Been a fan of ALexei Brusilov for many years when I delved in WWI history. I’ve wrote before about his battles. While he won his battles, Czarist Russia lost.
WWI gets overlooked as being just trenches and more trenches, I find the The Great War as good as a study as WWII.
My grandfather fought with the British Expeditionary force in Russian fighting for the Tsarist side. I wish I knew more about him. I do know he was fighting past when the war with Germany was over and his side didn’t win, the Tsarists lost. As a young boy I remember him talking about crossing the ocean, ship losing a propeller in the storm, catching fire and sinking the day after it got into port and then it got bad he said and didn’t talk more about it. Of course he was 72 the day I was born so was pretty old by the time I could remember him and his few stories. He was born in 1895 and his first kid was in 1935 so no doubt the war affected him to start a family so late.
You know you are getting old when you can remember talking to somebody born in the 1800s……
Thank you for the story Malachi.
I live in the past, imagining I am a US Civil War General, so the 1800s hold no fear for me!
Remembering our grandparents’ war stories sets us apart and defines from where we came.
I will never forget what I was told and will impart it to my children and(I hope) grandchildren.
Awesome story Malachi.
My grandfather fought with the British Expeditionary force in Russian fighting for the Tsarist side. I wish I knew more about him. I do know he was fighting past when the war with Germany was over and his side didn’t win, the Tsarists lost. As a young boy I remember him talking about crossing the ocean, ship losing a propeller in the storm, catching fire and sinking the day after it got into port and then it got bad he said and didn’t talk more about it. Of course he was 72 the day I was born so was pretty old by the time I could remember him and his few stories. He was born in 1895 and his first kid was in 1935 so no doubt the war affected him to start a family so late.
You know you are getting old when you can remember talking to somebody born in the 1800s……
Hey,I resemble that remark!
@wittmann:
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.
He was on the Italian Peninsular for 15 years actually, if only Carthaginian generals elsewhere had won battles too, Hannibal’s campaign would have gone a lot more smoothly. But then, Hannibal could not be everywhere at once, could he.
Zama wasn’t his last battle, in exile, he won a number of victories, both at sea and on land for Prusias I of Bithynia against King Eumenes II of Pergamon’s forces - which included at least one naval battle and two land victories according to Cornelius Nepos.
@Imperious:
You still don’t get it. The war ( at least the 1st and 2nd Punic wars) was not a war across the sea, rather it was a conflict separated by the alps and some distance ON LAND between.
The only thing true is the capital of each was across the sea, but the empires were basically close by LAND.
Well, actually, the first Punic War was one fought over Sicily. The main battles of the first were fought at sea - essentially, whilst Carthaginian influence in Spain was limited (certainly little military expansion prior to Hamilcar’s arrival) the first was a conflict of two nations separated by the sea over an island. The Second was still one in which the sea separated part of their empire from Rome - Sicily was desperately fought over, and so was southern Italy with Hannibal attempting to control the sea route by capturing ports.
The land route was possible but very long, and I see it as rather more of a last resort rather than a preferred method of resupplying Hannibal. In fact, Hannibal was mainly fighting Rome with its own resources, and probably hoped to tie the Romans down there long enough for his countrymen to win back Sicily and Sardinia.
Anyhow, I don’t have great knowledge of many military commanders outside ancient history, so, with my limited knowledge, I’ll pick Hannibal.
Thank you for your posts Markdienekes and for reading this thread.
As I love the Punic Wars, I considered Zama his last battle.
Am happy to be corrected.
Hope you will contribute more.
Hey, thanks, not sure how much I can contribute really, not much unless it is on the Roman Republic, Carthage, and Ancient Sicily. . .
The Punic Wars are a great subject to study (my personal favorite!) :D
The Punic Wars are a great subject to study (my personal favorite!)
I once read a book on the Punic Wars in which the author said that, when college students first learn about the subject, a question they often ask is, “Who were the Punes?”
I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve slain my fair share of Punes for humanity.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve slain my fair share of Punes for humanity.
Not really sure what this means, but if you say it bettered humanity I support it. :-)
I’m torn between Napoleon, Lee and Rommel. I voted Napoleon but it’s so close for me that my answer may change from day to day.
Thanks for bringing a life supported poll some life!
Well, actually, the first Punic War was one fought over Sicily. The main battles of the first were fought at sea - essentially, whilst Carthaginian influence in Spain was limited (certainly little military expansion prior to Hamilcar’s arrival) the first was a conflict of two nations separated by the sea over an island. The Second was still one in which the sea separated part of their empire from Rome - Sicily was desperately fought over, and so was southern Italy with Hannibal attempting to control the sea route by capturing ports.
The period of time where Hannibal was employed in fighting Rome was entirely from Carthaginian holdings in Spain. The army was trained from Spain and the planning and execution of the campaign for the 2nd Punic War came from Spain. It was not fought across any ocean. The entirety of the fighting with Hannibal came from the overland route into Italy by land and only by land. It was not the case that Hannibal fought raging sea battles or even sailed on various ships like some admiral. The exception to this was the battle of Lilybaeum which was the only sea battle. But all the major battles were fought from or by land routes again directed from Spain. It is entirely disingenuous to characterize the campaign with Hannibal as some “war across the ocean”
The Carthaginian senate made decisions from Carthage, they sent armies to Spain, to Sardinia, Sicily and to Italy from Carthage. Of course, they raised armies in Spain too (two of which made it to Italy from the land route), some of which were shipped to Africa in preparation for naval invasions. The decision in 216 BC to have Hasdrubal march to reinforce his brother was decided in Carthage, not Spain (in fact, he was fairly surprised by the decision, and urged the senate to reinforce Spain if he were to leave, which they did, twice, once before he left, and once after his heavy defeat at the Battle of Dertossa in 216/early 215 BC against the Scipio brothers!)
I never meant the second was a war upon the seas, (there were precious few naval battles during the war as you rightly pointed out -though Lilybaeum was not the only one - there was a couple in Spain, one of which is recorded in the only fragment we have of Hannibal’s biographer Sosylus) and of course, there was plenty of coastal raiding from both Roman and Carthaginian fleets, but essentially, much deployment came from Carthage during the war, across the sea after Hannibal’s initial invasion from Spain.
It is entirely disingenuous to ignore the importance of the med during the war, and the fact that most strategic decisions for the war were made in Carthage (generals largely had control over their own theaters, such as Hasdrubal in Spain, and Hannibal in Italy, but overall, the important strategic decisions were made by the senate at Carthage, which they adhered to). As I said, there was a land route, obviously connected from Iberia to Italy, but the sea still played a major part in the contribution of the war (dictating much of Hannibal’s strategic policies in capturing ports in southern Italy), and that there was separation from part of its Empire, coincidentally, its head (the senate) separated by the Med. � �
Hannibal’s campaigns were conducted across the land route, where he actually received more supplies and manpower on the Italian peninsular than Spain for the majority of the war, but looking at the Carthaginian war effort as a whole, I can understand the ‘separated by the sea’.
I never meant the second was a war upon the seas, (there were precious few naval battles during the war as you rightly pointed out -though Lilybaeum was not the only one - there was a couple in Spain, one of which is recorded in the only fragment we have of Hannibal’s biographer Sosylus) and of course, there was plenty of coastal raiding from both Roman and Carthaginian fleets, but essentially, much deployment came from Carthage during the war, across the sea after Hannibal’s initial invasion from Spain.
But the only time Hannibal comes up is the 2nd Punic War, but that conflict was by far conducted on land from land, and not any war “across the oceans”. It was not the case that Hannibal had logistical support by sea. Before he began the war, he prepared from Spain and got no supplies delivered by sea. The reason why i bring this up is because in a discussion of Hannibal, one poor student tried to argue that the war where he fought was largely this “war across the ocean” when it could not be more different. Only part of Carthage was across the sea, part of it was not and Hannibal fought from what he developed in the Iberian peninsula.
@Imperious:
But the only time Hannibal comes up is the 2nd Punic War, but that conflict was by far conducted on land from land, and not any war “across the oceans”. It was not the case that Hannibal had logistical support by sea. Before he began the war, he prepared from Spain and got no supplies delivered by sea. The reason why i bring this up is because in a discussion of Hannibal, one poor student tried to argue that the war where he fought was largely this “war across the ocean” when it could not be more different. Only part of Carthage was across the sea, part of it was not and Hannibal fought from what he developed in the Iberian peninsula.
Hannibal’s campaigns was largely one from land, but he was not the only general nor was his the only theater of war. I’m looking at the whole of Carthage’s war effort, and much of that was directed from Carthage and Africa, as I mentioned earlier, many armies were prepared there and sent to various theaters of war) though he did receive logistical support from Carthage at least once when admiral Bomilcar brought him cavalry, elephants and supplies in 215 BC at Locri, and of course, before the war, where he brought over Africans to Spain. His main logistical support came from the Italian peninsular. I also believe he’d have continued to receive funds and supplies from Carthage too, as ancient sea power could not prevent this completely (and we hear of many occasions of Hannibal sending word back to Carthage, or to Sicily, which obviously would have gone by ship).
markdienekes, good luck in your debate with IL on this topic. IL is well versed in this and every topic, he had a degree in history from Stanford where they teach that Hannibal was born in Turkey.
IL says:
Quote
It was ( the 1st and 2nd Punic wars) where Hannibal the General born in Turkey ( not Spain or Carthage) commanded an army dispatched from part of the empire in what was to become Spain in an attack against Rome.
IL, you claim Hannibal the General was born in Turkey? Can you cite your sources please?
My Masters in History from Stanford says it. It is common knowledge and i don’t do your homework.
My assertion always was that Carthage was primarily an African power, that Italy was primarily a European power. That wars and battles are two different things. That the war was between two powers separated by a ocean sea and that yes most of the battles occurred between armies that were both on land and in Europe for at least a few days or more before the battle commenced, ie no amphibious assaults. I still don’t see any of these premises as being false but shrugs.
3……2…1…and…right on cue
markdienekes, good luck in your debate with IL on this topic. IL is well versed in this and every topic, he had a degree in history from Stanford where they teach that Hannibal was born in Turkey.
Thanks, I am well versed on this topic myself (but not much else, hehe).
I’ve actually listened to some of the Stanford lectures on Hannibal, and some of it is quite good, but Patrick Hunt makes quite a few mistakes in regards to the military aspect of the Second Punic War, particularly on the nature of Carthaginian armies and the roles of it - for example, he keeps referring to Numidian cavalry as ‘heavy’ cavalry. If you can track them down, they are still worth listening too as it is packed with good information.
I haven’t heard that he was born in Turkey, however, I have heard that he may have been buried there, but then that was also where he died (in Libyssa). I imagine Hannibal was born in Carthage. But that is going a bit off-topic! :D
