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

To: Williams

The point about Hannibal is that the Romans [of that period] didn’t surrender. The Senate refused to ransom captives from Cannae. Survivors were banished to Sicily [despite Rome’s need for trained manpower. The Senate would not allow captives’ families to ransom them. The romans refused to receive Hannibals peace emissary after the battle of Cannae. They never listened to his peace terms. When Hannibal finally got to Rome, the Senate sold the land he was camped on at full market price. Romans didn’t surrender. they just doubled down.


21 posted on 11/02/2011 9:04:03 PM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: PzLdr

The Rome of Augustus was most definitely not the Rome of Scipio or Fabius.

The Roman Republic had been demoralized and destroyed by a century of horrific civil war and recurrent “legal” massacres by proscription. Or Augustus would never have been able to acquire and keep absolute power.

Speaking of Fabius, his tactics would make all the Marine advantages pretty useless.


34 posted on 11/02/2011 9:23:10 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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