24-08-2002 00:17									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: It was not like they lost because of bad luck, Rome had a much bigger empire. And I'm kind of happy that Rome won or else we wouldn't be here today.

Basicaly i think it was a doomed campaign from the very begining, and that is what makes it more dramatic.

According to Polybius(the most reliable ancient historian)
at 220Bc(two years before the invasion) Rome could field 700.000 infantry and 80.000 cavalry, whereas Hannibal crossed the alps with only 40.000 men.

These facts combined with the established Roman naval supremacy after the first Punic war led the Romans to the assumption that the war would be an "away match" in Spain and Africa.

Hannibal's briliant tactical victories only managed to prolonge an already lost war.

It must be added here that Hannbal had no clear objective in mind when he invaded Italy.He brought no siege engines with which to capture the larger cities and eventually Rome itself.It seemed he believed the war could be won by inflicting devastating looses upon the Romans,impressing their italian allies and force them to switch sides.Such a tactic could never suceed against Rome with her inexaustible manpower sources.

His only hope, an alliance with King Philip V of Macedonia
collapsed when the Carthaginian messengers bearing a request for Macedonian aid in southen Italy were intercepted en route to Greece.His neglect of signing such an important treary before the war only raises questions about Hanibal strategical goals.

	24-08-2002 07:05									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Fighter Well, to explain my fascination with Carthage, I like the underdogs. I also like the audacious leaders, also explaining why I like the US Civil War. Hannibal marched to the gates of Rome unnoposed, and no one was their to defend Rome, he then marched through rome and continued running accross the country side burning and pillaging as he went. It was a clash of the titans, had Carthage one, they would have formed the next great empire, unfortunately they lost and Rome got that honour.

Here's the reason for MY fascination with Carthage.

Imagine if they held their own at sea in the Firt Punc War, and then Hannibal DEFEATED Rome in the Second Punic War!!

Imagine if Carthage inspired revolts against Rome, Etruscans perhaps, and if Rome was destroyed.

HOW WOULD HISTORY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF CARTHAGE DOMINATED THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA and Rome ceased to exist long before Christ??

Any thoughts?

	24-08-2002 07:10									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Palaiologos Basicaly i think it was a doomed campaign from the very begining, and that is what makes it more dramatic. According to Polybius(the most reliable ancient historian) at 220Bc(two years before the invasion) Rome could field 700.000 infantry and 80.000 cavalry, whereas Hannibal crossed the alps with only 40.000 men. These facts combined with the established Roman naval supremacy after the first Punic war led the Romans to the assumption that the war would be an "away match" in Spain and Africa. Hannibal's briliant tactical victories only managed to prolonge an already lost war. It must be added here that Hannbal had no clear objective in mind when he invaded Italy.He brought no siege engines with which to capture the larger cities and eventually Rome itself.It seemed he believed the war could be won by inflicting devastating looses upon the Romans,impressing their italian allies and force them to switch sides.Such a tactic could never suceed against Rome with her inexaustible manpower sources. His only hope, an alliance with King Philip V of Macedonia collapsed when the Carthaginian messengers bearing a request for Macedonian aid in southen Italy were intercepted en route to Greece.His neglect of signing such an important treary before the war only raises questions about Hanibal strategical goals.

Interesting.

I thought the siege engines would be built by engineers ON THE SCENE. Only in Civ 3 do they have to be transported across hills and mountains for hundreds of miles.

Was Hannibal making Carthaginian foreign policy?? You imply that. He wasn't the ruler of Carthage, as I recall.

Why didn't Philip V jump in regardless after Cannae when Rome had suffered a huge defeat? Seems like it would have been a great time to do so.

	24-08-2002 07:23									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Coracle HOW WOULD HISTORY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF CARTHAGE DOMINATED THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA and Rome ceased to exist long before Christ?? Any thoughts?

Well for one thing, Africa, especially the northern coast would have been much more developed. I think that the Carthaginians would have needed to establish trade networks deep into the continent and perhaps would have been able to send ships around the horn. Just a thought...

	24-08-2002 08:19									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What I'm wondering is what Carthage's UU will be. India already has the war elephant.....

	24-08-2002 10:45									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: What I'm wondering is what Carthage's UU will be. India already has the war elephant.....

Some kind of improved horseman?

	24-08-2002 19:30									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It'll probably be the elephant with the wooden tower on it's back, from which archers would shoot down.

I wonder if PTW has too many Militaristic civs. Think now: the Celts, the Mongols, the Vikings, will all most probably be militaristic. In all probability, either the Arabs or the Ottomans will be militaristic (it'd only fit). So, half of the civs, if not more, would end up being militaristic.

	24-08-2002 19:49									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I thought the siege engines would be built by engineers ON THE SCENE. Only in Civ 3 do they have to be transported across hills and mountains for hundreds of miles.

Indeed.

Hannibal not only did not bring himself a siege train but also never ordered siege mahines to be built on the scene.When Carthaginian reinforcements arrived by sea they had not siege equipment either.It seemed Hannibal thought that a siege against the well fortified Roman cities would take too long, and he had no time to waste.

When the Carthaginians finnaly decided to bring siege machines they had run out of time.Hannibal 's brother,Hasdrubal crossed the alps in the spring of 207Bc with badly needed reinforcements for Hannibal(including siege equipment) but was intercepted at the river metaurus by two Roman consular armies and defeated in the most decisive battle of the war.

	24-08-2002 19:59									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Was Hannibal making Carthaginian foreign policy?? You imply that. He wasn't the ruler of Carthage, as I recall.

Actually he was making foreign policy.

After the death of his father,Hamilcar Barca, he became the head of the rulling Barcid family.Although Carthage was ruled by a Senate, Hannibal yielded much power without being a senator himself.

The Second Punic war started on Hannibal's personal initiative.He biesieged the city of Saguntum in Spain,which by the terms of the treaty signed after the First Punic War was under Roman protection, without the senate's approval.

Rome demanded Hannibal extradiction and the Senate refused.War followed.

	24-08-2002 20:12									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Why didn't Philip V jump in regardless after Cannae when Rome had suffered a huge defeat? Seems like it would have been a great time to do so.

It was after Cannae that a prospect of a Carthaginian-Macedonian Alliance appeared.At Philip's initiative envoys were sent to Hannibal proposing an alliance.These envoys reached the Carthaginians after a hazardous and almost hollywood-style journey.They agreed to an alliance with the following terms:The Macedonians were to land in southern italy and aid the carthaginian war effort, while the carthaginians after their victorious war against Rome were to sent their fleet to the Aegean and help Philip subdue the rebbelous Greek states of southern Greece.

Unfortunately as i have already mentioned these envoys along with their Carthaginian counterparts were intercepted by a Roman fleet on patrol, en route to Greece to certify the treaty.Philip never received Hannibal's reply.

My personal opinion however is that the alliance would be of little value.Macedonia was threatened by a multitude of enemies and would be possible to render decisive assistance, except for their reputation as the finest army of the world that would make the Romans extremey nervous.But who knows?

	25-08-2002 20:30									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I meant impossible for Macedonia to render assistance not possible as i have wrongly written

Last edited by Palaiologos on 29-08-2002 at 14:00