Ya, he got into Italy with most his elephants alive, but a few of them were killed at Trebia and most the rest died in the Northern Italian winter. The elephant corps never played much of a role in the 14 year Italian campaign.
At Zama, Hannibal deployed an elephant corps to disastrous effect - the Romans forced the elephants to retreat and they did so right through the Carthaginian cavalry, allowing the Romans to charge and rout it in the chaos.
In general, its like 50/50 as to whether elephants were effectively utilized in battle - about half the time they got scared and ran back through your own troops. Without drilling them extensively, they were never effective. They scared unfamiliar horses, but I can't think of a single major pitched battle where they actually broke an enemy formation, but maybe Persia or Carthage accomplished that at some point.
Impressive. How do you know this? I mean, you get running wrong, and so often, that it's not even worth reading anything you write. But, the daily intricacies of warfare 2300 years ago, you recite it with the same certainty that you espouse your running advice. Outside a few youtube videos most of us don't really know anything about Hannibal. Keep the BS coming.
Hopefully Barrett Dahl can step in and explain to us all how it actually went down. He was with Hannibal and the Zap Carthaginian Army after all.
It's not what I know, it's what modern historians know. I don't believe I've discussed anything but the basics a fan of popular history would know.
However, I would love to be amused by Mr. Dahl's take if he has any thoughts on the Second Punic War.
Yea the side that won is definitely the dumb side...
Invading Rome without siege weapons and ignoring Rome itself was a stroke of genius.
The Romans kicked Carthage out of Spain and controlled the seas. Fighting a war of attrition was Romes plan.
Hannibal's plan was hoping Romes Italian allies would abandon them.
Woops!
Siege weapons were typically built on site in this age. In rare cases where they weren't, they'd be transported by sea, not overland.
There was reason to suspect that Hannibal would be reinforced after his strategy did prove successful initially. His brothers Hasdrabul and Mango were both considered skilled and proven generals so their total defeats were unexpected.
Carthage was considered superior at sea still, so their crushing naval defeats also weren't expected.
Had Hasdrabul or the Carthaginian fleets reinforced Hannibal, he'd have marched on Rome - this was the plan when Hasdrabul crossed the apps, link up and go to Rome.
Hannibal didnt not even attempt to take Rome and declined to take any major cities. This was a mistake
And youre just wrong about the navy.
Rome achieved naval supremacy over Carthaginians in the 1st Punic War.
Theres a reason Hannibal walked to Italy instead of sailing.
Theres a reason the Roman conquest of carthaginian Spain cut off any hope for reinforcements for Hannibal.
Ya, he got into Italy with most his elephants alive, but a few of them were killed at Trebia and most the rest died in the Northern Italian winter. The elephant corps never played much of a role in the 14 year Italian campaign.
At Zama, Hannibal deployed an elephant corps to disastrous effect - the Romans forced the elephants to retreat and they did so right through the Carthaginian cavalry, allowing the Romans to charge and rout it in the chaos.
In general, its like 50/50 as to whether elephants were effectively utilized in battle - about half the time they got scared and ran back through your own troops. Without drilling them extensively, they were never effective. They scared unfamiliar horses, but I can't think of a single major pitched battle where they actually broke an enemy formation, but maybe Persia or Carthage accomplished that at some point.
Good lord. You are nothing but a rambling idiot. You are far more of a malignant narcissist than the430miler.
Are you an expert in Sun Tsu art of war as well? I can only imagine how you spend your Saturday nights in the library.
Ya, he got into Italy with most his elephants alive, but a few of them were killed at Trebia and most the rest died in the Northern Italian winter. The elephant corps never played much of a role in the 14 year Italian campaign.
At Zama, Hannibal deployed an elephant corps to disastrous effect - the Romans forced the elephants to retreat and they did so right through the Carthaginian cavalry, allowing the Romans to charge and rout it in the chaos.
In general, its like 50/50 as to whether elephants were effectively utilized in battle - about half the time they got scared and ran back through your own troops. Without drilling them extensively, they were never effective. They scared unfamiliar horses, but I can't think of a single major pitched battle where they actually broke an enemy formation, but maybe Persia or Carthage accomplished that at some point.
Good lord. You are nothing but a rambling idiot. You are far more of a malignant narcissist than the430miler.
Are you an expert in Sun Tsu art of war as well? I can only imagine how you spend your Saturday nights in the library.
Great contribution...
Can you name any battle decided by elephants?
Knowing more about history than you is "malignant narcisissism"???
Siege weapons were typically built on site in this age. In rare cases where they weren't, they'd be transported by sea, not overland.
There was reason to suspect that Hannibal would be reinforced after his strategy did prove successful initially. His brothers Hasdrabul and Mango were both considered skilled and proven generals so their total defeats were unexpected.
Carthage was considered superior at sea still, so their crushing naval defeats also weren't expected.
Had Hasdrabul or the Carthaginian fleets reinforced Hannibal, he'd have marched on Rome - this was the plan when Hasdrabul crossed the apps, link up and go to Rome.
Hannibal didnt not even attempt to take Rome and declined to take any major cities. This was a mistake
And youre just wrong about the navy.
Rome achieved naval supremacy over Carthaginians in the 1st Punic War.
Theres a reason Hannibal walked to Italy instead of sailing.
Theres a reason the Roman conquest of carthaginian Spain cut off any hope for reinforcements for Hannibal.
1. Capua, one of the most preeminent cities in Italy went over to Hannibal. Hannibal prioritized defending his new Italian allies and preserving his army. His strategy was to get Roman allies to defect in contrast to the Romans who would besiege and sack cities. He'd have attempted a siege had he the manpower for it though. His army, even after Cannae, wasn't sizeable enough to take a major city defended or relieved by Rome.
2. The Carthaginian fleet was powerful enough that they expected to be able to supply forces in Iberia and contest Sicily . Mago Barca was able to land a sizeable force in Northern Italy without being contested at sea. Hannibal's return to Africa wasn't contested either. The Romans could win a naval engagement but they didn't have overwhelming mastery of the seas at this point.
3. Hasdrabul chose to march to Italy instead of contest Scipio in Iberia because
A) A show of support would renew faltering faith in Carthage's new Italian allies
B) Carthage's forces still outnumbered Scipio 's army in Iberia
Iberia was the final nail in the coffin but only because Carthage lost everywhere Hannibal wasn't. Defeats in Sicily. Defeats in Iberia. Defeats by the 2 younger Barca brothers in Italy.
Hindsight is 20/20 but if you get in the mindset of the age, it's hard to see where Hannibal made a strategic blunder. Carthage can be blamed for prioritizing Sicily and Iberia over Hannibal but we wouldn't say that today had they won in those theaters. The Carthaginian generals were expected to be the equal of their Roman opponents and on paper the Carthaginian armies looked like they could have in a head of the land battles.
Ya, he got into Italy with most his elephants alive, but a few of them were killed at Trebia and most the rest died in the Northern Italian winter. The elephant corps never played much of a role in the 14 year Italian campaign.
At Zama, Hannibal deployed an elephant corps to disastrous effect - the Romans forced the elephants to retreat and they did so right through the Carthaginian cavalry, allowing the Romans to charge and rout it in the chaos.
In general, its like 50/50 as to whether elephants were effectively utilized in battle - about half the time they got scared and ran back through your own troops. Without drilling them extensively, they were never effective. They scared unfamiliar horses, but I can't think of a single major pitched battle where they actually broke an enemy formation, but maybe Persia or Carthage accomplished that at some point.
Good lord. You are nothing but a rambling idiot. You are far more of a malignant narcissist than the430miler.
Are you an expert in Sun Tsu art of war as well? I can only imagine how you spend your Saturday nights in the library.
I've been insulted before, but this might take the cake for the least effective I've seen. I'm laughing. The remark on Sun Tzu's treatise is the icing on this ridiculous cake of a post.
Hannibal didnt not even attempt to take Rome and declined to take any major cities. This was a mistake
And youre just wrong about the navy.
Rome achieved naval supremacy over Carthaginians in the 1st Punic War.
Theres a reason Hannibal walked to Italy instead of sailing.
Theres a reason the Roman conquest of carthaginian Spain cut off any hope for reinforcements for Hannibal.
1. Capua, one of the most preeminent cities in Italy went over to Hannibal. Hannibal prioritized defending his new Italian allies and preserving his army. His strategy was to get Roman allies to defect in contrast to the Romans who would besiege and sack cities. He'd have attempted a siege had he the manpower for it though. His army, even after Cannae, wasn't sizeable enough to take a major city defended or relieved by Rome.
2. The Carthaginian fleet was powerful enough that they expected to be able to supply forces in Iberia and contest Sicily . Mago Barca was able to land a sizeable force in Northern Italy without being contested at sea. Hannibal's return to Africa wasn't contested either. The Romans could win a naval engagement but they didn't have overwhelming mastery of the seas at this point.
3. Hasdrabul chose to march to Italy instead of contest Scipio in Iberia because
A) A show of support would renew faltering faith in Carthage's new Italian allies
B) Carthage's forces still outnumbered Scipio 's army in Iberia
Iberia was the final nail in the coffin but only because Carthage lost everywhere Hannibal wasn't. Defeats in Sicily. Defeats in Iberia. Defeats by the 2 younger Barca brothers in Italy.
Hindsight is 20/20 but if you get in the mindset of the age, it's hard to see where Hannibal made a strategic blunder. Carthage can be blamed for prioritizing Sicily and Iberia over Hannibal but we wouldn't say that today had they won in those theaters. The Carthaginian generals were expected to be the equal of their Roman opponents and on paper the Carthaginian armies looked like they could have in a head of the land battles.
1. Capua didnt resist and Hannibal only held it for 5 years.
2. Carthage tried to reinforce Italy by sea in 215 and Romes navy stopped them. Moving troops by sea was very dangerous even if the waters were uncontested. The sea routes to Italy were heavily patrolled.
3. Hasdrubal got all the way to Italy and was killed and had his army annihilated before he got anywhere near Hannibal because he had to walk through all Italy to get to the South where Hannibal was.
Taking Italy was a pipe dream from the beginning. Carthage was erased because their strategy was idiotic.
1. Capua, one of the most preeminent cities in Italy went over to Hannibal. Hannibal prioritized defending his new Italian allies and preserving his army. His strategy was to get Roman allies to defect in contrast to the Romans who would besiege and sack cities. He'd have attempted a siege had he the manpower for it though. His army, even after Cannae, wasn't sizeable enough to take a major city defended or relieved by Rome.
2. The Carthaginian fleet was powerful enough that they expected to be able to supply forces in Iberia and contest Sicily . Mago Barca was able to land a sizeable force in Northern Italy without being contested at sea. Hannibal's return to Africa wasn't contested either. The Romans could win a naval engagement but they didn't have overwhelming mastery of the seas at this point.
3. Hasdrabul chose to march to Italy instead of contest Scipio in Iberia because
A) A show of support would renew faltering faith in Carthage's new Italian allies
B) Carthage's forces still outnumbered Scipio 's army in Iberia
Iberia was the final nail in the coffin but only because Carthage lost everywhere Hannibal wasn't. Defeats in Sicily. Defeats in Iberia. Defeats by the 2 younger Barca brothers in Italy.
Hindsight is 20/20 but if you get in the mindset of the age, it's hard to see where Hannibal made a strategic blunder. Carthage can be blamed for prioritizing Sicily and Iberia over Hannibal but we wouldn't say that today had they won in those theaters. The Carthaginian generals were expected to be the equal of their Roman opponents and on paper the Carthaginian armies looked like they could have in a head of the land battles.
1. Capua didnt resist and Hannibal only held it for 5 years.
2. Carthage tried to reinforce Italy by sea in 215 and Romes navy stopped them. Moving troops by sea was very dangerous even if the waters were uncontested. The sea routes to Italy were heavily patrolled.
3. Hasdrubal got all the way to Italy and was killed and had his army annihilated before he got anywhere near Hannibal because he had to walk through all Italy to get to the South where Hannibal was.
Taking Italy was a pipe dream from the beginning. Carthage was erased because their strategy was idiotic.
They probably should have pulled out earlier, like after Capua went back into the Roman fold, but Cannae was about the biggest military victory in history. Combine that with Trebia and Lake Tresamaine and it seemed Hannibal could win the war, one more decisive field action would have caused enough allies to defect from Rome that they would sue for peace.
Carthage was overextended. They should have sought terms after Iberia was lost. Unlike Rome they couldn't afford to lose so many battles on their home turf, in Africa. I will agree that they were idiotic in that.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
Sadly many didn't survive the journey but a few made it to battle, which must have scared the Romans and led to at least initial battle victories. Fantastic story, just recently listened to the podcast The Rest is History series on it, highly recommend it and the podcast itself.
Switz weather is interesting, did you know there are palm trees along Lake Geneva? Not indigenous, but someone clever realized there was a microclimate that created a small pocket where the temperatures don't get too cold and determined that Palm trees can survive there. Perhaps Hannibal should have kept his elephants there.
Many experts believe Hannibal's elephants were a now-extinct subspecies of African elephants that lived in the Atlas mountains of North Africa. The Atlas mountains do see snow from time to time, and are certainly now (and perhaps even more so then) much colder than sub-Saharan Africa or the Asian areas currently inhabited by elephants. So while they most certainly would have suffered during the trip through the Alps, they would have been more suited to the climate than today's species of elephants. By contrast, the India-Nepali border area in which elephants live is NOT a mountainous area, but rather a lowland plain know as the Terai. You do NOT see elephants in the Himalyan regions of India and Nepal. Asian elephants live in much warmer climates, are much smaller than currently extant African elephants, have been domesticated for centuries (probably millennia), were used for war, and today are still used for things like hauling lumber (and carrying tourists). They are almost always the elephants you see in zoos. Today's African elephants are much larger and have never been domesticated (at least not to any significant extent --there may be a VERY small number of exceptions). And unlike some who may post here, I know whereof I speak -- I've lived and/or traveled through much of South and Southeast Asia, as well as much of Africa (but NOT including the Atlas Mountains of North Africa).
I travelled on elephant back to see rhinos (also on foot) in Royal Nepal National Park, so I can confirm that those elephants are in a low-lying warm part of Nepal, near India, not in a cold region. The ancient historians catalogue many uses of wild animals in battle, not just elephants, many of which end similarly in utter chaos as the animals attack their own forces or cause their horses to stampede. Horses themselves were domesticated around 3500 BCE and used in battle effectively around 900 BCE. The elephants played a major role in Indian battles of the 4th century B.C.
Pliny wrote, "Elephants, when tamed, are employed in war, and carry into the ranks of the enemy towers filled with armed men; and on them, in a very great measure, depends the ultimate result of the battles that are fought in the East. They tread under foot whole companies, and crush the men in their armor." Pliny, Natural History (VIII.ix.27)
Camels and dogs were also used effectively and Hannibal used "snake bombs" (Nep. 23.10). In 326, Alexander the Great faced the Indian king Porus with elephants in his army at the battle of Hydaspes. “Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armour and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body” (Diod.17.88.1). “The brutes caused great terror, and their trumpeting not only threw into confusion the horses…but also the men and the ranks” (Curt.8.14.23). “But some, who pursued the elephants too eagerly, so irritated them by wounds that they turned upon them. Hence, being trampled under foot, they served to the rest as a lesson to attack with greater caution. It was a particularly awful spectacle when with their trunks they seized men and their weapons and passed them over their heads to the drivers” (Curt.8.14.26-27). “Driven senseless by their misery, [the elephants] attack friends and foes alike, and thrust themselves in all directions, trampling and killing” (Arr.Anab. 5.17.6).
The downsides of deploying elephants were already recognized by Alexander, yet they continued to be deployed for 200 years.
"Alexander’s Successors, all experienced military men, would never have run the substantial risk of employing elephants without the expectation of reward. While this came occasionally in the psychological impact the animals made on the enemy, the primary value of elephants was symbolic and propagandistic. Elephants became inextricably linked with Alexander and his far-reaching campaigns. Possession of these animals was a powerful political tool used to advertise the legitimacy of any general turned-satrap who owned them. And almost every vying Successor did."