I don't know why history is so impressed with Hanniblas feat of invading Italy via the Alps, but I have my own reasons for being impressed with it.<br>
<br>
It was a one of history's greatest surprise attacks. The Romans knew that there was going to be anoth war with the Carthaginians. They were fortifying all over Sicily and the west coast of Italy because they expected Hannibal to take the most direct and quickest route into Rome. That would have been via the mediterranean, possible attacking in two fronts from Spain and North Africa.<br>
<br>
The idea to invade by crossing over land and coming in through the circuitous route of the Alpines was a stroke of cunning the Romans weren't used to.<br>
<br>
Historically, Romans had a hard time dealing with the unexpected. They were freaks for controlling every aspect of war. That condition ultimately paid off for them when they were expanding the empire, but in the earlier years versus Carthage and Greece, they had a hard time reacting efficiently to the creative warfare of contemporary civilizations outdating Rome. <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>
Good point Marius. <p></p><i></i>
We could really go on forever as I don't agree and you don't with me. Ciao<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/14/01 10:27:58 pm<br></i>
Do we disagree often? If we do, I hadn't noticed. Otherwise, why the "surprise!"?<br>
<br>
Please tell me your opinions where you disagree with me. <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>
The "suprise" was a joke. Jokes shouldn't be explained.<br>
Regards our "disagreement" I must say that I am NOT an expert of the Punic wars. But the impression I get is that, as since Romans tried to stop Hannibal at the Trebbia and then at Trasimeno, evidently they knew he was coming, maybe late but to say they were surprised is, in my opinion, forcing the point too much. The Romans had the control of the sea. How else was Hannibal to come with an army? I really don't think it was all that much of a stunning surprise. Scipio took the war to Spain and how surprised do you think the able and cunning Cathaginians were in that occasion? I also think the contemporary armies of older tradition did NOT do very well against the Romans who showed instead a strange way of fighting that took the others off guard. To say the romans were not flexible and stubborn is also something I cann't agree on. So you see that we disagree on many things. Maybe after much discussion and through exhuastion we could arrive at some form of agreement. Ciao for now <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/16/01 11:03:22 am<br></i>
Sorry to jump in to your little 'disagreement', but surely you must regard Hannibal's invasion from the north as a surprise.<br>
<br>
When 38 brightly painted elephants march onto your patch followed by around 50,000 Barbarians, sure word is going to get around pretty quickly! But it didn't give the Roman's enough time to prepare as meticulously as they would have liked, or it wouldn't have ended with thousands of them stood up to their neck in blood red water crying for mercy.<br>
<br>
That's my humble opinion anyway! <p></p><i></i>
Maybe you are right. But I guess I am really reacting to the statement that the romans were incapable of adjusting to surprises! I think they out smarted and out performed their opponents (of all sorts and styles) enough times to have proved that statement too simplistic if not wrong! Regards the 38 (?) elephants I would really like to make precise question. Were they really useful? How many survived the crossing and were they used in battle to any real effect? If, as I suspect, there was some exageration about the elephants then maybe there were other exagerations too. Probably they had no real usefulness so the effort and loss of men and elephants during the crossing should be judged a failure! But apart from being polemical on this issue of which I know little, I am really truely suprised that the great Hannibal insisted in using them at Zama ! (*) He showed no creativity against Scipio that actually predicted that Hannibal would use them in such foolish way (yes!) and prepared his troops to let them pass thru the lines. So, you see, the performance of generals and armies can be judged many different ways according to the info that one decides to include or dismiss. Of course not all info has the same credibility and hence the need to read between the lines. I plan to read Goldworthy's new book on the Punic wars and then, after correcting my views we can re-open this discussion. For the moment I am signing off from this topic.<br>
<br>
(*) Great generals do make stupid mistakes. Lee made his most stupid mistake at Gettysburg where he showed no creativity in charging straight across a flat field towards the Northern troops postioned safely behind fences and walls ready to fire. So Hannibal is in good company. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/16/01 12:52:16 pm<br></i>
To Good 'Ol Goffredo,<br>
The elephants didn't do much it's true,but you have to remember that Carthage needed all the arms they<br>
could come up with to more or less match up with Rome.And the Romans could adapt to situations,yes;they may have learned the hard way,but they profited from what they learned.<br>
Hannibal blundered with the elephants at Zama definitely;one could even say that the great man underestimated his great protege by devising a very obvious & foolhardy tactic.<br>
<br>
Alty the Younger,the pic of that laughing centurion that graces your posts is truly funny & really cute,where do you get such pics?<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
To goffredo,<br>
<br>
I'm no fan of Hannibal myself (baby sacrificing Barbarian scum!). From my limited knowledge, I believe that only one elephant survived the conflict with the Romans, so I don't think they were really that useful. I think they were mostly used for sheer intimidation; huge brightly painted beasts charging towards you.<br>
<br>
Apparently, they were as big a threat to their own soldiers, so their riders carried a hammer and chisel with them. As soon as the elephants turned on the Carthaginians in the confusion of battle, 'CRACK!', they'd drive the chisel through their brains and stop them dead in their tracks.<br>
<br>
Poor old nelly!<br>
<br>
To A Barca,<br>
<br>
If I reveal my picture source I'll have to kill you. (Only kidding, it's from the Official Asterix website. Please don't duplicate my identity, there are funnier ones to choose from!)<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
I by no means think that the Romans couldn't adjust to change. They proved that they could by whipping Hannibal's tail and stomping Carthage on their own grounds. It took at least a year of skirmishing before they got their feet back under them, though. I still think in the early years, Rome had a hard time dealing with surprise.<br>
<br>
They were still the greatest army this world has ever seen. There's a story that supports this belief I have. I think it involved Pyrrhus' invasion of Rome. It was the first time Romans had ever seen elephants. Can you imagine how scary that must have been for them to face animals of that size?<br>
<br>
At the end of the battle, 15,000 legionaries lay dead, but not a single one of them had their back to the battle lines. Pyrrhus, looking out across the battlefield said, "How can we ever hope to defeat an army such as this?" He also reportedly said, "One more such victory, and I am lost!" <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>
I think crossing the alps to invade isn't such a big deal...but with elephants?!<br>
<br>
What was Hannibal thinking??? <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>
Hannibal wasn't a barbarian, & definitely not a scum, look at the Roman nature & character & tell me who the barbarians & scums were! And Marius, why not try to cross the Alps yourself with at least 3 elephants? LOL <p></p><i></i>
I can't afford that many peanuts... <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>
Neither could Hannibal apparently, for only three out of thirty four survived.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Hi A Barca<br>
you are of course joking too! In that period I seem to remember that Romans didn't make human sacrifices anymore while we all know that the Carthaginians happily did. Of course Romans had gladiator shows. Romans were brutal and were not angles. But I warmly suggest we DON'T get absorbed into this game of "who was more barbaric" else we will definitely, I assure you, get into a un-ending spiral of recriminations. Ciao and take it easy<br>
<br>
p.s. Hannibal was great.<br>
<p></p><i></i>