Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yarddog; vbmoneyspender; bill1952; 1010RD
Though incidently, with the help of 2300 years of hindsight we see that Hannibal was going to lose.

Does anyone think that Hannibal could have played ANY strategy which would enable him to win against Rome? I can't think of any -- Carthage seems to be to be doomed right from the time Rome pushed through to the Naples area.

Carthage was a Punic/Phoenician/Canaanite enclave in Berber/Imazhigen/Numidian territory. It was a mercantile, sea empire, not a land one. They could not defeat this awe-inspiring organization that was Rome, imho

20 posted on 04/06/2011 12:51:51 AM PDT by Cronos (Wszystkiego najlepszego!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos; yarddog; vbmoneyspender; bill1952

Hence the need for Hannibal’s invasion and basic strategy. Rome, if it were a normal Mediterranean country, should have and would have surrendered. Rome didn’t. It is that very psychological edge that made Rome victorious.

It also gives you insight into why the Soviets and our local 5th columnist elites work so hard to defeat Americans psychologically. How many government school children know Americas real history. The one of overcoming great odds and succeeding?

Other things doomed Carthage as well. They were, as you state a mercantile enclave in a foreign land. They ruled through cunning and cruelty. They had little depth in geography, political support, or population.

IIRC they used crucifixion as a regular means of punishment. It was applied to “failed” generals as well as criminals.


21 posted on 04/06/2011 3:58:42 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson