add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Child psychologist offers advice on how to talk to children about war kumed.com |
[edit] SuggestionThere is a lot of information that is missing from all the pages about the second Punic war. Would it be possible to organize some type of big push to actually add information on, especially about Hannibal's march through the alps and its disputed route. There's a lot of Maps out there, especially in Dodge's Hannibal, so perhaps someone who's better acquainted with maps could produce a few of them for the major battles, esp. Cannae, Zama, Metaurus etc. The second Punic War was like the WW II of the Roman World, yet the information on here is so paltry. The Second Punic War should eventually qualify as a feature article.--Cannae 04:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miscellaneous DiscussionBlackGriffen, I want to thank you for creating an outline for the page. It's much easier to fill articles in than start them off, and this was fun to do. To those who edit the page, a note about the battle of Zama - the tactical description given is correct. Often one sees the claim that the Carthaginians fell into the same trap they had created at Cannae, something that I think even appears in some Roman sources, but this is quoted not so much because it happened as because it makes a neat story. IMO, the real version is dramatic enough. All right! The real Cunctator, basking in glory. ---TheCunctator Should it be mentioned that the Romans were rotten tacticians? They relied on an frontal assault and the superior quality of their soldiers for victory. So Hannibal's retreating the centre and attacking from the wings was an obvious tactic? --Unknown It wasn't just that they were rotten tacticians, the Romans inherited a battle system that enabled even a mediocre general to perform well. IIRC, a typical roman legion consisted of three battle lines, the first two containing six rows of troops each, and the last one containing only three. The least experienced soldiers were in the front, and the veterans were in the back (of the legion). As Jomini put it, this arrangement did a great deal for the morale of the individual soldier since his back and sides were protected and if he were wounded or had a flank exposed, he could fall back a row. The net result was either a Roman victory, or the lines fell back in to the last three veteran ranks, and the army retreated. The flaw was that even though the system could make a mediocre general good enough to fight off a disorganized foe like a Gallic horde, any enemy who had disciplined men and decently competant general, let alone one of Hannibal's brilliance, could defeat the system if it didn't have a good general leading it. I'm fairly sure Roman tactics worked basically like this, but my description isn't exact. Jomini's book (public domain by now, I'm sure [he was a Frenchman who fought in the Franco-Prussian(?) war in the late 1800's and who wrote his book around that time]) is an excellent resource on the effects of morale, and it uses the Romans as a case study. Also, one of the reason's the Romans lost so consistantly was that their cavalry was crap. The article touches on this by almost implying that the Numidian cavalry saved Scipio's butt (especially since cavalry has a habit of running off the battlefield when it breaks the enemy [in persuit], and the Numidian cavalry didn't). If Hannibal had only faced Roman cavalry, he probably would have taken Scipio apart. From what I read, the Numidian cavalry did leave the battlefield. They were simply nice enough to come back. Also, thanks for the compliment, I only wish I could recall mor detail. Unfortuneately, the last book I read on Hannibal was 4 or 5 years ago. Writing the article rekindled my interest, though. I also vaguely recall an anecdote about Rome demanding Hannibal (so the could execute him) when he was 85 (or so), and he and Scipio even met face to face... My recollection is too vague to be reliable, though.--BlackGriffen One last thing. Surrounding the enemy is generally extremely risky, since a competant surrounded general would concentrated his forces and attack one point of the circle, breaking it (I believe Clauswitz said something like that, but I'm not certain). The only time encirclement isn't a gamble is when your superiority is so great that the enemy would have lost a field battle by a large margin anayway, and you want to prevent retreat. A stupid general lets his men panic and get butchered like the Romans did. --BG Wow! Thanks, folks. Now we have put the lie to the specific claim by that Penn professor. :-) --LMS I see no mention in the article of Fabius' relationship with Lucius Minucius, as recorded in Plutarch's book, Fabius. I would be completely ignorantof the Second Punic War except that I read through Plutarch's book today to learn the origin of the quote, "To conduct great matters and never commit a fault is above the force of human nature; but to learn and improve by the faults we have committed, is that which becomes a good and sensible man." Minucius said that after losing a battle to Hannibal and being rescued by Fabius. Or is Plutarch's account fictional? Please advise. <>< Tim Chambers There's some strange conclusions here. Roman cavalry wasn't "cap" - what it was was almost always outnumbered. All cavalry pursued a broken foe - and almost all cavalry could be recalled and rallied from pursuit by a competant general. Surrounding enemy in ancient times was a good way to destroy them - in a time where combat was face-to-face, compressing your enemy into themselves without enough room to swing their weapons properly was agood idea - it worked at cannae and it worked at Agincourt 1500 years later. Once the enemy is fleeing it is a good idea to leave him a path to run along - hence maybe 10,000 Romans were able to escape the encirclement at Cannae. A surrounded enemy can only concentrate his forces if he also ahs good command and control, good morale, and room to manouvre. The Romans had none of these at Cannae. If Hannibal's tactics were so obvious how come no-one else tried them (well one of his brotehrs did - I forget the battle - he got beaten)? Again in fact the vast majority of armies in that time and place relied upon massed frontal assault. Genius commanders were those able to pull of almost anything else at all - command and control systems weren't that good, and few generals got second chances if their first one failed! Mike The Romans had good tactics, if somewhat inflexible, but prior to Hannibal had no strategies. I think the Punic War section should be reduced in the Hannibal page. Hasdrubal Barca was defeated in the Battle of the Metaurus because Romans used an adaption of the Cannae tactic and his Celts were not sobber enough. Roman cavalry was neither light nor heavy. Carthaginian cavalry forces were light or heavy and defeated them at the Battle of Ticinus because of tactical advantages of troop deployment possible. At Cannae the heavy cavalry was abled to beat one Roman flank, while on the other the outnumbered Romans did not score. All in all a poor article on the war and an excellent copy of the Hannibal article. Wandalstouring 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] About Ticinus and TrebiaThe accounts of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and the battle along the Trebia river are incorrect. Hannibal crossed the Alps into Italy in the fall of 218 B.C., not in the spring. The consul Publius Scipio (father of Africanus) headed back to take command of some men already in Northern Italy, was trounced in a cavalry skirmish along the Ticinus, and retreated to Placentia (Piacenza) to await the arrival of the other consul, Longus, and his army. Longus wanted battle, and with P. Scipio waylaid by injuries, battle he got. He led the combined army across the Trebia and was soundly beaten by Hannibal. The cavalry and the allied soldiers were routed, but the legions did manage to break through Hannibal's line. Had they turned back, the battle may have gone very differently. Instead they retreated. Still, neither consul was killed. That did not happen until 208, when Marcellus and his colleague rode into an ambush near Venusia. Publius Scipio left to join his brother in Spain the next year. As for Longus, he tried to cover up his defeat, but he certainly survived. He seems to have been disgraced, however, and never appears in the historical narrative again.
[edit] Casualties at CannaeThis page is inconsistent with the page Battle of Cannae in its description of the number of survivors of the battle. The page about the battle itself claims that thousands survived, while this page claims that less than one hundred survived. At the very least, this is confusing to the reader. If the number are unknown, that should be said, and all historically supported estimates should be listed on both pages. --Pmetzger 19:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wandalstouring 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] lots of mistakesmany false statistics here amd misinterpretations... hannibal had three elephants after crossing the alps - not 1 - and they played a significant role at the battle of trebia by crushing roman heavy infantry. (they fed them figs to give them skin-rashes to make them very hostile). Also, Hannibals oath was never to be a friend to Rome. The "eternal hatred" is a B.S. story made up by Livy. Too much Roman bias on this article, I think. The article fails to mention the annexation of Sardinia, the Saguntum/Massilia connection, Rome's history of breaking treaties with Carthage (most notably the Messana ordeal on Sicily), and the article fails to even mention that Saguntum was well south of the Ebro river!!! Even Polybius admits Roman aggression played a big part in the outbreak of the war. This article reads like Appian or Tenney Frank wrote it... Bad news... im a chicken There are other sources stating all elephants crossed. The attacks in the mountains concentrated on the Cartahaginian supplies, not on the troops. After all elephants quickly die under cold and wet conditions, against cold alone they can be protected. NO the elephants were NOT used against the Romans at Trebia, the Romans knew how to fight them, they were used against their Celtic allies, really impressing them. Wandalstouring 22:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Classical Sources?Should not the classical historians be listed as references as well? Yes, I realize - as "im a chicken" pointed out that they're not exactly objective, but I think it would be helpful to know which primary sources write about the war as well. - Vedexent 14:01, 22 February 2006(UTC)
[edit] Other TheatesShould there not be mention of the Sicilian and Hispanic conflicts? The list of battles only includes the Italian theater. - Vedexent 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Seconded. An argument could be made for this war being won in Spain; if the Romans hadn't brought the fight to Hasdrabul and kept him bottled up away from his brother, the war could have gone much different. Scipio spanking the younger Barca robbed the Carthaginians of their most valuable foreign holdings, effectively cut both brothers off from further reinforcements, and gave the Romans a commander able enough to take the fight to Hannibal at Zama. I don't have enough information to start another full-fledged section, but if somebody wants me to lay down a vague outline, I'm game. Also: No mention of the Sicilian rebellions and the retaking of Syracuse? My god in heaven, people, this is history! Put your backs into it! --The Undeadinator 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC) I agree, cut the useless description of Zama if necessary. I would be glad to help. Especially the problems of the Italian theatre can not be understood without getting a picture of all the parallel actions of war. Wandalstouring 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Copy from HannibalI am proposing the somewhat drastic step of copying the bulk of the Hannibal article to here, then merging, and then condensing the sections on those battles which have their own article. I give people a week to think about it. Mustafa Bevi 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC) I think it can work. Note also that there are some info in the Battle of Cannae article. In particular, in the aftermath section they link to this article for detailed information, but that one is much more detailed! Gala.martin 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I agree that sections on battles which have their own articles should be short summaries here, but I'm not clear on why you seem to be suggesting merging Hannibal with this article. Separate people have their own articles. If someone took the time to write a quality article on Hannibal, it shouldn't be ripped apart just because someone else doesn't want to take the time to write a quality article on the Second Punic War and would rather just merge the two. I strongly oppose merging Hannibal here. Kafziel 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mergerVery well. I am now making an official request that segments of the Hannibal article be moved to the Second Punic War article, due to the reasons cited above--Chubdub 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You said merged before. Now it is moved. I see some difference. As explained here and on Hannibal discussion page, a delicate work should be done. Removing some parts of some sections of Hannibal article, and merging here those info. I think you mean that by moving, but I would like to be sure. gala.martin (what?) 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Size of articleThis article is currently 41KB long, articles longer than 32KB should be considered for reduction. Moving the Hispania campaign to its own article is one obvious way of doing it. The battle of Zena section has already been substantially reduced and the bulk of the content moved to its own article, the other major battles could be treated in the same way. The article is as long as it is not because it grew organically in this way over a period of time, but because the Hannibal article was merged with it. Any comments? Mustafa Bevi 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
(UTC)
[edit] battle boxSomeone keeps removing my entris of Utica, Cirta, the Great Plains and Saguntum in the battle box. Don't you know a major battle when you see one?!
[edit] mapthe map is not correct, Rome had allys further nort in gallia cisalpina and what is today albania was already Roman colony. Hannibal used the tactical advantage that Roman troops where at the time he invaded mostly outside of Italy in Greece and then prepared for returning home. Wandalstouring 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] sources for this claim"As the war drew on, Hannibal repeatedly appealed to the Carthaginian oligarchy for reinforcements and aid. The War-faction and the Pro-Roman Peace Party were the two main political parties that controlled Carthage during this time. The latter, represented Peace and Conciliation with Rome, and the other, represented a war policy and a policy of resistance to Rome. Despite the apparent unanimity of the acceptance of war, Hanno the Great, the leader of the peace party, condemned Hannibal’s actions. As spokesperson for the Carthaginian noble class, he opposed the policy of foreign conquest pursued by Hannibal. As a result, Hanno undermined support in Carthage for Hannibal's military efforts in Italy." Are there sources for this claim? Or should we refer to Polybius' History and mention different reasons. Fear of the popular Hannibal taking over as king (several generals had tried this before, his predecessor Hasdrubal had ruled in Iberia like a king) and a different strategic concept (spreading the war on more theatres while Italy was still not decided) as Hannibal's uprising of Italian Socii against Rome did not happen on a broad scale. Instead Rome was bound by several small wars. Hanno the Great was one of the generals sent out to recover Iberia, where Romans and insurgent Iberians had overthrown Carthaginian rule in the northern parts. Furthermore the difference between peace party and war party sounds a bit strange as there was a broad support for Hannibal at the beginning of the war, but there were differences between an aristocratic rule and a popular rule party. Hannibal tended to be member of the last and did reportedly violet the freedom of speech in the Carthaginian council to enforce peace with Rome. The later story of his oath to fight Rome to the bitter end refers to his exile in Antioch. Of course the aristocratic party tended to be be more Rome friendly and the popular party not, but this "peace-party-backstabbing-Hannibal-to-council-with-Rome-story" sounds very much like the Dolchstosslegende. Wandalstouring 11:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Chronological presentationCould we make a more chronological presentation of this conflict, perhaps with a timeline. At the moment the Punic-Hispanian operations during the first year of conflict consume most of the article. They did achieve great victories under Hannibal, but Hannibal is just one commander with one army in a war ranging Pergamon (modern Turkish coast) to Gades (Cadiz on the Atlantic coast of Europe), from Carthage (modern Tunisia) to Gallia Cisalpina (modern Northern Italy) and the fighting lasted for 17 years, in some areas even longer. Wandalstouring 16:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] reorganizing Punic WarsI decided to reorganize this article. now it shows a misrepresentation of events. main reference for this new presentation is Bagnall, Nigel: The Punic Wars (it has some errors, but a strategic analysis by a former British Chief of the General Staff) [edit] Second Punic War
First Punic War, Mercenary War, Sardinia, Hamilcar Barca and Hasdrubal the Fair conquer Spain (cooperation of Carthage and Gades), Hasdrubal the Fair makes Ebro contract (legal form: Berkit -> private declaration of intentions; not binding for successor if not recognized by the official government), uprises in Sardinia, War in Gaule, war in Illyria Hannibal Barca returns to military conquest (Central Spain; Sagunt, not definetly Greek city; north of the Ebro) -> traderoute dispute Garonne and Auronne alternative routes for tin import to the Rhone (Massilia and allies, siding with Rome); Punic searoute was not competitive, earlier decline of metal findings around Gades Story of declaration of war in Carthage
Mismanagement in Carthage, liquidity squeeze (Roman quaestors refuse silver reparation payment of minor quality), crisis and election of Hannibal for sufet, democratic coup via people's assembly, major political and economic reforms, countercoup of the old elites via Roman request for extradition of Hannibal -> flight, economic recovery, rise and rearmament of Carthage, Punic financial, logistic and military support for Roman campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean, continuous borderconflict with the Numidians, skirmishes between Numidian and Punic forces Wandalstouring 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] QuestionsShould it not be 202BC to 218BC? (Counting down to 0, not up) (by an IP editor)
[edit] MaharbalEvery time I read a book about the Punic Wars I read Maharbal's comment. The funny thing is when I try to find out what happened to him after the Battle of Cannae I find no answer in my books or on Wikipedia. DOes anyone have any idea what happened to him. Was he KIA. Can some one please tell me. Thanks. Kyriakos 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) It's written in Livy as part of the aftermath of Cannae. Maharbal suggests to take Rome now and Hannibal says he has to think about it. Afterwards Maharbal disses Hannibal. Several months later Livy mentions that a Carthaginian spy is caught in Rome who had been active in the city during the first two years of the war. So probably the Carthaginians were quite informed about the whereabouts of Rome's defensive capabilities. It is quite often doubted whether this quote was true or not, however, we do have hints of an ongoing conflict between Maharbal (subordinate) and Hannibal from Polybius and Livy(surrender conditions for Roman units). Maharbal was second in command during the siege of Sagunt according to Livy and one of his strategams during an independent command in Numidia became a educational example for future generals. So far the conflict between him and Hannibal will be highlighted later, I think it is essential to understand the meaning of such a quote. Wandalstouring 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] Utica! Its a wrong war!!The battle of Utica, featured in the list of battles is in fact part of a different war. Please Correct.
[edit] One more battleHello! It seems to me that at least one battle is lacking. A Gaul ambush near Bononia in "Selva Litana" (where was it really?). (216 BC - same year of Cannae). 16,000 (or 25,000) romans and socii killed was not a bad result for anti-roman forces. See Livy XXIII, 24-25. or Here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.252.242 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] The Barcid Empire - examples of bad historyDescribing the Barcid Empire as a "corporation" or "sharehold" is retrojective history, as both concepts were clearly alien at the time. As such, this is a good example of very bad history writing. Could someone please change it to properly explain the Empire without using inappropriate phrases? Ste175 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CommandersI've started a discussion on the template talk page about commanders for large, complicated wars. Because it would likely be same problem for other large conflicts (ie. World War II, Napoleonic Wars), we should probably try to find a standard to agree on. Oberiko 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Captain Tyresias SkenderianusHannibal’s army, significantly supplemented, now stood poised to invade Italy. Scipio, severely injured in the battle, retreated across the River Trebia with his army still intact, and encamped at the town of Placentia to await reinforcements. Captain Tyresias Skenderianus in charge of the elephant legions of Africa, did not have adequate time to retrain a legion of elephants, which spelled disaster in the battle of Zarma. ??? The last sentence makes no sense Dobrin 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Category:Punic Wars vs. Category:Second Punic WarCategory:Second Punic War is itself a category within Category:Punic Wars. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] List-style sectionIt seems this, otherwise rather good, article, has some section made up of just unexplained lists of battle timelines. Can someone help to put them in correct Wiki format? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC) [edit] CasualtiesA wikipedia user has edited in casualties into the war infobox, 600,000 for the Romans, 200,000 for the Carthaginians. This seems like original research, as there is no source given. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
[edit] Incorrect Information on Start/Cause of WarThere is no information on Hannibal's attack on Saguntum in 219 B.C. Ancient Rome, A Military and Political History (By Christopher S. Mackay) [1] , along with sources at many university webpages (such as Ohio State Universities "EHistory" web content, [2] ), have listed this date as 219 B.C. Hannibal's siege of Saguntum, a town that Rome had promised to protect, pulled Rome into war with the Carthaginians. Gerb0131 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Categories: Start-Class Classical warfare articles | Classical warfare task force articles | Start-Class military history articles | Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation | Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy | B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles | Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles | B-Class Italy articles | High-importance Italy articles | B-Class Portugal articles | Mid-importance Portugal articles | B-Class Spain articles | Mid-importance Spain articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
