Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Hannibal's elephants over the alps
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Has this ever been accurately verified or is it an urban myth? Has anyone taken horses over the alps with the problems of ice, snow, blizzards, avalanches? So how can elephants who are bigger, eat more and not as docile?
Another thing, were elephants widely used by Romans or the Ancient Egyptians? I know in the east, India, Thailand Burma etc Elephants have been domesticated for millenia, but not so much in Africa. They are harder to tame and not widely used by humans as they are in the east. -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Hi Elkstone,
I don't know about 'urban myth' but Hannibal's elephants could be an ordinary myth I suppose.
On the other hand Livy mentions them on many occasions, even describing their presence at the Trebia. You list all the potential difficulties in moving elephants over mountain passes, but you are really requesting practical knowledge and, I fear, are likely to be disappointed. In the film 'Hannibal Brooks' an English POW takes an elephant from Germany to Switzerland. It starred Oliver Reed so it must be true!
I don't think the Romans employed war elephants. The emperor Claudius is said to have employed camels!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 3
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
It is true yes. Although it's not known how many he got across. The Carthagians certainly used war elephants - part of the reason Hannibal lost the battle of Zama is because the Romans managed to aggravate his elephants and they ended up trampling the Carthagian infantry.
-
Message 4
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
A great tactician, Hannibal also used an interesting weapon in one of the later several sea battles in which he engaged. He had pots of poisonous snakes hurled into enemy vessels. Not quite cricket but probably effective.
And a note to TP who will know where to check this out - there have long been stories about ancient elephant remains found in Colchester. No doubt of circus origin if they were.
Regards, P. -
Message 5
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Hi Elkstone
I was also under the impression that Claudius brought elephants with him when he came to claim his victory over the Brythons - some reports mention up to 38! Hope they didn't get seasick!!!
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 6
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
According to a History Channel programme I was watching in the states, Hannibal had seven elephants, they gradually died of starvation as the Romans used a scorched earth policy against him. He rode the last one himself (Cannae, I think).
It says 38 but I'm pretty sure they said only 7 when he first clashed with the Romans. -
Message 7
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Hannibal? Hannibal? Hannibal?
With quite a lot of military reading I have to say Hannibal to me in an enigma. I cant decide wether he was a brilliant general.Great Commander or What.
Its pretty much assumed Hannibal did take Elephants over the alps. Was Hannibal a great Commander or were the Romans badly lead and useless. I would geuss there was a a lot bad about the Roman Armies or its commanders.Based on the idea they kept falling for Hannibals tricks untill Scipio wised up.
Would Caesar have fielded dressing Cavalry against Hannibals to be cahsed off at Canae then have the carthaginian Cavalry take him in the rear. Would any of the Great Generals have marched there entire army to a Carthaginian box.
Maybe im wrong but its only an opinion. Maybe by skill great generalship he won some great victories. But for me Hannibals greatest failing was his inability to use a great Decisive Battle win. I have no doubt following the victory at Canae any other general would have called it check mate and moved on Rome.Instead Hannibal spent over a decade been a pest in Italy.
But reflecting on Hannibal Rome was let off the hook many times. Attila Had Rome by the Nuts. Among others.
For me Roman armies learned a lot from Hannibal and its fair to say the dawn of the Great Roman Commanders was Scipio Africanus. -
Message 8
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Most of the elephants used by the Carthaginians were the now-extinct African Forest Elephants, found in Morocco and Algeria at the time.
These elephants were smaller (less than 2.5m to the shoulder) than Indian Elephants (3m to the shoulder) or African Bush Elephants (3.5m to the shoulder).
These elephants may have been too small to carry a howdah, so the crew probably just sat on the elephant's back.
They may have acquired some Indian elephants from Egypt, too. -
Message 9
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
From what I've read on the Cartaginian campaign across the Alps, Hannibal took 37 or 38 elephants with him, but many of them died on the crossing of the mountains due to (mostly) the climate. Only a handful made it across into Italy and none were around by the time of Cannae.
-
Message 10
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Friday, 24th April 2009
There is a photograph of your "extinct African Forest Elephant" in Frankfurst zoo here:
-
Message 11
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 24th April 2009
I would geuss there was a a lot bad about the Roman Armies or its commanders. Based on the idea they kept falling for Hannibals tricks until Scipio wised up.Β
I think it was not so much a question of "falling for tricks" as being at a real disadvantage in command style and tactical control. Hannibal was able to control a battle in depth, using his cavalry for actions on the flanks and in the enemy rear. Roman commanders did not have the trained forces or the tactical control for that type of tactics, and instead moved their armies forward into a linear frontal attack.
Scipio Africanus decided to learn from the enemy, and abandoned the stiff linear front of the legions for more flexible tactics. This required considerable retraining of the legions. He also made an effort to recruit the feared Numidian cavalry for himself. Later Roman commanders profited from Scipio's military innovations.
But for me Hannibals greatest failing was his inability to use a great Decisive Battle win.Β
On the contrary, I think Hannibal deserves credit for understanding that in a prolonged war between states (as opposed to mere cities) the concept of a Decisive Battle was obsolete. After Cannae, he was not really in a position to move on Rome anyway, as he did not have the forces to lay siege to a substantial city. (As the war in Italy would prove again and again.) But even if he had, and with a lot of luck had taken Rome --- so what? He could not occupy it forever. The best he could expect from such a move was an advantageous but temporary peace agreement.
Instead, Hannibal focused on breaking Rome's hold on Italy, returning it to the state of just being one of the large cities of Italy. It failed, but strategically it was the right choice.
For me Roman armies learned a lot from Hannibal and its fair to say the dawn of the Great Roman Commanders was Scipio Africanus.Β
Well, I would agree with you on that. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 24th April 2009
I did not get the comment about elephants used from Carthage being from Africa. I thought African elephants are more wild and not easily trained. I would suppose that they would be of the Asiatic breed, mostly descendants of a few elephants brought from India by ship to Africa. Hannibal was not the only to have brought elephants for war in Europe, Phyrrus had used elephants brought to Epirus by Asia by ship and then moved again by ship for his campaign in Italy against what was back then the city of Rome and its local allies (already quite inflated). Prior to him it was Antiochus or Seleucus I think and after him and Hannibal the Romans.
Elephants always seemed a good idea but in practice they were always difficult to manage both inside the battle plan and in logistical terms.
On the question "why Hannibal did not attack directly Rome", the answer could be easy: and why attack it? There was no Roman Empire back then, he only needed to convince people by positive ways or violence to cease being allied to Rome which finally he failed since Italic people of the north peninsula
People think that the times of Hannibal were the heyday of the Carthagenian military power but in fact at those times despite their expansion Carthagenians were already in a downfall, tired of competition with Greeks of South Italy. Hannibal fielded armies of 30-40 and maximum 60,000 soldiers I think, including lots of local recruits - and he seemed to lack the ability to transport them by sea. 2 and 1 centuries before him, Carthagenians easily fielded armies of 300,000 in Sicily trasported by sea.
One should not demand why he did not attack Rome. One should demand why Carthage had lost the power in the sea and needed to do land campaigns. Normally all they had to do is use their ships to transport during a summer at least some 100,000 (the 1/3rd of what they did in the past) some 100km away from Rome, convince Roman allies that is "game over" so them would remain free of any obligation if remaining neutral and then march by land and sea to Rome and finish it off no matter what reinforced Romans could get from the north. Now, Hannibal commencing from Africa, going up to Europe and doing the circle of half of Europe to reach northern Italy leading a bunch of what was seen by Italics invader barbarians, was not exactly any sign of Carthagenian will to ever invade Rome. Note also that in Carthage there could be played several political games and Hannibal not always being on the favoured side. -
Message 13
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Friday, 24th April 2009
I think maybe I was premature with assuming Hannibal should have crushed or marched on Rome.
Nic you say as maybe correctly Carthage was not at its most powerful at the time of Hannibal and again say Rome was not that much of a superpower to warrant a direct attack. This can't be solely true Hannabal was in the Second punic wars where as Rome had won the first one. I read that indeed Hannibal was on a personal crusade against the Romans. Initially I would agree your point that Hannibal was intent on alienating Rome from the rest of Italy. Probably a good tactic with wealth and huge resoerses on ones side. Hannibal had neither he was basically roaming Italy with its fair to say an assmbled mish mash of mercenaries.And levies bearing grievances against Rome.
To argue he would have struggled taking Rome. Rome had lost its biggest army ever at Canae so it must be assumed they were down to the bones also.
Phsychologically I would suggest Hannibal had the edge over Rome. He had just trounced its biggest army and was on his way to Rome.
Hannibal as a great general and fame preceding him could probably have increased his ranks aproaching Rome.
Personally I feel his chances of taking Rome and establishing his own rule had as much chance of sucess as the one he tried and failed. All he did was give Rome chance to regroup work him out get to Know Scipio and Hannibal was done like a kipper.
Maybe I make to many superlatives to Alexander having crushed darius at Gaugamella he was straight in the train to Persepolis.
I liken Hannibal to a big hitting boxer.The type that gets his apponent with a fantastic uppercut. His apponent his senseless on the Ropes. The fighter pauses to admire his handy work.And at that time gets knocked out with what in boxing is called a sucker punch -
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Hannibal was a far better general than anyone the Roman shad atthe start of the Second Punic War. He showed that time and again. However, while he won militarily, he lost politically. Rome should have surrendered after the loss of its army at Cannae. Most other cities would have. Hannibal had neither the seige equipment, nor the men capable ofusing it if he had. Throughout the war, he struggled to take defended cities. His aim wasm, as has beenmentioned, to persuade the Roman allies and subjects to switch sides. Few of them did, probably because Carthage had little to offer them. In the end, Rome's political power proved too strong, enabling them to raise bigger and bigger armies and produce men like Scipio, who learned how to fight effectively.
Back to the original topic, while no physical evidence of elephant remains have been found in the alps as far as I know, Ian Botham did a charity walk some years ago, although in summer and not over the most difficult pass. He had one elephant with him. -
Message 15
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Elkstone
Hannibals elephants are a fact, his father obtained from Egypt a herd of 240 Indian elephants by treaty ( we have the treaty) and took them to Spain to establish carthaginian rule there, about half were left at this time. His coins were struck with the Elephants as a motif.
All the primary acounts mention the elephants and how they were used in combat, since horses were taken over the Alps for 000s of years prior to Hannibals taking of Elephants i dont think you have yet taken the time to do any research on the matter, nor are elephants docile particulry when doped up into a rage as we know the Carthaginians did to get them warmed up for killing people.
Yes Rome routinly used elephants but not for war purposes. -
Message 16
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 27th April 2009
"It is true yes. Although it's not known how many he got across."
37 set out and 7 arrived, Saurus was the last one to perish in 216, another 40 African elephants arrived via sea in 214.
zama was lost because for the first time Roman infantry were uniformy equiped with a gladius (2000 master craftsman of carthage were captured by scipio when he took New carhage and made them his persoanl slaves to equip his armies, it was only pro scipio forces allowed to Africa by the senate, most Romans were using the greek pattern stright sword through the 2nd Punic war, that and scipio haveing 2:1 advatage in mounted troops gave him the victory, Hannibals first wave were expendables in case the Elephants turned back into the lines. -
Message 17
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 27th April 2009
"People think that the times of Hannibal were the heyday of the Carthagenian military power but in fact at those times despite their expansion Carthagenians were already in a downfall, tired of competition with Greeks of South Italy. Hannibal fielded armies of 30-40 and maximum 60,000 soldiers I think, including lots of local recruits - and he seemed to lack the ability to transport them by sea. 2 and 1 centuries before him, Carthagenians easily fielded armies of 300,000 in Sicily trasported by sea."
You completly wrong. in 218BC Carthage had a larger poulation base to wage war with had a larger under arms militry (except fleet) and a higher annual income than did Rome. -
Message 18
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Hannibal is known as the father of stragery, he taught Rome the Art of war, and with it they went on to rule the world.
Still used as a model example in many of the worlds War Colleges and Mil Academys. -
Message 19
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 27th April 2009
This reminds me of a TV programme I saw a number of years ago, sometime between the two Gulf Wars. The programme was about Hannibal and more specifically the battle of Cannae and how influential it has been. Gen. Schwarzkopf was interviewed and saying how much he admired Hannibal's tactical mind and how he continued to out-think his Roman enemies time after time (although not indefinitely!).
It was the first time I had ever heard of the battle of Cannae, and was amazed that so many men could be killed in one day using just hand-held weapons. -
Message 20
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Monday, 27th April 2009
his father obtained from Egypt a herd of 240 Indian elephants by treaty ( we have the treatyΒ
I don't think you can have any such treaty, Nickiow! Or if you have the world's academics would be glad to have sight of it!
-
Message 21
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Nickiow
In my original post, I suggested that Elephants are not as docile as horses, who we all know are easier to train and control. African elephants are far more aggresive and tempermental than the Indian species. We dont know if he went during the winter or summer, or which crossing he supposedly used. All this could cause doubts. So maybe he used Indian or the smaller but now extinct north african elephant.
I was reading a book which mentioned Hannibal, by J.A .Rogers??, sorry the title sips me. It also said coins were struck to commerate the feat. But how do we know the elephants on the coins were just to show Hannibal used them, or proof he took them over the alps? -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Nickow I am interested in your position on this issue but then I did not exactly understand your view. In 480 B.C. in the battle of Imera at Sicily a huge force of 300,000 Carthagenians & allies fought against some 100,000 Greek Sicilians led by Syracuse tyrant Ieron (the biggest army assembled by Greek people till... the 1940 A.D. WWII campaign in North Epirus!!!). We are talking about a Carthagenian army possibly bigger than the military body of Xerxis Persian army!
Where was all that army during Punic wars? Hannibal led a by then common army of 50,000 mostly recruited locally briefly and without much training! And how come mighty Carthage that if anything it had to be a naval power lack the ships to fight Rome that did not have itself any major shipping industry but relied to its allies (Greeks like Rhodians and Pergamians and Athenians and of rourse from South Italy). Carthage in the 5th century it had all the ships to jump in Sicily with 300,000 men but in 3rd century it could not even transfer 50,000 men, it just had to do an epic round of the widths of half Africa and half Europe to reach North Italy.
From the few things I know you cannot claim that Carthage could raise more soldiers. Decades earlier Romans had beaten Phyrrus, an excellent general and king (but while politically highly capable, finally not so successful diplomat), by merely losing 3 consequtive battles where they assured that the small army of Phyrrus lost in each battle at least half of their own losses (!!!). Back then Romans had a potential to raise up to 150,000. By Punic wars they had raised that potential to 300,000. Carthagenians seemed to be below even the 150,000 level. Romans were shamelessly losing 50,000 men in a battle and continuing war like nothing had happened. No other state could had ever made it like that. Not even Persians.
You may claim that Carthage was richer in 3rd century than 5th century (I really have no clue), you maiy claim they had more allies (that was true of course since they had extended their alliances greatly to European side albeit very loose and very short-run ones) but you may not claim they were at the peak of their military capacity. In fact they seemed to have less than half the capacity they had before. Now, whether they had more quality that is a thing to discuss since here we must talk wether Iberian and Celtic mercenaries were better than Noumidian - Mauretanian mercenaries (totally different styles of warfare); what is certain is that they had much better tactical leadership (that is what they lacked in the 5th century), mainly represented by Hannibal.
That they were richer than Rome I do not doubt. Most of the Greek kingdoms were more rich than Rome and even in late 1 B.C. century Cleopatra had restored the finances of Egypt and made it notably more rich than Rome despite having control of much less surface, restricted in Africa only. One has to understand that till Imperial times Romans have to be seen more like military subcontractors rather than any real Empire - most Greeks for example had not even realised they belonged in an Empire till well into Imperial times. -
Message 23
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Hannibal? Revolutionary Tactician?
Can we really say Hannibal a master tactician going on the facts as is clear he won some great victories against Massive Roman Armies.
Was Cannae the work of a master tactician or the result of complacent Roman Commanders and bad assumptions. What I learn from this battle was the Phsycie of those Roman Commanders and the assumption massive Roman Forces would steam roll Hannibal.
The Romans had absolutely no cavalry and were basically one dimentional in the battle. Roman cavalry were akin to British Commisioned officers with money to buy a haorse fancy armour and sit at the back watching the show. It wasnt for decades that Rome had Cavalry of any calibre and those were allied horsemen.
So even before the battle Hannibal would have known he had the back door to the Roman Formations.
It has always been argued that the manouverability of the Legions were far superior to the early Phalanx. At Canae this was turned upside down we know the Romans were boxed in. A good Roman Cavalry could possibly stop the Carthaginian envelopment and save the Roman rear.
I can for one moment Imagine Caesar.Alexander.Ghenghis Khan.or any of the real geniuses falling into the envelopment as The Romans did besides they would have all had tricks of there own to Turn Hannibal on his head.
Alexanders lines and tactics were never predictable you cant really ambush agianst such inovation. I guess you can get lucky though.
How could Hannibal set such a trap against the formations and elements of the Macedonian Army at Gaugamella?
The Macedonians had the Cavalry in the top 3 of history. The units and shapes of his Phalanx and other units. All this became ver evident with Scipio. The start of the great Roman Commanders maybe even Romes greatest Commander as he himself did defeat Romes most dangerous advisary.
Zama in my opinion one of the few incidents in military history that 2 great commanders did actually face each other.
Everything else is hearsay and what ifs.Like boxing most people argue Cassius Carcelus Clay the Greatest.Myself Sugar Ray Rominson the all round package but no one can say either way as it never happened. We all have our favourites have opinions and argue good cases but we will never know the greatest miliraty leader we only have opinions -
Message 24
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"I don't think you can have any such treaty, Nickiow! Or if you have the world's academics would be glad to have sight of it!
www.nytimes.com/1984...
"
A good link that cover moany of the major points, however the point you adresse is the Egyptian and carthaginian fininacial and economic exchange which is covered in most books on the crathaginian state, why your newpaper is unaware of it i do not know, since its refered to in most books on teh matter, already given Hoyos so heres another two.
-
Message 25
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"In my original post, I suggested that Elephants are not as docile as horses, who we all know are easier to train and control."
A suggesdtion not supported by evidence, horses have been domesticated for 000s of years and trained to obey humans, elephaants domesticated for war far less and trained to be agresive man killers.
"African elephants are far more aggresive and tempermental than the Indian species. We dont know if he went during the winter or summer, or which crossing he supposedly used."
Actually Livy etc give us when he started and how long it took and how many stadia he covered, and withing the margin or aceptable error the passes he used, may i suggest you start with the primary acounts of livy and polybios?.
" All this could cause doubts. So maybe he used Indian or the smaller but now extinct north african elephant."
Not really, your just guessing because you have not read enough on the subject matter to judge the many opinions out there. -
Message 26
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"Nickow I am interested in your position on this issue but then I did not exactly understand your view. In 480 B.C. in the battle of Imera at Sicily a huge force of 300,000 Carthagenians & allies fought against some 100,000 Greek Sicilians led by Syracuse tyrant Ieron (the biggest army assembled by Greek people till... the 1940 A.D. WWII campaign in North Epirus!!!). We are talking about a Carthagenian army possibly bigger than the military body of Xerxis Persian army!"
Numbers in the ancient world are always a problem, hence the 300k for carthage in siclily and the 1000000 persians are what the original commentators use, the greek army of 100k you mention was smaller than the greek army Herodotus tells us fought at Platea that one being 110k, so your refernces to size of forces is not consistant with the numbers given in the primary acounts but a mix of modern thinkink and those numbers.
Se Hoyas book i linkled to earlier for population numbers of carthage. -
Message 27
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"Where was all that army during Punic wars? Hannibal led a by then common army of 50,000 mostly recruited locally briefly and without much training! And how come mighty Carthage that if anything it had to be a naval power lack the ships to fight Rome that did not have itself any major shipping industry but relied to its allies (Greeks like Rhodians and Pergamians and Athenians and of rourse from South Italy). Carthage in the 5th century it had all the ships to jump in Sicily with 300,000 men but in 3rd century it could not even transfer 50,000 men, it just had to do an epic round of the widths of half Africa and half Europe to reach North Italy."
Well since you dont know the numbers its clear why you dont understand the post, i gave you the books that set out the numbers, so dont feel the need to explain further than to point out Rome started with 6legions in the field in 218 and Carthage had 120k.
You refernce to the 50k carthage could be any point in time, so in dont know when your thinking off, since you refer to localy raised its likly tyou mean post Cannae in italy where Hannibals Army was vastly increased by treaty with the third of italy that came over to him, you forget that these states military potential are given by livy so we know when he counts them up as beuing part of the mil capacity of the Roman confederation, when they change sides the same or similar number is now part of hannibals mil capacity, and hannibals filed army was probably 50% of this type, 25000 or so, but you have forgotten that there was 2 such field armies, so that thats another 50k and then there are the scors of fixed garrisons which made up the rest of the mil capacity that hannibal controlled through treaty.
These briefly trained recruits as you class them would then thrash roman army after roman army killing close to another 70,000 romans kill another 2 consuls and hold southern italy for a decade.
your next point is about Carthage navy, which was principly a merchant enterprise that took goods from point to point and combat was undertaken to maintain this economic endevour, Carthage finaced itself in this manner and the 2nd Punic war saw them do so, and only after extreme loss would rome be able to crack this naval side of the conflict, 00s of 000s of itilians being lost to do so.
Where you *think* it lacked the ships to transport itself and power project, it id not, it had the largest artificail harbour in the world witha 240 warship capacity built to fight the 2nd Punic war, and hannibal from his base of supply in Spain chose to fight from that base because it was his familys control that insured his support while he was less sure of African support on his war aims, in the event he was correct as he obtained money and numidians from Africa and everything else from spain and when his brother lost Spain, he was slidding downhill from then on.
Choice of operation does not mean carthage lacked the naval power, it was simply that its principly use was economic activity to fund land war, and hanibals family did not control it like they did control the 100k plus land forces in spain. -
Message 28
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"From the few things I know you cannot claim that Carthage could raise more soldiers."
Not a claim, but a fact. Carthage had a larger population base, and a larger mil standing army in 218 than Rome.
"Decades earlier Romans had beaten Phyrrus, an excellent general and king (but while politically highly capable, finally not so successful diplomat), by merely losing 3 consequtive battles where they assured that the small army of Phyrrus lost in each battle at least half of their own losses (!!!)."
Numbers are not your thing as your numbers are inconstyant with fact.
"Back then Romans had a potential to raise up to 150,000."
Rubbish, please stop just pulling numbers out of thin air.
"By Punic wars they had raised that potential to 300,000. Carthagenians seemed to be below even the 150,000 level. Romans were shamelessly losing 50,000 men in a battle and continuing war like nothing had happened. No other state could had ever made it like that. Not even Persians."
More nonsense numbers, please stop posting as your makeing the thread a farce, livy gives us romes mil capacity as do alsmost every writter on trhe subject and none use your fantasy numbers. -
Message 29
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"You may claim that Carthage was richer in 3rd century than 5th century (I really have no clue), you maiy claim they had more allies (that was true of course since they had extended their alliances greatly to European side albeit very loose and very short-run ones) but you may not claim they were at the peak of their military capacity. In fact they seemed to have less than half the capacity they had before. Now, whether they had more quality that is a thing to discuss since here we must talk wether Iberian and Celtic mercenaries were better than Noumidian - Mauretanian mercenaries (totally different styles of warfare); what is certain is that they had much better tactical leadership (that is what they lacked in the 5th century), mainly represented by Hannibal."
Mil capacity is equall to the numbers of population you can command and have the finances to maintin in the field, and access to forgien mercs, haveing just explained yourself that you undersatnd carthage had doubled its pop base by copntrol of spain, controll of the mines that were the richest in the Roman world when they obtained control of them, but as you write you have no concept of the relative finances of the two states (dare i comment that you should read the books i listed as its in them before posting further nonsense) -
Message 30
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"The Romans had absolutely no cavalry and were basically one dimentional in the battle. Roman cavalry were akin to British Commisioned officers with money to buy a haorse fancy armour and sit at the back watching the show. It wasnt for decades that Rome had Cavalry of any calibre and those were allied horsemen."
You seem unaware of the numbers of Roman cav, how they were raised and operated, probaly best you find out.
"
So even before the battle Hannibal would have known he had the back door to the Roman Formations."
A solid line of legions one flan resting ona major river and the other on a range of hills that were dominated by roman occupied forts, are you sure you refering to cannae?, do you even know that the Roman supply point had been taken by Hannibal through ttreachery and this forced the Romans to give battle because of an inability to supply themselves as their supply base had just been taken?.
"It has always been argued that the manouverability of the Legions were far superior to the early Phalanx. At Canae this was turned upside down we know the Romans were boxed in. A good Roman Cavalry could possibly stop the Carthaginian envelopment and save the Roman rear."
Cav did not operate in that manner in that age, and the role of protecting the rear was the role of the Triari with their spears.
Try training the roman cavalryman or any decent book on warfare in that age. -
Message 31
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"But how do we know the elephants on the coins were just to show Hannibal used them, or proof he took them over the alps?"
Burden of proof you mean?.
All primary acounts tell us he took them over the Alps, they all cite deifferent primary authors for this so we have multiple acounts of teh same thing, all in agreement.
Hannibals records on tablet the numbers of troops and types he took over the alps, when he entered Italy, this was discovered in the 1900s.
Good enough for most, cclose to good enough for a court. -
Message 32
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Nickiow,
You said in your message his father obtained from Egypt a herd of 240 Indian elephants by treaty ( we have the treaty)Β
I challenged this as quite wrong since if you had a treaty which proved any such thing it would be known to the world's academics!
The links you give to not corroborate your assertion in any way. Quite the contrary in fact!
"The Carthaginians were impressed and set about creating their own force of war-elephants, usimng like the Ptolemies in Egypt, the locally available African elephants." -
Message 33
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
"I challenged this as quite wrong since if you had a treaty which proved any such thing it would be known to the world's academics2
Yes i know, my reply was your newpaper did not have all the facts, thats the problem with using newspapers, and since some of the works refernce (d Hoyas which i linkled you to) where the Barcid dynasty obtained the breeding herd from.
but since your unwilling to read the books i listed, nor able to understand what you have read.
303 -- Treaty concluded between Seleucus I and the Indian king Sandracottus for 500 elephants from india, Seeceuus trades 240 to egypt who trade them along with 1200 talents of silver to Carthage during the war to crush the mercenarys.
Given the expected life span of an elephnat, the 37 left in 218 was almost certainly all the indian elephants carthage had, and made up further numbers by use of lesser species. -
Message 34
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
You're talking about Syria not Carthage!
Read your own links! -
Message 35
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Surus the syrian was the last of the elephants, known as the bravest of the herd, all called indian by polybios.
heres what your newsper was reporting on the findings from and off.
are some more material for you to peruse. -
Message 36
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
No im refering to the Syrian Indian elephants and how come they ended up in spain, as well as your prefernce for a quick search on net and coming up with nespaper artcile.
btw there is no way you can have read all the links in the time you have taken before makeing a reply.
-
Message 37
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Your link posted 4 hours ago, states "The Carthaginians were impressed and set about creating their own force of war-elephants, using like the Ptolemies in Egypt, the locally available African elephants."
I'm sorry but you are refuting your own case with your own links! -
Message 38
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
yes i know, but that is not the answer to the question of where did hannibals get his elephants from, its the answer to another question, much like the 300 elephants aquired from somalia by egypt to increase its elephant coprs when indian ones proved difficult to obtain.
Do you have a reading impairment? or a comprehension impairment?. -
Message 39
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
I've got Idiotphobia. See ya!
-
Message 40
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
I remember that programme.
Cannae was also studied in depth by the German general staff who tried to replicate Hannibal's tactics on a strategic scale in World War I (the Schlieffen Plan) -
Message 41
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Idamante Respect
I refer to and like your reference to the German High Command studying Hannibals tactics during the first World war.
In relation to the first world war I dont think any or the sides can take a lot of grace from that conflict.It was dirty and is was basically a stale mate for years. Armies trenched down on either side of no mans land.
Silly comisioned British officers commanding the poor sods over the top suicide misions across killing field and if they were to afraid were more than likely shot for cowardice.
The real inovations came from the Second world war German Military machine. My own personal opinion second to none in relation to armies of history.
It was inivitive with its machines its generals and its soldiers. As with military steps the second world war brought Air power and the Tank.
Both these tools were used to great effect with Blitz Krieg . JFC Fuller accounts that the German Blitz Krieg was the Alexander the Great model. Based on the best and fastest forces consentrated at one point to make breaks and exploit the openings made.
The Second world war make the Battle Ship obsolete made Aircraft carriers much more vulnerable. The Germans started the blue print for military power even today. -
Message 42
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Back to the initail Elephant post.
However many Hannibal did or did not get over the Alps is hardly important only that he may have done.
Militarily Elephants have been as risky to those using them as those facing them. Fair enough get them all going staright ahead and your gonna get some pain. But start hurting them and irritating them and they are a liability.
Its fair to say from the western commanders it was Alexander who faced them and worked out how to beat them. A lot of Scholars say Alexanders most difficult battle was against Porus. But once he was acroos the river. Porus was between Himself and Craterus.
Once the Elephants were sorted and Craterus was over the river.Porus was in a bad way. -
Message 43
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
We have assorted accounts of elephants used in warfare. i have long wondered the truths of those. Elephants are interesting beasts who have ideas of their own. I have witnessed and also h filmed a well planned break out of about 30 'teenage elephants' from a holding area in a sactuary in Sri Lanka. Great fun to watch until they charged my way and the film then becomes one of fast moving earth as I sped away - to the sound of distant family laughter and hoots of jumbo jeering.
To advertise their first Jumbo Jets, PANAM organised a great elephant polo match in India. Rather slow until they got the hang of it then one trunked up the 'ball' and ran with it to the goal; jumbo rugby was invented. I assume they had ideas in warfare too. Excution by elephant foot was usual in Mogul times; not nice.
Regards, P. -
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
As I said above Priscilla elephants were an interesting idea in theory but in practice it always proved too difficult: in fact the running costs would mean that you had better pay 10-20 average horses (price and food and transportation costs by ship etc.) and it would be much more cost effective.
However I own a reply to Nickiow who gave well his arguments in his previous messages. Nickiow I am sorry to have presented rough numbers and indeed it it always a difficulty numbers even for battles of the last century for which the grandfathers of our grandfathers fought and we should had known much more, let alone when we talk about battles 22 centuries ago. In the case of Imera the 100,000 and the 110,000 of Plataies well you could argue that in Plataies some 20-30,000 were almost armless slaves following the Lakedemonians while the richer and more socially open Syracusians would not have done something like that (though still this is a guess). The 150,000 Roman capacity perhaps it is too high for the Roman army that fought Phyrrus (maybe we should reduce it to 2/3 of that) but certainly the following gradual expansion to South Italy easily augmented that to 150,000. I cannot imagine Romans having any less other wise no Pergamon or Rhodes on the other end of the Mediterranean would want to ally to them isn't it? They had to present somethign in exchange and Romans had their army to present for subcontracting, an army of 80,000 just would not do the trick - especially one that was not famed for any great skills.
You have a right to mention that Carthagenians by Punic wars in late 3rd century had a much more large base than what they had in early 5th century. However, one has to make a distinction: Carthagenians had more loose alliances while Romans more tight ones. Carthegenians allied with local leaders, Romans allied not with local leaders but with local elites that were more interesting in making money rather than ruling over any lands thus making sure that the ally would become collated on them. Carthagenians usually (please correct me if wrong) pre-paid their mercenary army, Romans would pay by means of result i.e. by looting and/or land after good results. That meant that Carthagenians no matter if considerably richer than Romans, no matter if having some (whatsoever loose) control over larger territories, they were not necessarily able to translate that into larger armies than Romans.
Again I underline it that it goes without saying that the inability of Carthegenians to do anything after having massacred a Roman army of 50,000 means that the Romans really had much more army than the Carthegenians as reserve so as to continue the fight. Romans were expert diplomats already, far above others. Had they censed they were losing it, they would have traded some permanent peace treaty and restrict themselves to ruling central Italy. Did they show any such will? No, obviously they had much more army to continue trying their luck. Take also into account that their army was crap by ancient standards. No other army was able to get massacred like that and call itself "an army". Really that means that Romans had to have much more than 100,000 remaining after the loss of 50,000 thus easily I would raise that number to 200,000 before that loss. Carthagenians no matter how rich they were not able or simply were not willing to pay for such an army. -
Message 45
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
"I've got Idiotphobia. See ya!"
Actually you wont, and your only have right. -
Message 46
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
E_Nikolaos_E
You will find Blunt Italian Manpower 225BC-AD14 the standard refernce work for the one side, and Hoyos for the other, ie for numbers of mil capacity at any point in time.
As to payment methods, Romans 241 (240,000 males of mil age) were required by law to serve 6 years in the filed armies and 10 more in the garrisons, carthage, by example the libyans who comprised the great bulf of the heavy foot were slaves and or owed liftime military obligation through treaty, teh baleric slingers recieved no pay, but were payed in booty, so carthaginian practices of war where complety different from the citizen soldiers of Rome, in the 2nd Punic war Rom,e would filed all year round armies rather than just for the usual summer campaign season, so we know centurians became fulltime carrer profesionals for instance and can traxce their mil progresion through the convoluted ranks of command. Much like Alexander`s father Philip would do with mercs, Hannibal and carthage would pay merc who made up a large section of the mil to be in the field all year round, slaves who fought well were given there freedom, and there master rewarded with 2 new slaves to repalce the newly enfranchised ones.
The Romans and carthaginas would loot wholesale, selling vast numbers into slavery in the east by Carthage, and if a latin/roman executed when taken by Rome.
The roman mil machine was formed by its 3 wars with carthage, the cohort was created after fighting in spain against Carthage and teh maniple system found wanting, the use of a double line and then triple line of legions rather than a single line of legions was adopted to prevent the double encirclemt which was the aim of all carthaginas battle tactics on both land and sea.
Im not sure you grasp how wealthy carthage was, one single mine complex in Baeculeu spain provided the Barcids with 4 talents a day, or more than Athens entire empirial income at its height, which allowed carthage to maintain a vast fleet, 500 warships surrenderd at wars end to be burnt, along with 1200 lost during the conflict, and mainatin 90k foot 12k horse and 200 elephants to Romes 77k total in 218, and while in italy mainatin a a force of 125k for a decade, now while romes initail manpoewer reserves were vast, during the 2nd Punic war it lost more males than all of italys total losses in both ww1 and ww2 combibined.
As to Rome surrender, no they never sought to surrener, one of the things they learnt was that the acepted order of things was that states would fight a series of battles or one clomatic battle and the winner then inflicted a peace treaty of the loser, and time would pass and a war of revenge would entail a new peace treaty recognising the new changed circumstances, this was the age of war when empires fell in an afternoon when the nations army was wiped out in single battle of series of engements, this was the greek method of what war was. rome countered this, and carthage was the par excellence example of taking battlefield superiority of tactics to create an outcome with no dawn for the defeated by its reliance on the double envelopment which allowed total defeats to become relaity rather than the 30% defeated to 15% victors loss rate being the norm, again building on the Philip/alexander ruthless pursuit of the defeated to convert battfiled superiority and victory into startegic max advantge by removing the defeated army in its entirity. Total war had arrived by romes counter to this greek superior at the ntime methodology of war fighting, teh phalax for instance, to defeat another means in that age geeting more men than your oponent to deal out death, teh nphalnx maxed out the number of weapojns on the frontage, a superior weapons system, but one that required certain circumstances to opertae and achieve success, Rome defeated this system by using modern warfare, ie it managed its resources over the long term not the short term battlfield aim of the greeks, which is why it was studdied and is still taught, blitkrieg was the ww2 answer to avoid wars of attrition that Rome had shown was how wars outcomes must be determined by, Clauswitz described it and the Geramsn practised it, instead of cav and phalanx and the sword and shield, the technology changed to armour and anti tank gun to achieve the same result, a war setteled before the effects of attrition setteled the outcome.
Carthage never wanted to destroy Rome otoh, Hannibal never serously marched on Rome (livys acount of the defeat at Cannae and hannys not marching on rome is part of his bias, and re writting of history, he puts hannibals cav commanders advice to hannibal to march on |Rome here, but forgets to change teh distance and times, so we know that this advice was given earlier at the Trebbia as the distances and time to achieve fit that battle and not Cannae, where livys changes the consular days of command to mmake varro in charge when its his benifactors decscedent who was, so Livys re working of actual events is part of his bias he wanted to show his sponser in the best possible light and re worked history to do so, and had the protection of the sentatrial class in mind when he again re worked the timeline, to have hannibal make a mistake by not marching on Rome post cannae, when in fact Rome hada garriosn far larger than Hannibal army, in fatc it was so large they sent 2 legions out for service abroad when news of cannae was still fresh.
Of course Hannibal never expected to, nor desired the destruction of Rome, it just wanted to remove the italain confedercy from giving Rome the mil clout to prevent Carthage economic domination of the med, and of course to reclaim sicily etc in this the latest in a war of revenge`s of past defeats.
Now im bouncing over a number of intresting things so if you want furter explanation just ask. -
Message 47
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Nickiow.
Copliments I feel you outlined Carthage power and wealth very well and i compliment your knowledge on Roman Armies and generals I only have a brief readings regardingsuch matters as my readings stem from Macedonain And Greek wardfare. But ive always said find a focal point of study and it enevitably becomes linear and linked.
Your description of Blitz Kreig is also spot on where as its most effrective if it keeps rolling once it gets bogged down then it can be taken on. I guess the difference with German Blitz Krieg and Alexander. Alexander had a fundamental strategic goal and battle plan. He covered his flanks planned ahead and most important took care of his supplies and his links to home.
Even when he got bogged down with Tyre and Gazza he still had his eye on the rest of the chess board another brilliance of Alexander as a commander often called reckless but I feel not reckless at all Makran could be seen as reckless but to me a dangerous risk to find a quicker link from India to home for any futere invasions.
Congratulations with you knowledge of the importance of Carthage as i know Carthage was what we may call a super power before Rome.
Some silly Roman writers accuse Alexander The Great of fighting girls and Boys in Persia Whilst Alexander of Lycentias was fighting real soldiers meaning the Romans rather arrogant and flipant to say the least.
At its time Alexander went for the undesputed heavyweight Champion Persia.For Alexander himself to hit Rome at his time would mean nothing to Philip Or Alexander where was the glory. I would say to those Roman Writers they were indeed lucky with the Alexander they had comming there way.
Following Persia for power was Carthage and to look at any map the perfect spot for any military Empire West or East.It had a naval power unequal at that time. Alexander knew early on he could do nothing with Phonecian Navies and what a stroke of genius and risk to take a navy out by land. Rome couldnt do anything with there inferior ships until they got the blueprints for the ships.
Carthage-Tunisia militarily for me is the ideal spot and I can really believe the stories that Carthage was in Alexanders future Shopping list.
If and is only an if. Had Alexander lived and taken Carthage with the wealth resources he already had Italy and Rome at that time would be rabbits in a headlight. but thats another what if and to me very likely. -
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Thanks for the comprehensive answer Nickiow. Talking on points, I do not remember if in military service Roman soldiers received payment - I suppose they received an average worker's payment like soldiers received in Greek states (depending on their speciality) as a form of replacing their lost revenue during campaign. But I am not sure whether they paid their allies or whether they only paid the local elite and the local elite recruited on the basis of paying soldiers only after results. Much of these allies also I know were forced ones, thus not paid at all. As you commented Carthagenians had also forced allies but I think the bulk of their armies were mercenary thus on the overall Carthagenian army was more expensive than Roman.
It goes without saying that both armies apart wages and the rest used much much cheaper equipment than Greek armies (even Imperial Roman military equipment is not even near comparison to earlier Greek versions) thus that way they really had no problem (iron was cheaper than bronze but also of lower quality for protecting equipment) that way. Once you see what were the velites (...wolfemen and bearmen...holding 2-3 spears and a knife) and what were the legionaires (a pot for a helmet, a low quality medium sword, a rather short spear and a huge piece of wood for shield - what flexibility anyway in comparison to the hoplite!) you get the picture that really when overstressing on economics you do not get the picture. True that both armies tried to speak numbers.
It is still though not comprehendable that Carthagenians - while they had as you said the possibility to raise even more armies than Romans (the 4 talents/day single mine in Spain being a convincing argument there), they were not able to repeat any campaign like in the early 5th century. Had they arranged just 1 coastal ally in Italy north or south and sent directly their ships there transferring 200,000-300,000 army attacking directly Rome they would have finished with Rome quite early on.
As we both discussed above, perhaps we should stick more to their wish not to destroy totally Rome. Back then Rome was far from being any Empire. It had only very recently become the militarily most strong Italic city and was trying to play the military subcontractor for any rich city around the Meditterranean wished their services. It had no serious navy of its own but was largely based on its Greek allies. So all had Carthage to do was to just provoke the dissolution of all that net of alliances and Rome would simply deflate back to its previous size of merely a land based city, important on the local level.
But I am wondering. And why not destroy it directly? Would it be much more costly than the war of attrition that followed? Certainly not. In the First Punic War there was not even one major decisive confrontation, in the Second Punic War it can be said that there were 4-5 major battles but none of them was essentially decisive other than the famous battle of Zama when Romans, already taken the upper hand delivered the final blow. So what Carthagenians were afraid of? They had largely taken out Syracuse several decades ago and Syracuse was left only able to collate either to Rome or to Carthage. Greeks of South Italy were not anymore so powerfull and they fell easy pray even to small pirate groups (remember Messina, the assasination of its men by the hosted Mamertines proves the city had virtually no army). So why would Carthage think that it had to leave Rome as a balance, since Greeks while always there, had already lost the big game. On the other hand, Rome was still far from being any balance for the powerfull Greek kingdoms in the east and of course Carthage too had not yet any such ambition.
I think down to the basics we have an even more complex situation. I even suspect of groups within Carthage that tried to make money with the Romans rather than the Carthagenians - afterall Carthage was a city of commerce and was driven by commerce and as we know commerce had never any colour. It would be not the first time in history that it happened that way. -
Message 49
Posted by Gavin Corder (U732634) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
your only have right.Β
OK darling. In English? -
Message 50
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
E_Nikolaos_E
Hannibals mode of operation was one based on manoever, the larger your army the slower its manouver rate, see Hannibals Mulews if you can get it for Hannibals logistics, Virginia Military Institute may have it online as i know its part of one of their courses, or Alexander the great and the logistics of teh macedonian army by engles if you cant which is wiedly avalible.
So Hannibals entire startegic concept is based on speed of opweration, ist only post Cannae that he has fixed assets that force him to defend them, which he does by splitting his forces into anumber of smaller armies 17000 in in and two of 40,000 for instance to do so, and still retain fredom of manoverbility, in this he is succesfull and able to march to any point in southern and central italy to prosecute alightning siege, a seige required to take Rome itself was never p[art opf this concept of operation as it would be logisticly impossible to maintain a huge force in asingle spot for the time required, something hannibal had learnt to his cost was that conventiopnal sieges are sure things as long as time does not amtter, his prefered method was treachery from with and acounts for 2thirds of all the city7s he took, ie bribed or treason was the way in.
Why not destroy Rome?, because that was not a war aim, the reduction of the Roman domination of italy was the war aim, that did not require the destruction of Rome, meerly the destruction of its mil machine that made the rest of italy subserviant to Rome call to provide troops to fullfill roman economic and militray aims. Of course you nexpress the sdame yourself so im not posting something you not aware off. You are also correct to point out that Rome was nation state of citizen soldiers while carthage wasa semi feudal collection of mutually competting economic oposed parties, there was the oposite faction to thye barcids that needed a third of Spains output to,m placte them as they wanted to develope alon the coast and down the coast to the Horn of africa rather than reclaim sicly and open up Spain. We simply dont know enough about the internal disputes and how they overcome, we do know this disputes led to a misplication of assets that prevented timely co ordinate action by the Brcids inh Italy and Spain from recieving the full resources the carthaginain state had to use.
Velies in the Romans system, you may bge intrested that velites had 2 major changes of equipment and usage in the second Punic war rising at one point to 30% of the legiosntotal strength as the Romans sought to prevent ambush and enevelpment by increasing the role of long and short range recce by use of velites.
Armies and Enimies of the macedion and Punic wars WRG, is a first rate source book, a more general one is if your looking for stuff to read rather than online books, which i recomend again the link i posted earlier to Hoyos and Dodge.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.