's relations to its neighbors - or to its economy? Not a single word said about the huge massacres, either? Akragas wasn't the only one, just the beginning, and both sides engaged in atrocities - even by the era's standards.
Carthage, while rich, relied too much on mercenaries. Romans seemed to have been much more united as people. Hannibal didn't get much support from his own government.
Carthage was just a rich States out for their own greed.in a way its also Hannibal cause. Everyone had difrent ideas because thats how their empire worked.not enough support from Carthage at all points
Carthage tried for 250 years to take Sicily from the Greeks and failed, even though the Greek towns were rarely united and all of them suffered from internal strife.
Except the soviets in world war two there's no nation in history suffered such defeats and casualties like the Romans suffered in the first three years against Hannibal , so Hannibal had already reached his limits against Rome . Why Carthage couldn't defeat Rome ? 2 main reasons for that First the population of Rome is six time the population of Carthage Second reason is because the Roman army was composed by citizens soldiers instead of the Carthaginians full of mercenaries . And yet the Punic wars were a formidable extraordinary fight . In these wars we saw the biggest naval battle in history before the age of gun powder ( battle of derpana ), we saw the crossing of the Alps the most wild move , the biggest ambush in history , Cannae , the extraordinary come back of the Romans in the two first wars , and finally in the last stand of Carthage how the Carthaginians women's cutted their hairs to made ship robes and their mass suicide after the surrender crying " fire and not the shame".
The Carthage empire were Arabs? This encompasses most of north Africa except Egypt. Can someone clarify this for me? I worked 15.5 years in Kuwait 🇰🇼, so Arab history is important to me. Shukkran.
Yes the word Carthage is the Romanized word for Qrt Hdsht which means "Modern Village" in Arabic and Canaanite (or so-called Phoenician in Western sources) Canaanites (so-called Phoenician in Western sources) migrated from the Southern Arabian peninsula to Levant, there they built their first empires and then went all over the Mediteranean including modern-Tunisia where they built their famous City and Empire Carthage.
@@dtttmr964 Explain your end reply "Google is free?" This is nonsequitor. Your reply is credible until your weirdo remark. Are you implying I am an idiot? Explain please.
I have to say I am disappointed in this video. The tile says, why couldn't Carthage defeat Rome, so I was looking forward to a well thought out analyst of the Punic wars on why Carthage couldn't win. Instead, I just watch another generalized history video about the three Punic Wars. Real disappointed.
Rome fell because it abandoned logic, reason and competency in leadership. It descended into moral and cultural decline in Rome. Leaders indulged themselves in depravity and excess..
Romans already had navy prior to first war with Carthage, romans copyng stranded carthaginian ship is a myth by certain roman historians trying to make their victory appear grater. By the middle of third century BC Roman Republic conquered entire Central and Southern Italy which had many coastal cities with ports and naval tradition, many of those cities were Greek, chief of them probably being Tarentum, these cities became allies/vassals of Rome and gave their ships, crews and shipbuilding experience to roman armed forces.
Frankly not . Rome already had a fleet but actually copied Carthage boats and that not only is written in many historical sources it's evident even by only confronting the two fleets
@@locusta4662 No, Carthaginians and southern Italian Greeks used the same ship types, by the middle of 3rd century BC those cities became roman vassals and their fleets fought for Rome.
@@ivandicivan4189 Simply . If it's true that what was called quinquereme was a greek invention (probably done in Syracuse ) and that even the corvus was a Greek invention , it's even more true that Cartage vessels were slimmer and had greater water draft . Basically in the middle of the war was able first to modify their vessels (in a similar way to the Carthaginian ones ) and later to advance them . Even if for example we go 2 centuries further in time we will find that Romans continued to use slimmer and smaller vessels in comparison to the Greek world (Actium ) . That is part of punic wars inheritance .
Carthage did not have a unified dedicated leadership. A Republic of merchants and pirates . At the place where Carthage was located, it never faced strong opposition from various enemies. Only Numidians presented some threat, but not that much. The army they had was composed of mercenaries and Republic always looked at them with suspicion. All that taken together undermined long-term conquering effort. Why did pirates of the Caribbean fail to seize Texas? Because pirates never cared about land acquisition. Carthaginian were pretty much the same. Why bother to build an army, it is cheaper to buy it...
@@bhbluebird Livy quotes Maharbal as saying, "You know, Hannibal, how to win a fight; you do not know how to use your victory (Livy 151)." ^ This is what my comment was referring to.
I'll sum it up, Carthage's Senate were fat cats and did nothing to help the Barca family in the 1st or 2nd Punic Wars. Carthage had people like Hanno II, who was more concerned about getting richer than winning a war against an obvious deadly enemy. Rome on the other hand were all-out in the war, it was win or else. They can get rich later once they have crushed Carthage. Had the Carthaginian Senate supported the Barcas (Hanno even demobilized Carthage's Navy allowing Rome to rebuild), like Rome supported their general, Carthage probably wouldn't have lost the 1st Punic War as Hamilcar never lost in the 1st Punic War.
Which one of the 3 Punic Wars was the most important for the future of Rome, in your opinion?
Consider supporting our work and Join this channel to get access to perks:
th-cam.com/channels/uCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q.htmljoin
The second.
ALL OF THE WARS
Elephant slayer Hannibal would say second ofcourse.
I love how in the first war Carthage the sea power lost to the Roman land crabs but then won on land were the Romans was suposed to excel.
If you are going to stick 3 videos together, please level the volume
I love the foreshadowing of "Rome has a high win rate outside of Italy but a low win rate inside of it."
That's not true though.. they conquered all of Italy beating each of their neighbors like the Samnites who were just as war like as the Roman's. Rome had plenty of wins inside Italy.
When I hear the concept of Italy used in this context I find myself getting rather irate as Italy as we now know it didn't unify as a singular nation state until the 19th century.
It was infact very similar to Greece in the respect of numerous City states that sporadicly and sometimes constantly at was with one another. The empire was distinctly Roman not Italian and the historian who narrated this blog probably doesn't fully understand that even Sicily had similar issues even until the 11th century and beyond when it was more Greek than the mainland as the Normans found out whilst taking it from North African Muslims. Italy to this day is still politically regional, for instance the difference between Milanese in the north are a world away from the Neapolitans in the south
Sorry brother I just wanted to add that the Greeks called the region Italy and the area was only the tip of the boot, it wasn't until Diocletian that central Italy was added and the north like Milan wasn't even considered Italy as was Sicily Sardinia and some other regions were not considered.@@AmericanTough
@@Polycarp-g6z I did a quick google search and during that time the land is called Italy tho.
@@senurilsvicrai3708 Im not denying that brother, so I'll try to clarify what I mean. The Greeks called it Italy but the local inhabitants didn't, many saw themselves as Roman. For instance it was an honour to get Roman citizenship, not Italian. Similar situations would be Rome calling Israel Palestine but the Jews always called it Israel, the three regions called Judea Samaria and Galilee. I'm Irish so we know historically that Tacitus referred to the land as Hibernia ( the cold or dark land ) hence the word hibernate, but the Ancient Celts never knew such a name existed, We simply had four regions or provinces, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught.
Thanks, i didn't wanted to wait for oversimplified
Knowledgia is better to watch anyway
@joshygoldiem_j2799 both have their pros and cons. Regardless, I like to watch both of their channels
@@wastelander4015 for me, channels like Knowledgia and Kings and Generals or even smaller creators tend to be more straightforward and down-to-earth in their presentation of information without much concern for entertainment value, which is what I prefer.
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 understandable, I like Knowledgia for the reasons you mentioned and also they post more often. Oversimplified I like because of a mix of entertainment and an overview of the topic at hand.
What were you waiting for? This happened thousands of years ago...
Hannibal taught Rome how effective properly executed tactics and strategy can do. In a way he help build Rome.
The biggest irony about Hannibal is how his military career ended. Fighting for another empire in naval combat(which he was terribly suited for).
One of the greatest generals in history went out with a whimper.
No he underestimated the will of the Romans
He didn't bring siege weapons to a base race.
Hannibal was completely outmaneuvered in every aspect by Scipio. Hannibal would never had been able to pull off Scipio’s siege on both land and sea for the first time ever and succeed.
As good as Hannibal was, Scipio was better in every way.
The Punic Wars taught Rome quite a bit; ship building, combined arms combat, tactics. Carthage's legacy unofficially made its mark on Rome.
The Carthaginian senator, Hanno II, refused to send any reinforcements to Hannibal in Italy.
Carthage really regretted that during the 3rd war.
it's a testament to a historical truism that a country united wins wars, and one divided does not.
Carthage didn’t have the ability to send supplies to Hannibal at that point. Their fleet from the 1st war was gone, and Rome had absolute naval superiority.
If Carthage had engaged in massive military spending before the war and built up a navy with experienced sailors, then maybe Hannibal could’ve been supported, but without that fleet? Not a chance.
Also, Hannibal’s Italian Front’s importance gets inflated quite a bit when talking about the Second Punic War. The REAL war was fought in Iberia, which was a long slog fest, and one of many reasons for Rome’s total victory over their Punic rivals.
Carthage couldn't? The Roman was still in control of the sea, and 2 brothers of Hannibal did tried to reinforcements him 1 of them even crossing the alps and both of them got cut down before even meeting Hannibal
@@sometingwong2733 Hannibal shouldve stuck to fighting in Iberia, utilising familar ground and play the role of the Romans while having complete traversal domain over the Iberian landscape while establishing influence. Despite the Low winrite in Rome and high win rate out of Rome theory, Hannibal could've done the most logical thing at the time nad not push his troops over the alps. I mean he could use the river as a good defensive point. It would defintley mean Rome would begin to send more troops to iberia and soon overwhelm Hannibal but at that time the Carthaginians literally had more troops as in mercenaries but Rome had more manpower. Anyways there can be only two scenarios to this war
1) hannibal stays in Iberia and goes on the defensive, obliterating aggressive Roman legions with his tactical expertise while utilsing strategic homefield traversals and superior supplies
2) Cross the Alps but in this scenario his brother hanno does not join him later in the war but rather stays committed on the defenisve while hannibal eventually forces Fabius to do another tactic of war of attrition with the means of doing scorched earth, thus ending Roman grain supply.
3) Getting some outside help like extending the war to Greece and Egypt with some prior diplomacy in which would start another cause for the 2nd Punic war rather than it being the fact that Saguntum was taken and against Roman treaties but more so on engaging wtih Rome's enemies which would anger Rome and cause the punic war but with Rome on another front and stretched supplies.
The main problem with this is that the Carthaginian navy was bad compared to the Romans in the 2nd punic war so yeah Carthage would have to militarise, I mean the senate would have to know that their Suffetes Hamilcar and Hannibal would be militaristic fanatics.
Counterpoint; if Hannibal hadn't scared the living daylights out of the Romans, they might not have destroyed Carthage.
The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC. For 17 years the two states struggled for supremacy, primarily in Italy and Iberia, but also on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia and, towards the end of the war, in North Africa. After immense materiel and human losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated.
One of the core elements I cover when discussing the Punuc Wars is how the wars showed the amazing ability of Rome to adapt and adopt, and solve problems. I have a very cute video of my 4 year old discussing the 2nd punic war
I didn't know Roman legions are US Marines?! Lol...Adapt and Overcome. OORAH! Thank you very much 😊
Definitely more adaptable under the republic. I feel they lost a bit of that when transitioning to the empire.
@@Bloodnut4life Not immediately but gradually. Rome expanded the most under Augustus.
Carthage lost because of (1) its own deep structure of power. Hannibal was an outsider, a land general disconnected from the maritime power and political power. The Carthage power was focused on trade and not on military. The rise of Hannibal family was considered an internal threat and so Hannibal was not supported in his actions. (2)In defense Carthage didn't had in depth defense - was heavily dependent on its marine; (3) Carthage didn't have the commitment to win this war. Carthage didn't envisioned ever to destroy Rome to the ground, just to subdue and to trade from superior position. (4) Human resources - this is debatable, Roma had the superiority but with alliances Hannibal could match this. (5) Carthage missed the opportunity to make alliances by consider them equals; Rome allows his allies to become romans.
Too bad literally none of this was in the video, which is titled "Why couldn't Carthage defeat Rome". Sad, when a comment does more to try to answer the actual question, when the video didn't go into ANY of the why's, and just told us what happened.
Everyone gangsta till they have to siege roma walls with out anyone to open them the door from inside 😂
@@Fearmylogic I get what u saying fam, but the video kinda does answer why.... why didnt carthage beat rome? Cause this happened ----> video
Ik yall wanted the actual answer, the subjective factors that answer why things went the way the went
Well said
I think #3 and #5 are the most critical here. Carthage didn't have that dog in them like Rome did, and it showed in each of the wars. Just as important was the fact that their close allies shot them in the back a lot
Your #5 is wrong in this era; Allie’s of Rome included the Socii which were NOT ROMANS (despite some even being Latin). It wasn’t until after the Social war ( which occurred after the Punic wars) that Rome allowed Socii Allies to become citizens.
From what I understand, there were only two Italian cities that sided with Hannibal during the Second Punic War, namely Capua and Taranto. Both of these cities were heavily punished at the end of the war. All the inhabitants of the city of Taranto, including women and children, were employed for life in the salt mines.
probably an old wifes tale like salting the soil of carthage
'employed for life'
@@Chromium457'For low pay'
@@freddyswso just like half of human population.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 I think they were paid even lower
you gotta give Romans applaud for never surrendering. never giving up
Romans: Damn we have too many people
I wonder what the world would have looked like today had Carthage won the Punic wars?
Not much different. If Carthage won the wars probably just created some colonies in Italy and Spain. But the romans eventually would come back and won again and again. Just to put it in context, Carthage won in fact a lot of wars before the Rome was a thing. Their internal structure didn't allow it to become a larger empire. You need to be able to incorporate the "others" as "romans". All tribes from Italy becomes romans, gauls becomes romans, etc. The neighbors of Cartagena didn't become Carthaginians. The same issue had it the other enemies of Rome. The only way of wining is to make the enemies your friend (or kill them all). Romans did that both.
The Battle of Zama was very decisive for western civilization.
If Rome would have lost that battle, there will be no Spain no France no Britain no European no USA all that will not be.
@@Red-90
Rome was never destroyed it transitioned
@@Red-90
It’s called Christianity
Carthage and Venice (the republic) were quite similar in that they cared way more about profit than empire building. These merchant states rarely held onto large swathes of land because it was never their priority. I wager Carthage wouldnt have ever beaten Rome, but if they did i douby they would have had an impact on the world like Rome did
Rome was lucky. Geographically but also insane amount of wealth, resources and most importantly man power. Hannibal killed over 200 000 roman soldiers, rome loses thousands at sea, yet they still have an army in spain and around 80 to 100k men in italy. Anyone can be great when they have that kind of advantage.
Carthage had similar number of troops, they were just not a unified state but a conglomeration of many city states that all fought for their pwn interests. They ignored Hannibal destroying Rome from inside when they could have sent reinforcements in fear of his influence and power had he won the war
Being one a penninsula also had mny advantages
those wealth and resource didn't came from thin air, they conquest of land with military power made those lands. The Carthage was also much richer than the Roman with trade
So please armchair historian, sit down
Rome started as one of the many barbarian cities in the middle of Italy. they had to fight for their advantages. They didn't just get lucky and start with them.
There was no luck. First - rome was republic. Second - roman mentality. Third - roman citizenship was not shadowed by barbarians.
Great. I WANT MORE CARTHAGE PLEASE
Rome wasn't perfect, but relative to that time, Rome had more flexibility and a power structure that seemed to be less centralized and more merit based than Carthage's fragmented mercantile culture of self interest. Carthage had money, and resources, but Rome had a unifying idea of what Rome was and pragmatically knew how to disseminate it to other members of its hegemony.
They had a very strong sense of unity, purpose and society which is whats so fascinating about them, so early in human history yet so "civilized", not to forget their archicture and technology
Liberty? Only for nobles. They were more civilized only when it comes to unity of society, architecture and military.
@@zonnytiger2371 Most of which was copied from others.
Please name their architecture and culture copied from others during this period, with sources.
@@JayCocalari Have You never learned Roman History, their culture was modeled to point of plagiarism of the Greek city states, the Etruscans and many other civilizations they had conquered
Thank you for the refreshing history lesson. I've studied Punic wars back then and it was massive! Thank you for clearing it up somehow 😉☺️
Wow!!!The Punic Wars were daring of course and the Roman Empire was the powerful empire I have ever seen in my life,good friends!!!:-D
Fantastic video!
Hannibal couldn’t conquer Rome (the city). Besides the very costly venture he was totally isolated from his homeland. No logistics, no replenishment. Carthage only managed to send Hannibal’s brother (Asdrubale) to his rescue , but alas he was intercepted and killed.
The only strategy open to Hannibal was the isolation of Rome from its Allie’s and vassals but even that did not work.
Also to recruit Romes enemies and rivals to the east but that didn't work either, the Macedonians never came nor did the Greek cities
Carthages government refused to help Hannibal. That’s the reason he was unable to do anything more. They feared his influence and did not want to help him anymore with his victories over in Italy for fear of what he would become when he came back.
@@BangThatGong Was very shortsighted of them not thinking what Rome would do if they ever arrived to Carthage's shores.
@@Dex4Sure I mean they also were probably still recovering from the Mercenary Wars, plus the fact that Macedonia was not yet prepared for War and most of the Greek cities were actually friendly to Rome at the time, it wasn't till sometime after the second Punic war that Rome and the Greek Cities would have issues.
That is a myth. It was Roman sea power that isolated Hannibal in Italy.
Odd that the great victories of C.Scipio in Spain are barely mentioned.
Thank you. History is awesome. 😅😅😅😅
Regarding, "Hannibal"...as his guidance counselor, I think the kid has potential.
We did some aptitude tests and I think I've narrowed down his career choices to cook, or General. Will be interesting to see which he settles on...
Rome just kept fighting.
the pubic hair wars are one of my favorite historical subjects
The pun wars were lamer
@@_Ben___ thats eude
They were major entanglements.
Rome always seem able to pull troops out their ass in abundance.
Italia is good land. Their population must've been huge.
Till 900-1000AD Italy was the most populated place in Europe. Italy was helped by warm roman era, Sicily was the breadbasket of Italy. Now in Sicily they plant just oranges and lemons
23
Odd that the sea battle of Ecnomus is not mentioned. A Roman victory and some ascribe it as being the largest naval battle in terms of ships and manpower the world has ever seen.
Battle of Ecnomus dont even come close to biggest battle in number of ships, but manpower for sure.
"doesn't" not don't. Ecnomus featured (according to Wikipedia) 330 ships and 140K men for Roman, 350 ships and 150K for Carthage. Leyte Gulf featured (according to Wikipedia) 330 ships for the Americans, 67 ships for the Japanese. Not even an approximate difference. Ecnomus is recognized by at least 5 other video streams as the largest sea battle in history.
@@DesertAres Battle of Artemisium and Salamis had almost twice the number of ships
@@jimmyandersson9938yea but Rome destroyed Greece so, Roman battles> Greek battles
The main reason rome won is because they did not believe in giving up and was willing to go as far as it took to get to where they were going I tell people sometimes how far will you go for who you are and what you believe in how far will you go.
Rome won being more barbariac Hannibal left Rome and let it be and survive unlike the savages who committed ethnic genocide
@TeeSpells Hahahaha which is why Rome survived first as a republic and then as an empire for over a thousand years, completely influenced the Mediterranean and the whole Western World as well as putting the basis for laws, principles and engineering ideas that we still use? Are you dumb?
Hannibal executed every Italic ally in his army before leaving for Africa, whether they were loyal one day or 19 years of campaign.
The main reason Rome lost the 2nd Punic war was when Hannibal sent his brother Mago to Carthage to request reinforcements, he was met with displease by Hanno II, the wealthiest aristocrat in Carthage.
Hanno II feared that if Hannibal defeated Rome, he would become the Emperor of the Mediterranean. Placing Hannibal above him in authority.
He rejected the proposal by saying" If Hannibal is so good at winning against Rome, then why is he requesting reinforcements".
He further insisted that they should establish peace with Rome instead of war.
He was also accused of helping the Romans build their fleet while he kept the Carthaginian navy at bay to buy some time for Rome to complete their fleet.
Also, he bribed aristocrats who were in favor of Hannibal and made every possible move to prevent reinforcements to Hannibal.
This was the main turning point of the war and Rome took advantage of this situation.
They knew Hannibal would not attempt to attack Rome so they assigned Scipio Africanus to attack Spain and force Hannibal out of Italy.
That’s incorrect. The reinforcements that were meant for Hannibal were later diverted to Spain because the Carthaginians were on the verge of losing their Iberian territory and alliances there after several heavy losses to the Romans
It was Roman sea power and the Scipios in Spain that prevented any reinforcement reaching Hannibal from Africa.
more like Carthage only sent reinforcements because spain was being taken over by Rome. I don't think those reinforcements were ever for hannibal but spain
Great video.
Some inconsistency in volume as I had to keep adjusting up and down.
The reason the cartaginian had not the capacity to defeat Rome was something they didn't undestood. Carthago used the defeated nation as a source of mercenary. Rome was totally different. When the romans conquered another town or country, they forbidden them from the possession of an army but obliged them to sends every year some young man to Rome and be trained to become part of a roman legion they had to wow loyalty to Rome and fight for at least 10 year under the simbol of Rome. This legionaries has in some way installed in to them the loyalty to Rome. When they got back to their town, they bringed the loialty to Rome back with them. That's why the social war was fought . 60 years after the 3rd punic War, the italian 'soci' fought against Rome to get citizenship . They won, and Rome gave them citizenship. Annibal hoped in an Italian rebellion against the roman .he was thinking as a cartaginian he didn't understood that the relationship of the Italian peoples with the romans was different.
Weird Rome back then had this sheer will and unity, but in the future they kept having civil wars and unrest.
Romans were such badasses
What Hannibal did at Cannae was Brilliant. Drawing in heavier numbers into a trap where on both sides they were attacked then the rear closed with what Rome thought was retreated cavalry
One day your city exists, the next day some old geezer name Cato takes a morning stroll in your gloriously beautiful and wealthy city and takes it personally
THANKS MAANNN❤❤❤
thanks for video
Oversimplified takes forever! But then, thanks for this masterpiece.
Excellent!!!
Lets not beat around the bush, this is a Europa Barbarorum tutorial.
Jokes aside, a wonderful presentation as always
3rd punic war was a genocide, not a war, trying to defend their territory from an invading force, Rome committed war crimes by attacking Carthage in that weakened state.
It's not like they did'nt anounce their planned genocide on a daily basis
did war crime exists back then?
I know right? It was awesome
If you look at any images and carvings after the war, you'd see its all a war crime. Quarterings, beheadings, torture, enslavement, rape, infanticide... all tend to be the norm
I know they killed carthagians but I think it was the resentment of the 2nd punic war which killed 200,000 Roman soldiers. Because of this romans want to completely annihilate carthagians.
Because Carthage existed.
There. I saved you 32 min.
Nice video
ROME CAME ROME LEARN ROME ADAPT ROME DEFEAT ROME GROW ROME REPEAT
16:12
Varro probably didn't wear _lorica segmentata/ but _lorica hamata_ and probably a bronze helmet.
The Punic Wars are like Star Wars. And like Star Wars, we get to see all the different parts of the trilogy...
If Alexander hadn't died so young, spent a year networking his empire and levying, he had designs to turn west. If he had done so, Rome never would have even become a thing.
The later much weaker Macedon had several chances to defeat Rome, but made hilariously boneheaded decisions both on the battlefield, and at home when the armies were out.
Carthage obviously had chances.
It's amazing how small moments shape the course of history.
SIDE NOTE: How does every channel covering ancient history have access to maps and military boxes and general icons and such (without using Photoshop)? Is there some sort of secret historical software out there??
They all had chances and LOST.
Alexander knew better!!
Why do you assume Alexander would've not been defeated you if he went west or south into Arabia.
@@ToklatAlexander would have crushed rome when he was alive 😅
Lucia's Cornelius Sulla
Scipio Africanus
Gauss Marius
Pompey
Marcus Crassis
Marcus Aureliu
Augustus Etc,Etc, Etc.
There were Hundreds of GREAT ROMAN GENERALS
WANKA!!!
Something sounds off with your audio. Did you intend to record it this loud, or did you use some other method to increase the volume before posting? in my opinion you need to use a de-esser to make it sound more pleasing at that level and cut back the loudness at least a little bit. And no people just turning down their volume doesnt fix the issue. It's really noticeable after completing your Story of Vlad series. Anway, just some constructive criticism, big fan of this type of history.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!
I brought my tissues and i'm ready to watch till the end ( i will not cry ) .
Another great video! I uploaded a video on Sicily today 😅
They lacked cohesion and focus. They refused to go all in when Hannibal had Rome on its back foot. Meanwhile Rome focused on gong all in as they always did
24:30 "who spared over". I think you mean "who sparred over".
With the privilege of hindsight, I think Hannibal only last small chance to defeat Rome was to leave the Peninsula once battle of Metaurus happend. With Hasdrubal gone and no possibilty to get reinforcements from gaul anymore, Carthage understandble unwillingness not to send any due to Roman naval superiority and invasions in Hispania along with Hannibals inability to close the deal in Rome he should have went back to Hispania and aided there before it fell. Easy to say now but I still think you could argue a smart general would see he cant achieve nothing more on the peninsula at this point.
Maybe Hannibal could have played the long game instead, slowly but steady weaken Rome using his superior skill as a commander, but how he would solve the biggest problem of all which is named Scipio, I dont know.
Except the soviets in world war two there's no nation in history suffered such defeats and casualties like the Romans suffered in the first three years against Hannibal , so Hannibal had already reached his limits against Rome .
Why Carthage couldn't defeat Rome ? 2 main reasons for that
First the population of Rome is six time the population of Carthage
Second reason is because the Roman army was composed by citizens soldiers instead of the Carthaginians full of mercenaries .
And yet the Punic wars were a formidable extraordinary fight .
In these wars we saw the biggest naval battle in history before the age of gun powder ( battle of derpana ), we saw the crossing of the Alps the most wild move , the biggest ambush in history , Cannae , the extraordinary come back of the Romans in the two first wars , and finally in the last stand of Carthage how the Carthaginians women's cutted their hairs to made ship robes and their mass suicide after the surrender crying " fire and not the shame"
@@ziedhmili7196 If you wanna find worse defeats than what Hannibal did to Rome you should look at the mongol expansion. Khwarazmian empire lost around 80-90 % of its population for example. When they invaded Jin / song ( china ) their population was 1 to 100 but still managed to conquer it.
Battle of Derpana is no way near biggest naval battle, the largest are Ecnomus, Artemesia and Salamis.
@@jimmyandersson9938 the mongols killed civilians , womens and children's and they destroyed the irrigation systems in persia and Iraq which caused famines. The casualties of the Romans were military casualties.
That's the difference , I agree with you that the amount of casualties in the Mongolian conquest were horrible but in terms of military casualties the Roman losses were horrible
@@jimmyandersson9938 about derpana , I was wrong, I meant the battle of cape ecnomus .
Both battles were in the first Punic war.
Battle cape ecnomus was the biggest in history in terms of military personnel and crew.
Hannibal is for Mr better than scipio
قرطاج العظيمة سقطت بسبب الخيانة و عدم الاستعداد السريع بعد الحرب الاولى
🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳
@@dtttmr964قرطاج هي الي خانت هانيبال و مابغاتش تدعمو
@@zakariadjouadi1611 ماسينيسا النوميدي هو اللي تسبب في سقوك قرطاج، كان بإمكان هانيبال يرجع ليها قوتها.
Short answer: because Hannibal was stupid enough to trap himself and the majority of Carthage’s military behind enemy lines with no way to actually win the war.
He wasmt stupid. He did beat down romans but had no plan on taking over rome itself unless he though winning battles would somehow let him enter rome with no fight
Hannibal : FIGHT M-
Rome : *Nuh uh*
Why Carthage couldn't conquer Rome?? Because Rome NEVER HEARD NO BELL!! 💪
My dogs name is Scipio for Scipio Africanus. He, Hannibal, and Robert E.Lee are my 3 favorite military commanders!
great
"Delenda est Carthago”
Edit: A guy named Cato told me that
Great history of Tunisia 🇹🇳 Carthage forever
Struggling between Romen Empire and Carthaginian ..punic wars tooks several deeply clashes....on Aebrian peninsula and northern Italy..Hannibal threatened rome capital itself...Romance invaded Carthage and imposed its conditions on Carthaginian state...Carthage became subdued vassals while nombedians skirmishes was humbled Carthaginian...
As a tactician, Hannibal was sound. As a strategist, he was severely lacking. He has just one plan. Invade Italy and Rome's Italian allies will join him. He had no backup if this didn't materialize. Many Roman allies actually stayed loyal, more so than Hannibal planned for.
So it was only a matter of time before he lost. No amount of reinforcements could help Hannibal. Fabian tactics were to avoid Hannibal. A bigger force would only make this easier.
Meanwhile, Scipio Africanus gained most of his tactical acumen from studying Roman losses to Hannibal. But he had the added advantage of being a solid strategist. Basically eliminated Carthaginian Iberia, Hannibal's only true stronghold as Carthaginian Africa was filled with political rivals.
He then turned his attention to Carthaginian Africa itself and prompted Carthage to call back Hannibal.
At this point it wasn't so much about Hannibal being obedient and returning to Africa, but more so the realization that his campaign in Italy was going nowhere and staying in Italy would mean certain defeat after the Romans were done with his vulnerable African homeland. So he was left with no option but to throw all his cards into one decisive battle in Africa, which he lost, and this sealed the fate of Carthage.
Quite simply put Hannibal thought it was a game of checkers, Scipio outwitted him by playing chess.
What lessons should the American World Empire take away from the Punic Wars, and the Carthage vs Rome conflicts in particular?
American World Empire🤨?
Yes, I think that pretty well describes it.
You have the United States of America, and it's interests, and then you have the American World Empire and it's interests, which are often quite different things.
Geroge Washington summed up the foreign policy of the United States as "No entangling foreign alliances."
A more recent President of the United States summed up the foreign policy for the United States even more concisely ---- "America First."
The foreign policy interests of the American World Empire are quite different from the foreign policy interests of the United States.
Does that help answer the question mark you posed?
@@SeattlePioneer No it doesnt lmao.You are just admiting that the US wants to rule the world.
Yes, that is the am bition of far too many of the leaders of the United States: the ambition to tell everyone else in the world what they must and must not do.
It is not my ambition for the United States. My ambition is for the United States to abandon the American World Empire and return to being the United States of America, with the ambition of having no entangling alliances. Or, as a recent American President proposed ---- "America First."
Let the world sort out it's own problems. I can guarantee you that it will.
I always need a good laugh anyway.
La narración tiene detalles interesantes, como el bombardeo y avistamiento que hicieron los B 17
Carthage completely destroyed because of one man. you know his name.
Nice! more videos about ancient and medieval world please! I would like to see Ancient Greeks and then Viking raids on this channel :D
lack of manpower, different mindset carthage was an economic and naval powerhouse while rome was a very militaristic country also thr war had far more popular support in rome
The Roman's were more tenacious and some lucky suprise attacks during the wars helped a bit.
Oversimplified just got silenced
Has been for years innit?
I’m sorry but I have to complain about the photo for this video. During carthages entire time as an empire Rome never had conquered Macedonia or any Greek territories, that was after the third Punic war
The same reason they killed Ceasar at first. Then after they lost spain they had to focus on Carthage defense. So going with this frame of mine. You could conclude that he thought he could defeat rome by himself. Ignored his chances to escape and lead his country to ruin. As an overall leader. Not a very good one. As a raider he was successful but didn't know when to quit raiding.
It's quite simple. They were a trade nation while Rome already was a military power.
Carthage had no real army and relied heavily on mercenaries while Rome had a military culture.
And this was the cause for many mistakes Carthage made. Like the half hearted support of it's armies.
Because the Romans kept coming and fighting regardless of battle defeats
That’s
Tough to beat
This just goes to show how important cavalry was, because without it Hannibal would've lost the battle of cannae.
Not a word about the Mercenary War and its devastating effects on Carthage's relations to its neighbors - or to its economy? Not a single word said about the huge massacres, either? Akragas wasn't the only one, just the beginning, and both sides engaged in atrocities - even by the era's standards.
Carthage, while rich, relied too much on mercenaries. Romans seemed to have been much more united as people. Hannibal didn't get much support from his own government.
Carthage was just a rich States out for their own greed.in a way its also Hannibal cause. Everyone had difrent ideas because thats how their empire worked.not enough support from Carthage at all points
Rome had the guts to do enything even early reverse engineering enemy weapons
Carthage tried for 250 years to take Sicily from the Greeks and failed, even though the Greek towns were rarely united and all of them suffered from internal strife.
"It was at this point Carthage had had enough"
I think they lost because their merchant class was motivated by money but Rome was motivated by nation building
Stupid question, how did a Spartan end up fighting for Carthage? Mercenaries?
Inter family rivalries refused to support Hannibal. That’s why they didn’t win. Glad that worked out for them.
Except the soviets in world war two there's no nation in history suffered such defeats and casualties like the Romans suffered in the first three years against Hannibal , so Hannibal had already reached his limits against Rome .
Why Carthage couldn't defeat Rome ? 2 main reasons for that
First the population of Rome is six time the population of Carthage
Second reason is because the Roman army was composed by citizens soldiers instead of the Carthaginians full of mercenaries .
And yet the Punic wars were a formidable extraordinary fight .
In these wars we saw the biggest naval battle in history before the age of gun powder ( battle of derpana ), we saw the crossing of the Alps the most wild move , the biggest ambush in history , Cannae , the extraordinary come back of the Romans in the two first wars , and finally in the last stand of Carthage how the Carthaginians women's cutted their hairs to made ship robes and their mass suicide after the surrender crying " fire and not the shame".
The Carthage empire were Arabs? This encompasses most of north Africa except Egypt. Can someone clarify this for me? I worked 15.5 years in Kuwait 🇰🇼, so Arab history is important to me. Shukkran.
Yes
the word Carthage is the Romanized word for Qrt Hdsht which means "Modern Village" in Arabic and Canaanite (or so-called Phoenician in Western sources)
Canaanites (so-called Phoenician in Western sources) migrated from the Southern Arabian peninsula to Levant, there they built their first empires and then went all over the Mediteranean including modern-Tunisia where they built their famous City and Empire Carthage.
@@branis96 I appreciate your reply. Very helpful.
No, Carthage was Punic, Phoenicians and Berbers had no relation to the Arabs at all...and Numidia is a Berber kingdom in Algeria today. Google is free
@@dtttmr964 Explain your end reply "Google is free?" This is nonsequitor. Your reply is credible until your weirdo remark. Are you implying I am an idiot? Explain please.
@byronharano2391 carthage wasn't even arab there were Phoenicians
Make ❤
Not 💣
Sounds like something Syrians would say.
I think it's too late now to say that to Rome and Carthage.
I have to say I am disappointed in this video. The tile says, why couldn't Carthage defeat Rome, so I was looking forward to a well thought out analyst of the Punic wars on why Carthage couldn't win. Instead, I just watch another generalized history video about the three Punic Wars. Real disappointed.
Carthage was a Republic established before Rome was even a power, not an empire. It is a common error made by most of TH-cam History channels.
Rome fell because it abandoned logic, reason and competency in leadership.
It descended into moral and cultural decline in Rome. Leaders indulged themselves in depravity and excess..
No matter how amazing it was to cross the alps it was the dumbest idea ever because there was no family that would support the Barca family
Romans already had navy prior to first war with Carthage, romans copyng stranded carthaginian ship is a myth by certain roman historians trying to make their victory appear grater.
By the middle of third century BC Roman Republic conquered entire Central and Southern Italy which had many coastal cities with ports and naval tradition, many of those cities were Greek, chief of them probably being Tarentum, these cities became allies/vassals of Rome and gave their ships, crews and shipbuilding experience to roman armed forces.
Frankly not . Rome already had a fleet but actually copied Carthage boats and that not only is written in many historical sources it's evident even by only confronting the two fleets
@@locusta4662 No, Carthaginians and southern Italian Greeks used the same ship types, by the middle of 3rd century BC those cities became roman vassals and their fleets fought for Rome.
@@ivandicivan4189 Sorry but you are completely wrong
@@locusta4662 Care to elaborate?
@@ivandicivan4189 Simply . If it's true that what was called quinquereme was a greek invention (probably done in Syracuse ) and that even the corvus was a Greek invention , it's even more true that Cartage vessels were slimmer and had greater water draft . Basically in the middle of the war was able first to modify their vessels (in a similar way to the Carthaginian ones ) and later to advance them . Even if for example we go 2 centuries further in time we will find that Romans continued to use slimmer and smaller vessels in comparison to the Greek world (Actium ) . That is part of punic wars inheritance .
Hannibal Barca🇱🇧
Outside of Hannibal and his troops, the Romans were just better at waging war than the Carthaginians. And they were also less politically divided.
Carthage probably would have fallen in the First Punic War but for the Greek mercenary Xanthippias.
Carthage was always bound to lose: their flag was a person surrendering.
I had the same thought xD
Romans broke the Ebro treaty first which was the cause of Second Punic War not the other way around like this video may suggest.
Carthage did not have a unified dedicated leadership. A Republic of merchants and pirates . At the place where Carthage was located, it never faced strong opposition from various enemies. Only Numidians presented some threat, but not that much. The army they had was composed of mercenaries and Republic always looked at them with suspicion. All that taken together undermined long-term conquering effort. Why did pirates of the Caribbean fail to seize Texas? Because pirates never cared about land acquisition. Carthaginian were pretty much the same. Why bother to build an army, it is cheaper to buy it...
29:00 cowardinians
Because Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not what to do with it...
Hannibal new how to gain a victory, but his country and its leaders didn't help him do anything with it.
@@bhbluebird Livy quotes Maharbal as saying, "You know, Hannibal, how to win a fight; you do not know how to use your victory (Livy 151)."
^ This is what my comment was referring to.
I'll sum it up, Carthage's Senate were fat cats and did nothing to help the Barca family in the 1st or 2nd Punic Wars. Carthage had people like Hanno II, who was more concerned about getting richer than winning a war against an obvious deadly enemy. Rome on the other hand were all-out in the war, it was win or else. They can get rich later once they have crushed Carthage. Had the Carthaginian Senate supported the Barcas (Hanno even demobilized Carthage's Navy allowing Rome to rebuild), like Rome supported their general, Carthage probably wouldn't have lost the 1st Punic War as Hamilcar never lost in the 1st Punic War.
Who is Chabar Barca ?