Military History's Best Loser

@Imperious:

Yes good post. Thank God he didn’t say Hannibal’s campaign in Italy was some silly war “across the ocean”, since it wasn’t.

Glad that was cleared up.

Thankfully what has been cleared up is your assertion that virtually the entire war was one fought from land to land, (apart from, as you said, Rome’s final attack came from the sea) otherwise people might get the wrong idea fella!

@Imperious:

The first and second punic wars were fought from Spain into Italy.

This needs a bit of correcting too! The first half of this, where you say the First was also fought from Spain into Italy. The fighting took place in Sicily, with a large number of major naval battles taking place in the Med. The only fighting that took place in Italy were coastal raids launched from Africa, Sardinia and from Sicily. Rome did invade North Africa during this war, though only once and only briefly, the army was defeated by Xanthippus at the Battle of Tunis in 255 BC) Carthage maintained trading relations with the Phoenicians of Spain at this point, and certainly hired Spanish mercenaries, but it was no war launched from Spain!

Douche is right in that I did use the word ocean incorrectly rather than the term sea.  Amazingly enough I have corrected this a few times but nothing like an old error to bring out and trump as…… well I am not sure what actually.  Luckily I get to blame my brain injury for such slip ups.  I wonder what kind of brain injury IL had when he was insisting that Hannibal was born in Turkey and was taught this by Stanford so no need to cite sources?  Silly me, I was thinking Carthage was primarily an African power fighting a primarily european power and that an ocean sea separated the two.

In any event, I stand by vote.  Hannibal baby!

markdienekes, thanks for schooling me on a subject I thought I knew fairly well, only by comparison to those who don’t it seems!

Amazingly enough I have corrected this a few times but nothing like an old error to bring out and trump as……

Yes like Hannibal dying in Turkey vs. being born in Turkey?  Hi kettle i’m pot….

Silly me, I was thinking Carthage was primarily an African power fighting a primarily european power and that an ocean sea separated the two.

Rather you thought ( incorrectly) that Hannibal’s campaigns against Rome were fought “across the oceans” and that the whole fighting was like some massive sea battles. Hannibal didnt fight from the sea, he fought from Carthage on LAND.

Get it right.

and that the whole fighting was like some massive sea battles.

I never once said this.  Quote where I did say this or recant your erroneous claim as to what my claims were.   My claim was that “Carthage was primarily an African power fighting a European power.  That the seat and source of Carthage’s wealth and power was derived from Africa not Europe and that most of the battles were fought on the other side of a large body of water from this source of power and wealth.”  This entire time I am still trying to understand which of my premises you find in error or what part of my conclusion do you respectfully disagree with.

My vote for Hannibal was based on the fact that he was fighting far from home and that is home really was not Spain but Carthage proper across the ocean…ooops, I did it again.  Across the sea.

If nothing else Hannibal has dominated the conversation thread.

IL, if you are saying that your claim that Hannibal was born in Turkey rather than Carthage is the same as me using ocean rather than sea…I would disagree.  I asked you several times to cite your source as to the birth place and you doubled down in a most rude fashion claiming it was common knowledge and trying to brow beat me with your masters degree from Stanford.  If you are finally saying you were wrong and you stuck to your guns to a wrong assertion for days then I accept your weak mea culpa.  But it was not at all the same as quickly typing ocean rather than sea.  At least we can agree that Hannibal was a most interesting person.

I never once said this.  Quote where I did say this or recant your erroneous claim as to what my claims were.   My claim was that “Carthage was primarily an African power fighting a European power.  That the seat and source of Carthage’s wealth and power was derived from Africa not Europe and that most of the battles were fought on the other side of a large body of water from this source of power and wealth.”  This entire time I am still trying to understand which of my premises you find in error or what part of my conclusion do you respectfully disagree with.

I didn’t say you said that. You characterized the fact that Hannibal ( remember him?) fought Rome by land from land and not across the “oceans” He was engaged only by land from adjacent land areas to Rome. It was not a campaign fought across the Mediterranean.

My vote for Hannibal was based on the fact that he was fighting far from home and that is home really was not Spain but Carthage proper across the ocean…ooops, I did it again.  Across the sea.

Far from Iberia? OK

IL, if you are saying that your claim that Hannibal was born in Turkey rather than Carthage is the same as me using ocean rather than sea…I would disagree.  I asked you several times to cite your source as to the birth place and you doubled down in a most rude fashion claiming it was common knowledge and trying to brow beat me with your masters degree from Stanford.  If you are finally saying you were wrong and you stuck to your guns to a wrong assertion for days then I accept your weak mea culpa.  But it was not at all the same as quickly typing ocean rather than sea.  At least we can agree that Hannibal was a most interesting person.

I agree with Garg. Crunch, this is an example of trolling behavior I find distasteful.

I corrected myself long ago on that and you know it. I remember that from lectures based on pre 1990 timeframe and have not revisited that topic until now. At least i remember Turkey connected to him in some way, just that it was his death and not birth place.

Crunch, turning this into a forum to lash out at IL is shameful quite frankly.

Garg is correct.

I agree with Garg 100%

Let me say that Garg is correct ok?

I corrected myself long ago on that and you know it.

Actually, I don’t know that.  I’m not sure that you have ever admitted you were wrong.  If you did admit you were wrong it would be something of a record, glad I was the one to finally make you admit you were wrong.

Across the ocean? For somebody to not know the difference between a sea and the ocean says quite alot about you. But i guess we can blame that on that brain injury you have?

Right, you wouldn’t want to troll now would you IL.  Nothing like making fun of peoples appearances like you calling me a fat wife beater and making fun of brain injuries.  But if I have hurt your feelings I am sorry IL.  Do you feel better now?  BTW I did read your email awhile ago where you said sorry for going over the top with personal insults.  I did not get back to you because I felt it was disingenuous.  Gee, I wonder why I would get that impression?

So IL, if you expect me to stop trolling as you ironically claim, then perhaps you can dispense with the attacks on personal appearances and my brain injury.  I must admit tho, you are been a great example of troubled people that are a challenge to communicate with.  The experts I work with examine your exchanges to help me deal with the dicks of the world, I thank you for the mental exercise you provide me and my cognitive rehabilitation team.

Actually, I don’t know that.  I’m not sure that you have ever admitted you were wrong.  If you did admit you were wrong it would be something of a record, glad I was the one to finally make you admit you were wrong.

Selective memory must be something you like to do? In that case search the posts to get your answer.

Right, you wouldn’t want to troll now would you IL.  Nothing like making fun of peoples appearances like you calling me a fat wife beater and making fun of brain injuries.  But if I have hurt your feelings I am sorry IL.  Do you feel better now?  BTW I did read your email awhile ago where you said sorry for going over the top with personal insults.  I did not get back to you because I felt it was disingenuous.  Gee, I wonder why I would get that impression?

I agree with Garg. Crunch, this is an example of trolling behavior I find distasteful. You restarted and hijacked yet another thread. You could have left it alone, but like some kid who loves to open a scab or eat his own boogers…you just troll again and again.

then perhaps you can dispense with the attacks on personal appearances and my brain injury.

Perhaps if you don’t bring them up, they may go away? You think?

Crunch, turning this into a forum to lash out at IL is shameful quite frankly.

Garg is correct.

I agree with Garg 100%

Let me say that Garg is correct ok?

Hannibal takes the lead.

I still stand by my statement-

Napoleon conquering Europe is more impressive than Hannibal’s failed invasion of Italy.

What makes it Hannibal for me is that he challenged the greatest power of the age and came that close to overturning the status quo and he was not even the political leader of his country, so was always dependent on Carthage’s miserly reinforcements and others’ jealousies.
Napoleon’s feats were great, but as Emperor he commanded every Frenchman and had all the resources at his fingertips.
The Carthage/Rome clash was the biggest and most influential of the time and the reward was hundreds of years of growth and prosperity. The lesson of how close it came  to losing all(after Cannae) was never lost on Rome.

Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.

Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.

Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
That was a weird system admittedly.
Wonder how much it contributed to the defeat.
The two Roman Consuls were so dissimilar and on the 2nd August Varro got the command and his impetuosity and Roman arrogance probably cost them that day.
I always think how unfair it is that he survived, was not censured for the outcome and died an old man, yet Paullus was killed and was against fighting Hannibal.

@wittmann:

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.
That was a weird system admittedly.
Wonder how much it contributed to the defeat.
The two Roman Consuls were so dissimilar and on the 2nd August Varro got the command and his impetuosity and Roman arrogance probably cost them that day.
I always think how unfair it is that he survived, was not censured for the outcome and died an old man, yet Paullus was killed and was against fighting Hannibal.

It wasn’t a great way of running armies, certainly not against Hannibal, but it had worked in the long run and won them the Italian peninsular, Sicily and Sardinia. Those in command had often many years of experience in the Roman army. Paullus had won against the Illyrians in 219 BC and may have again been in command on the day at Cannae (there is controversy, based on the fact that Paullus was in command of the Roman right wing, the position of command usual for the Roman army, and that the days had been moved around - Paullus was Scipio’s father-in-law so Polybius may have had further reasons to cover it as he was a client of the Scipio family - though I still tend to believe it was in fact Varro who was in command).

Paullus was more cautious, but he wasn’t against fighting Hannibal, the purpose of the large army at Cannae was to bring about a decisive engagement. An army that size would have been going through a lot of supplies and could not be supported in one area for long. Varro gets a lot of bad press, but that doesn’t mean he was a bad commander - large armies are not easy to command, and it was the largest Rome had fielded to that point. Varro in fact shows signs of good leadership and strategic thought with rallying a force of roughly ten thousand survivors of the battle (which must have been difficult considering the drubbing they just received) and strategically helped Rome by installing garrisons in a number of towns which would prevent their defection and could harass Hannibal’s route further south. Varro’s plan at Cannae was sound considering the success they had achieved previously, and it could have gone horribly wrong for Hannibal (the Roman’s had cut through Hannibal’s centre in both Trebia and Trasimene, and would do so against Hannibal’s brother at Dertossa.)

Thanks again Markdienekes: great read.
I had read some have doubted whether Varro had command that day, because of his position on the left, not right. Your suggestion of a Roman change of tactics makes sense, therefore.
Of course all battles won against the odds involve some risk taking(almost losing the centre) and this was part of the plan: make the enemy think they were winning. Then the losing weighs all  the more heavy.
I forgot Varro showed great courage at the battle’s end.

I am off for a few days, but will have my phone.
Hope you can post some more.

@ABWorsham:

@Last:

Napoleon was not born Emperor of France. He earned the title and its benefits.

Not sure how much of an underdog Carthage truly was. True they were defeated in the First Punic War, but it was far from complete devastation. Carthage still had vast resources at its disposal. (After all North Africa became the most economically important part of the Roman Empire)

Crossing the Alps was amazing, but it is important to remember at Cannae Hannibal faced a Roman army that switched commanders on a daily basis - a most bizarre and inefficient command structure.

Hannibal only needed reinforcements when the army he marched into the Italian peninsula failed.

Rome had vast amount of manpower, where Carthage was limited in that area.

Not sure about this.

Not sure if it was manpower that saved Rome. It was resilience and everyone, really everyone, giving everything to the war effort. Not intended to sound heroic.
Then again, I know my history with Alexander, not so much with Hannibal.

Anyone read the books from JM Roberts, Hannibals Children and The Seven Hills? Not that those are the best books ever, but overall nice. Alternate history.

Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!

@wittmann:

Thank you. I might like that. I have read a trilogy about the end of the US Civil war, starting with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. It is by Newt Gingrich.
I am fancying looking at Cannae again, after these discussions.
Sorry to say Alexander has never interested me!

Two books worth purchasing that are devoted to the battle of Cannae:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cannae-Experience-Battle-Second-Punic/dp/0415327431/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1367837992&sr=8-11&keywords=cannae

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cannae-Hannibals-Greatest-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0753822598/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367837992&sr=8-1&keywords=cannae

I’d go for Daly’s if you only buy one.

Dont know either, thx for that. Goldsworthy in general I enjoy a lot.