Great vid and great game. To bad a player couldn't jump in and be a soldier here and there. Now that would be interesting.

Yes liked and comment too

You can win a battle or two against the Romans because they too are subject to blunders, but in the long run they come back at you and destroy you completely or punish you sufficiently (Skipio Africanus, Germanus, respectively).

Not that im trying to start an argument but what about Total War Shogun 2?

​@@iklantloin4593 Not trying to start a fight, but i think shogun 2 kinda suck.

迦太基 漢尼扙

That's correct

Yes, it was.

That’s what they say

@@cwtsang6756 HANNIBAL not Hannah. Yes..I translated what you said.

scale of budgets,when looking at that its a masterpiece

To kinda explain more.... Carthage had zero ways to besiege romee SO while Hannibal could beat the roman forces in the open battles, he had no way to actually hold or capitalize on his victories. While the tactics he used was genius, his overall strategy was rather idiotic. You have to realize furthermore, that the 2nd punic war diplomatically is what destroyed the Carthaginian empire. as the roman senate had full say in all matters concerning border disputes and such.. which rome ruled in favor of the non-Carthaginian party _heavily_. When the 3rd punic war started, it was almost solely just the city of carthage, which had just lost a massive battle with Numidia a couple years prior, and by the end of the 3rd punic war (which was literally just the siege of carthage) only 50,000 estimated carthaginians survived. So, your comparison to the 1 battle loss opposed by 3 battles lost is nowhere near an equivalent one to make.

@@htennek1 If the Carthagenian Govt. supported it's mi;itary.it most l;ikely would hAVE DEFEATED ROME/.

كان جيش حنعبل في أسوأ حالاته في المعركة الأخيرة له لهذا السبب سقطت قرطاجة ليس غريبا على الإطلاق الأمر يشبه نوعا ما خسارة الصليبيين في حطين أمام المسلمين بسبب حاجتهم للماء

@@htennek1 You’re underestimating the amount of sway one substantial battle holds. Confrontations like these happens months to even years apart and would take a long time to recuperate from for either side. Rome couldn’t just keep levying soldiers forever so defeating their armies on the field was enough to capitalize off of on its own. Carthage lending their expertise in engineering for the siege engines would’ve just been the cherry on top.

No carthage suffered half a dozen defeats before it made peace. Battle of ilipa 206 bc, battle of utica & battle of bagrades in 203 bc then battle of zama 202 bc, thats much more than 1 defeat as it could take a similar beating too. Dont present carthage as weak.

g

Rome vs Africa and Europe

Hannibal had siege engines. They built them when needed. Read Livy or Polybius.

Much appreciated!

All of the Roman Empire's successor states have collapsed. Not a single nation can directly trace their past to the Roman Empire. Not even Italy.

As a Scot, we remember you and those walls you built.....nice job...too bad it didn't quite work out.

وأنا فخور بأني مسلم عربي العرب هزمو الروم والفرس والفيكنج و المغول ☠💪

Thank you! Cheers!

meaning they have nowhere to run from cavalry that will chase them anyway. duh

Cavalry. You're not 6, are you?

The Romans at cannae were hardly a highly expierenced fighting force. The Roman army of the mid republic was not of the same quality of the late republic, although they still better than most armies in the ancient world. At Cannae half of the Romans are fresh troops with no expierence and less than 8 monthes of training. To be fair, Hannibal's gallic troops aren't that expierenced either but still, his Spanish and Libyan troops are likely superior to the Romans in quality. Hannibal also has the cavalry advantage, which is important. Most importantly Hannibal is a far superior general to Varro/Paulus.

Well historically the Roman Cavalry on the right (Carthage left side) was engaged by Hasdrubal commanding the cavalry and had persuade them through the vast field till the Roman Cavalry fully routed and the Roman Cavalry on the left side (Carthage right side) had been pummeled by javelins and Varro the command of the allied Roman Cavalry on the left cannot see the cavalry on the right so he expected that the right cavalry must have routed and not wanting to face an army bigger than his own cavalry he left the field.

The Roman cavalry were the ones fleeing, not the Carthaginian

@@WarAndHistory. Thanks for clarifying this. This is clearly stated at 5:32, but I misheard the commentary the first time I listened.

Both Roman consuls did NOT die, only Aemilius Paulus. Varro fled with a small part of survivors. A young Scipio (future Africanus) was able to save his father and lead the retreat of less than 1000 soldiers

Yeah true the Romans lost this battle But in the end Romans made sure that Hannibal was killed His army destroyed And his entire civilization burn to the ground !

Wood

In numbers probably but it was not a decisive defeat like Carrhae, Teutoburg forest or later Adrianople

no renforcements food supply or aid from carthrage iits hard to feed 400000 men horses and oxes

It’s a Video game 🤦

@@Memes-du3fp Then stop calling is "Historical."

i will redo this battle properly at some point

@@WarAndHistory. Please do. I echo the sentiments of the OP.

@@WarAndHistory. To be fair this battle is pretty poorly understood despite our fascination with it. Even the reason for Hannibal having a convex centre is debated, I've seen at least 3 different ideas. My favourite is that it exists to funnel the Romans towards the centre thus making them more condensed which combined with Hannibal's Libyan flanking them squeezed them into a position were they weren't able to fight effectively. Exactly how the Libyans flank the Romans is unclear as well, are they concealed behind the rest of the infantry and romans surround themselves by pushing so hard on the centre or they move up and then to sides to flank the Romans?

You did

Did you read the beginning or not ffs?