Military History's Best Loser

Where exactly was Hannibal born Sgt. Saunders? I couldn`t find anything yet…

A few sources asume he was born in Carthago during the 1 st Puni war but most of  em dont know…

I said he was not born in Spain.  It is not correct to imply from that that I didn’t know where he was born.  My degree is in computer science so I know a bit about logic and your logical conclusion is invalid.

So again IL, Hannibal was born in Turkey you say?

IL says:

“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.

Wikipedia says New Cathage served as a stepping off point for the conquest of spain.  So your argument is that a stepping of point is not a base?  Sure, they are different words.

Well my point was that that stepping off point was not an integral part of what was that empire of Carthage, it did not contribute to its original greatness.

IL says:

Only if you can wear that pathetic wife beater shirt and the 99. cent sunglasses in the white trash Jimmy…

So we have a deal then, I shall where wear the pathetic wife beater shirt and the 99 cent sunglasses and I will take my white trash Jimmy and hopefully tow a trailer and hang out with the gang in Oshawa where I will see you and I will be able to say politely you are a dick to your face and you would be wise to be polite to me in return, it is the Canadian way to be polite after all.

Wikipedia says New Cathage served as a stepping off point for the conquest of spain.  So your argument is that a stepping of point is not a base?  Sure, they are different words.

Well my point was that that stepping off point was not an integral part of what was that empire of Carthage, it did not contribute to its original greatness.

When you finally retract that the war was not “across the ocean”, but from Carthage which was also based in Spain and stop throwing up “he was not a born in spain” or “19 years makes it a base, not part of the empire”

The war, men, and material came from Spain by land to Rome. Not across some “ocean”

IL says:
Quote
Only if you can wear that pathetic wife beater shirt and the 99. cent sunglasses in the white trash Jimmy…

So we have a deal then, I shall where the pathetic wife beater shirt and the 99 cent sunglasses and I will take my white trash Jimmy and hopefully tow a trailer and hang out with the gang in Oshawa where I will see you and I will be able to say politely you are a dick to your face and you would be wise to be polite to me in return, it is the Canadian way to be polite after all.

And bring the Canada Dry…and i like this:  " I shall where the pathetic wife beater shirt"  Yea you WHERE it LOL.  Talk about education.

It’s almost like saying the US didn’t have to fight an war overseas because eventually they got bases on the enemies continent.  Almost.  Carthage really had no presence in Spain prior to the end of the first punic war.  So in 237 BC they start the conquest of Iberia.  The second punic war starts in 218 BC.  So 19 years of conquest in Iberia does mean they had some land and some allies, but again, hardly a pillar of the Empire.  It was mostly a piggy bank and a way of reclaiming wealth and power after being spanked by Rome in the first punic war.

I never once stated the attack didn’t come from the direction of Spain.  I said the war was launched by Carthage, primarily a power across the sea from Rome.  I stand by that assertion.

Does IL stand by his assertion that Hannibal was a turk or at least born in Turkey?

Got me on the where rather than wear.  Effects of almost being killed a few years ago and the resulting brain injury.

So IL, back to your assertion Hannibal was a turk?

And bring the Canada Dry

I drink my rye with water.  First drink is on me dick.

It’s almost like saying the US didn’t have to fight an war overseas because eventually they got bases on the enemies continent.  Almost.  Carthage really had no presence in Spain prior to the end of the first punic war.  So in 237 BC they start the conquest of Iberia.  The second punic war starts in 218 BC.  So 19 years of conquest in Iberia does mean they had some land and some allies, but again, hardly a pillar of the Empire.  It was mostly a piggy bank and a way of reclaiming wealth and power after being spanked by Rome in the first punic war.

Thats more nonsense, the army came from that region and here again you call the part of the empire they controlled “bases” in order to somehow make it seem the whole area is wasteland, when in reality it is the most fertile and sustaining farmland in the whole empire and populated with many people. “Bases” would apply more to the arid coastline areas along Morocco/Algeria.

The area of Spain was more sustainable than any other area besides the developed area around Tunis.

I never once stated the attack didn’t come from the direction of Spain.  I said the war was launched by Carthage, primarily a power across the sea from Rome.  I stand by that assertion.

But what you NEVER recall is the fact that this was not a war across the “ocean”, rather the entire war came from Spain so it was a war entirely from the European continent.

Does IL stand by his assertion that Hannibal was a turk or at least born in Turkey?

Got me on the where rather than wear.  Effects of almost being killed a few years ago and the resulting brain injury.

It’s not Turkey per se, rather it is in a location where modern Turkey exists.

So IL, back to your assertion Hannibal was a turk?

I didn’t say that, i said he was born in an area where Turkey is now.

and lets not forget your zinger of a comment here:

Re: Military History’s Best Loser
� Reply #49 on: February 26, 2013, 07:32:38 pm �

Quote ( from another poster)
I believe Hannibal spent 10 years in Italy with no “ocean” between his army and that of Rome.

Your reply:
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

And where was he born?
And he died (not born) in Gebze, Turkey. I was going on memory from what i was taught and remembered his place of death rather than birth. He was born in North Africa.

In a straight line, spain is arguably “across the sea” from Rome. ;)  There are certainly a few mountain ranges in the way…

Hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saguntum

So in 219 Hannibal lead Carthage to victory in Spain… From “across the sea”, against Rome’s allies.

The Saguntines turned to Rome for aid, but none was sent. In 218 BC after enduring eight months of siege the Saguntines’ last defences were finally overrun. This marked the beginning of the Second Punic War. Hannibal now had a base from which he could supply his forces with food and extra troops.

And WHAT’S THIS?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars

Rome took countermeasures against Hannibal’s home base in Africa by sea command and stopped the flow of supplies.

The Romans -starved- Hannibal’s army for 15 years by sea primarily, resulting in his defeat.  The whole campaign is outlined… wow…

EVEN MORE EVIDENCE

More importantly, Hannibal never successfully received any significant reinforcements from Carthage. Despite his many pleas, Carthage only ever sent reinforcements successfully to Hispania. This lack of reinforcements prevented Hannibal from decisively ending the conflict by conquering Rome through force of arms

So Mal was right… the fact that hannibal couldn’t get the reinforcements he needed, FOR A CONFLICT OVERSEAS, led to his defeat.

Guess it wasn’t an entirely overland conflict as the cackling pontiff’s around here originally suggested.

Although in -retreat- I do seem to see a green line that CROSSES OVER THE SEA, to fight a final battle in defense home.

Maybe I’m seeing things… but does anyone care to clarify?

Yeah according to the green line Hannibal MARCHED into Italy  :-D

@Last:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

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.

Last Jack,

do you have a source for any of your bolded and underlined claims above?

Everything I’ve read basically contradicts them…

As for the last 4 pages of debate - for the record this is what’s being debated:

Quite the feat shipping Elephants to Europe (TRUE). Quite the feat surviving 10 years a sea ocean away from home in hostile territory (MOSTLY TRUE). Transportation was a bit more challenging in Hannibal’s time compared to Napoleon (FACT)

What’s the problem here?

I make no bold claims. Hannibal Marched into Italy. I think the green line proves it.

Last Jack
You made the following entirely false claims:

1. The Roman Republic was also loosely unified.

2. 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.

The attack from Suguntum to Itlay was overland.  However, for carthage, the war was -overseas-.  Hence Hannibals consistent requests for reinforcements from home (Overseas).  Since Hannibal himself stated the conflict was Overseas, I don’t see why you want to contradict him?  I sure wouldn’t.

I just want to contradict you

In a straight line, spain is arguably “across the sea” from Rome. Wink  There are certainly a few mountain ranges in the way…

AND FAILING TAG TEAM MEMBER ENTERS…AS PREDICTED.

The war began from Spain, mobilized from Spain, into the alps and into Rome. Not across the sea.  Must be ignorance day today.

Hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saguntum

So in 219 Hannibal lead Carthage to victory in Spain… From “across the sea”, against Rome’s allies.

Quote
The Saguntines turned to Rome for aid, but none was sent. In 218 BC after enduring eight months of siege the Saguntines’ last defences were finally overrun. This marked the beginning of the Second Punic War. Hannibal now had a base from which he could supply his forces with food and extra troops.

That was in SPAIN, not across the sea. Get it right. Jesus…

After assaulting Saguntum, Hannibal surprised the Romans in 218 BC by leading the Iberians and three dozen elephants through the Alps. Although Hannibal surprised the Romans and thoroughly beat them on the battlefields of Italy, he lost his only siege engines and most of his elephants to the cold temperatures and icy mountain paths. In the end it allowed him to defeat the Romans in the field, but not in the strategically crucial city of Rome itself, thus making him unable to win the war.

And WHAT’S THIS?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars

Quote
Rome took countermeasures against Hannibal’s home base in Africa by sea command and stopped the flow of supplies.

The Romans -starved- Hannibal’s army for 15 years by sea primarily, resulting in his defeat.  The whole campaign is outlined… wow…

The period you refer too is 264BC to 141BC, and the starving was in the third punic war, which we are NOT TALKING ABOUT. So you really need to enter a thread where you have no clue about what is being discussed and so eager to prop up another Canadian who knows probably a bit more than you and your 5 minute internet education about the Punic wars.

EVEN MORE EVIDENCE

Quote
More importantly, Hannibal never successfully received any significant reinforcements from Carthage. Despite his many pleas, Carthage only ever sent reinforcements successfully to Hispania. This lack of reinforcements prevented Hannibal from decisively ending the conflict by conquering Rome through force of arms

So Mal was right… the fact that hannibal couldn’t get the reinforcements he needed, FOR A CONFLICT OVERSEAS, led to his defeat.

Wrong again. The 100 men came from the Iberian region, the Elephants (37) were taken by boat, but the campaign was launched from Spain, not from across the sea to Italy.

That is where you get the elephants coming into the alps, they didn’t take a boat ride and landed like Anzio. Please don’t use some facts our of context you looked up in 1 minute for internet discussions, actually go read some books and gain a complete understanding about this period before commenting. It just makes you look silly.

Guess it wasn’t an entirely overland conflict as the cackling pontiff’s around here originally suggested.

But it was, and since you know nothing- read a book.

I guess you cant see the lines from SPAIN, which is part of the Carthage Empire?

Thats were the attack force came from and entered the Alps with the 37 elephants and 100,000 men in case you wondered.

GARGANTUA

1. I like how you left out the PERHAPS when I stated the Roman Republic was also loosely unified. Very convenient of you to do so. But anyway there is this

Hannibal’s perilous march brought him into the Roman territory and frustrated the attempts of the enemy to fight out the main issue on foreign ground. His sudden appearance among the Gauls of the Po Valley, moreover, enabled him to detach those tribes from their new allegiance to the Romans before the latter could take steps to check the rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

2. Hannibal MARCHED into Italy with a CARTHAGINIAN army. Does that not show support?

He did not receive reinforcements from Carthage. Maybe the Carthaginian Senate didn’t think he could win?

As for the last 4 pages of debate - for the record this is what’s being debated:
Quote
Quite the feat shipping Elephants to Europe (TRUE). Quite the feat surviving 10 years a sea ocean away from home in hostile territory (MOSTLY TRUE). Transportation was a bit more challenging in Hannibal’s time compared to Napoleon (FACT)

What’s the problem here?

The problem is you don’t understand what the argument is, and make up whatever you think you can make sense from.

The war was conducted from the European part of Carthage in Iberia, into Rome. Not a war fought between the “ocean” ( using Crunch’s language). The war was from land to land.