Made me laugh.

I actually lol'ed at that.

TheDolphins087 Hannibal is the boss of bosses. The Greatest Of All TIme.

He was a great general, but in the end he achieved nothing.

+biggieboy2510 Robb Stark looool

+biggieboy2510 like i said if he followed my tactics as well as his he would of won you can't win a war if you have very little to use as in population pluss the towns lost to there destruction would mean less industries and farms to use so rome loses resources and there for flexibility he needed to trap them within them selves first and carthage needed to rebuild its fleet around that time and sink alot of roman vessals trying by seartain hit and run tactics like I said if your gonna face rome wittle them down they believe they will always win so use there tenacity against them and go for there allys the captured little towns and cities not the city of rome itself go for that last deal with its allies kill them off or they will surender either way there broken on to the next and then when rome is alone and traped go in for the kill.

actually the roamns had tactics to defeat them is called defencive testudo you aint beteating that if they create a square formation and bomb you with artilery

Me too lol

maxedgardogarcia but he might go crazy

+Gamerdude1246 Rome, was not the greatest, the Chinese Dynasties have a more rich culture, and a lot more wars.

pk1dyer Rome became a superpower because of it's unyielding spirit in front of overwhelming odds, that's why in my opinion, Rome is the greatest civilization on Earth. All great superpowers were minor powers once, the United States, France, United Kingdom, the Mongols, etc. What matters is how they rose to become a superpower. China is awesome, but it is the most old and pacifist civilization on Earth. The Chinese aren't remembered for wars, rather for culture and technology.

As much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right. Rome didn't always have the best heroes, but they never stopped playing to win.

+Gamerdude1246 Though I thank you for your kind reading of history, you don't dominate a region that stretched to Iran and beyond by being simply being pacifist. The wars in China are far from forgotten, their stories just aren't well studied and passed down here, just as Rome isn't over there.

And I wasn't disappointed! If I had money I could throw at you I would most certainly do it! Thank you and please continue! You make these so well.

Probably because people aren't interested with history these days.

+Seth B. Carthege was the underdog. Rome was incerdibly good at recruting new soliders and keeping allies, despite terrible losses In Italy itself, where the battles gad been fought and Hannibals army was still around nearby.

+Timothy Heimbach correction, wasn't the underdog

Rome definitely had a hope of defending itself. Hannibal decided that he couldn't win that battle yet, and decided to wait for Carthage to send support that never came.

He didn't have proper siege equipment and was cautious to avoid being encircled or surrounded But then again as you say he had Rome at his mercy and the great city never was built for a siege-had Hannibal attacked Rome and held it to ransom history could be so different

+partytor11 Because the never actually broke through the middle, the carthagenian center was actually pulling back little by little which made the romans over extend, and when the romans had over extended too far they pushed in

+partytor11 It is hard to push through a line giving way. Msot of the time you push through when the enemy is broken and starting to flee. But since the carthagians were fighting and giving ground they fought on their own terms and thus they wouldn't break. Also, most people are fighjting not to die so even if romans were gaining ground the soldiers would advance slowly as to not die themselves. It is like in football/soccer; when you leave a weak spot and you know it is a weak spot, it stops being weak because you can use it to your advantage.

Jonathan Meyer Yeah plus Hannibal was heavily dependent on his cavalery. In all of the three battles they played a major role in defeating the moronic romans.

Jonathan Meyer It's both

+Rottayok its always easy to say the other side was stupid, but in fact hannibal is brilliant and this taktik worked because he was brilliant not because the other side was stupid. Hannibal did the best in his Situation, not to mention that he was in enemys land for several years. I don't think his victory was because of the luck that his opponents were a little bit stupid. But i think you don't mean it that drastic

Mr. Gold There's no point in downplaying the Romans' foolishness, though. They could have beat Hannibal years before Zama if they followed the Fabian strategy, but chose against it instead.

Not all of them, Fabian had the right idea but was not supported Also Caesar(later)