God damn 3sites is bringing this channel to another level of quality scripts and frequent uploads. I think I'll patreon with Obiden money when it comes.
This video is awesome, a gold mine of historical informations about one the most important civilisations of Antiquity and one of the greatest conflicts in history between two superpowers, Rome and Carthage !
Everything from Cyrus to Constantine is nothing short of an epic cycle of glory and death, but the first two Punic Wars were maybe the greatest struggle of civilization ever recorded (maybe the Napoelonic wars?)
Minor nit-pick here but the Suffetes (the Consul equivalent) didn’t command the army by the time of the Punic Wars, rather the duties were solely domestic. The citizen assembly directly elected the generals to specific commands, Sicily, Spain, Africa etc. They were referred to as Rab Mahanet.
Idk why, but the way you talked about Rome towards the end kinda reminded me of the Borg. "If we lose a commander... Meh there are more available", this is Borg design 101.
The Romans had by far the strongest levy system of the ancient world across all fields and levels of command. They knew how to allocate resources and keep populations happy enough to remain loyal, which gave them swaths of bodies for wars of expansion that lasted until after Trajan.
@@geordiejones5618 the big but for the Romans is the consistency in recruitment capabilities. The fact that for 100s of years they were roughly able to sustain a pool of 500 thousand plus troops able to be raised is astonishing. Normally their are long periods of increase and decline.
I'm bingeing on your early/mid Roman Republic videos. Fascinating exposés and your low reliance on visuals means I can work on my hobby while listening, with only an occasional look. Please don't change your format! 😄
"Fate is like a grand river. Even if you correct your mistakes & try your hardest to swim against its currents, it effortlessly washes you back down..."- Hannibal Barca, [Ad Astra: Scipio to Hannibal] manga
I would rank Hannibal second only to Alexander The Great when it comes to military tactics. With that being said, I agree more with the "Africa-First" strategy of Hanno The Great.
Hannibal himself considered himself thid, Pyrrhus was second in his list, although maybe it just only to annoy Scipio in their famous conversation. He was no doubt a great tactician but I have serious doubts about the soundness of his strategy, really. Losing Hispania to gain a feeble foothold in Southern Italy, not seeking maritime supremacy, not marching against Rome when he was in the position to do so, not confronting the Romans in Gaul and killing half of his own army in that mad crossing of the Alps... how's that meritorious? I used to like Hannibal but nowadays I think he made many strategical errors.
Taco Cruiser Nah there are a lot of generals who are debatably greater or equal to Hannibal or Alexander. Cyrus the Great, subutai, khalid, amr bin al as, al muthana, saad, Babur, Akbar, brasillius, mihai the brave, Malik Amber, and keep in mind I only have a limited knowledge on history, who knows how many there are.
Taco Cruiser It shouldn't be particularly surprising how many damn good generals there are considering there have been millions of generals in the world to have ever existed.
This is the best channel I’ve seen on here for classical history. Genuinely university level lectures, but that’s not surprising coming from an actual scholar of history and not just a interested hobbyist. Just subscribed. Have a feeling that at some point I’ll be a patron as well. Excellent work, amice 👍
@@LuisAldamiz The crows (boarding bridges) worked *amazingly* well in boarding actions and more or less negated the Carthaginians' advantage in ramming. It's hard to pull your ship away from the target you just rammed if the target just attached itself to your ship, after all. The crows were just total liabilities in non-combat situations, though. They made the ships much easier to capsize. The Romans actually stopped using them after they achieved permanent naval superiority over Carthage.
@@budwyzer77 - But I would expect some innovation on the Carthaginian side, like ranged weaponry (fire arrows are nothing new and they can destroy ships), they just kept doing the same over and over, with the exception of Hannibal and his daring but ill-fated Italian expedition, they did not manage to get at the level of the Roman challenge and kept downplaying the Roman threat at their own peril. I said the Carthaginians had one card, but the romans too had only two cards: their land military superiority (maniple tacticts, actually overcome by Hannibal most of the time) and apparently endless numbers of fresh recruits (something it keeps baffling me: if Carthage and Rome were so similar why couldn't Carthage recruit at least a fraction of the Roman manpower?) Yet they did manage to innovate and improve even if they had to copy their enemy and improvise to overcome their own limitations. Really Rome and Carthage may have been very comparable in terms of institutions but were totally different on how they approached war.
@@LuisAldamiz I assume Thersites is going to cover this in detail, but I've always believed Carthage's near-total reliance on mercenaries kept its ruling class aloof from war. War was intensely personal for Roman Senators. Their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, and sons all took part in combat. A legacy of glorious victories, shattering defeats, and deaths in battle engendered an uncompromising win-at-al costs mentality in the Roman ruling class that Carthage lacked. When a Carthaginian Senator learned of an army's defeat he had to consider how to raise and pay new mercenary armies. When a Roman Senator learned of an army's defeat his thoughts immediately went to his family members' survival and vengeance for the fallen.
@Dave and @Luis- Now that I think about it, I think that part of the reason why Polybius argued that the mob had undermined elite control is that the ruling class felt compelled to hire their armies. It is possible that at some point, the Carthaginian ruling class decided to effectively privatize their wars in this way to avoid domestic discontent. Carthage was stronger financially than in any other particular, so there is a certain amount of logic in playing to this strength. The problem is that such an army would only be willing to endure so much for Carthage, would disintegrate when the pay dried up, and would not fare well in an extended conflict with a power which had a citizen army.
Brilliant and swift analysis of this conflict on a historical-psycological level. Some of your considerations are unheard of, yet I find them quite valid. Such as: Hannibal did suffer a great deal by an overvaluation of the Carthaginian system than his underestimation of the Roman-Latin system, Italic alliances and manpower. Also the phrase: "The Genius of the Roman system is that it didn't require its commanders to be geniuses in order to be effective." This is very on point, it brilliantly synthesizes one of the greatest skills (together with its adaptability, learning and absorbing valuable traits from other cultures, including enemies) that the Romans had for much of their history and I definitely share it.
But it must be said that there were at least two very good generals on the Roman side: Scipio and Flavius Cunctator, each their own style. Not all was mediocrity even if the glory is somehow distributed.
Carthage had one card: a superior navy, yet it somehow managed to lose to those Roman landlubbers... at sea. The whole world still wonders today how could that even happen?
Hey Thersites! Big fan as always. Is Romes OVERALL success more or less to do with their legendary stubbornness? Obviously it played some part, but was that part given too much credence or was it in fact not given enough credit? I would imagine the views change with the times and both theories have been favored during a certain time. I would honestly value your opinion on this topic very much sir.
Rome's persistence was a major asset, but its manpower resources were also massively important, not least because it enabled the aforementioned stubborn refusal to make peace until its neighbors were subdued.
Hannibal's mistake was he didn't try hard enough to cohere the Gauls. He was too blinded by Greeks and found it too tiring to corral the fractious Gauls that he couldn't resist the sunny southern Italy and left north Italy too quickly. It's entirely possible that the great Gaulic confederation would prove to be a mirage. But the southern Italy never provided anything close to the support he found with the Gauls Hanno was a fool. No ifs or buts about it. Maybe he was right but once the war began only an idiot could have believed Rome would spare Carthage. By now Rome's mo was well known and that losing a war vs Rome would lead to an extremely punitive peace. Once he failed to bring peace he should have done everything in his power to aid Hannibal. Instead he dissipated Carthage's inadequate resources galavanting in Africa while Hannibal was fighting for Carthage's future in Italy
Excellent! Every now and again the Romans lost a battle but generally prevailled.in the wars. I have always thought that Carthage misunderstood Rome. The Carthagians were business men. The war was running at a loss so lets make peace? The Romans dd not care for business and total destruction was their objective.
Hannibals victory at Cannai reminds me of Napoleon after his victory at Borodino. Napoleon waiting for Czar Alexander to surrender in Moscow. "Hannibal you know how to win,but not capitalize on it!"
What was Hannibal supposed to do? He lacked the manpower necessary to take Rome and the Carthaginian Senate refused to send him reinforcements. He couldn't just *compel* Philip V of Macedon to send armies to Italy. In contrast, Napoleon might have ended the Russian campaign with territorial gains had he just left Moscow 2-3 weeks earlier. I don't know why he attached so much importance to Moscow when it wasn't even the capital.
When listing the people the Romans defeated you said among many others “the Greeks, the Macedonians” that’s like saying the Greeks, the Spartans or the Greeks the Athenians
@@AustinSauce3, no they were the same people with different governments, Macedon kept to the old way of warrior kings, like in the time of the Iliad. The southern Greeks had moved past such archaic traditions especially after democracy was founded. Except for Sparta which had 2 kings. Also kingdoms, such as Macedon and Sparta were part of the coalitions amongst city states, known as leagues. So they aren’t opposites.
@@billychops1280 yeah maybe ethically they were the same, but other people looked at them as separate. The Greek league were often allies of Rome against the Macedonians.
Hmm, I think the Romans would’ve rolled up eventually. Far best to face them before they snow ball. Personally, I think Hannibal should’ve just crossed into Italy through southern France, go straight for Rome and remove the spider from the web entirely. With Rome sacked, their alliances would mean nothing.
Thersites: "Carthajo Nova" Me: "Cartha-GO! How could you mispronounce that?" Thersites "Hanno the Great was a strong partisan of Africa First". Me: "Does that mean it's 'Donald the Great' Now?" O.O Thersites: "He can be compared to Fabius the Delayer but without any military skill whatsoever". Me: "Donald Cunctator?" (even more baffled than before).
@@spiritofmodernity9679 - So "Crassus the Great"?, "Croesus the Great"? "Midas the Great"? "Rockefeller the Great"? "Rotschild the Great"? Worst misnomer ever!
I actually don't know why he was nicknamed "the Great". If I had to hazard a guess, it was because he maintained a strong political position against the Barcids, who were both war heroes and the chief financiers of the state. Although it is hard to know based on the available evidence, I can't imagine that Hanno had anywhere near the popular support that the Barcids enjoyed and so he must have been someone who operated almost entirely with a strong minority of elite support and also through using whatever mechanisms the Carthaginian republican system had for fighting one's opponents. A less talented politician would not have proven so effective under these circumstances.
Its always great to learn more about the Cathaginian side of the conflict. Its rare we get any information on their perspective of the war.
Historia Carthaginiensium omnis delenda est - Roman historians (probably)
God damn 3sites is bringing this channel to another level of quality scripts and frequent uploads.
I think I'll patreon with Obiden money when it comes.
I know it is kind of off topic but do anybody know a good website to stream newly released movies online?
@Dakari Elliot i would suggest flixzone. Just search on google for it :)
@Dakari Elliot I would suggest flixzone. Just search on google for it =)
@Frank Aldo definitely, been using flixzone for since april myself =)
@Frank Aldo Thank you, I went there and it seems to work =) I really appreciate it !!
This is great summary of situation leading to 2nd Punic war. Thank you.
best history channel
This video is awesome, a gold mine of historical informations about one the most important civilisations of Antiquity and one of the greatest conflicts in history between two superpowers, Rome and Carthage !
This war was so epic, it’s one of the few times when history reads like a fantasy novel
Everything from Cyrus to Constantine is nothing short of an epic cycle of glory and death, but the first two Punic Wars were maybe the greatest struggle of civilization ever recorded (maybe the Napoelonic wars?)
World War II?
Fantasy novels are overrated.
Minor nit-pick here but the Suffetes (the Consul equivalent) didn’t command the army by the time of the Punic Wars, rather the duties were solely domestic. The citizen assembly directly elected the generals to specific commands, Sicily, Spain, Africa etc. They were referred to as Rab Mahanet.
incredible video, and thank you for keeping on!
Idk why, but the way you talked about Rome towards the end kinda reminded me of the Borg. "If we lose a commander... Meh there are more available", this is Borg design 101.
The Romans had by far the strongest levy system of the ancient world across all fields and levels of command. They knew how to allocate resources and keep populations happy enough to remain loyal, which gave them swaths of bodies for wars of expansion that lasted until after Trajan.
@@geordiejones5618 the big but for the Romans is the consistency in recruitment capabilities. The fact that for 100s of years they were roughly able to sustain a pool of 500 thousand plus troops able to be raised is astonishing. Normally their are long periods of increase and decline.
Finally I have been waiting for this video. Thanks Thersites!
I'm bingeing on your early/mid Roman Republic videos. Fascinating exposés and your low reliance on visuals means I can work on my hobby while listening, with only an occasional look. Please don't change your format! 😄
"Fate is like a grand river. Even if you correct your mistakes & try your hardest to swim against its currents, it effortlessly washes you back down..."- Hannibal Barca, [Ad Astra: Scipio to Hannibal] manga
I would rank Hannibal second only to Alexander The Great when it comes to military tactics.
With that being said, I agree more with the "Africa-First" strategy of Hanno The Great.
Hannibal himself considered himself thid, Pyrrhus was second in his list, although maybe it just only to annoy Scipio in their famous conversation.
He was no doubt a great tactician but I have serious doubts about the soundness of his strategy, really. Losing Hispania to gain a feeble foothold in Southern Italy, not seeking maritime supremacy, not marching against Rome when he was in the position to do so, not confronting the Romans in Gaul and killing half of his own army in that mad crossing of the Alps... how's that meritorious? I used to like Hannibal but nowadays I think he made many strategical errors.
Taco Cruiser
Nah there are a lot of generals who are debatably greater or equal to Hannibal or Alexander. Cyrus the Great, subutai, khalid, amr bin al as, al muthana, saad, Babur, Akbar, brasillius, mihai the brave, Malik Amber, and keep in mind I only have a limited knowledge on history, who knows how many there are.
@@mobeenkhan824 Dat name dropping tho... I'm impressed LOL.
Taco Cruiser
It shouldn't be particularly surprising how many damn good generals there are considering there have been millions of generals in the world to have ever existed.
Nah people who don't have Hannibal in top 3 generals are BUGGING
This is the best channel I’ve seen on here for classical history.
Genuinely university level lectures, but that’s not surprising coming from an actual scholar of history and not just a interested hobbyist.
Just subscribed. Have a feeling that at some point I’ll be a patron as well. Excellent work, amice 👍
Fuck yeah I’m gonna watch the shit out of this as soon as I get the time
Hell yeah! Keep this Punic wars content coming!
The Roman quinquiremes' boarding bridges made the ships top-heavy and unstable, which greatly contributed to their losses in storms.
Did they? How did they even manage to win?
@@LuisAldamiz The crows (boarding bridges) worked *amazingly* well in boarding actions and more or less negated the Carthaginians' advantage in ramming. It's hard to pull your ship away from the target you just rammed if the target just attached itself to your ship, after all.
The crows were just total liabilities in non-combat situations, though. They made the ships much easier to capsize. The Romans actually stopped using them after they achieved permanent naval superiority over Carthage.
@@budwyzer77 - But I would expect some innovation on the Carthaginian side, like ranged weaponry (fire arrows are nothing new and they can destroy ships), they just kept doing the same over and over, with the exception of Hannibal and his daring but ill-fated Italian expedition, they did not manage to get at the level of the Roman challenge and kept downplaying the Roman threat at their own peril.
I said the Carthaginians had one card, but the romans too had only two cards: their land military superiority (maniple tacticts, actually overcome by Hannibal most of the time) and apparently endless numbers of fresh recruits (something it keeps baffling me: if Carthage and Rome were so similar why couldn't Carthage recruit at least a fraction of the Roman manpower?) Yet they did manage to innovate and improve even if they had to copy their enemy and improvise to overcome their own limitations. Really Rome and Carthage may have been very comparable in terms of institutions but were totally different on how they approached war.
@@LuisAldamiz I assume Thersites is going to cover this in detail, but I've always believed Carthage's near-total reliance on mercenaries kept its ruling class aloof from war.
War was intensely personal for Roman Senators. Their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, and sons all took part in combat. A legacy of glorious victories, shattering defeats, and deaths in battle engendered an uncompromising win-at-al costs mentality in the Roman ruling class that Carthage lacked.
When a Carthaginian Senator learned of an army's defeat he had to consider how to raise and pay new mercenary armies.
When a Roman Senator learned of an army's defeat his thoughts immediately went to his family members' survival and vengeance for the fallen.
@Dave and @Luis- Now that I think about it, I think that part of the reason why Polybius argued that the mob had undermined elite control is that the ruling class felt compelled to hire their armies. It is possible that at some point, the Carthaginian ruling class decided to effectively privatize their wars in this way to avoid domestic discontent. Carthage was stronger financially than in any other particular, so there is a certain amount of logic in playing to this strength. The problem is that such an army would only be willing to endure so much for Carthage, would disintegrate when the pay dried up, and would not fare well in an extended conflict with a power which had a citizen army.
Brilliant and swift analysis of this conflict on a historical-psycological level. Some of your considerations are unheard of, yet I find them quite valid.
Such as: Hannibal did suffer a great deal by an overvaluation of the Carthaginian system than his underestimation of the Roman-Latin system, Italic alliances and manpower.
Also the phrase: "The Genius of the Roman system is that it didn't require its commanders to be geniuses in order to be effective."
This is very on point, it brilliantly synthesizes one of the greatest skills (together with its adaptability, learning and absorbing valuable traits from other cultures, including enemies) that the Romans had for much of their history and I definitely share it.
Yes, absolutely. I hate Rome almost like Hannibal but I have to admit they were very effective, even if under mediocre leadership.
But it must be said that there were at least two very good generals on the Roman side: Scipio and Flavius Cunctator, each their own style. Not all was mediocrity even if the glory is somehow distributed.
Holy fuck I just found your channel, this is amazing content. I hope your subcount quickly rises because this is some quality shit.
Thank you big guy
Keep it up !!
Carthage had one card: a superior navy, yet it somehow managed to lose to those Roman landlubbers... at sea. The whole world still wonders today how could that even happen?
I think a navy is more expensive to maintain
@@tewekdenahom485 - Fair enough but I don't think that Carthage's problem was money.
👍👍👍
Hey Thersites! Big fan as always. Is Romes OVERALL success more or less to do with their legendary stubbornness? Obviously it played some part, but was that part given too much credence or was it in fact not given enough credit? I would imagine the views change with the times and both theories have been favored during a certain time. I would honestly value your opinion on this topic very much sir.
Rome's persistence was a major asset, but its manpower resources were also massively important, not least because it enabled the aforementioned stubborn refusal to make peace until its neighbors were subdued.
A shockingly effective and talented general in Hannibal, fated with an unachievable task. If he were up against any other force he would have won
Carthage was cocky... Until Zama, the brass and aristocrats never appreciated Hannibal.
Hannibal's mistake was he didn't try hard enough to cohere the Gauls. He was too blinded by Greeks and found it too tiring to corral the fractious Gauls that he couldn't resist the sunny southern Italy and left north Italy too quickly. It's entirely possible that the great Gaulic confederation would prove to be a mirage. But the southern Italy never provided anything close to the support he found with the Gauls
Hanno was a fool. No ifs or buts about it. Maybe he was right but once the war began only an idiot could have believed Rome would spare Carthage. By now Rome's mo was well known and that losing a war vs Rome would lead to an extremely punitive peace. Once he failed to bring peace he should have done everything in his power to aid Hannibal. Instead he dissipated Carthage's inadequate resources galavanting in Africa while Hannibal was fighting for Carthage's future in Italy
Yes absolutely
don't mind me, a timestamp where I left. 15:11
bump
Excellent! Every now and again the Romans lost a battle but generally prevailled.in the wars.
I have always thought that Carthage misunderstood Rome. The Carthagians were business men. The war was running at a loss so lets make peace? The Romans dd not care for business and total destruction was their objective.
Hannibals victory at Cannai reminds me of Napoleon after his victory at Borodino. Napoleon waiting for Czar Alexander to surrender in Moscow. "Hannibal you know how to win,but not capitalize on it!"
What was Hannibal supposed to do? He lacked the manpower necessary to take Rome and the Carthaginian Senate refused to send him reinforcements. He couldn't just *compel* Philip V of Macedon to send armies to Italy.
In contrast, Napoleon might have ended the Russian campaign with territorial gains had he just left Moscow 2-3 weeks earlier. I don't know why he attached so much importance to Moscow when it wasn't even the capital.
@@budwyzer77 This ^
When listing the people the Romans defeated you said among many others “the Greeks, the Macedonians” that’s like saying the Greeks, the Spartans or the Greeks the Athenians
At the time they were separate people. Kingdom of Macedonia and Greek city states/coalitions
@@AustinSauce3, no they were the same people with different governments, Macedon kept to the old way of warrior kings, like in the time of the Iliad. The southern Greeks had moved past such archaic traditions especially after democracy was founded. Except for Sparta which had 2 kings. Also kingdoms, such as Macedon and Sparta were part of the coalitions amongst city states, known as leagues. So they aren’t opposites.
@@billychops1280 yeah maybe ethically they were the same, but other people looked at them as separate. The Greek league were often allies of Rome against the Macedonians.
@@AustinSauce3 some leagues yes, though not all
"Carthago delenda est", or "Carthage must be destroyed."- Cato the Elder.
Cue the salt memes made by nerds obsessed with roman history
Im not sure if you know this based on the images you used but Hannibal was not black
Hanno was right, they should have kept thier heads down and expanded in africa.
How long would that have worked?
Hmm, I think the Romans would’ve rolled up eventually. Far best to face them before they snow ball. Personally, I think Hannibal should’ve just crossed into Italy through southern France, go straight for Rome and remove the spider from the web entirely. With Rome sacked, their alliances would mean nothing.
segesta delenda est
Thersites: "Carthajo Nova"
Me: "Cartha-GO! How could you mispronounce that?"
Thersites "Hanno the Great was a strong partisan of Africa First".
Me: "Does that mean it's 'Donald the Great' Now?" O.O
Thersites: "He can be compared to Fabius the Delayer but without any military skill whatsoever".
Me: "Donald Cunctator?" (even more baffled than before).
Anyhow, why was that particular Hanno nicknamed "the Great", what did he do that was oh-so-great?
@@LuisAldamiz Money
@@spiritofmodernity9679 - So "Crassus the Great"?, "Croesus the Great"? "Midas the Great"? "Rockefeller the Great"? "Rotschild the Great"?
Worst misnomer ever!
I actually don't know why he was nicknamed "the Great". If I had to hazard a guess, it was because he maintained a strong political position against the Barcids, who were both war heroes and the chief financiers of the state. Although it is hard to know based on the available evidence, I can't imagine that Hanno had anywhere near the popular support that the Barcids enjoyed and so he must have been someone who operated almost entirely with a strong minority of elite support and also through using whatever mechanisms the Carthaginian republican system had for fighting one's opponents. A less talented politician would not have proven so effective under these circumstances.
@@ThersitestheHistorian was he greater than Magnus Maximus?
0/10 not enough hyperborea
Carthage: Hannibal and some randos
Rank Holy Land Crusaders and their Muslim enemies next!
Carthage was basically to libertarian to invest into a standing amry and that's why they never know how to finish a war
Sad facts
Second
First!
Third
Wer iz Sean Chick! Dat guy blows. Sean Chick.