Muh elephants

>this is a Carthaginian's expression meant to display his disbelief at superior Roman numbers and determination throughout a war despite multiple crushing defeats at your hands this is usually followed by shuffling across the Alps, having half your men die, and getting routed by the Romans for your poor judgement.

*blocks ur path*

african elephants have never been trained
there is no proof that carthage armored their elephants, that was something eastern empires with larger access to elefuns did.

>not posting bacon.

>"There are those that say no war can be won with elephants, and to them I say: It has never been trie and we shall see."
RIDE THE LIGHTNING HANNIBAL

>muh elephants over the Alps
>muh Carthage
>muh tactical genius

laughing_scipio_africanus.gif

>Child sacrifices and crucifying everyone for any crime
>shit
No.

...

Hannibal's elephants were a different species that has since gone extinct. They were crossbred between Asian and African elephants, and could be tamed.

>beyond anything Rome could produce
Yeah, Rome only had that loser Scipio Africanus. Pathetic.

Scipio's defeat of Hannibal wasn't a particularly good tactical victory.

You do know he shat on the Roman army for years in Italy and absolutely annihilated them at cannae , right?

>Falling for Roman propaganda

That retard Antiouchus III should have given command of his troops to Hannibal. History would have been different if he wasn't such a retard.

Scipio was trash. The only reason he won against Hannibal is because the Senate wouldn't allow Hannibal to pick where the fight would be at, what troops he was going to use and the betrayal of the Numidians.

AND HE STILL WAS QUITE LUCKY HE DIDN'T LOSE THE BATTLE.

Good enough to beat Hannibal.

Cause he had better cavalry
Not exactly a great tactical victory

And yet he lost and died in exile.

For reasons we don't know he didn't seize Rome after Cannae, if he did it could have very well been the end of the Republic

...

...

Napoleon must have been a terrible general as well then.

daily reminder Pyrrhus was killed by A FUCKING ROOF TILE

Kek. Quite a Hannibal fan but that was hilarious. I guess he tried to emulate Pyrrhus or something.

is that why he wore a helmet?

>well i can't say a roman general, obviously, so i guess i'll just tell him this guy

t. ancient elephant expert

Guiz, Ive been away for weeks. did u miss me.

Who cares almost all of the elephants died in the Alps

Did Handball had autism?

That is quite the shitpost

>For reasons we don't know he didn't seize Rome after Cannae
That reason is walls. Hannibal couldn't siege shit.

this is trolling right?
By the end Scipio was the better general, and he knew all of Hannibal's tricks and had learned everything like a dutiful son. Scipio was the blueprint for marius, sulla, caesar, etc.

If hannibal had command the Romans still would have won.

doubtful

he had no more tricks to play, all he succeeded in doing was making rome more powerful than it ever was before through a series of hard but well-learned lessons. By the time Scipio's brother is steamrolling greece and antiochus, the Roman war machine is just on another level from the classical macedonian phalanx army, they decisively prove this through multiple battles, hannibal wouldn't have changed much. Might have controlled the cav better but this was an entirely foreign army to h8m, not like he can just take the reigns and immediately be competent with an entirely different type of army, as far as you know he would have made it worse. He had nothing to offer the world after Zama, and it took decades of exile and rejection for him to realize it.

face it, your hannibal boner is clouding your judgement, Scipio was everything hannibal was and more by the end of it.

i though you were talking about the punic war not the seleucid war
hannibal was still better, scipio just used his tactics and got lucky with some numidian cavalry in zama

Scipio is far more than one battle, you clearly know nothing of history and are just historically LARPing right now. Go read about his career and you're realize he's just as great of a story. His journey faced just as much trouble from the senate as hannibal had from carthage. He basically built an army from the ground up with his own resources after taking part in multiple battles with hannibal as a younger officer under his father. He won a series of crushing victories in Spain and had accomplished far more in his efforts than hannibal ever did by the time Zama happened, and he walked away the better man after it. It's the classic movie story with the kid watching his people get crushed by the big bad, growing up with a chip on his shoulder, and defeating than the big bad that traumatized him as a kid, permanently changing the course of the republic and therefore world history in the process, inspiring the men that would build the empire.

Scipio was the first roman to do it all himself basically and go at it without the senate. He creating the model for independent power structures that all future great romans would follow.

childhood is idolizing hannibal
adulthood is realizing Scipio makes more sense

Jesus Christ stop larping you massive fag, scipio's tactics starts and ends with 'do what Hannibal did'

And he did it better. Scipio conquered spain and staged a counter-attack on Carthage. All Hannibal did was humiliate the Romans on their home turf but failed at capturing shit.

It doesn't even reflect that badly on Hannibal, it's just that his fellow generals sucked ass.

Hannibal made a strategic error but was basically unbeatable tactically. Scipio won cause he had better cavalry

Nobody is gonna argue Hannibal was shit at battles. But his entire invasion was built on the premise that Rome would keep throwing legions at him and destabilize themselves in the process, alienating its former allies. By 216BC the romans had learnt their lesson, Hannibal kept roaming Italy for another 12years.

IF the two Hasdrubals and Mago won the Iberia campaign. Then they could have sent him mass reinforcements and the war might have ended differently. Sadly it's just not what happened.

>Scipio won cause he had better cavalry
He was able to convince Masinissa to switch side when he was done conquering Iberia from the carthaginians and the Numidians started getting worried about who was gonna pay them for their service. Remember that Carthage was mostly outsourcing its military to foreign neighbours/allies, basically mercenaries. Rome did not have that problem since their confederacy was rock-solid for the most part. All the Romans had to worry about was not pissing off their confederate allies and not falling for Hannibal's bait.

At the end of the day, the romans started the war with stronger foundations and coupling that with Fabian tactics+scipio's success meant they won the war.

It's no shame on Hannibal, he was only one guy. But sometimes being a genius general just isn't not enough to win a war fought on multiple fronts.

>Scipio won because he had better cavalry

and hannibal won his battles because he had better cavalry. Are hannibal's victory's diminished because of his cavalry advantage in literally every battle besides Zama? No, so why discredit scipio's victory when the odds were far more equal than they ever had been on horse?

you have double standards for hannibal, forgiving him when he has a weakness during a dedeat whilst ignoring the opponents weakness when he wins

I say that to emphasize that in no way was Zama a victory for scipio because of better tactics, but because of external circumstances. It wasn't a victory like cannae

that is such a bullshit double standard. When Scipio wins it's inevitability, when Hannibal wins it's genius.

fuck off with your LARPing

You're both larpers, fuck off. Vercingetorix was the only good general because of his Celtic berserker heritage and druid magic.

So tell me of scipio's tactical genius of 'have better cavalry'

>Hannibal
40,000:
36,000 infantry
4,000 cavalry
80 war elephants

>Scipio
35,100:
29,000 infantry
6,100 cavalry

It was more or less even. Hannibal had 7000more infrantry soldiers. Scipio had 2000more horses. It's pretty memey to say Hannibal was in a weaker position.

>external circumstances

a battle is a battle, and when Hannibal is still general, he always has a chance, because that's the level of person we're dealing with. To say that Hannibal was incapable of winning is some revisionist bullshit and you know it, men had to fight and die for that result and nothing in battle is ever inevitable. You have a juvenile understanding of military history. It discredits the agency these men had in deciding their own fates, hannibal spent his entire career beating the odds, then suddenly he loses and people say stupid shit after the fact like it was inevitable.

I guarantee you that when the Roman soldiers lined up for battle against the undefeated Hannibal, the last thing they were expecting was an easy fight, and the sources say it was very close, so get out of here with your bullshit sweeping generalizations when you clearly haven't read enough about the subject.

And it there was no high quality tactics used on either side. It was just a boring battle, nothing that you'd expect from either general

I'm saying there wasn't any particularly good generating on either side, so it wasn't a GREAT VICTORY COMPLETELY BTFOING Hannibal

it was boring because they were both so good that they countered everything each other did and forced it to become a straight up slog, which was the first time the Romans actually got the fight they wanted. They got this fight because they did everything right up to that point, which they had not done in the previous battles with hannibal. To make it a straight fight is a victory for the Romans because they had never succeeded in getting to that point before.

*a tactical victory

He was btfo'd tho

Once the roman cavalry returned to the battlefield they hit his army from the back and broke the carthaginian's formation. At which point the romans did what they do best - the acis triplex (rotating their maniples at the front to keep up the stamina of the charge).

There was no "moments of genius", that's true. Just good old roman discipline. And the carthaginian losses were pretty damning 20k vs 3k.

Hannibal had fucking elephants. Kys.

Look man, the Roman resilience was unseen for their time and not until much later did someone match them in that regard (The Soviet Union). Any other nation would have surrender unconditionally after Cannae, but Rome was something else. Hannibal couldn't have expected this kind of stubbornness even if he was an extremely smart individual. Yes, the Pyrrhic wars and the First Punic war were some indication, but certainly nothing on the scale of the Second Punic War.

As for losing Zama, it was due to a couple of factors: First, Hannibal wasn't allowed to pick where the battle was going to be fought. He was forced to engage Scipio as soon as possible. Second, apart from a few veterans during his Italian campaign that continued following him, most of his troops were freshly raised and haven't seen a battle in their life. Third, Scipio studied Hannibal's tactics thoroughly and used them against Hannibal while Hannibal didn't have the opportunity to do the same. Fourth, the Numidian betrayal.

And even after all that Scipio barely won and the battle could have gone both ways. This wasn't some dominant victory. Don't get me wrong, Scipio is an amazing general, one of the best in Roman history, however he doesn't cold a candle to Hannibal's genius.

>Third, Scipio studied Hannibal's tactics thoroughly and used them against Hannibal while Hannibal didn't have the opportunity to do the same.

But that's fucking bullshit.
>Hannibal intentionally held back his third infantry line, in order to thwart Scipio's tendency to pin the Carthaginian center and envelop his opponent's lines, as he had previously done at the Battle of Ilipa

>And even after all that Scipio barely won and the battle could have gone both ways
20k losses vs only 3k. Hannibal's plan with the elephants failed and he was stuck with an inferior cavalry which couldnt compete. He just lost dude, get over it.

>Fourth, the Numidian betrayal.
Is it about muh horses again? So when Hannibal buys numidian cavalry and wins with it, it's his genius. When his opponent does the same, it's hannibal "not having a chance due to external factors". You know these sort of arguments don't hold to scrutiny right?

>>Hannibal intentionally held back his third infantry line, in order to thwart Scipio's tendency to pin the Carthaginian center and envelop his opponent's lines, as he had previously done at the Battle of Ilipa

That doesn't indicate in any way that Hannibal knew anything about Scipio. It's just basic tactics.

>20k losses vs only 3k.
If Hannibal won the casualties would have been the other way around. By all accounts the battle was extremely hard fought and Hannibal was even winning to a point, when the Numidian cavalry routed his own and then proceeded to attack his infantry. You have to take into account at what enormous disadvantage was Hannibal before and during the battle. It's extremely impressive from Hannibal considering Scipio won narrowly.

>Is it about muh horses again? So when Hannibal buys numidian cavalry and wins with it, it's his genius.
It's not only about the horses, man. Compare Hannibal's infantry to the Roman one and you'll see the great disparity in the quality. The only thing Hannibal had over Rome was his cavalry and now he didn't even have that. The elephants were a failure but they weren't the reason he lost. In fact I wouldn't even call them a failure, they did a good job on the Roman infantry, but in the end they were mostly untrained and freshly gathered.

>What is forced perspective

>Muh elephants
>Muh elephants
>Muh elephants
>60 replies and 9 images omitted

>Loses war with elephants

> and Hannibal was even winning to a point
But he fucking didn't and half his army was killed. That's what actually happened. I'm done giving you (You)'s, carthagefags are fucking retards in denial.

>Captured or killed all footsoldiers and calvary
>Elephants unscathed
ELEPHANT STRONK

Well, obviously he didn't. The main point was that Hannibal is way above Scipio which was what started the discussion. Furthermore, I'm more of a Romefag so I really have no bias here.

>was unseen for their time and not until much later did someone match them in that regard (The Soviet Union)

Load of BS

HUH? Which nation did match Roman's tenacity for war even after all the casualties they suffered in both Punic Wars (20 years each, btw)?

Not really. It's really surprised Rome kept on fighting after Cannae alone.

There's no prize for second place in war.

Winning the battle is only half the war.

Besides, after Cannae Hannibal was reduced to the ancient equivalent of an insurgency/guerilla. Almost 20 years of it with little to no progress.

I was referring to the last part of the post

The French, The English (100 years war, Napoleonic wars) for instance

>retards think Zama was Scipio's crowning tactical achievment

The absolute bullshit from this post. The French? What? When have they suffered the casualties (relative to their manpower and population) that the Romans did? The English? WTF? The 100 years war wasn't a constant one and the casualties were relatively small compared to the size of both countries.

The Napoleonic wars? Are you fucking serious right now? Napoleon won most wars by winning decisive battles. He won against the Austrians, Russians, Prussians numerous time by defeating them in battles even smaller than those at Cannae. Even Austerlitz, for all the military genius of Napoleon, didn't have close to the casualties of Cannae and it basically broke the Austrians and the Third Coalition.

Get your facts straight, mate.

The french kept the wars going in the 100 years war after they were dealt a crushing defeat

And the Brits kept fight Napoleon even though he defeated multiple collations against him

>if he had won the Carthaginians would fill the same niche as the Romans and elephants would be a mainstay of warfare in Europe and the Med into the middle ages

My apologies then

He wouldn't be considered a guerilla by any means. He just didn't have the siege potential. If anything, Fabian was the one deploying those types of tactics.

Examples of guerilla warfare would be from Caratacus, viriathus, etc.

he's not though, scipio's victories in Spain are arguably more impressive because he actually managed to succeed tactically AND strategically, unlike hannibal who was a tactical genius and a strategic fool by his own men's account.

When Scipio was done with spain, it was roman. Carthage was fucking done in spain, all because of Scipio. Meanwhile Hannibal accomplished virtually nothing strategically in two decades. Scipio's victories are more important than hannibal's because his victories changed the strategic standing of rome and carthage, forcing hannibal to retreat from italy, giving Scipio the opportunity to invade africa. "external circumstances" my ass, Scipio set up his own fate with his own conquests and unlike Hannibal, knew how to obtain victory AND how to use it. The reason the numidians switched sides was because of Scipio's victories in Spain, it was not some lucky fluke but a real strategic move with real strategic results

However this all comes back to the original point, which is that you're a fanboy that hasn't actually read about Scipio and this explains why you think Zama was some lucky fluke when in reality Scipio forced everything to that point by his own decisions. You see a victory for Hannibal and give him all the credit, but when his opponent wins suddenly it's all external circumstance. You don't mention hannibal's cavalry advantage in all of his famous victories, but suddenly when Scipio has the advantage it's worth noting and detracts from his glory.

You're such a hypocritical shit

I agree with more of your points but sheesh, do you really have to insult a guy just for having a different opinion so much?

Hannibal had amazing victories but honestly shouldn't have even attacked saguntum, in my opinion. I think we was too concerned about becoming a legend. He was way too aggressive.

And what battle is that exactly? Even Agincourt was like a small skirmish compared to Cannae. The Hundred Years war weren't constant. They were multiple wars combined into one giant conflict.

>And the Brits kept fight Napoleon even though he defeated multiple collations against him
Nope. The Brits mostly used the land Europeans to deal with Napoleon while they financed the operations. They weren't actively participating in the military part.

>he's not though, scipio's victories in Spain are arguably more impressive
No, they were not. Scipio never dealt a crushing defeat to the Barca's he only prevented them from reinforcing Hannibal. Hannibal wasn't a "strategic" fool, he knew what exactly what had to be done, but the Romans were just a different beast from anything in ancient history. The First Punic war was arguably the bloodiest in ancient history and it pales in comparison to the second. The Romans didn't even think about having a relatively minor peace even after Cannae, they were going to fight to the death. That was unheard of back then and until WWI. In hindisght Hannibal refusing to attack Rome itself was a bad decision, however he couldn't have known that Scipio would defeat his brothers, it was out of his control. Carthage lost everywhere in the SPW in which Hannibal had no active part in.

>However this all comes back to the original point
When did I bash Scipio or underrate him? I only said he is not on Hannibal's level and that's a fact, whether you like it or not. His victory at Zama wasn't impressive considering that Hannibal was FORCED to attack Scipio, most of Hannibal's army were RAW recruits, the Numidians BETRAYED him, leaving him with no cavalry to speak of.

As I said in my previous post, the ONLY thing Hannibal had over Rome was his cavalry. Rome had the better troops through and through. So it's ridiculous to say that Scipio's advantage is comparable to Hannibal's. Scipio not ONLY had the better cavalry.

but he had the better troops, veterans from his previous campaigns, disciplined soldiers, not the African levies that Hannibal had to muster quickly. Hannibal didn't even want to fight at Zama, the Carthaginian Senate forced him to. Hannibal knew at what disadvantage he was back there and it's impressive that he was even close to a victory.

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, probably none of them could have won that battle. The war was lost and Hannibal knew that.

You're also ignoring the vast differences in resources of both nations. Carthage didn't have the manpower to compete with Rome. That's why Rome could muster armies even after getting wrecked in 3 battles one of which was one of the most devastating in history.

Please, don't be so ignorant. Hannibal never had the full backing of the Senate while the Roman Senate were mostly acting like one, fighting for their survival. It's good to take that into account.

Only the first two points are mine.

Yes, I forgot to quote the other user.

>beyond anything Rome could produce

Remind me again how the second Punic war ended?

He rekt the romans at cannae because of the two consuls in charge of the army, one of them was retarded and one wasn't. Guess which one was in command on the day that cannae happened.

Fabius read Hannibal and matched him. Literally by that time Hannibal was fucked because the Fabius had figured out not to just march right fucking at him, which was all Hannibal knew how to fight against.

>all this rationalizing and Hannibal dick riding

He lost bro

>Reminder that it's estimated that close to zero elephants survived the crossing of the alps, all of Hannibal's famous battles minus Zama didn't include a single elephant.

>Battles are only numbers
Real life is not a videogame. Hannibal's soldier's were mostly raw barely trained conscripts with no battle experience, with only his third line being veterans from Italy. Scipio's whole army were veterans from Spain.

Gee I wonder what happened to hannibal's veterans that he had

>hannibal deserves pity points for not having the men he needs delivered to him by his meany and uncooperative government, despite the fact that he lost all of his veterans and mercenaries in battles that were strategically futile and served only to harden and strengthen his adversaries
>meanwhile Scipio was conquering Spain and Africa with a literal volunteer army because the Senate would not officially back him
>muh superior Roman society
>muh cavalry
>muh veterans

cry more salty Carthaginian tears.

...

He lost, doesn't mean Scipio is better than Hannibal. Did you even read my post?

They were left back in Italy when he was recalled to protect Carthage.

>If your enemies defeat you, you win
Justinius Trudeius pls go

he was though. He accomplished far more and beat him when it came to it. He stood victorious at the end and was the inspiration for the powerful individuals to come in the next centuries. You might value tactical achievements, but strategic sense is the true mastery of military affairs, read literally any book on the subject. Scipio had superior strategic sense, learned Hannibal's tactical sense well enough to match him and was therefore a better man because he had both tactical and strategic prowess whereas Hannibal only had the latter.

All in all Hannibal's invasion was a strategic blunder, a man of his tactical prowess could have won the war if he played it right strategically but he was not a man of strategic prowess, you cannot argue that when the results speak for themselves. He literally doomed his society to destruction with his rash and strategically faulty invasion.

*former