Give us the last part pleaseeee❤❤

I do hope you plan to finish this series, it’s been a pleasure to watch

I'd watch this short over football any day.

What is the name for the specialized anti elephant unit? Can't quite make it out on the video and can't find after quick Google search. Thank you

If the Romans knew,the battle would have been won by the Romans

If you think about it, horses are like BMPs in modern warfare.

Yep that is why if i was not a noble knight I would want to be a mounted crossbowman or something so that when the nobles decide the battle is lost you’re not left to be slaughtered like the footmen

@@ryanvouche254 pretty sure crossbows never were used on horseback. You need to step on them and pull back crazy hard.

@@adriaticscarecrow2218 Mongols?Huns?

​@@funtv4920 they used shorts bows not crossbows.

Not the entire army. If I remember numbers from another video, perhaps 30% or 20-40 % of the original army emerged on the other side of the alps.

How many was it at first? According to a video it dwindled until 26k men i think

Damn 5 months I thought it was from oversimplified

They knew he'd come. They didn't expect he'd cross the alps in winter.

@@riku3716 70% of his men didn't die, its because he sent large contingents of his army back to Iberia.

Alexander’s enemies are all dead when he died. He never wrote anything. Egyptians, Greeks and Romans did.

@@adachichay9298 he built about 100 cities and named them Alexander. That tells me he’s writing his own history.

​@@adachichay9298 ummm, so yeah... first, the term "to write your own history" has nothing to do with publishing memoirs, it means that someone was a trailblazer, that they did things differently, that they were fiercely independent, and so they could lay claim to saying, as Sinatra once put it, "I did it myyyy way". Second, a persons "enemies" aren't just those people one has physically fought with, enemies are anyone who holds different views to those of your own. And, last, almost NOBODY wrote autobiographies up until the enlightenment era - or about 300 years ago. Bro didn't intend for his comment to be read in a strictly literal sense, but rather in an inferential, figurative, manner.

You just roasted Ceasar and Alexander

@@saya_miguel_akunlama3008 Nar they were better all round leaders. Hannibal was a general. He only new how to win battles. To take the next step you need much more which is what Caesar and Alexander had. They were statesmen. What I’m getting at is the fact the way the Romans wrote Hannibal’s history they admired him even tho he was an enemy of Rome. He taught them how to fight.

highly recommend the full episode and their Hannibal series, Hannibal ambushed the Roman on an open field.

Not sure what he did here. In Cannae he used the dust emanating from the initial clash to hide 2 large contingents that would flank the Romans after luring them further. In Trasimene, the Romans in pursuit never suspected the Carthiginians from the mountainside as there were no tracks from that direction. Hannibal marched them forward and around through the mountains. The Romans were blocked before they could see those tracks. I learned that from this series. No doubt, he hid their tracks here as well.

It would seem. Hannibal thought romans how to properly fight in tactical sense. Shout out to my boi Nappy

Considering some of the things that happened in the late republic, no.

@@Callum2302 That was some 600 years later. Of course the Romans were evolving their tactics and knowledge of warfare constantly.

Depending on the school, your teachers may not have been comfortable with the way he took people in the rear.

@@princecharon yooo💀

​@@princecharon 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@princecharon 🤣🤣🤣🤣

We learned a lot about Rome and also Carthago and Hannibal, but I dont remember that his military tactics was emphasised as much as he deserved (I live in Hungary)

Underated comment

Not really, he made only one mistake - not attacking Rome. If he did there was no way they could have stopped him. Also in the end Hannibal lost because of incopetent leaders in Carthage. If the Carthaginian nobility werent idiots, they would have let Hannibal do his stuff in Italy and wait Scipio out - Scipio could not take Carthage with the army he had. But the nobility forced Hannibal to return thus causing the downfall.

​@@specialshot1457 factionalism be like

na, the romans just didnt give up, every battle was decisive. After cannae if history was fair, the romans would have crumbled. whats important is that it was hanibal and his famaly and conquered lands (spain) against rome, without meaning full suport from cartage. They even betraied him after wars. He maby should have just let scipio take africa, while he consoldiadated to march on rome. i mean with scipio in africa, who would have stopped him? Once rome would have been raised to the ground the empire would have fallen apart. problem he never wanted to kill rome. just defeat thm to get back what rome had taken.

One of his old man a uncle or a friend dont know for sure but maybe maco but what he said i remember vividly : Hannibal.. you know how to win a battle, but you dont know how to use your victory.

youtube mary and jesus in the quran and mohmmad in the bible and the Torah and the scientific miracles of the quran and mohmmad in hindu scripture ....

Khalid .

massinisa king of the Numidians: I'm going to do a pro gamer move *[joins the Romans]*

@@thedstorm8922 to this day we amazighs still have amazing horses in morocco

@@Ouail98 Numidia is modern day Algeria though And the horses have become hybrid between Arab and Berber horses I think there still exist some pure Berber horses in north Africa

@@thedstorm8922 amazigh people are spread all over north africa, and we have a breed called berber horse

@@thedstorm8922 Carthage, who turned against Masinissa,, and allied with Syphax in return for helping him occupy Massilia, which is ruled by Masinissa. You really need history lessons

Yeah, my ancestors were great horsemen and warriors. I'm proud of our shared history with the great powers of the time.

@@Hopeforhumans no one talks about north Africans and their heritage even though it's so riche and filled with important events

@@dimitrinavyseals2530 We mostly have to blame ourselves, two main reasons I see : 1 - lack of wealth and freedom to produce a strong enough cultural cinema industry to promote our history. 2- North African governments want their states to belong to the arab world and therefore they underplay their pre Islamic history by a big lot and they prefer to put forward what comes after it.

​@@Hopeforhumans you swerved Europeans well , now bend the knee to Europeans again and again and again

​ actually North African government are not Arab, the population is not African either, go back to Europe

lol

Agreee 😁

This series was 3-5 years older then oversimplifieds hannibal

​@@PaxRomanaBatBut oversimplified just made it more well known

It was so brutal, in fact, that the nearby town was called Bloodbath (forgot how it was in Italian) because of it Edit: no, i confused battle at trebia with another Hannibal's major battle. I'm sure battle of trebia was nonetheless brutal though

Just look for the battle of Cannae. You will see what slaughter means.

Seriously bro sometimes I think about that like now a days we think modern warfare is brutal but we die pretty quickly from a bomb or bullet...now imagine hundreds of men clashing and cutting each other’s limbs off while you hear cries for help and suffering all around you it would have been hell

Romans battled bloody hand to hand combat. Legionnaires would thrust their sword, then deflect with shield. Repeated stab and deflect technique. Well versed and trained. Dismemberment heads and limbs was inefficient. It was about stabbing their enemies quickly and effectively. It was efficient for maintaining battle lines and stamina. It was in Medieval battles as Axes, Polaxes, Polarms, and plethora of other highly lethal weapons were around where dismemberment would become guaranteed. Medieval Longswords were designed for piercing and not slashing. That's where they were most effective. Nice video thank you. Ave.

​@@lorddaquanofhouserastafari4177we do not die quickly, you should videos of Ukraine war

thats what their army made for , their problem not having good enough cav and not supporting them with inf also not keeping inf as reserve

The roman army was based around that. It wasnt some fine tuned tool you had to practice to use, it was a fucking sledgehammer

@@sultanmomenofzenata177 right on. They could have avoided that route with a reserve. Maybe run some scouts on the flanks before engaging the main line. I feel like that's basic stuff but maybe in that time, the Romans hadn't ever needed those tactics until they encountered a guy like Hannibal.

@@soldat2501 yeah definitely facing Hannibal though them a lot of lessons, as indeed as you said these are basics especially with infantry not to mention that the manapul system was made to have 3 different lines I don't understand why they would send them all together, I guess the only reason would be that the general leading the legions is dumb as f****

​​@@sultanmomenofzenata177 The general probably thought he could crush Hannibal's men in one single push, his calculation could have succeeded if his opponent wasn't Hannibal And also the problem with not having enough experiences to develop mature scouting tactics

Well so were the Carthaginians... I'd say they were even more worn out because of constant raids and the Alps crossing, add to that a march from the eastern coast of Spain, there's no way the Romans were more tired and in worse shape than the Carthaginians

Romans didn't really loose in standard situations

@@Computertypad yes they did,and they got themselves in that situation

I’m a descendant of both the Romans and the Carthaginians, a Sicilian. And the Panal Wars were an amazing turn of events

It wasn't so much strength as it was sheer weight in numbers. The Romans deployed 55,000 infantry against 32,000 Carthaginian. Hannibal was heavily outnumbered at Cannae, but smashed the Romans anyway.

Yeah IRS was everyone pay X if you dont got it give us your donkey idc if you starve and die

Those days will be back.

@@duniagowes Yeah! The 4th world war will be faught with sticks and stones.

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 yeah, exactly & with horses, arrow, etc.

@@duniagowes horses, no one knows to tame and train horses anymore. Not in industrial scale.

When oversimplified makes a vid about smth everyone just happens to talk about it

Imagine when the cartheginian senate betrayed hannibal he choose rome and then take revenge on carthage.

​@@thebeastslayer6329 imagine if Carthage and Rome were allies

@@uniuni8855 unstoppable force

then they'd be romans, civil war

@@thebeastslayer6329 they once did ally against Pyrrhus and yeah they were able to defeat him

Imagine Aurelian not being in there.

Ancient: Alexandar The Great, Hannibal (Carthage) Middle ages: Khalid ibn Walid (RA) (Arab, Rashidun Caliphate), Subutoi (Mongol) Modern: General Zhukov (Soviet)

​@@AbdulRaheemMED absolutely based opinions

You forgot about one person, even more modern than Napoleon. A rejected painter

​@@ballulallu4167 We're talking about generals, not drug addicts whose best tactical idea was "uhhh just go all at once I guess"

You're more arab than phoenician.

Couldn't you at least find someone who won a war?

What country is those btw

Carthage[a] was an ancient city on the eastern side of the Lake of Tunis in what is now Tunisia. Carthage was one of the most important trading hubs of the Ancient Mediterranean and one of the most affluent cities of the classical world. It became the capital city of the civilisation of Ancient Carthage and later Roman Carthage.

@@hospitallercross1155tunisia

I second this.

I decree this shall be made.

He's also the daddy of history...

more the father of tactics not strategy

Not strategy but tactics

​@@Ahsan_Rehanwhat's the difference?

@@gabrielaleactus9932 strategy is long term planning while tactics aren't.

This was already in part2

✋

Did you enjoyed also when Scipio twatted them?

I take it they subjugated you ancestors?

@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131 Must have. He's probably a Briton and they were humiliated enough in 61 AD to last millenniums, clearly.

@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131 Why are you hurt? people just love an underdog

@@Ghost_of_GabyCarthage definitely wasn’t the underdog though? Hannibal was literally running though Italy for 13 years winning over 20 battles never losing one, not sure how Carthage was the underdog lol

You make that sound so fuckibg gay smh

😂😂😂😂😂

This was his first battle against Rome

Until he didn't

those early Greek conquests sharpened his blade for one bloody exit after another

The thick X represent heavy infantry, a regular X is light infantry. A / is cavalry. The dots are skirmishers like javelin throwers and archers.

@@millioistakenoh I misunderstood it then thanks for telling me

Same bro! Such bullshit!!!

not outnumbered

Tactically they appear outnumbered particularly when the cavalry enveloped Romans.

Ad astra scipio and hannibal

Yeah Hannibal is overrated to an extent because he almost always had double the cavalry or more than the Romans

@@MaXiMoS54 that can be said about modern forces too.but somehow they lose weird

You should watch the whole battle that was a master tactic for full encirclement and slaughter of huge Roman forces

@@MaXiMoS54 the Romans sent multiple armies always outnumbering him yet with a single army he kept defeating them, the only thing he had at an advantage was his cavalry.

Hannibal is a genius, Khalid is Hannibal on steroids. Imagine Hannibal with less troops and more wins + never losing any battle…that’s Khalid.

Yeah a few monsters larger than anything the romans had ever seen would still be intimidating

Right, thought only one elephant survived the crossing.