Thank you Tall Paul.
Military History's Best Loser
-
Garg, IL is arguing that the US is more dominant than Canada, he might as well argue that hot is warmer than cold.
It’s no argument, just a fact. And it’s not anti-Canadian either. There is a reason why we got more population, more wealth, more everything.
Just learn to accept it.
-
:roll: Who is not accepting it? IL, you are just hijacking a thread and I wish you would stop. Do you really need to state the obvious that your country has 10 times the people so therefore it is larger and more powerful? [edited by GG]
This thread is not about US position in the world, that thread had been resurrected from the dead where you also hijacked it insisting I am anti-american. If you insist on thumping your chest and proclaiming your country is better than mine at least do it in the correct thread.
Topic: US versus China for world position
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25558.0Please stop hijacking threads MR. Liaison.
Ugh, maybe I should just abandon this thread……
-
[edited by GG]
The point was that Cornwallis got stuck with the wrong half, the larger half but nonetheless the half that is far less valuable.
[edited by GG]
-
The point was Cornwallis didn’t lose an entire continent.
-
The point was Cornwallis didn’t lose an entire continent.
That actually was the point. Cornwallis didn’t lose an entire continent so ought not to be in the same league as Hannibal Barca who naturally is the correct choice and not just because it was my choice……but because it is correct.
Just learn to accept it.
neat, wonder why I see a scroll bar…neat!
-
Not sure Hannibal was more accomplished than Napoleon. Napoleon subdued all of Europe. Hannibal could not even subdue the Italian peninsula.
-
@Last:
Not sure Hannibal was more accomplished than Napoleon. Napoleon subdued all of Europe. Hannibal could not even subdue the Italian peninsula.
Considering the vast manpower that Rome enjoyed over Carthage and the quality of the Roman Army, Hannibal may have had a more difficult road to total victory than Napoleon.
-
Considering the vast manpower that Rome enjoyed over Carthage and the quality of the Roman Army, Hannibal may have had a more difficult road to total victory than Napoleon.
Precisely! If the question was about accomplishment only then George S. Patton would be in the running. My metrics are feats versus odds. Hannibal was fighting an enemy in a different continent and separated by an ocean!
-
@ABWorsham:
@Last:
Not sure Hannibal was more accomplished than Napoleon. Napoleon subdued all of Europe. Hannibal could not even subdue the Italian peninsula.
Considering the vast manpower that Rome enjoyed over Carthage and the quality of the Roman Army, Hannibal may have had a more difficult road to total victory than Napoleon.
When facing the rest of Europe I think France was at a manpower disadvantage (perhaps even a greater deficit than what Hannibal faced)
If Hannibal did not have ample time to train and equip his army I could readily agree with you about quality. However, if Hannibal’s army was indeed inferior in quality then it is a direct reflection on his deficiencies as a commander.
Precisely! If the question was about accomplishment only then George S. Patton would be in the running. My metrics are feats versus odds. Hannibal was fighting an enemy in a different continent and separated by an ocean!
I believe Hannibal spent 10 years in Italy with no “ocean” between his army and that of Rome.
-
I believe Hannibal spent 10 years in Italy with no “ocean” between his army and that of Rome.
Carthage was indeed across the ocean and that is from where the attack originated from sans his European allies. Most of Frances big battles were not far from its borders excluding of course the Africa campaign and the Moscow defeat.
Quite the feat shipping Elephants to Europe. Quite the feat surviving 10 years an ocean away from home in hostile territory. Transportation was a bit more challenging in Hannibal’s time compared to Napoleon
-
I got to side with Hannibal. Napoleon was fighting with the support of his country and fought against a loosely unified Europe. Hannibal fought against the might of the Roman Republic.
-
I believe Hannibal spent 10 years in Italy with no “ocean” between his army and that of Rome.
Carthage was indeed across the ocean and that is from where the attack originated from sans his European allies. Most of Frances big battles were not far from its borders excluding of course the Africa campaign and the Moscow defeat.
Quite the feat shipping Elephants to Europe. Quite the feat surviving 10 years an ocean away from home in hostile territory. Transportation was a bit more challenging in Hannibal’s time compared to Napoleon
I believe Hannibal’s attack on Rome initiated from his base in Spain. There was no “ocean” between his army and Rome. Granted he crossed the alps but paid a heavy price in doing so.
@ABWorsham:
I got to side with Hannibal. Napoleon was fighting with the support of his country and fought against a loosely unified Europe. Hannibal fought against the might of the Roman Republic.
Initially Hannibal had the support of Carthage and more importantly its Spanish colony. He only lost support when he proved he could not bring the war to a favorable conclusion.
Perhaps, the support given to Hannibal by a number of Italian cities during his 10 year stay shows the Roman Republic was also loosely unified.
-
Black Jack, I do not underestimate Napoleon’s feats.
I agreed with Garg as soon as he mentioned Bony and he did have Europe’s leaders on their knees. He brought fame and military prowess back to France once again. They had been the greatest country strength wise for many years until Spain took away that mantle with the emergence of the Tercio Pikeman. Napoleon did lose battles and then had to retreat to his borders to regroup. He was a politician and made alliances, which the Coalition would then break so as to attack and remove him from power once again.
I have a soft spot for Hannibal as I appreciate that most of the time he commanded his country’s armies he did so without its support. He beat the one other major power in his lifetime(one he hated), but could not bring it to his knees. Could he have marched on Rome after Cannae? Should he? Once he had chosen not to, his fate was sealed and Rome’s strength never again dipped. It would be more than 10 years, but Zama, fought on his doorstep was to be his last battle. I believe, excepting a few sieges, it was his only military defeat.
Perhaps because Cannae is such a studied and much emulated battle, he is my choice of best loser. -
I believe Hannibal’s attack on Rome initiated from his base in Spain. There was no “ocean” between his army and Rome. Granted he crossed the alps but paid a heavy price in doing so
By your logic the US was not fighting an overseas war against Germany in WW I or II because it had bases in England. I suspect some historians would disagree with that assertion.
If there was an ocean between your army and the army of your enemy you could not actually fight could you? If your home country is across the ocean from your enemies home country and you are fighting on the enemies home turf, you are fighting across an ocean regardless of where you have bases.
I think if one could compare the relative GDP of Carthage against the Roman empire and then compare that ratio to the ratio of GDP of France versus it’s enemies you would find the Carthage/Roman ratio to favour the Roman empire more so than the enemies of France.
A puny country Carthage taking on an empire versus in some cases a larger France compared to some of her enemies.
-
I think while Last Jack refering to Hannibal`s route of invasion starting from Saguntum in Spain, you MrMalachiCrunch on the other hand are talking about Tunesia(Karthago) wich in that case is located oversea.
-
Both correct. The attack came from the direction of Spain. However, the war was between Carthage which was African based and Rome which was European based. It was not a matter of the Spanish attacking Rome with a few African advisers who happen to belong to the Carthaginian empire.
-
“New Carthage” as it was known was part of today’s Spain. The logistical support are not “bases”- they are part of the empire, so Rome didn’t really have a sea barrier since Spain was practically next door.
-
The spanish territories were under constant Roman attack. True they were part of the Empire of Carthage but so was Britain part of the Roman empire. Carthage was not at war with Britain but Rome. The political centre of gravity was in Africa. Carthage could exist without Spain but Carthage could not exist only in Spain.
New Carthage as it was known then was in the hands of the Carthaginian empire for a span of 19 years, hardly a pillar of the empire. The Pyrenees were hostile territory requiring him to pacify the tribes he encountered so really not like fighting from the turf of his home land.
Yes, the attack was from Spainish land, but Hannibal was not a Spanish General. The attack was from Spain by necessity not because Spain was the center of power for the empire.
The was was between an African empire and a European empire. Get over it.
-
Yes, the attack was from Spanish land, but Hannibal was not a Spanish General.
LOL. The attack was from Spain so the war was not really separated from “an ocean” Hannibal not being a ‘Spanish’ general means nothing. He was born in Turkey anyway (Gebze) so what the heck is your point?
Spain triggered the war, get over it. Not separated by oceans.
-
Hmmm, strange logic.
Carthage was an African based empire (true or false)?
Rome was an European based power (True or false)?
So the war was between two empires centered on different continents.
While I agree the invasion of Rome was launched from Carthaginian territories in Spain, it was still a war between Empires who have the centre of gravity on different continents. Indeed, it was the invasion of Africa by Rome that caused Hannibal to leave Europe whereas loses in Iberia were not critical to Carthage.
I am not sure what the disagreement is about.
Suggested Topics
