Military History's Best Loser

The war was from Spain with an army raised in Spain.

ARE THERE ELEPHANTS IN SPAIN?!?!?!?!??!

ARE THERE ELEPHANTS IN SPAIN?!?!?!?!??!

They were transported into Spain by boat, raised and traveled by land into the Alps.  Some of them were from India.

But when the war started and was mostly fought, it was by LAND.

LAND

Let’s see here IL… according to all of your arguements

1. The Battle of Zama did not occur because there were no overseas battles

2. Hannibal had no elephants, because he raised his army in spain

3. Hannibal won the second punic war because his army wasn’t starved as starving/seige only occured in the third punic war.

Wow…

Further evidence supporting my supposed false claim #1

Furthermore, the morale effect of this victory was such that most of Southern Italy joined Hannibal’s cause. After the Battle of Cannae, the Hellenistic southern provinces of Arpi, Salapia, Herdonia, Uzentum, including the cities of Capua and Tarentum (two of the largest city-states in Italy) all revoked their allegiance to Rome and pledged their loyalty to Hannibal.

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

@Last:

Further evidence supporting my supposed false claim #1

Furthermore, the morale effect of this victory was such that most of Southern Italy joined Hannibal’s cause. After the Battle of Cannae, the Hellenistic southern provinces of Arpi, Salapia, Herdonia, Uzentum, including the cities of Capua and Tarentum (two of the largest city-states in Italy) all revoked their allegiance to Rome and pledged their loyalty to Hannibal.

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

Acceptable supporting facts.  That’s what we need to see.  I retract my claim having seen you prove your own!

http://www.electrummagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Hannibal-journey-map.png

Only Gargantua can take a map which clearly shows where by dates the war began and was mostly fought ( by land) by commanders who fought on land, and call the Punic Wars a war fought across the sea. The map you posted shows very clearly that all the major battles occurred from the direction of Spain, so if you were to say “was this a war between the sea, or a war between two points across land” you would infer this was clearly a war from land to land.

You fail again.

IL believes elephants come from spain. I don’t know how that can be fixed unless he admits he was mistaken.

Regretably… he lacks the -adult level maturity- to do that.

How do Elephants get from Africa to Europe?  Anyone care to explain this mystery?

Oh wait… let me guess… they ride on a boat right?  Or did Hannibal have RAIL movement!!!

IL Per your statements. Do you actually believe the Battle of Zama never happend?

Quote
In the third Punic war the capital of Carthage was put into protracted siege. This is the only time where the fight was across the sea because the invasion force traveled entirely by the Mediterranean.

Because you say that the only battle -across the sea- occurred during the third punic war?

History tells a much different story than your “American” version of events.

It happened at the end of the 2nd Punic War. The war itself began and was conducted from Iberia, not across the sea.

To make an analogy the Germans take France and latter take Corsica. By your account the campaign was a war across the sea? How stupid do you look?

IL believes elephants come from spain. I don’t know how that can be fixed unless he admits he was mistaken.

Never said they were born in Spain, they were shipped to Spain and raised for the coming campaign. The war didn’t come from the sea, it came from Iberia.

You still lose…

Regretably… he lacks the -adult level maturity- to do that.

Actually this is what a baby Gargantua posts:

1. Admit the truth, you’re wrong.

2. Conceed! �

3. You’re surrounded!

4. You just lost your battle of ZAMA! OVER THE NET

Pwnd. � Your ineptitude triggered your spam.

Yes very revealing and adult.

Well initially Mr. Crunch claimed that bringing the elephants to Europe was quite a feat.  I tend to disagree because of the route taken and the fact the route was not contested. Hannibal only had to transport the elephants, oversea, the short distance from North Africa to southern Spain. And again this route was not contested by the Romans. Getting the elephants over the Alps WAS quite a feat.

The way the debate initially began was my claim which was something like this - Napoleon’s subjugation of continental Europe is more impressive than Hannibal’s failed invasion of Italy.

After reading that Mr. Crunch came in with his “quite a feat” and it has deteriorated to this.

It was enhanced with people who understand the truth and dispel the falsehood of people, with heads made of wood so dense that even termites wouldn’t bother.

The war was clearly a war from land to land from tracing all the battles and where the campaign originated from. Because one battle in the last year was over the sea, does not make a war fought “across the ocean”

And that info is from the wood heads postings where they post the opposite of what they think the map clearly shows.

Perhaps we need to go back to the basics and define WAR and BATTLE and CAMPAIGN.

WAR
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

The two nations were Carthage and Rome.

Those nations primarily were based in different continents with a sea between them.  One nation launches a war on the other and the nations have a sea between them.  I do not count Spain as an integral part of Carthage, it was a colony and on net took more resources from Cartage then it provided Hannibal.

Battle
1.a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces: the battle of Waterloo.
2.participation in such hostile encounters or engagements: wounds received in battle.
3.a fight between two persons or animals: ordering a trial by battle to settle the dispute.

Campaign
1.Military .
a. military operations for a specific objective.
b. Obsolete . the military operations of an army in the field for one season.
2. a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose: a sales campaign.
3. the competition by rival political candidates and organizations for public office.

The overseas war that Carthage launched on Rome started with a campaign launched from a base/colony in Spain where many recruits were gained and many battles occurred.

See, IL, the problem is you don’t know meaning of basic words.  But again, you were sure Hannibal was born in Turkey so its no wonder big words confuse you.  Please consult a dictionary before engaging in a battle wits with me as you are poorly armed.

Last Jack, I agree, getting the elephants over the alps was more of a feat then getting them across the sea.  However, Carthage didn’t have control of the sea or have much of a navy in the second punic war.  But I do agree with you, alps crossing more impressive.

Perhaps we need to go back to the basics and define WAR and BATTLE and CAMPAIGN.

WAR
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

The two nations were Carthage and Rome.

Those nations primarily were based in different continents with a sea between them.  One nation launches a war on the other and the nations have a sea between them.  I do not count Spain as an integral part of Carthage, it was a colony and on net took more resources from Cartage then it provided Hannibal.

Wrong . The campaign, war or battle was directed from a group from Iberia 100,000 men and 37 elephants. The elephants came from India and Africa and shipped and raised in Iberia, the men came from this region. The war was directed from the Empire of Carthage located in Spain into France, the Alps and into Rome. The first and second Punic war were 99% directed from this region BY LAND and not sea.

Battle
1.a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces: the battle of Waterloo.
2.participation in such hostile encounters or engagements: wounds received in battle.
3.a fight between two persons or animals: ordering a trial by battle to settle the dispute.

Campaign
1.Military .
a. military operations for a specific objective.
b. Obsolete . the military operations of an army in the field for one season.
2. a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose: a sales campaign.
3. the competition by rival political candidates and organizations for public office.

Adds nothing to the conversation BTW

The overseas war that Carthage launched on Rome started with a campaign launched from a base/colony in Spain where many recruits were gained and many battles occurred.

Wrong #2, the campaign was launched in it’s entirety from the Carthage Empire located in Iberia, not bases, not stepping stones, none of that…just Carthage by land to land.

See, IL, the problem is you don’t know meaning of basic words.  But again, you were sure Hannibal was born in Turkey so its no wonder big words confuse you.  Please consult a dictionary before engaging in a battle wits with me as you are poorly armed.

You dont know the meaning of truth,  What you post about the “War across the Oceans” is the biggest pile of false ever witnessed.

You can continue to argue more or cry for your tag team partner to help you but both of you are sunk…in the ocean.

Next time Germany takes France and then attacks and invades Corsica, you can call this a war across the ocean :mrgreen:

Now here is your statement:

Carthage was indeed across the ocean and that is from where the attack originated from sans his European allies.

What is misleading is the attack originated from Iberia where part of Carthage existed, the entire attack came from Iberia into the Alps and into Roma.All of this was by way of land, not the damn “ocean”. No attack came from or across the sea, until the last year of the second Punic war, the final act was the Romans defeating Carthage by sea. The main point is that the vast majority of the war occurred BY LAND TO LAND. Not across the sea.

It is only true that part of Carthage exists across the “ocean” ( your vernacular) . The war didn’t occur and the force came from land.

Now lastly, i am going to leave this “discussion” because nobody reads the posts, understands the facts, or otherwise goes for a total absence of reasoning. It is a shame and i feel guilty arguing with people who have brain injury and other life issues. I didn’t know that before, but now it is clear. Mr. Crunch you can believe what you like and im sorry to have troubled you. If Gargantua shows back up i could continue this with him, but for you take the rest of the day to relax.

I knew there was something wrong, but until recently had no idea about your condition. I used to have a friend who had a brain injury and it took time to understand or accept his way of reasoning of which we can never blame. Good day.

…And we still dont know who History´s best Commander was who lost, what so ever...but we now know who a few prefer over the others of Militarys History best Commander who lost.

Right IL, I did use the word attack from Carthage when talking about the war launched by Carthage.  Really, you are that anal about specific usages of the word attack and war etc but even with your masters degree from stanford you were claiming Hannibal was born in Turkey.   It seems obvious to me and everyone else you are using this thread as a platform to attack myself and Garg.

IL, you really need to make a new thread devoted to whatever it is you are really fighting about.

I have to agree with aequitas et veritas.  This thread is about Military History’s Best Loser.  Please do not use this as a forum to continue your personal hostilities between myself and you and Garg and you.  You chimed in to personally attack my position and I still don’t know what you are disagreeing about in what I said.

Until you can politely explain to me exactly it is that I said that you feel is incorrect I am going to ignore you in this thread and allow it to return to what it was really intended for.  Military History’s Best Loser Disagree, but don’t be disagreeable about it.  Everyone else who disagrees with me can do so politely and we can debate and agree to disagree, what is it about you that prevents that from occurring here?

You mentioned General Alexei Brusilov in your list ABWorsham,
and I wondered what you thought his lost was.
After all he seemed more like a Hero, not so much of a tactician or strategist.
His attack brought a relief on parts of the Western front during WW I…

Good point.  I knew nothing about General Alexei Brusilov 2 hours ago.  I don’t see where he lost anything.  I somewhat disagree with aequitas et veritas.  I think he was more of a patriot than a hero tho he was certainly brave and heroic but many soldiers are.  He does appear to have been at the cusp of modern warfare, a pioneer in blitzkrieg tactics, early forms of it with limited technologies anyways.