Is Hannibal the GOAT general?

then how did Carthage lose to rome at the end?

>no, because he ultimately lost at the end.

What a retarded argument.

he did get BTFO by Scipio though

What I want to know is

why didn't Hannibal march into Rome after Cannae?

He didn't have the manpower or equipment to outlast Rome in a siege. He attempted to do the next best thing by taking all of Rome's allies and forcing them to the negotiating table.

He didn't quite comprehend that Rome would never back down.

Was the Roman perception of warfare different from Carthage's?

AYO

Because as shattered as the Romans were, they could still defend the walls of Rome from an impromptu assault with ladders and nothing more sophisticated.

And Hannibal couldn't afford to wait, he had no logistical support to speak of, and was feeding his army from what he could bargain for or steal from the locals. If he sits still, he exhausts the local food supply and his army falls apart.

WE WUZ CANNIBALZ N' SHIEEET

Yes. It was different from everybody at the time.

The prevailing thought for war was you fight a battle or two until one side couldn't maintain it's army anymore and then negotiating began. Everybody went home to farm again.

Rome however was all or nothing. Even with the barbarians at the gate, they wouldn't negotiate with Hannibal.

Indo-European warrior mentality vs merchant mentality

No, that would be Sulla

>no, because he ultimately lost at the end.
Like Napoleon

It's likely bait. Only an utter moron would believe the Afrocentrist nonsense about Carthage.

>no, because he ultimately lost at the end.

It's been said plenty enough already. The picture is bait. Just ignore it and address the post.

So Napoleon isnt GOAT?

Hannibal is a meme general? He's easily top 5 all time

Carthage was founded by Indo-Europeans

WE

Yes. His tactics are still being studied today.

Also, he wasn't black.

Doesn't matter if he lost of not. He made Rome his bitch for almost a decade using brilliant tactics and that's all that matters.

>Does Mr T pity the fool?

Scipio was a lucky meme because

1. Hannibal was given literally green soldiers

2. They couldn't communicate properly because of the different ethnic backgrounds

3. His elephants weren't trained well. Some say they were infants.

4. His council forced him to fight a certain way. While Scipio simply used HANNIBAL'S tactics against him

>Indo-European warrior mentality

No.

My favorite general of all time, besides Napolean, that is.

>literally green soldiers

What happened to this race of green people? Were they the original natives of north Africa?

>No.
Yes.

Based Siddig. Best casting choice.

>because he ultimately lost at the end.

What a stupid excuse. Rome ultimately fell, does that make it a meme empire?

I agree. Whenever I think of Hannibal, I always think of Siddig's version. He played it so fucking well.

However, History Channel just had to fuck it up as always....

Yes. They taught the blacks how to make pyramids.

But he never managed to secure Rome, and after all of that Rome beat Carthage and burned it to the ground.

>Yes.

But actually no. That's not a thing. And if it was a thing, it still wouldn't make any sense to somehow only apply to Romans.

Were they little with big heads?

Actually yes. And I never said it applies only to Romans. It would in the case of the conflict with Carthage, the latter being a society of a different origin.

Not his fault.He was sent to fight him in open battle while Scipio had the Numibian cavalry

He never secured Rome because he wasn't given support from his own homeland. Carthage ultimately shrugged off his advancement into Rome like if it was no big deal.

He originally wanted to simply cut Rome from her allies and get a peace treaty, but Rome was just fucking stubborn and decided to wait off the deal.

Shortly after, Hannibal knew Rome was just buying time, so he ultimately sent Carthage a request for more men. When he told them to send more troops and siege equipment, Carthage like the retarded fucks they were basically said fuck you since they think what Hannibal was doing was a fools errand(literally wat). It's stupid enough seeing as they didn't like his family name because of his dad.

So basically he was stuck there like a sitting duck for about 7 years. After that, he sent a request to his brother to send more troops, so he did...Only this time Rome was able to get more men and countered his bros reinforcement.

Than his retarded council called him back since Scipio was fucking them up.

Carthage deserved to be wiped out for their stupid decisions.

Go away Hannibal

Please stop with this meme. PIE peoples lived literally thousands of years before Rome was founded, and we know very little about them. Romans are no more PIE than we are ancient Egyptians - they are simply one of the countless cultures who spoke a related language.

Rome and Carthage did indeed have different attitudes towards war, but that's because Rome was unique in their tenacity, not because of some trait that would have to be somehow inherited by half the world. They didn't behave like Greeks or Celts or even other Italians, which is why their enemies (obviously including those who spoke other IE languages) constantly failed to predict their behavior.

a martial oriented outlook was common in all people influenced by PIE related peoples, some more some less, language was certainly not the only thing they brought with them

I know it's no use, it's totally a chaotic coincidence for you people, nothing less

>He never secured Rome because he wasn't given support from his own homeland. Carthage ultimately shrugged off his advancement into Rome like if it was no big deal.

Multiple expeditions totally in literally over a hundred thousand troops after the initial invasion. But I suppose that's not good enough. Hannibal a gud boi, he dindu nuffin.

Carthage sent a lot of support. The problem was that Hannibal went on an insane battle plan that put himself outside of easy access to support, in the path of the enormously dominant Roman fleet.

ancient.eu/article/290/

They only sent a SMALL amount of what Hannibal requested. Which is NOT enough to siege Rome. Which forced Hannibal to stay in his position and just win small battles until Carthage demanded that he come back. Had they went all in and sent the required men and equipment fast after Cannae, it would have definitely been a Carthaginian victory.

Well there's this guy too.

inb4 Alberto wewuzing.

>ancient.eu/article/290/

>Look at my philosopher professor from a literally who university's almost completely unsourced (A few references to a 1980s historian and no primary sources) article !

You'll note that he doesn't actually specify when these supposed requests for reinforcement happen. You'll note that he almost obliquely mentions how Hannibal's own march cost him over half of his troops from pure attrition, and gives no indication why another Carthaginian force would do any better; in fact it would almost certianly do worse, as Hannibal went a recruiting from the various Gallic tribes whose territories he passed through. Let's not forget that even communicating with Carthage was enormously difficult with the huge advantage the Romans had in the western and central Mediterranean. When he did finally pull out, it wasn't with ships sent from Carthage (those got intercepted and wiped out), but with boats he commandeered and built on site.

But most importantly, you'll note that he never actually supports his central thesis, that Carthage was in a position to send support and did not do so, he just asserts it. Of course, it's difficult to prove, what with the complete lack of any Carthaginain sources, and everything we know about the war coming from Romans; who certainly never offer any kind of theory such as that.

He moved out of reach of his own base of support. Carthage sent plenty of men for the war to places they could get to like the Balerics and into what's now Southern Spain. It's just that they couldn't get to Italy, and moving into Italy was dumb.

No.

>abandoning siege equipment

Lul.

He could've ended the war had he besieged Rome.

>They only sent a SMALL amount of what Hannibal requested.

[citation needed]

In fact, show me some of Hannibal's apparently frantic requests for more men and material.

>Which is NOT enough to siege Rome. Which forced Hannibal to stay in his position and just win small battles until Carthage demanded that he come back.

You're an absolute idiot, you know that? Hannibal's original march, which Hasdrubal attempted to duplicate in what would eventually turn into Metaurus, took months. Any reinforcements would arrive long after Hannibal had been forced out of position because his food source is "what we can steal". Even IF he had sent for reinforcements, and IF Carthage tried to send them, they'd have arrived too late to capitalize on Cannae.

>Had they went all in and sent the required men and equipment fast after Cannae, it would have definitely been a Carthaginian victory.

Ok, so, the day after Cannae, Hannibal sends a messenger to Carthage. Do you want to send him on a boat and take a pretty good chance he'll never get there, or send him around the long way up through Italy, across the Rhone, over southern France, down the Spanish coast, and then cross a narrow stretch of water, and then horse it to Tunisia? Should take only a month or two. Then you wait longer for Carthage to raise new manpower, and send it ALL the way up back through the route that Hannibal took the first time around, likely as not losing 2/3 of them before they get there. In the mean time of course, hunger will have forced you to abandon your siege lines anyway. This army's movements will of course be noted and tracked by the Romans, who will probably intercept it long before it can reach Hannibal.

This, to you, is a good plan?

>a martial oriented outlook
>some more some less

So on other words literally anything but total pacifism would "confirm" it. No.

>It's just that they couldn't get to Italy, and moving into Italy was dumb.

Well, you just proved my point. They only sent a few men(not what he requested) into other places, that WASN'T Italy.

Well, what happened after Cannae? He was just stuck their, after they refused to send any reinforcement for a siege. They had all the time to send the amount of necessary men to the Alps and finish Rome.

It was only after his brother brought the necessary troops(after like 7 years) it was already too late.

Hannibal didn't fail, Carthage did. Had they did exactly what he asked, and when he asked, it would have been guaranteed victory(You have to remember that after cannae, Rome was utterly devastated and lost not only moral, but a shit ton of men).

In any case, I'm glad Carthage got wiped out. They deserved it.

scipio was better tho

>Well, you just proved my point.

No, I didn't. Your point was that the Carthaginain authorities refused to send men, not that it was beyond their capabilities. Please prove your point, now.

>They only sent a few men(not what he requested) into other places, that WASN'T Italy.

You haven't proven that there was a request from Hannibal. Please do so.

>Well, what happened after Cannae?

The same thing that had happened for the year between Trasameine and Cannae. Do you know ANYTHING about the Second Punic War?

Again, how is Carthage, even assuming maximum commitment, going to get the reinforcements there in time? How is Carthage even going to know what's going on in the course of the campaign? This isn't modern warfare, communication is hardly instantaneous.

>It was only after his brother brought the necessary troops(after like 7 years) it was already too late.

Hasdrubal DIDN'T actaully get the troops there. What makes you think this releif effort would be any different?

>Hannibal didn't fail, Carthage did.

No, Hannibal failed by embarking on a crazy crusade which had no chance of success and a 'plan' based on Roman client states opening up revolt where he put himself far beyond his base of support.

>Had they did exactly what he asked,

You still haven't supported your initial claim. When did Hannibal ask for reinforcements immediately after Cannae.

> it would have been guaranteed victory(You have to remember that after cannae, Rome was utterly devastated and lost not only moral, but a shit ton of men).

They also replaced them very quickly. Allied states sent men. They even liberated slaves. They were quite able to frustrate Hannibal's attempt to take Nola later that year, despite them being "utterly devastated".

>Even IF he had sent for reinforcements, and IF Carthage tried to send them, they'd have arrived too late to capitalize on Cannae.

Firstly, Hannibal didn't originally come to siege Rome, only to take it's allies and force it into a surrender. It was only after a year or so that Hannibal knew that Rome was just buying time, so than he send a messenger to Carthage, which told Hannibal to suck it up.

Had they sent exactly what Hannibal requested, and on time, anything really, it would have been a way better plan than leave Hannibal waiting years stuck in Italy with little to no support.

>Then you wait longer for Carthage to raise new manpower, and send it ALL the way up back through the route that Hannibal took the first time around, likely as not losing 2/3 of them before they get there.

Hannibal lost a ton of when because he climb to the Alps at the worst time. The reinforcement would have suffered less casualties if they didn't go during the winter.

There is just no excuse as to why Carthage didn't send more men and equipment his way.

So do you think Hannibal underestimated the Roman's dedication to total war to the end?

>goat
>relative to his time
?

So if you had to list 3 reasons why Hannibal lost

what would the main 3 be

>stupid white soldiers not as smart as Kang Hannibal
>stupid white people mercenaries can't fight as good as Carthaginian Kangs
>do your own homework faggot

1. Roman numbers and military ethos -> By all accounts, the Roman peoples should have bowed by Cannae. THe battle of Lake Trasimene was a huge defeat in the first place, and Cannae was utterly devastating (destroying both consuls, 1/3rd of the Senate and 60-70K men. The fact they came back to fight again is insanity, but commendable. Most nations would have bowed by Trasimene.

2. Refusal of Italian/Latin allies to abandon Rome -> One of Hannibal's goals was to dislodge the Roman-Latin-Italian alliance and gain forces from these lands and bolster his own. A few did join over (Capua for instance), but for the large part they didn't. The amount of manpower Hannibal got was pretty poor, and he paid the price in having to oversee these places when they were attacked by Roman troops

3. The inability to get more troops

I'd say him not marching on Rome was possibly a moronic desicion, but there is ample evidence that he probably had alot of things going against him if he tried. Rome was still solid in defense, and Hannibal's strategy was to bleed the Romans out over time.

Not enough elephants.

Elephants were pretty much figured out by the Romans at Zama. More elephants wouldn't have done shit. It was all bout that Numidian Cavalry.

No, he needed more elephants.

>Elephants were pretty much figured out by the Romans at Zama.
Small number of Elephants were figured out. Not more elephants.

Checkmate Romans.

Did you not see what happened at Zama? Scipio formed gaps that allowed the beasts to charge through without harming the legions, and trained cavalry to not fear the elephants. Not to mention the tactics of Fabius wouldn't have let the Elephants survive too long, especially since the supply lines for Hannibal were very limited as it was.

The romans had faced elephants several times up to this point, and figured out how to beat them.

>Small number of Elephants were figured out. Not more elephants.
t. Antiochus III

That's just roman propaganda to make you think they could handle the elephants. If hannibal had enough elephants rome wouldn't stand a chance.

Nothing that couldn't be solved by more elephants.
If they had more elephants, there would be too many elephants for the gaps and the elephants would smash Roman barbarians.

Apply yourself.

This man is a thinker like me. You guys are lucky we weren't around back then or you guys would all be speaking carthaginian right now.

>It was only after a year or so that Hannibal knew that Rome was just buying time, so than he send a messenger to Carthage, which told Hannibal to suck it up.

[citation needed]

>Had they sent exactly what Hannibal requested, and on time, anything really, it would have been a way better plan than leave Hannibal waiting years stuck in Italy with little to no support.

You still haven't demonstrated that Hannibal requested anything, or that it was possible to send him support if they had.

>Hannibal lost a ton of when because he climb to the Alps at the worst time. The reinforcement would have suffered less casualties if they didn't go during the winter.

Since when is October "the winter"? And how, by hell, are you going to control when and where this army will get to link up with Hannibal, if it ever does?

>There is just no excuse as to why Carthage didn't send more men and equipment his way.

Other than the rather obvious one; namely that wasting a huge amount of men and money outfitting another doomed expedition to Italy is wasteful and stupid, as was Hannibal's plan to fight there. Or how about this one? They actually didn't receive any message and had little enough idea how the war was even going.

>as was Hannibal's plan to fight there.

So... he's supposed to conquer Rome without going to Italy? How does that work?

Napoleon was clearly the best Black general.

If he had enough elephants, he could conquer Rome by making a land bridge made of elephants across the Mediterranean and then he could send armies of elephants to take Rome without ever leaving Carthage.

>So... he's supposed to conquer Rome without going to Italy? How does that work?

Quite honestly, conquering Rome was a fool's errand. Carthage was much stronger vis a vis Rome the first time around, and they got their asses kicked. They weren't in a position to knock Rome out anymore.

Thus, the whole "bad strategist" thing.

It really wasn't that bad a strategy. Assuming the Rome's behaved rationally, they wouldve negotiated with him and the terms of the first pubic war could've been thrown out.

Had it been anybody else, it could've worked.

>GOAT
>get BTFO at Zaman

>It really wasn't that bad a strategy.

No, it actually is a pretty terrible strategy.

>Assuming the Rome's behaved rationally, they wouldve negotiated with him and the terms of the first pubic war could've been thrown out.

You mean, like in the first Punic war when they kept losing fleet after fleet after fleet (Admittedly mostly to storms) and kept throwing more into the fire? The one that he very certainly should have been aware of and used as something of a guideline for how Rome could both react and absorb losses?

>Had it been anybody else, it could've worked.

So, you're defending his stupidity by saying that Hannibal should have pretended his enemy was someone who was more likely to react in a way that he wanted to instead of a way that was likely? That's a great endorsement.

His strategy was fine. The politicians back in Carthage failed to support him as they'd promised initially.

He wasn't defeated because of a lack of strategy. If he would've received more troops, as had been promised, he could've occupied Italy and succeeded.

>His strategy was fine

No, it was stupid. It started on at least 2 premises that turned out not to be true and ones that Hannibal should have known better about. That Rome would fold under pressure or that her allies would revolt in case of a Roman defeat.

> The politicians back in Carthage failed to support him as they'd promised initially.

You, or someone else keeps saying this. I'm going to keep saying [citation needed] until someone backs it up.

>He wasn't defeated because of a lack of strategy.

Yes he was.

> If he would've received more troops, as had been promised, he could've occupied Italy and succeeded

No, if Carthage tried to send more troops, 2/3 of them would have died getting to Italy, Hannibal would have linked up with what few there were months, maybe a year after Cannae, and nothing much would have changed because he STILL wouldn't have been able to force anything decisive.

this is off topic

was Hannibal really black?

>was Hannibal really black?
Most likely not. There is the very distinct possibility that his family may have had some darker african relatives, but his was a noble family that was descended from the original semitic stock of phoenicians. He would have very likely looked like what a modern tunisian would look like, IE a middle eastern semitic person.

I don't know why people keep saying:

>The politicians back in Carthage failed to support him as they'd promised initially

When it was purely because of Roman armies keeping Carthage from sending fresh reinforcements over by land while Fabius focused on Hannibal. It's like everyone forgets about Hasdrubal.

Well, I was only implying it. And don't forget that Roman naval dominance allowed them enormously more strategic flexibility than the Carthaginians who had to go around the long way.

I'm not forgetting, it just wasn't worth mentioning because Carthaginian naval power was absolutely nonexistent after the first war. It'd be like talking about submarine fleet of Switzerland.

It wasn't completely nonexistent, but it was pretty heavily overshadowed. For instance, they were able to raid the coast of Etruria, albeit not engage any Roman naval forces there and would run when they encountered resistance. They at least attempted to reinforce Hannibal by sea in 204, even if they did get intercepted and the crap kicked out of them, and Appian claims that fleet was 100 strong.

I agree

How on earth didn't Romans figure out elephants when they already had dealt with them when fighting fucking Pyrrhus? Pyrrhus is the reason Romans developed their all or nothing military ethos in the first place.

>muh elephants

Hannibal's back line consisted of his most experienced troops. Probably the most veteran fighting force in history.

>Carthage deserved to be wiped out for their stupid decisions.

Like all Roman conquest/sackings. The Romans were jealous of what Carthage had become. Carthage was more advanded than Rome, Rome had one advancement over its enemies; Rome was prepared to utterly destroy peoples and enslave them.

Carthage's biggest mistake was to not flatten a bunch of Italian cities. If they did this, then the allies of Rome would've flocked to Hannibal and Rome would've been defeated.

So basically Carthage were not brutal enough to defeat the Romans.

Rome also obliterated Corinth at this time and enslaved many Greeks.

Rome was a brutal butcher amongst the more civilized peoples of the Mediterranean.

pic related, it's no humorous to post that shit.

Hannibal was a glorious general when he had Celtic troops in his army.