Hannibal's real enemy was the Carthaginian senate. They never backed him up in Italy, left him to rot, didn't recall him when the Romans landed in Africa, when they finally did after a couple of losses they had lost the Numidian cavalry, and gave him a undisciplined and untrained army, then finally, after the war, he clamped down on corruption and they hated him even more and would've easily gave him up to the Romans.
Yes... He made do with what he had.. Imagine if he had the resources that the latter Mithridates of Pontus enjoyed or even better if he was the general for Mithridates! Rome would have been finished. If you didn't get it.... Mithridates of Pontus was a pest to the Roman Republic... With his holdings in the Crimean peninsula and Pomtic steppe he controlled the Black Sea. He then took over Cappadocia and Paphlogonia. But then he got greedy and invaded Bithynia which was a Roman ally...... Rome sent a consul after him and the First Pomtic war was inconclusive. Rome had a rebellion to handle (The Socii revolt) and Mithridates' general had turned traitor. For the next ten years, Mithridates coached himself in war... Then he again invaded Bithynia. This time he took over the entire Anatolia and expelled all the Romans. It was not until Sulla came that Rome could defeat him.
@@caniblmolstr4503 not a chance. Rome's manpower reserve was the best outside of China. By 225 not even Alexander could have bled them enough without losing more than would be acceptable. Besides Hannibal failed because he refused to adjust strategy. He would have been better off in Spain or Sicily where his victories would have been more useful for the broader war effort. His PR campaign failed bc most of central Italy preferred Rome to some foreign invader. Cannae should have been a wake up call but he wasted a decade trying to tie up resources but without seiging Rome itself, it was a wasted effort.
Well, the Turkish government built a tomb for Hannibal at Gebze in Kocaeli, but I don't know if that's the actual place or just something that the Turks rustled up to act as a local attraction.
@@Serapeum Definitely the latter.... Romans were shit scared of Hannibal and rest assured would not have let his remains be found anywhere in their empire. Moreover he was assassinated by the Armenian King not the Seleucids so logically his remains should be in Armenia not Anatolia
@@kl6544 before that for 1000s of years that place was in Roman hands. And Turkey has a habit of just referring to ancient cultures to which it has no connection... The Hittites lions in Ankara a prime example
@@caniblmolstr4503 my friend the fuck dont you understand. Hannibal died in what is now turkey not armenia. So a tomb built in turkey makes more sense than one built in armenia
Hello, friend. I think the YT algorithm has picked up your channel, I suspect you're going to get a bunch of subscribers pretty soon. Really good video here btw.
I believe if Hannibal would've fled to Egypt or Nubian Kush empire.He probably would've have an much stronger alliance,especially with Nubian Kush empire
Hannibal is greater than Alexander reason being is that he commanded troops from the gallic tribe and only few from his real army... He fought a bigger size enemies all the time... He fought the more advanced army of Rome... He fought more than one army at the same time... He killed many generals... He replenish troops thru diplomatic ties... He attacked Rome directly far away from home very daw away from any support from carthage... His army despite being on constant battle for a very long time didnt rose up against him... I mean with all this... He should be considered the greatest general of all time
Alexander constantly fought forces that were Much Larger than his,.. You're mis-informed,..and Alexander never lost a battle,. I mean Barca was amazing but he didn't make the victories Count like Alexander did,. Being a general is More than just tactics during and before battles,.. After the battles are over counts as well~ See: Napoleon~
@@matthewmatt5285 I understand your point and yes Alexander was great. I was just saying you can't simply be the best just because of the undefeated aspect
He gave up everything to defend his homeland but he was still a chad of a General even the Roman’s admired him.
and he upheld his promise to his father to the end. always was an enemy of rome.
Hannibal's real enemy was the Carthaginian senate. They never backed him up in Italy, left him to rot, didn't recall him when the Romans landed in Africa, when they finally did after a couple of losses they had lost the Numidian cavalry, and gave him a undisciplined and untrained army, then finally, after the war, he clamped down on corruption and they hated him even more and would've easily gave him up to the Romans.
A lion being led by sheep - to paraphrase Napoleon
Haven’t read into it , but I bet they were Jews
This man was romes worst nightmare. Rip hannibal barca
Yes... He made do with what he had.. Imagine if he had the resources that the latter Mithridates of Pontus enjoyed or even better if he was the general for Mithridates! Rome would have been finished.
If you didn't get it.... Mithridates of Pontus was a pest to the Roman Republic... With his holdings in the Crimean peninsula and Pomtic steppe he controlled the Black Sea. He then took over Cappadocia and Paphlogonia. But then he got greedy and invaded Bithynia which was a Roman ally......
Rome sent a consul after him and the First Pomtic war was inconclusive. Rome had a rebellion to handle (The Socii revolt) and Mithridates' general had turned traitor.
For the next ten years, Mithridates coached himself in war... Then he again invaded Bithynia. This time he took over the entire Anatolia and expelled all the Romans. It was not until Sulla came that Rome could defeat him.
@@caniblmolstr4503 not a chance. Rome's manpower reserve was the best outside of China. By 225 not even Alexander could have bled them enough without losing more than would be acceptable. Besides Hannibal failed because he refused to adjust strategy. He would have been better off in Spain or Sicily where his victories would have been more useful for the broader war effort. His PR campaign failed bc most of central Italy preferred Rome to some foreign invader. Cannae should have been a wake up call but he wasted a decade trying to tie up resources but without seiging Rome itself, it was a wasted effort.
@@geordiejones5618 Dude Hannibal had after Cannae more prisoners than he had men left.... So yeah Rome had enormous manpower
Damn, I didn’t know. He died too soon.
Each one of your videos I see is better than the last. Your writing in particular is excellent. Glad the algorithm smiles upon you!
Have they found Hannibal’s gravesite by chance? I’ve never asked this question until now.
Well, the Turkish government built a tomb for Hannibal at Gebze in Kocaeli, but I don't know if that's the actual place or just something that the Turks rustled up to act as a local attraction.
@@Serapeum Definitely the latter.... Romans were shit scared of Hannibal and rest assured would not have let his remains be found anywhere in their empire. Moreover he was assassinated by the Armenian King not the Seleucids so logically his remains should be in Armenia not Anatolia
@@caniblmolstr4503 you now the republic of turkey holds most of ancient armenia right?
@@kl6544 before that for 1000s of years that place was in Roman hands. And Turkey has a habit of just referring to ancient cultures to which it has no connection... The Hittites lions in Ankara a prime example
@@caniblmolstr4503 my friend the fuck dont you understand. Hannibal died in what is now turkey not armenia. So a tomb built in turkey makes more sense than one built in armenia
Hello, friend. I think the YT algorithm has picked up your channel, I suspect you're going to get a bunch of subscribers pretty soon. Really good video here btw.
Dope vid dude. Always wondered this myself.
I believe if Hannibal would've fled to Egypt or Nubian Kush empire.He probably would've have an much stronger alliance,especially with Nubian Kush empire
S C I P I O A F R I C A N U S
Great video.
I believe there is a historical parallel between the Third Reich in WW2 and Carthage in the Second Punic War.
It took over 100,000 deaths for 2 former generals who lead to all of those deaths to speak 🗣️
Run?
?
@@Serapeum He ran. He didn’t want to get crucified or worse.
Hannibal is greater than Alexander reason being is that he commanded troops from the gallic tribe and only few from his real army... He fought a bigger size enemies all the time... He fought the more advanced army of Rome... He fought more than one army at the same time... He killed many generals... He replenish troops thru diplomatic ties... He attacked Rome directly far away from home very daw away from any support from carthage... His army despite being on constant battle for a very long time didnt rose up against him... I mean with all this... He should be considered the greatest general of all time
Alexander constantly fought forces that were Much Larger than his,..
You're mis-informed,..and Alexander never lost a battle,.
I mean Barca was amazing but he didn't make the victories Count like Alexander did,.
Being a general is More than just tactics during and before battles,..
After the battles are over counts as well~
See: Napoleon~
@@matthewmatt5285 it's like saying Mayweather is the greatest of all time just because he was undefeated
@@18_zki Yess,.But Hannibal WAS defeated~
@@matthewmatt5285 I understand your point and yes Alexander was great. I was just saying you can't simply be the best just because of the undefeated aspect
@@18_zki Agreed,. The Romans were a much more formidable opponent to be Sure~