He lacked siege equipment, and he was in hostile territory without a reliable mode of resupply of either manpower or other support. If he had attempted a siege of Rome, he risked being bogged down at its walls, or even pinned against them, should Rome have fielded another force. Additionally, *if he had actually taken the city, there would have been no one left to surrender to him. In many ways, it was similar to the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as the targets for the same reason.

He also had few Carthaginians in his army but filled his ranks with foreign mercenaries who far outnumber him and too vicious to trust. Attacking Rome was out of the question because he lacked siege weaponry and even if he managed to take down Rome with or without heavy costs, mutiny after defeating their strongest foe would've been inevitable.

@@charliemountain82 That's a judicious statement. It has often been noted additionally, that Hannibal had what is called a "Hellenistic Mindset", or in terms of war, you defeat your opponent via means of a decisive battle, or what not, proceed for terms and thus settle things.

Well said!! 💯 His army just wasn't Good enough of a Siege army!! He would have needed Siege equipment and countless Soldiers if he attempted to besiege Rome!! (Because ZERO doubt Rome would throw every General and Body, and All equipment that Rome had for defense, everything available to protect the City)

@@ythandlename no he could just pay them with plunder from rome. He had just defeated the gauls biggest enemy, so why would they revolt?

Hannibal couldn't besiege Rome because he knew well that he didn't have the siege equipment, nor numbers to take on All the Roman forces!! Imagine how many Roman forces he would've had to fight if he attempted to take Rome. Politics did play a part, but not the entire reason.

@@Butterratbee Wow, that's a pretty hilariously ignorant view of the education, fostering of individual character, and hierarchical roles within military circles. So much so, that I'm not even sure where to start. It's very clear that your entire perception is tainted by an inherent anti-military bias, to the extent that I'm actually wondering if you've even graduated from high school yet. Look at Mattis as the absolutely clearest example of an "adult in the room" during the Trump administration, for example. Or the numerous times in Russian history (alone) where political figures acted against the advice of or superceded the command of generals with disastrous results. There have been numerous examples throughout history of over-zealous politicians pursuing military action or outright war against the advice of military commanders. Tell me Eisenhower wasn't a comparatively better and more realistic president than the vast majority of presidents before and since. Would you call George Washington an idiot that only knew how to fight? Last I checked, he's almost universally ranked within the top 10 best presidents in US history by historians. Look at the resounding success, nay, flourishing, that took place during the western occupation and reconstruction of Europe and Japan after WW2. Do you even know who was organizing and orchestrating those? Military generals, you ignorant oaf. In fact, your statement is so hilariously stupid that a cursory glance establishes an evident misunderstanding and misconception of what jobs most generals fill. Fighting and combat coordination isn't something that the overwhelming number of generals ever even experience, let alone actively participate in - that is the work of field and company level officers (only the latter of which are actually likely to "fight"). Generals fulfill administrative, logistical, and organizational roles. There is a reason why retired military officers very often make better politicians, diplomats, and government officials than individuals that actively pursue careers in such fields (look up Smedley Butler). It may not always be the case, and sometimes failures do occur, but the simple fact of the matter is that integrity and courage are characteristics that are actively fostered across the entire rank spectrum. We both know this very much is not the case amongst career politicians. The UCMJ (if you even know what that is or the specifics within it) is evidence of this - feel free to look up what it has to say about unlawful orders, because I know full well that you have no idea. Yes, bad actors do exist, but they are very much in the minority. Yes, some generals do put their wallets ahead of their integrity and buy into lobbyists out of greed. If one were to somehow determine the ratio, in the US, of active military generals relative to career politicians engaged in such actions, I would be genuinely unsurprised to find the results weighing far more heavily against the latter. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data on that (if it's even out there), so that one must remain conjecture on my part. I'm not going to say that military commanders never mess up or entangle the appropriate political process, but I'll definitely say that your statement is a sweeping generalization (no pun intended), demonstrably inaccurate, and belligerently ignorant.

@@Butterratbee if you cannot debate history without insulting someone with an opposing view, you only demonstrate your own lack of capacity for critical thinking. I understand your point, as the original comment was a gross overgeneralization (potentially intentional), but try to be respectful.

Thankfully he did because Rome was the coolest civilization to ever exist. If Carthage actually helped him, we would’ve never see Aurelian restore the world…

Rome rewarded success, meanwhile, Carthage punished failure. And bc of Roman politics of the Roman Republic, and their traditions, it made Roman consuls more aggressive to gain as much glory and prestige as possible, which in Roman culture was incredibly important. Meanwhile, Carthage laws and society made their commanders more cautious and restrained.

Cato was one of the people who screwed Scipio over after the second war.

Actually Scipio Aemilianus was an adopted Grandson of Africanus. Scipio Aemilianus was the biological son of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, the Roman who ended the Antigonid Macedon Dynasty, and Epirus independence and power!!

@@Aemilius46 It seems to be quite common. First Emperor Octavius was also adopted. By Caesar

@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan True!! It was a VERY common thing indeed!! You are correct!

@@Aemilius46 Growing up in an what used to an old Roman Vicus, visiting to museum a lot, reading about it and watching Metatron's youtube channel helped a lot. It's interesting to know about your roots. Which for me seems to be Gallo-Roman

They destroyed Carthage in 18 and a half minutes… that’s fast!

Of likely apocryphal tidbits like that I once heard a history professor say the following: It might have well been true. The idea being that while likely something people came up with after the fact, they perfectly sum up what was going on at the time they supposedly happened. The professor thought it important to understand that things like that Scipio bit are most likely later inventions and would point them out when he could, but he also saw the worth in them. My takeaway from that was to increase my appreciation for how well fiction can tell the truth, if you know how to look for it.

@@whyjnot420 I 100% agree with you, it's why I find reading ancient historical sources so entertaining. There is a truth mixed in with these tellings of history that we can gleam into what is deemed important by the people during the time they lived them.

@@tylercummings1458 Not just things like ancient primary sources. E.g. Master & Commander: Far Side of the World. Everything from that to the book of Samuel has different levels of certain truths, even when surrounded by a simply fictitious story like with a period accurate historical fiction like with a modern movie. Or surrounded by the literal stuff of myth and of the gods dating back thousands of years. There are kernels of the past hidden away like proto-indo-european words in Finnish or in plain sight for the world to see if they know how, such as some of the proposed armor for a real life analog to Achilles. Finding or being shown and ultimately understanding these (to some degree at least) is infinitely entertaining. And this is not even getting into trying to understand what these stories mean to those who told them. A fun exercise here is to try and imagine what someone 1-2k years in the future would think of the stories we tell today. Movies, manga, video games, cheap pulp fiction crap, etc. etc. etc.

@@whyjnot420 That would be entertaining to see lol. I actually always say, when reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, you learn about the things that a British man views important for a functioning society during the late 18th century.

I sometimes see people talking about the prescience of ancient peoples. To me, it suggests not that much has really changed.

Thanks man, it really means a lot. I put a lot of work into these

Thank you :)

@@warographics643 Fleetfoot01 1 second ago The only problem I have with this video was with it repeatedly falsely being called the "Roman Empire", which it was not at the time of the Punic wars! Rome and Italy was a Republic during the time of the three Punic Wars, not a empire. The Roman Empire wasn't founded until 27 BC, over 120+ years _AFTER_ the end of the Third Punic War, which ended in 146 BC.

While not my favourite channel, this is the only war channel I watch, because Simon and his team of writers and editors are just *chef's kiss*

@@Aemilius46 You clearly know nothing about ancient ROMAN history. The reason it was known as first the Roman Kingdom, then the Roman Republic and finally the Roman Empire is because the central government of those three regimes, ie, the Roman kings, then the Republic Senate and finally the Emperors starting from Augustus Caesar, ruled from the city of ROME. Hence who the societies were called ROMAN, they were named for the city that the ruler/governments ruled from. That also while the armies that defended Italy back then were called the ROMAN legions.

Yea he did he was also right Carthage had a secret part to its port where they were building warships

They gave us no choice.

Isn’t this a tax policy session?

Can't blame him after how much they cost Rome.

On one hand you have Hannibal hamstrung by envious politicians in Carthage who wanted peace with Rome. Then on the opposing side you have men like Cato. That is why Rome won

When Rome defeated Hannibal, they weren't actually known just for the Eagle because they also had the Horse, Boar, Wolf, and Minotaur Legionary standards. The Eagle became the only standard after the Marian Reforms. Also, Carthage did support Hannibal, they gave him commanders like his brothers, the elephants, etc.

@@Aemilius46 Did you watch the video? Hannibal had Rome on the ropes but pro Roman voices in Carthage basically got him cut off from supplies and reenforcements so he basically starved out and had to retreat back to Africa

@@samwill7259 Doesn't matter, because Rome had far more Talent, Supplies, Reinforcement, and Intelligence than Carthage and Hannibal.... It's why Carthage and Hannibal lost EVERY War against the Republic, and we're completely Wiped out, while Rome lasted for MANY More years.

Unchallenged? Are you fucking okay? 😂😂

@@remoliberati1076Dude’s a Roman Empire fanboy, for sure.

An empire by any other name

Good observation. I suppose one difference was that Byzantine knowledge, history etc. was not lost after its fall. After Carthage fell nearly all traces of the Phoenician culture and science that had given us the alphabet we use today and naval navigation using the stars for example was nearly wiped clean from history.

Karma

@@martineldritch That's true, but when you mentioned the alphabet, I became a bit questioning. Can you elaborate on what you mean and what alphabet you are talking about? Phoenician, perhaps? Depending on what language you're talking about and the region, in the case of Latin, its alphabet is rather an important influence on English for example, something that is widely used/known. Phoenician is known to have had an impact on Ancient Greek, though some would love to contest that for certain reasons.

@@drakehashimoto685 From "Archaic Greek Alphabets" Wiki "All forms of the Greek alphabet were originally based on the shared inventory of the 22 symbols of the Phoenician alphabet..." Hope this helps. ?

@@martineldritch Thanks for the clarification of my question.

came here to say this

Racyst

Wasn't going to happen though.... Carthage lost all the Wars with Rome and there was no way Carthage would've held down the Roman Republic for a long time.

@@Aemilius46it could very well have happened, the rise of rome wasnt some inevitable outcome and at that time rome was far from being the powerhouse empire we remember it ad yet. Rome came very close to be defeated and conquered multiple times troughout history, guess they had plot armour 😂

​@@hattorihanzo562Plot armor for real life that makes sense.... 🤦 Rome had incredible General's, Variety of Skills, Excellent Diplomacy and Politics, And we're able to conquer those who we're once thought as "Greatness"

It was a joke dude... What you say doesnt change anything. "wasn't going to happen though" is just wrong, Carthage couldve very well won against Rome and the rise of Rome wasnt some inevitable outcome of history. Its historical fact that rome had a lot of luck troughout it struggle to become the empire we remember it as and hannibal came very very close to conquer it.

@@hattorihanzo562Bro, look at his name. There’s no wonder he would believe in the notion that a Carthaginian victory is impossible.

Definitely!!!! 💯💯 Me too, love the channels and videos!! You should check out the KZfaq channel, Kings and Generals!! Very interesting and intellectual historical stuff!! (Rome, Greece, Generals, Armies, etc)

The same thing would have happened to rome so shut up

​@@wankawanka3053this^ if Hannibal won

yeah he was cunt just like his Descendent

Technically this would be the Roman Republic! 🙂 There's three parts of Ancient Rome in a sense, the Roman Kingdom/Monarchy, followed by the Roman Republic, then Roman Empire! (Some believe that the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and Holy Roman Empire, etc! Count as well!)

A world without Rome Full of barbarians and backward Roma Invicta !

Sometimes I wonder if Cato died painfully.

@@mercenarygundam1487 hopefully

It was a war of extermination. Either Rome wiped out or Carthage wiped out. Since I have italian heritage I'm glad Carthage lost or I would not exist.

@@user-ok4il2ty6i no it wasn't. This wasn't the second Punic War, Rome was safe from extermination by the time they did that.

I know he's already covered it on one channel of the 13 or so he's got, lol.

You must be very high!! Rome ended the multiple Dynasties/Kingdoms/Empires, Rome was not just brilliant in Warfare and Politics, but victories like the Battle of Clastidium where they we're heavily outnumbered and only had a couple thousand Cavalry yet still won!

@@Aemilius46 *WHOOSH* That noise was the point at flight level 600 as it went straight over your head.

Are you actually talking about a civil war that made no impact on the world, in a video about the move that changed history for all coming time?

@@jaypandya7441 this *IS* “Warographics” is it not? Can I not advocated for something that i would like to see?

@@Dank-gb6jn granted. But Fredricksburg? Chancellorsville would have been much better

@@jaypandya7441 Sure, so would Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, (if you’re looking for Federal victories), either of the Manassas battles, or Cold Harbor; but Fredericksburg is special, for the soldier I mentioned.

They did but Rome did not have the walls it would later the story is this Hannibal was an old school guy before this if you beat armies like him the loser would sue for peace but Rome was new for Rome they had all these cities in Italy allied to them form early under Rome they had protection and were citizen's of Rome Hannibal could not offer anything near that so they did not break with Rome and there man power kept going to Rome and Rome used it to keep fighting over and raising new armies Hannibal was begged by his brothers just to go lay Siege to the city but he knew he did not have the men to do it so he went south it was the same later with the Greeks when they met Rome in battle in the old days they would raise there long pikes to show we give up and both sides would let them go Roman Legions would cut them apart as Rome did not follow the old rules the world now would fallow new rules Roman ones

Hannibal was given lot's of help! The problem for Carthage was that Rome had greater resources and manpower and was able to intercept the reinforcements and destroy them before they reached Hannibals forces!!

That's the Germanic fleet. Not Carthaginians

@@jaypandya7441 so his story says we now wouldn’t know but to know directly the route from carthage takes knowledgeable native sailors

@@owusu369 but they weren't Carthaginians. The Romans mande sure that the Carthaginian culture was totally destroyed. Survivors were taken as slaves, who later assimilated with ethnicities from rest of the empire. The true Carthaginian bloodline was dead by the time we get to Augustus

@@jaypandya7441 you do know before the final siege n destruction 150000/200000 Carthaginian women and children escaped

@@owusu369 that number is impossibly bloated. The overall population was 750,000. Out of that, 200,000 cannot possibly escape

Hannibal failed because of himself , he mistaken Rome for Persia and payed by destroying Carthage power .

Not neccasserily top since Hasdrubal was lowkey getting rid of because the elites in carthage didnt Like him and His hawkish Attitude, the barcas Made themselves a Personal Kingdom in spain

Regardless of all, investing in crypto markets trading still remains one of the best ways of getting out of poverty and obtaining financial freedom in this global economy pandemic

When I first met with Mr Bryan Smith about crypto trading I took the opportunity regardless the risks but now l am happy that I took the step to success by trading with Bryan Smith. You know lgnorance can be the worst thing and mistake that most people always do.

I think anyone selling their Bitcoin or Altcoins because of the dip, has no idea what they are holding in the first place. You should take some quantity and trade than selling. We should focus on weekly trade, as it is less affected by the unpredictable nature of the market. Big thanks to Bryan Smith for helping me earn 4 BTC, despite the current fall in price. I'm not bothered with how bad the Market is turning out.

@Mhiz Flora Please I really wanna invest too how can I reach Mr Bryan Smith ? I'll be needing his guidance to start up my trade

Mr Bryan Smith is the crypto Messiah, Even there was a clash in bitcoin people are still making it. I wonder how

You can argue the Roman Republic in that period was an empire in the modern sense.

@@TheTablePaper It wasn't though, the Roman Republic didn't become the empire until 121 years _after_ the sacking of Carthage which ended the Third Punic War.

@@Fleetfoot01 The definition of 'empire' you're using here isn't the modern definition. Roman history is divided between it's republican and imperial phase and that's the definition of empire you're using. A state under the rule of an imperator. If this was the only definition of empire then *only* the Roman empire was ever an empire in history. I'm using the modern definition of empire, a state subjugating foreigners under their rule. The same way the British empire or Incan empires were empires.

@@TheTablePaper Yeah. In this case it was a bit like _the Empire Strikes Back_ and this time they mean business!

To counter that "What if" I'll say, if Rome ended Carthage after the First Punic War, Hannibal wouldn't have been born and You Carthage fanboy's would have nothing! 😂😂

Eh, they were still brutal after they became Christians. Like the appalling treatment of the Visigoths after crossed the Danube, forcing them to sell their children for dog meat or the mass gauging of eyes upon the bulgar army by basil the second

@@mgplayzxd3062 its almost as if anyone has the capacity for great acts of mercy and/or great acts of cruelty

Barbarian at that time meant stutterer not uncivilized. It meant people who not speak the classic languages (greek, latin, egiptian, aramaic).

Trust me carthage too has massacred and destroyed cities especially in Sicily

Ikr? It’s almost as if empire is inherently a brutal mechanism of oppression to the benefit of a small minority who lie at the top of a rigidly imposed and violently enforced hierarchy at the expense of the vast majority of the inhabitants of any region in which it arises. Almost.

Well, Irish people gave a good reason to feel that way historically. Them and anyone from India lol

I have no idea, but cultic pseudo-science aside, regional climates have changed through centuries and millennium. And the Alpine area at the time, or maybe during that given Winter, might have been milder, or that particular season warmer. Just as more than a thousand years later, Vikings launched on far-flung voyages, thanks to warmer milder Atlantic-weather. - And lo, not a carbon-emitting engine ever came into sight their Long-ships! ⛵

Who cares!!! It wasn't as great as people think, not only did he lose lot's of men and elephants, but he still lost. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and Marcus Claudius Marcellus we're able to protect Rome and other Cities!

Case of propaganda-spin, potentially then?

@@PC-Phobic-Jean-Rene when talking history, more often than not, it’s a “potentially” affair.

Because it's their faith it's happend thru out history sacrifices of children. It's not like you can have more you know.

By this point, Rome already had an empire, it just didn't have an emperor yet.

@@deamon002 it had a king like Britain does in name only real power comes later

@@thewildcardperson Umm, no. Rome may have had a king at some point, but that was when it was just one city state among dozens, they're more myth than fact, since anything written about them came centuries after the fact. But the Rome that took over more and more of its neighbors, and that came into conflict with Carthage once their spheres off influence collided, was a Republic. It was already an empire at this point, just still under a republican form of government. And the bigger the empire got, the less able the institutions of that government were able to effectively run it, which eventually led to one guy taking over all real power (while still pretending that the old institutions were totally still in charge), at which point historians start to refer to it officially as the Roman Empire.

I think it's quite obvious Rome wanted Carthage to suffer for it's Many slights, AND to avenge the fallen Roman lives from the previous Wars!! 🛡️🗡️

I think even Hannibal would be unable to bring siege weapons up and down the Alps.

@@resileaf9501 SMH, really ? Most siege engines weren't dragged all over hell & back most were built on site w only a few parts being bought from where they started mostly parts made from metal & rope don't forget Carthage was a master of prefab if you have engineers & the necessary parts prefabricated all you need is trees to cut down & italy has trees

@@celter.45acp98 Then I guess even Hannibal couldn't bring those parts over the Alps. :D

@@resileaf9501 it's actually the engineers although Carthage had amazing engineers for whatever reason there weren't many in the military & he didn't see fit to bring the few there were his plan was to get romes Italian allies to turn on them by making the countryside burn & it's people bleed but it didn't work obviously

He should have hired some engineers to make some.

"Elephant Life" magazine gave the assault 1 star.