What was the most consequential battle in history?

You're saying that in the first invasion of Greece, the Persians weren't really serious?

I actually hesitated between the two, and almost put "Marathon or Salamis", but either way claiming Marathon was irrelevant or "a tiny sideshow" is retarded.

Martell faced down enthusiastic outriders when western europe was in infancy. It isn't hard to adapt to raiders and other forces would shoved them out eventually.

Which is less substantial than a literally head to head of the Caliphate's full might directed entirely on the capital of the Christian world?

Tours was never reached again because the raiders didn't care, cracking open the Eastern Roman Empire would both have extinguished a ludicrous amount of learning that would end up benefiting the west eventually, but also hand Islam prestige and wealth with which they could've crushed ten thousand Martells.

While no battle really ended up being decisive by itself, each serving as a note created one of the most important crescendos in history I feel.

>You're saying that in the first invasion of Greece, the Persians weren't really serious?
They were making a limited expedition, one that almost certainly would have failed in its political intent even if they had been victorious in battle. I can't speak to Darius's motives specifically, but it was a lot less serious than the subsequent attempt by Xerxes.

> but either way claiming Marathon was irrelevant or "a tiny sideshow" is retarded.
No, it isn't retarded, because it was irrelevant. The Persians had no means of actually exploiting a victory even if they attained one.

>You're really saying that there would be no difference between Constantinople falling to the Umayyads as falling to the Ottomans?
The Umayyads conquered almost the entire Byzantine empire, taking Constantinople or not would not have made a world-changing difference no.

>the victory at Tours didn't even settle that particular theater
It did. The Muslims gave up on conquering Gaul.

>Or that there is no indication as to why, if Martel should lose, Aquataine would just disappear off the map, or that the Muslims could indeed have advanced further.
You "Tours was irrelevant" drones really say the dumbest shit to rationalise your meme. Yeah I'm sure that the empire that had made it its God-ordained mission to conquer the entire world would have just randomly stopped at France for no reason.

Its has to be battles that on their own changed the course of history long term.
So
Salimas
Both Sieges of Constantinople
Battle of Red Cliffs
Battle of Sedan
Im not sure which muslim victory but one of them

They didn't much care for Gaul to begin with, and the forces defeated at Tours were hardly capable of it.

The land the Caliphs took from the Byzantines was incredibly war-torn after the largest Roman-Persian conflict in history right before. They took the breadbasket that was Egypt, yes; but the Byzantines didn't need that to defeat Persia. All the rest was not of major importance, considering they would have cut off the silk road just the same with a fraction of the conquest.

Leaving the heart of the Empire, of Christianity and the most important city in the world at the time.
And with the Caliph's full might there, success in Constantinople would have pushed for far more gains than the minute damage the raiders at Tours would continue to inflict were they not stopped.

>While no battle really ended up being decisive by itself, each serving as a note created one of the most important crescendos in history I feel.

the only thing they have in common with each other is they all were about halting german momentum, or in the case of normandy turning it around and getting allied momentum heading towards berlin, if any of these battles had gone differently then the war could and probably would have, lose el alamein and the brits get pushed out of north africa and the middle east, hitler has direct access to the middle eastern oil fields and wouldn't have to split his troops in russia, lose the battle of britain and hitler can invade britain how this would of gone i don't know and is probably a thread for itself. lose stalingrad and you lose the war in the east probably, if i had to pick one it would be stalingrad but they were all massively important.

>enthusiastic outriders
It was a 50 000 men invasion led by the fucking Emir of Al-Andalus, who died in the battle. Enough with the shitty memes.

>Which is less substantial than a literally head to head of the Caliphate's full might directed entirely on the capital of the Christian world?
Yes because the question is about consequential battles, not big battles or whatever. Tours had massive consequences, Constantinople not really.

>cracking open the Eastern Roman Empire would both have extinguished a ludicrous amount of learning
What does that even mean? "extinguished learning"? Seriously explain this phrase, I can't wait.

>The Umayyads conquered almost the entire Byzantine empire, taking Constantinople or not would not have made a world-changing difference no.
Wrong. The city and peninsula it was on was very wealthy and populous; as were places like what's now Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and possessions in Crimea.

>It did. The Muslims gave up on conquering Gaul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avignon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narbonne_(737)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Berre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nîmes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Narbonne_(752–59)

The memo must have not gotten out to these guys.

>Yeah I'm sure that the empire that had made it its God-ordained mission to conquer the entire world would have just randomly stopped at France for no reason.
You might want to go back to the third grade and re-learn English. I'm not saying they didn't WANT to advance further, I'm saying they COULDN'T advance further.

>lose el alamein and the brits get pushed out of north africa and the middle east,
Are you completely retarded?

>lose the battle of britain and hitler can invade britain
Yeah, you are.

Some light reading for you.
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm

It would have changed nothing, Constantinople sank into irrelevance soon after anyway. And even in the world where a 50 000 men invasion led by the Emir of Al-Andalus is a "raid", such "raids" were just preludes to full scale invasion.

haha. don't you guys know that military history doesn't matter.

Pardon me, I concede the major western engagements, I didn't mean them. I meant to specify the pacific theatre.
At both sides the Axis was doomed, but I feel the eastern side shaped the coming Cold War far more grandly in its momentum and innovations.
Whereas the west remains a weird question. If the Americans weren't on the beaches, Hitler would've thrown all the troops he sent west in spite eastwards, slowed Stalin down and maybe even out-lasted Japan; at which point the Germans could have maybe pursued. favorable terms with the west against the Soviets.

Probably Stalingrad

>calls the invasion at Tours a raid
>calls actual raids attempted conquests

>Not including Polatava
I guess making Russia into a great power is not consequential enough

>Whereas the west remains a weird question. If the Americans weren't on the beaches, Hitler would've thrown all the troops he sent west in spite eastwards, slowed Stalin down and maybe even out-lasted Japan; at which point the Germans could have maybe pursued. favorable terms with the west against the Soviets.

None of this is correct. Even if Normandy somehow fails, you already have about a million German troops fighting in Italy, and more to prevent opportunistic landings in Southern France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The southern France operation, Dragoon, would actually happen, and put the Western Allies in France even if Overlord fails. And there is no possibility whatsoever of a favorable peace, that was one of the big agreements made at things like Baghdad and repeated at Yalta. No separate peaces, no conditional surrenders.

>Attempts to seize and control a city, with actual baggage trains and equipments are raids
>But the one that's dominated by light cavalry moving around fortified positions instead of attacking them is a conquest attempt.
Were your mother and father brother and sister?

>I can't speak to Darius's motives specifically
I think he only wanted to punish the greeks a bit for supporting Ionian rebels or atleast that is how i remember it.

The battles you posted are Franks reconquering land from the Muslims after turning the tide at Tours you utter retard. Time to stop inflicting your cretinism on everyone.

>Soon after
>674 until 1204
>Almost double the full breadth of the Karlings

The forces near Constantinople were far more than those in Gaul and further conquest of Italy, the only other civilized part of Europe at the time would have been far quicker, it would have eliminated a nation far more capable of retaliation and allowed the Caliphate to stretch far wider far more quickly. It also would have had a far more dramatic effect on many people in the Caliphate. Rome was a distant backwater to them, but Constantinople was close enough for them to care. They could stomach Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, the Sassanids had lost them as quickly as they took them, but Constantinople was a symbol in that war. Shattering that would have been enormous.

Had Constantinople been lost you would not have seen the Christianization of the Rus, or the Crusades, or the almost unending conflict demanding the Caliph's attention. All that became of Muslims in the west was an incredibly cultured centre in Cordoba developing while the Iberians slowly picked on the decadent carcass of the local Muslim warlords for nearly a millennium.

I don't mean to imply that any of those possibilities were likely. Simply that both theatres were, as you also insist, inevitable losses for the Axis.
And that the manner that the Pacific was conquered had far further reaching consequences than of alternative outcomes in the west.
I did propose some wild outcomes, but I didn't properly conclude them. Again, we agree on the inevitability of the conflict; just assuming everything went as bad as is imaginable for the west, the adjustments Germany could then have taken in bolstering against the Russians.

However despite a dramatically different fantasy it all probably would have eventually fallen together into the same cold war Europe as we got.

Constantinople stopped being relevant to the West at the latest when the Papal States were established in 756.

>Had Constantinople been lost you would not have seen the Christianization of the Rus, or the Crusades, or the almost unending conflict demanding the Caliph's attention.
Had France been conquered by the Muslims there would be no Western civilisation.

Perhaps. Maybe it would've just been another Iberia.
And it's about the importance of the battle. Tours wasn't some grand arena with Gaul's soul at stake. Others could have succeeded were Charles to fail.

The end of Constantinople straight up would have guaranteed the fall of everything you claim Tours saved, except in that case there would be zero doubt.

The Miracle at the Marne
Literally indisputable

lol wtf, the West wouldn't have been affected at all.

;^)

>some shit happening in fucking Asia (and which ended up happening anyway) is a bigger threat to Western Europe than the literal invasion of France

I want byzatinboos to leave.

>throwing kids and elderly against the Stalin will slow him down

Also have you seen what a fucking chunk of land Japan was holding when Berlin fell?
Without nukes, its hello 1946 to US marines still waiting to even set foot on home islands.

>Zama
>Marathon
>Issus
>Austerlitiz
Austerlitiz especially pisses me off.
Tactically impressive for sure but ultimately it didnt significantly improve Napoleons position nor did it significantly reduce the position of anybody except the HRE, which was on its way out anyway.
Sure it ended the war of the 3rd coalition but it clearly wasnt good enough if Napoleons enemies still were able to do it 4 more god damn times.
When will people learn that battle isnt the most important part of war

> taking Constantinople or not would not have made a world-changing difference no.
Spotted the retard
Had Constantinople fallen to the Arabs, then the Arabs would keep marching to Europe with no resistance since half of Europe were a bunch of barbarian tribes and Europe would've been islamified. At least when the Ottomans came to power there were already kingdoms that could sustain themselves

stalingrad

everything else pales in comparison

>with no resistance since half of Europe were a bunch of barbarian tribes

You mean like the barbarian tribe that defeated the Muslims at Tours, you stupid fucking idiot?

Except that the Franks were much more organised and were the strongest entity along with the ERE in Europe. Drop your bias you mong.

I can't say MOST, but Tours and Hastings are pretty big

>Carthage almost crushed

Rome barely won Zama and was on the brinks of collapsed due to the amount of manpower lost. Losing Zama would have made their alliance with Massinissa collapse, allowed Hannibal to reclaim Spain, and would have probably forced peace negotiations.

>Tours
Fucking called it. Too many ... uneducated people on Veeky Forums.

>and was on the brinks of collapsed due to the amount of manpower lost
[citation seriously needed]

>Losing Zama would have made their alliance with Massinissa collapse
[citation needed]

>allowed Hannibal to reclaim Spain
[citation needed]

>, and would have probably forced peace negotiations.
[citation needed]

>Somebody who hasn't researched the topic.

The other person didn't cite their claim, I don't need to. Read a few goddamn books on the Punic wars. Rome was bankrupt from the war and from Cannae alone lost 1/3 of it's senators and 20% of it's fighting male population. There only success was in Spain, and only from the youngest Scipio. If Scipio had lost Zama, what chance did Rome have? And do you think Massinissa would have even lived after Zama if the Romans had lost? He betrayed Carthage and was it's neighbor, and only had switched because he felt Rome was winning.

But hey, rather than actually provide an argument just say

>citation needed

It really shows your background on the topic.

>Rome was bankrupt from the war
No it wasn't.

>Cannae alone lost 1/3 of it's senators and 20% of it's fighting male population
Cannae was 14 years before Zama. That's almost enough time for an entirely new generation to be born and raised.

>There only success was in Spain, and only from the youngest Scipio.
You must have missed how after Cannae, Hannibal spends the next decade doing fuck all. And the complete Roman control of the water and all the islands; battles like Decimomannu and the siege of Syracuse committed about as many Roman troops as Zama, and nobody is claiming that Roman losses there would have broken them.

>If Scipio had lost Zama, what chance did Rome have?
Quite a lot; given that by this point they had completely evicted the Carthaginians from Italy, overran all their Spanish possessions, crushed what was left of their fleet, fought a second war on the side to at least a favorable draw with the Macedonians (which they would resume right after the Punic war and crush them). Hell, Zama committed fewer troops than the Romans had left over from their victory in Ilpia, nevermind what new manpower they could and were constantly raising.

> And do you think Massinissa would have even lived after Zama if the Romans had lost?
He managed to live for literally years before Zama, since he broke with them in 206, 4 years prior, and lost a couple of battles to his brother, which is why he only took power in Numidia after the battle of the Great Plains. Why should a loss at Zama reverse everything?

>inb4 not an argument, since you seem about as dumb as a stefbot.

>No it wasn't.

Their currency was terribly devalued, they were low on both bronze and silver from the war. They couldn't even pay Hieron II a loan they contracted in 216. In 213 bc they sharply debased their currencies.

>Cannae was 14 years before Zama. That's almost enough time for an entirely new generation to be born and raised.

>You must have missed how after Cannae, Hannibal spends the next decade doing fuck all. And the complete Roman control of the water and all the islands; battles like Decimomannu and the siege of Syracuse committed about as many Roman troops as Zama, and nobody is claiming that Roman losses there would have broken them.

If fuck all means inciting rebellions and defections to the point of causing turmoil in southern Italy and Sicily, then i guess yes fuck all.

>Quite a lot...
They didn't evict Hannibal, Carthage demanded he returned. And it isn't hard to reason Hannibal could have retaken their Spanish holds after a victory at Zama. Also, accounting the losses at Ilipa, Scipio's force were roughly the same amount in Zama after the difference.

Also with Macedon, "Roman legions (aided by allies from theAetolian LeagueandPergamonafter 211 BC) did little more than skirmish with Macedonian forces and seize minor territory along theAdriaticcoastline in order to "combat piracy". Rome's interest was not in conquest, but in keeping Macedon busy while Rome was fighting Hannibal."

Hardly the two front war you are describing.

This is all IF situations so it's pretty pointless get into to much depth on an anonymous shitposting forum, however

>He managed to live for literally years before Zama, since he broke with them in 206, 4 years prior, and lost a couple of battles to his brother, which is why he only took power in Numidia after the battle of the Great Plains. Why should a loss at Zama reverse everything?

Well no shit, Carthage's only time to confront him before Zama was the battle you mentioned. And a different result at Zama would have mean Hannibal could address Numidia.

>>inb4 not an argument, since you seem about as dumb as a stefbot

Why would I say not an argument if you are actually providing an argument? But yes, call me dumb for not agreeing with you.

>Their currency was terribly devalued, they were low on both bronze and silver from the war. They couldn't even pay Hieron II a loan they contracted in 216. In 213 bc they sharply debased their currencies.
I like how you left out that by 211 B.C., they scrapped the whole system, introduced the now famous denarius, and the inflation (which is different from bankruptcy), was ended. This is 9 years before Zama, by the way, so I don't know how a Roman loss at Zama affects this.

>If fuck all means inciting rebellions and defections to the point of causing turmoil in southern Italy and Sicily, then i guess yes fuck all.
Oooh, he got a few little cities to revolt before they got stomped by the Romans. It was fuck all compared to the Romans who were actually advancing on other fronts, and actually keeping what they gained.

>They didn't evict Hannibal, Carthage demanded he returned.
By the time Carthage recalled Hannibal, he was stuck in Crotona and had been penned up there for 3 years. So sue me, he wasn't evicted from a tiny toe in Italy, only some 95% of it by area, wealth, and population.

>And it isn't hard to reason Hannibal could have retaken their Spanish holds after a victory at Zama.
Actually, it is, given that Rome still had about 50,000 troops in theater, could raise more, and controlled most of the naval ways, not to mention that Carthage was almost out of real troops, and seemed to be having trouble either finding or hiring new mercenaries, given that almost a third of their army at Zama was raw militia recruits.
1/2

>Also, accounting the losses at Ilipa, Scipio's force were roughly the same amount in Zama after the difference.
You're retarded. I mean that in the base, simple, literal sense. Livy reports 29,100 infantry (not even necessarily all Roman) at Zama, and the Numidian cavalry. Ilpia had 48,000 men to begin with and 7,000 losses, again assuming we believe the source. That's 10,000 troops right then and there, assuming (which is wrong) that the entire force at Zama was made from guys who fought Ilpia and survived.

>Also with Macedon, "Roman legions (aided by allies from the Aetolian League and Pergamon after 211 BC) did little more than skirmish with Macedonian forces and seize minor territory along theAdriaticcoastline in order to "combat piracy". Rome's interest was not in conquest, but in keeping Macedon busy while Rome was fighting Hannibal."
>Hardly the two front war you are describing.
It is quite literally another front. Sure, it didn't get as much focus as others, but that doesn't make it less of a front. Do the Island campaigns not count as fronts because they were smaller than the stuff going on in Italy and Spain? Do the main fronts not count as fronts because everyone had allies doing significant amounts of the work from the Latins on the Roman side to the Gauls on the Carthaginian?

>Well no shit, Carthage's only time to confront him before Zama was the battle you mentioned.
Are you lying, or just really stupid? Sysphax, aided by the Carthaginians, literally fought Massissina's forces and literally beat them. That didn't kill him, and it didn't end the alliance with Rome. And that was three fucking YEARS before Great Plains.

>Why would I say not an argument if you are actually providing an argument?
Because you're stupid, bringing up literal factual errors and nonsense to make a point about as absurd as a claim that if the Germans would have won the 1945 Belgrade battle, they'd have won WW2.

Alright m8, you aren't worth debating with.

You can provide counterpoints without being obnoxious.

Obviously you are already set on me being retarded so enjoy your day. I'll let you leave feeling victorious, you obviously need a self-esteem boost.

>Rome barely won Zama

Eh? The moment the Numidian cavalry drove the Carthaginian cavalry off the field the battle was pretty much done.

>If Scipio had lost Zama, what chance did Rome have
Considering that Scipios expedition to north africa was technically illegal and was not sanctioned by the Senate, with a force made up most of veterans and volunteers, I doubt it would have had a serious effect on Rome's ability to wage war.

If there realistically was any time that Rome could have possibly capitulated it was directly after the Battle of Cannae.

The flanking of the Numidian Calvary did win Zama, but before this flanking, Hannibal's veteran force was engaging Scipio's force and winning. It was a close battle.

And this loss would have been pretty effective, Scipio was pretty much their only general who could effectually battle during this war, especially against Hannibal.

It ensured the spread of the French Revolution to the rest of Europe. That's pretty fucking significant.

>Scipio was pretty much their only general who could effectually battle during this war
Are you fucking kidding me? Rome was fighting on three fronts during the second punic war, and winning easily on two of them. Hannibal was a tough nut to crack, but he never actually managed to defeat Fabius, Marcellus, Scipio or Nero, and in fact other than Hannibal the carthaginians got rekt regularly by roman generals.

>no Valmy

With little actual action, it still ensured the survival of the revolutionary France, setting the stage for the continued importance of liberalism as an ideology

Literally in the first post.

>Are you fucking kidding me? Rome was fighting on three fronts

Macedonia was mainly skirmishes with Rome's force being mainly Greek allies. Spain was only won from the youngest Scipio'.

>Fabius
See "could effectively battle". He was successful because Hannibal didn't get enough support to directly attack Rome.

>Marcellus
Yes, a good general that died in 208 in a skirmish against Hannibal. Hard for him to command at that point.

>Nero
Correct me if I'm wrong, I only recognize him from the battles of Grumentum and Metaurus, both being pretty much Rome out numbering the Carthaginians considerably and not involving anything tactically significant, I mean Nero is move to the other consul's flank and help drive it but I wouldn't call if a fantastic general because of that. But I could be wrong.

>Other than Hannibal got rekt regularly by roman generals.

Poor Hasdrubal Barca though, I don't think he ever fought a battle where he wasn't seriously outnumbered.

>Hannibal didn't get enough support to directly attack Rome
And why was that? Because Fabius and other generals went out of their way to prevent Hannibal from being reached by reinforcements. He was successful because his strategy was sound.

Or because Carthage only tried once to resupply Hannibal and it was like 215. His brothers had to go to his aid instead.

Hanno was a dip shit, essentially.

>Or because Carthage only tried once to resupply Hannibal and it was like 215. His brothers had to go to his aid instead.

livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-war-against-hannibal/appian-war-against-hannibal-11/?#�54

Ok, so also a lackluster attempt.

If these merchant ships had the troop complement of fully staffed Peloponesean war era triremes, that's 20,000 men. Since he says merchant ships, and not trieremes or some other sort of warship, they're probably a lot more. That's not lackluster at all, and it also rather neatly poleaxes your claim that there were no attempts. Carthage DID attempt to send reinforcements to Hannibal, but what with the overwhelming Roman naval advantage, they either had to go the long way around, and risk what happened in Metaurus, or go through the water, and risk what happened to this force.

Lack of reinforcement wasn't due to some failure of Carthaginian political elite not wanting to prosecute the war; lack of reinforcement was due to the incredible difficulty of projecting force to Italy in the first place. The Fabian strategy was sound.

I didn't say they never attempted. I said once, and I was very wrong, it was twice. The second time with so much effort they didn't supply enough rowers.

The Fabian strategy works great when you are aren't being resupplied. There was a very vocal anti-barcid faction in Carthage. They'd prefer to supply troops anywhere else. Which hey, Fabian say this and took advantage of it, kudos to him.

>I said once, and I was very wrong, it was twice
I don't know why you're discounting Hanno and Mago's attempts, which you do realize used Carthaginian money, prestige, manpower, and organizational apparati. It is also ignoring other Carthaginian attempts to open up other fronts, like in Sicily and Sardinia.

>I didn't say they never attempted. I said once, and I was very wrong, it was twice. The second time with so much effort they didn't supply enough rowers.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get good rowers in antiquity? Contrary to what the movies show, these are not slaves, they are highly paid professionals (often better paid than your land troops in fact), because you need them to be able to blindly coordinate with hundreds of other people, to properly row a ship such that every oar (which requires more than one person to man) gets into the water at the exact same time so you don't end up paddling around in a circle. Especially with this being the same Carthage that got its whole fleet wrecked in the first punic war, and badly lost the two times it attempted to fight Rome by sea, no, it is not a fucking surprise that they were out of rowers, nor does it mean that this wasn't a serious attempt.

>The Fabian strategy works great when you are aren't being resupplied.
And Hannibal could not easily be resupplied. Just look at the attempt that led to Metaurus. It took two years between Hasdrubal's first communications intending to raise a force to come to Italy and it actually getting there. Meanwhile, Rome spat out a new army within weeks even after disasters like Cannae. When you consider how bad communications are, how difficult it is to raise mercenary armies when you're camped out in the middle of nowhere, you don't have to look far, or to some mythical weakness of Carthaginian will, or a cabal of anti-Barcids to come up with reasons why Hannibal didn't get resupplied.

books.google.com/books?id=7SOjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=Attempts to reinforce Hannibal&source=bl&ots=kLqGU4HRG3&sig=D_oKf5p4I-z-TTzVHq_QLkxxUSU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJsI7kv-HUAhXBoD4KHc-8CHkQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=Attempts to reinforce Hannibal&f=false

>Indeed, a comparison of the forces sent to him with those sent elsewhere makes this especially obvious: Hannibal received 4,000 men, whereas at least 77,800 were sent to Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, and Liguria.

Hannibal only got about 35,000 men across the alps (losing 2/3 on the way, let's not forget). Committing more than twice that in subsequent waves that made it, never mind the ones that didn't, does not speak to lack of will.

>There was a very vocal anti-barcid faction in Carthage.
Forgive me if I ask so fucking what? To draw a parallel, the Whig faction in Britain was very much against militarily repressing the American revolution. That still didn't stop the English from raising an army that was greater than their entire peacetime land force and throwing it all the way across the Atlantic, at ruinous expense to the treasury. Just because there are anti-war people (and there are always anti-war people) doesn't mean that because of that, even more forces weren't committed. Hannibal wasn't reinforced because outside of one, tiny attempt in 215, every single attempt failed to reach him, and the Carthaginian senate is very rightly asking why they should try again when it's almost certain to fail, at great expense.

Tours. Christianity might be dead without it.

He didn't lose 2/3 of his troops crossing the Alps, he lost a bit but most were left along the way to create a supply line. A necessity for logistics. This is partially what made it easier/quicker for Hasdrubal to get to Italy.

And when that anti-barcid faction has direct power or resupplying, that's significant. The Barcid faction only had significant political away in Spain.

There was a successful attempt in 215, however the planned forces with Mago weere instead sent to Spain. 4,000 Calvary and 40 elephants were sent to Italy.

209 saw Hasdrubal Barca being sent over.

208 was that failed attempt where the wind overpowered the lack of rowers.

And 205 saw Mago hold control of the Genoa region for 3 years, with a resupply of 6k from Carthage. When he was called back, he was protected by a Carthaginian fleet and unmolested by Rome.

So any meaningful support was only provided by Barcid leadership.

>he lost a bit but most were left along the way to create a supply line.
I've literally never heard of this before.

>This is partially what made it easier/quicker for Hasdrubal to get to Italy.
But it took Hasdrubal almost 4 times as long to get to Italy as it took Hannibal.

>And when that anti-barcid faction has direct power or resupplying, that's significant.
You have yet to make this case.

>When he was called back, he was protected by a Carthaginian fleet and unmolested by Rome.
This is wrong. He went back on a fleet that was built on site, and did not link up with a Carthaginian fleet.

>So any meaningful support was only provided by Barcid leadership.
If you're discounting failed attempts, "Barcid leadership" failed to provide him any support whatsoever. It also implicitly makes the incredibly dubious claim that only reinforcements directly sent to Hannibal himself are of value, and not say, attacking other Roman forces elsewhere.

>Hanno and Mago
Did you mean Hasdrubal? I don't remember a Hanno coming to help him. Assuming Hasdrubal I'm less inclined to count his brothers coming to his aid as Carthage resupplying. It comes across as Carthage trying to distance itself throughout the war.

>Rowing in Antiquity
And this I'm asking from sincere interest, could you supply a source on rowers in antiquity you are using? I know Carthaginian citizenry were use as their rowers/sailors. I've never found many sources on that type of topic though. This isn't an attempt of [citation needed], I'm just honestly curious on the topic itself.

There were only two naval conflicts in the 2nd to my knowledge, and in the First the Roman's lost more ships in comparison. Carthage just panicked in the First when their over baggaded resupply fleet lost at Aegetes. This would bring the complete disappearance of rowers to a naval city who's manpower matched Rome's counting just those cities.

>
For the last point, the Barcid brothers definitely gave it their all, but it still just seems Carthage did not put in much of an attempt.

>I've literally never heard of this before.
Look into Patrick Hunt. He's got a book coming out in July on Hannibal. Has a very good lecture on iTunes.

>But it took Hasdrubal almost 4 times as long to get to Italy as it took Hannibal.

Sorry for quoting Wikipedia, but quickest quote.

"Hasdrubal made much faster progress than his brother had, partly due to the construction left behind by Hannibal's army when he had passed via the same route a decade earlier"

>You have yet to make this case.
The barcids had little control of mainland Carthage politics, look at Mago's plea in 215.

>This is wrong. He went back on a fleet that was built on site, and did not link up with a Carthaginian fleet.

Alright, I misinterpreted it. I assumed if they called him back they supplied the fleet. If anything, that shows Carthages shitty support.

>If you're discounting failed attempts, "Barcid leadership" failed to provide him any support whatsoever. It also implicitly makes the incredibly dubious claim that only reinforcements directly sent to Hannibal himself are of value, and not say, attacking other Roman forces elsewhere.

Forces under Hannibal would have definitely been more beneficial, especially after Cannae.

>Did you mean Hasdrubal?
Yes, I did, mea culpa.

>Assuming Hasdrubal I'm less inclined to count his brothers coming to his aid as Carthage resupplying. It comes across as Carthage trying to distance itself throughout the war.
Considering they were influential Carthaginians themselves, and again, used Carthaginian apparati, money, etc, to pull those mercenary armies together, I don't.

>And this I'm asking from sincere interest, could you supply a source on rowers in antiquity you are using?
I'm primarily working off A War Like No Other, which is a history of the Peloponesean war though, not 2nd Punic. I don't know of an online PDF or scan though that you could peruse it here. A quick google search brought me this

books.google.com/books?id=U0eQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=trireme combat rowers&source=bl&ots=9x9WXCPv89&sig=edpd34MmXgi-eWfHqpvODd9TjrI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio4Oexy-HUAhUFMj4KHbDcAGYQ6AEIUzAK#v=onepage&q=trireme combat rowers&f=false

Which goes into it a little bit, but not all that extensively.

>For the last point, the Barcid brothers definitely gave it their all, but it still just seems Carthage did not put in much of an attempt.
I disagree. I think you're vastly underestimating the difficulty in projecting force that far, and most of the Carthaginian failure to do so was out of material factors, not politically divisive ones.

>Look into Patrick Hunt. He's got a book coming out in July on Hannibal. Has a very good lecture on iTunes.
I'll keep an eye out.

>"Hasdrubal made much faster progress than his brother had, partly due to the construction left behind by Hannibal's army when he had passed via the same route a decade earlier"
If you're only counting the march, sure. But it wasn't just a march. I was counting from time of planning to march to Hannibal's aid to actually getting defeated at Metaurus, which would lead to a different calculation time.

>The barcids had little control of mainland Carthage politics, look at Mago's plea in 215.
I more meant along the lines that it was anti-Barcid cabals that controlled reinforcements, or that they were actually denying Hannibal reinforcement, not out of strategic considerations, but out of anti-Hannibal sentiment.

>If anything, that shows Carthages shitty support.
Or that Carthage couldn't get to him.

>Forces under Hannibal would have definitely been more beneficial, especially after Cannae.
Why? First off, remember, it's going to take time to find out Hannibal needs troops, assemble them, and get them to him. Secondly, Hannibal can't count on continual resupply; an individual convoy might make it to him, but you're not going to get regular runs in with the Romans in command of the sea. That in turn limits the amount of men he can realistically bring to bear in one place. Get too big, and they'll exhaust the local food supply and starve. Thirdly, he lacked any real ability to press attacks, even after Cannae. His attempts to take Nola were quite frankly pathetic, and amply demonstrated his limitations in attacking pretty much any prepared position. It's not clear how more men would have helped this, especially if you can make a case for attacks elsewhere having a greater chance of success.

A lot of that Carthaginian money was the silver from the Barcid mines. That's important to keep in mind.

For good naval books, check out Rome siezes the trident and (not out yet) naval history of the peloponnesian war by Marc DeSantis. He does some good research on naval warfare in antiquity.

I just don't think Carthage was really lacking material resources. North Africa was rich in food and people, and Spain in metals. They still had decent manpower, silver, etc at this time. To be fair this is opinion but I still think politics played a huge role.

Definitely do check him out. He does have a bias towards Hannibal, but the guy has done a ridiculous amount of research on the topic especially concerning Alpine archeologically.

>
I don't have much to respond with you have good points, I gotta head out anyways. Hanno's did have a lot of influence in determining reinforcement allocation it seems at least to me.

>
I guess I'm just a stubborn Phoenicianboo but Carthage really didn't make much naval attempts, I don't think it was as much as not able to, more as not being directly involved. They could have definitely formed a navy going by their recovery even after the second Punic War

>
With a bigger army, he could have contested more territory, and kept the allegiance of anti-rome cities. But this gets into huge what ifs.

aussies losing against emus