|
Hogge Wild posted:
Except for the fact that he bankrupted England and executed anyone (including his wife) he didn't like.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
fspades posted:Also, "The Inheritance Of Rome" by Chris Wickham. This is a cool and good book. Jamwad Hilder posted:So I think this is kind of within the scope of this thread, maybe better suited for Medieval? I'm interested in learning more about the Viking age/Carolingian Europe. Anyone have any good recommendations for where to start? For Carolingian history, check out the books written by Rosamond McKitterick. 9-Volt Assault fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Except for the fact that he bankrupted England and executed anyone (including his wife) he didn't like. Motherfucker lived the dream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
I am very slowly working my way through this thread, and am becoming more interested in Roman history every page, and I know this has been asked 100 times and the answer is 'nobody knows', but would you knowledgeable people give me your opinions on why Hannibal didn't march on Rome? I know the simple answers are "That wasn't the point of him being in Italy" and "Carthage wouldn't send him enough supplies/siege weapons to ensure he could do it", but it just seems like such a strange decision for him. I would love to hear your guys' deeper opinions on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
A lot of people at the time wondered why he wouldn't march on Rome. Some possibilities: He didn't think he had the men and equipment to pull it off. If you can't surround and cut off the city, it'll never fall. The Romans were very good at sieges, and he didn't want to play to their strengths. He thought the war would be won by splitting Rome from her allies. He kept trying to build an anti-Rome alliance right in Italy, with surprisingly little success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Second guessing someone from 2,200 years ago is kinda pointless to begin with, but it really does confuse the hell out of me why he never marched on the city. Rome was pissing itself in fear to the point they brought back human sacrifices, and he had just annihilated Rome's greatest army. Its entirely possible they just throw the gates open in an attempt to avoid wholesale slaughter. Considering the slog that was the Italian Campaign, I find it really hard to see why it was not worth a shot. Worst case is he marches on the city, is unable to siege it properly, and retreats to friendly cities. Maybe he loses some cred wit ha couple cities, but that is status quo for the campaign anyway. I find it hard not to side with Maharbal -"You, Hannibal, know how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
If he loses a siege at Rome the whole thing is over. If he wins without securing the whole peninsula first his is bogged down and immobile in a hostile city with other towns still out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If he loses a siege at Rome the whole thing is over. If he wins without securing the whole peninsula first his is bogged down and immobile in a hostile city with other towns still out there. Why would the whole thing be over? His ally cities would just abandon him after they already betrayed Rome?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If he loses a siege at Rome the whole thing is over. If he wins without securing the whole peninsula first his is bogged down and immobile in a hostile city with other towns still out there. Counterpoint: he can take all valuables locked in the city and take all those important or educated people for hostages/slaves. Then he could burn it to the ground or give it to freed slaves. Of course Hannibal's army wasn't particularily great at sieges, but I don't know why haven't he even burned/looted farms and anything outside city walls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Except for the fact that he bankrupted England and executed anyone (including his wife) he didn't like. Luckily he had a plan for unbankrupting them and "it's good to be the king"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Why would the whole thing be over? His ally cities would just abandon him after they already betrayed Rome? Probably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Probably. Why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
I don't think Hannibal would have been able to take Rome even if he wanted to and acted immediately. He won a disproportionately bloody victory against the Romans at Cannae but still suffered 6,000 dead in the battle and many more wounded, he had thousands of captives now, and about two full legions had escaped the battle and could be expected to defend Rome. Even with Italian defectors, Hannibal would still have needed a force far greater than what he had in order to simultaneously besiege Rome, defend his supply lines in a mostly hostile country, and prevent Rome from getting supplies from their allies. Two legions would have been more than sufficient to hold Rome long enough for legions from Sardinia, Sicily, Iberia, or Greece, to return to Italy. Remember this was a war between two empires, it wasn't just confined to Italy, and Rome was winning basically everywhere else in the Mediterranean.
Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Well, they presumably joined up because he was a winner. If he loses to the Romans then they're going to wonder if they're on the right side. If they switch back to Rome then maybe they won't be punished. It's all speculative but the fact that he was steamrolling everything Rome threw at him certainly contributed a lot to the support he was able to raise. Later when he became unable to do anything useful he lost that support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Except for the fact that he bankrupted England and executed anyone (including his wife) he didn't like. I was referring more to his displacement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I don't think Hannibal would have been able to take Rome even if he wanted to and acted immediately. He won a disproportionately bloody victory against the Romans at Cannae but still suffered 6,000 dead in the battle and many more wounded, he had thousands of captives now, and about two full legions had escaped the battle and could be expected to defend Rome. Even with Italian defectors, Hannibal would still have needed a force far greater than what he had in order to simultaneously besiege Rome, defend his supply lines in a mostly hostile country, and prevent Rome from getting supplies from their allies. Two legions would have been more than sufficient to hold Rome long enough for legions from Sardinia, Sicily, Iberia, or Greece, to return to Italy. This assumes they could get organized before Hannibal arrived. They were scattered and on the run. He could have made straight for Rome and arrived with his name going ahead of him. Livy makes it clear the Romans were completely out of their minds in terror, and Hannibal's own generals thought he was making a mistake. I will grant it is a gamble though and losing face could have led to a few cities leaving him, but I do not think his major allies like Capua would abandon him as long as his army was intact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
The Romans were panicked in the immediate aftermath but they switched back to "gently caress you" mode pretty quickly and rejected all surrender/peace proposals that Hannibal offered. I also tend to think that Capua, and the other southern cities in Italy, didn't really have a choice in being Hannibal's ally. It was either side with the guy who was currently winning or get killed because they were cut off from Rome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:The Romans were panicked in the immediate aftermath but they switched back to "gently caress you" mode pretty quickly and rejected all surrender/peace proposals that Hannibal offered. They rejected his moderate peace terms from a diplomat he sent while he chilled on the other side of the country. It maybe have been a very different situation when he is outside the gates and the population is rioting out of terror
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
How fast do you think Hannibal could have gotten to Rome
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:How fast do you think Hannibal could have gotten to Rome About a week or so, there was no opposition in his way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:About a week or so, there was no opposition in his way. There are these things called the Apennine mountains in his way and he's got a supply train for 44,000 men, thousands of wounded, and thousands of prisoners. A week is very optimistic. Hannibal's strength is predicated on keeping his army together, and he only makes it to Rome in a week if he leaves behind most of his army in order to get there as quickly as possible. In that case, he now has a fraction of his troops, limited supplies, is hundreds of miles from help, and has to scare the Romans into surrendering (which they never do) or storm the city before legions from Sardinia and Sicily land behind him and cut him off from the rest of his army.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:There are these things called the Apennine mountains in his way and he's got a supply train for 44,000 men, thousands of wounded, and thousands of prisoners. A week is very optimistic. Based it off of this http://orbis.stanford.edu/orbis2012/ Lets even say its 12-15 days. He can get the baggage train to Capua and then force march ahead with the rest of the army for the last stretch up the Appian Way. He is there before the remnants of Cannae show up, and before any significant force can be mustered by the city. Also the majority of his march is in friendly territory, and the rest through areas completely unsuited to opposing him, especially with no legion support. How many legions do you think they are pulling from Sicily anyway? They do not have any to spare at this moment, Syracuse was waffling and joined Hannibal after Cannae.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Based it off of this
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Side note about this - how well-informed WAS Hannibal about the Roman dispositions at that point? Even given that Rome was in a panic and too disorganized and scattered to resist, was Hannibal fully and reliably aware of that? Maybe Hannibal just pulled a McClellan and overestimated how much the Romans were able to resist out of a sense of caution or inability to believe his good luck or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:a single person can move much, much faster than a big premodern army One of the settings is for military march with baggage train
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Side note about this - how well-informed WAS Hannibal about the Roman dispositions at that point? Even given that Rome was in a panic and too disorganized and scattered to resist, was Hannibal fully and reliably aware of that? Maybe Hannibal just pulled a McClellan and overestimated how much the Romans were able to resist out of a sense of caution or inability to believe his good luck or something. There's no scenario where Hannibal attacks Rome without facing resistance, and he knew that. He was not over-cautious. The Roman Senate refused to even speak to the ambassadors he sent, they started mobilizing more men to replace their legions, and according to some sources the word "peace" was banned. Hannibal was not a dummy, he considered attacking Rome but he knew the risk was far too high. Rome would have resisted long enough to be relieved, and even if Hannibal had been able to storm the city successfully, then what? He's got his army in the capital of a hostile empire, surrounded by hostile people and hostile territory, far from his powerbase in southern Italy, and the arrival of veteran Roman legions from other parts of the Mediterranean is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Hannibal might have been able to make the march successfully, but it was a risk. A second risk would be whether or not he would have been able to take the city of Rome (which would have been quite difficult without siege engines, reinforcements, or supplies). A third risk would be whether or not he would have been able to keep the city of Rome, rather than simply being surrounded and starved out. I can well understand why he'd say, "We've got a good thing going here, why throw it all away for a chance at a knockout?" Hannibal's army and his strengths as a strategist were entirely counter to siege warfare. Playing on Rome's terms and attacking Rome's strongest positions would have been a military gamble. Fundamentally what Hannibal needed was more support from Carthage, rather than taking ever more dangerous risks. However, Carthaginian domestic politics were actively hostile to Hannibal receiving reinforcements, and the so-called "Roman peace party" was led by Hanno II, an idiotic aristocrat who preferred conquering Africa (where he owned vast tracts of land) than pursuing foreign policy that would be good for Carthage as a whole. His malfeasance was to the extent that he actively sabotaged Carthaginian efforts in the Punic Wars, kept the fleets in port when Roman naval power was weak, and at one point started a war with their own mercenaries (by refusing to pay them) and then seized command of the Carthaginian armies to fight them - only to be defeated and be forced to hand the armies back to Hannibal's father Hamilcar. He was a huge thorn in the side the Carthaginian state for 50 years, and is a major reason that Carthage fell. Not to be all "great man history", but the Hanno family loving sucked and no one misses them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Great#Hanno_II_the_Great Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
He might have thought that even if he took Rome, it wouldn't mean much. The Romans had already refused to talk after multiple defeats that would've brought anyone else in the ancient world to the negotiating table. It's entirely possible that taking Rome would've just ended with himself besieged by Roman armies still refusing to give up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Fundamentally what Hannibal needed was more support from Carthage, rather than taking ever more dangerous risks. Even then, they didn't have the means to send him much support. Reliance on mercenaries meant prioritizing the defense of their commercially valuable holdings, like Iberia. They don't have extra resources to give to Hannibal running around Italy, even though he was doing a good job, when they're at risk of losing the territories that pay for their armies. The nature of the Roman military meant they did not face the same kind of restrictions and they would have probably kept fighting and putting new legions into the field until literally every man available had died. I don't think Carthage could have ever won the war. Their only real hope was to force Rome to negotiate a relatively moderate peace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Even then, they didn't have the means to send him much support. Reliance on mercenaries meant prioritizing the defense of their commercially valuable holdings, like Iberia. They don't have extra resources to give to Hannibal running around Italy, even though he was doing a good job, when they're at risk of losing the territories that pay for their armies. The nature of the Roman military meant they did not face the same kind of restrictions and they would have probably kept fighting and putting new legions into the field until literally every man available had died. I don't think Carthage could have ever won the war. Their only real hope was to force Rome to negotiate a relatively moderate peace. Carthage sent huge armies into Africa, and had them spend years running around conquering empty dirt. It was so pointless. They sent three armies into Iberia, and they were chased all around the peninsula and ended up getting trounced by a single Roman army led by a competent general. Carthaginian fleets were tooling around Sicily while Carthage was twiddling its thumbs and insisting it was too dangerous to send troops to friendly Italian ports. Meanwhile Hannibal is literally at the doors of Rome saying, "Hey, can anyone give me a hand to finish this off? No?" It takes five days to sail from Carthage to Rome, and yet it took 10 years for Hannibal to get meaningful reinforcements - in the form of an army that in fact Hannibal had sent himself and were simply extremely overdue - at which point the war was totally lost and the reinforcements got demolished by the many legions that Rome had raised in the intervening decade. Rome should have lost the Second Punic War, and it is simply astounding that they didn't. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
I wouldn't put it all on Carthaginians being stupid either though. An assault on Rome would have been.. Very difficult, even with reinforcements. Carthage probably was of the idea that Rome would come to the table. Hell, anyone else would have by that time. They just didn't expect Rome to be so insanely, well.. Roman. No peace, ever, even if every last man dies on the field. Total victory or a sea of blood. Preferably both to the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Carthage sent huge armies into Africa, and had them spend years running around conquering empty dirt. It was so pointless. I honestly don't know what you're referring to here. Do you mean their conflicts against the Numidians? People the Romans supplied and trained in order for the express purpose of opening another front against Carthage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Vagon posted:I wouldn't put it all on Carthaginians being stupid either though. An assault on Rome would have been.. Very difficult, even with reinforcements. Carthage probably was of the idea that Rome would come to the table. Hell, anyone else would have by that time. They just didn't expect Rome to be so insanely, well.. Roman. Bear in mind the only account we have of this whole thing is from the Romans and their buddies, and it was in their interests/biases to think of themselves as total badasses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Bear in mind the only account we have of this whole thing is from the Romans and their buddies, and it was in their interests/biases to think of themselves as total badasses. Yet most Roman accounts pretty much say "we were beaten after Cannae, but Hannibal let off the gas." You had them burying people alive in sacrifice to the gods, people calling for the abandonment of Italy, tons of surrender talk, etc. It may be a hindsight is 20/20 thing, but immediately after Cannae was Hannibal's best shot. He was Genghis Khan at that moment and I really think the Roman people were ready to surrender out of sheer fear. Maybe some of the hardliners in power would try and gut it out, but that can end real fast if group of rioting peasants burns your villa down with you in it. Pretty much all of the accounts talk about how the typical Roman stubbornness was initially absent after Cannae. Also in terms of the logistics, Mahharbal seems to think it was 5 days to get at least the cavalry to Rome. Livy posted:When all others, surrounding the victorious Hannibal, congratulated him, and advised that, having completed so great a battle, he should himself take the remainder of the day and the ensuing night for rest, and grant it to his exhausted troops; Maharbal, prefect of the cavalry, who was of opinion that no time should be lost, said to him, "Nay, rather, that you may know what has been achieved by this battle, five days hence you shall feast in triumph in the Capitol. Follow me: I will go first with the cavalry, that they may know that I am arrived before they know of me as approaching." To Hannibal this project appeared too full of joy, and too great for his mind to embrace it and determine upon it at the instant. Accordingly, he replied to Maharbal, that "he applauded his zeal, but that time was necessary to ponder the proposal." Upon this Maharbal observed, "Of a truth the gods have not bestowed all things upon the same person. You know how to conquer, Hannibal; but you do not know how to make use of your victory." That day's delay is firmly believed to have been the preservation of the city and the empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I honestly don't know what you're referring to here. Do you mean their conflicts against the Numidians? People the Romans supplied and trained in order for the express purpose of opening another front against Carthage? Carthage had large conquering armies ranging all over Libya and Numidia, and they spent most of their time wasting their strength putting down one king or rebellion after another. The Romans merely capitalized on the terrible position that the Carthaginians had put themselves in by overextending. Even if the Romans hadn't gotten themselves involved, the Carthaginians would still have had tens of thousands of soldiers tooling around Africa, establishing an empire that wouldn't be profitable for many decades, while they were desperately needed elsewhere. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ultimately, Hannibal was playing Dominions, and Rome was playing Total War. He didn't get his Melqarts out fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
All the human sacrifice paid off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Bear in mind the only account we have of this whole thing is from the Romans and their buddies, and it was in their interests/biases to think of themselves as total badasses. This is usually true but but in the case of Hannibal it's generally thought the records are very accurate. Usually numbers at battles are exaggerated for example, but it's believed the scale of the death and disaster at Cannae is accurate. It was the closest Rome ever came to total defeat until the end, and they seem to have reported it soberly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Where did the people of antiquity go to relax, unwind, and hit on chicks? I know that restaurants as we know them are a 19th century invention... I know this is from months ago but the "hit on chicks" part was never properly addressed and I feel the misguided need to rectify that. Ovid wrote some books on courting (the ars amatoria, or the art of love) and among other things, discusses just this very thing! He wrote three books on the subject: one for men to find the woman of their dreams, one on how to keep her, and finally one for women to find the man of their dreams. Of course, as this is Roman poetry, more than half of the works are allusions to nature or mythology. Still, it offers us some insight into the daily life of average Roman Joe. First of all, Ovid stresses that love won't come by itself. You have to go out there and start talking to people! Translations are courtesy of A.S. Kline quote:While you’re still free, and can roam on a loose rein, And then he basically starts listing places where to look. Shady colonnades on hot summer days, or Livia's Portico. There's a bunch of temples, too: quote:And don’t forget the shrine of Adonis, Venus wept for, And he also suggests the courtrooms, which is the most surprising in my opinion, as those are usually seen as traditionally masculine places in ancient Rome. However, trials were public at the forum, and maybe some highly sensational cases attracted crowds of onlookers, including women. Theatres seemed to be good places to hook up? quote:But hunt for them, especially, at the tiered theatre: The horse races or circus are a good place to hang out, too. Not only for striking up conversations, but because the crowds give you a valid excuse to break the touch barrier. It's surprising how many similarities there are between Ovid's work and modern dating tips. quote:Don’t forget the races, those noble stallions: Of course, you can also meet people at parties! But don't overdo the wine, as beer goggles were a term even the Romans knew well enough. quote:Don’t trust the treacherous lamplight overmuch: Or hit the beach: quote:Why enumerate every female meeting place fit for the hunter? I'm stopping here, as I could just copy-paste the entire book from this point on. Not that it isn't interesting, but it goes more about "how to date her" than "where to find her", which was your original question. I haven't read the second or third books yet, but I imagine especially the third one will provide more information on where to hang out. I hope I am forgiven for quoting such an old post, and my answer being a lot longer than anticipated, but as you can see, I really like Ovid's ars amatoria, since most Roman works are about politics or mythology or science and it's interesting to just... Read about the casual day to day life of the Roman citizens, I suppose? It's worth noting that Ovid was exiled by Augustus, who cited his ars amatoria as subversive poems. Adultery laws were serious business under Augustus, who was kind of tired of the decadence of the late republic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know if that was the real reason or just a pretext for a deeper issue between the two. EDIT: Reading through the poems again, I can't help but wonder if his book would have become a success among PUA circles if written and published today. Ovid was kind of a douche. quote:They many times ask for gifts, they never give in return: quote:First let faith enter into your mind: every one of them quote:Perhaps at first a cool letter comes to you, Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Those are great. Small talk, physical touching etc. It's really interesting to see how little some elements of being human don't change over thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:30
|
|
