Talk:Second Punic War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

battle box

Someone 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?!

Is someone going to argue this? Or can I add the battles.

It was not me. But tell that ignorant perhaps, that there was not only a battle at Sagunt before the war. I am having myself trouble with a Mr. Know-it-better who changed my entries on the quinquiremes. I said there Rome had 220 and Carthage 110 quinquiremes when war started, refering to Polybius. Carthage avoided most naval battles in the Second Punic War. Well, you dont have to read any sources, Carthage was the major power at sea, simply change the numbers, that idiot of mine does it all wrong. Of course Carthage was a major naval power, but that was the first punic war and at this time Rome had 10-20 triremes for coastal defence. It is sometimes really annoying. Wandalstouring 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you add Cissa and Saguntum. If so, well done. Im glad I am not alone on this issue.

map

the 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)

Copy from Hannibal

I 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)

I do not think that Mustafa Bevi want to merge the articles (meaning, erasing Hannibal's article). He said copy the bulk of the Hannibal article and then merge (this copied parts) to this article. This means that Hannibal will have his article too. But, if you take a look at Hannibal's article, you see that the section Second Punic War in Italy (218—203 B.C.) deals more with Second Punic war than with Hannibal. For instance, there is no reason for which a detailed subsection about Fabius Maximus should be in the Hannibal article. I do not care about the time some users spent working on Hannibal article. I just care about the results concerning wikipedia. From my point of view, details about the Second Punic War should be in this article, details about Hannibal there. Of course, they are related, but I think that we will have a better wikipedia if we move some of the info to this article.

On the other hand, I strongly oppose any try to delete Hannibal article, or the merge material that is not from the Second Punic War in Italy (218—203 B.C.) and Conclusion of Second Punic War (203—201 B.C.) sections there. (sorry, I forgot to sign before Gala.martin)

In that case, I would agree. I took it to mean that he wanted to merge the entire article into this one. I misunderstood. Information not directly related to Hannibal should be moved here, but carefully. Kafziel 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the discussion isn't about a proper merger, I've removed the merge-template. Avoid using it unless actually discussing a proper merger.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps its no good idea to make such a strong emphasis on Hannibal. There were many other operations he did not take part. Wandalstouring 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualties at Cannae

This 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)

Sources may differ, from the different way of counting. Not all troops did fight in the actuel battle, but attacked the Carthaginian camp. most sources state that parts of the Roman army were able to retreat from the battle. of the ones fighting there, fewer did survive. Usually most casualties on both sides occured after a battle due to infections of wounds.

Wandalstouring 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Polybius is in an fairly objective historical source. And can be quoted with little doubt. Wandalstouring 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Theates

Should 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)

lots of mistakes

many 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)

Size of article

This 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)

The way to shorten this article is to move all the major batles to their own article in the same way as the battle of Zena. It is good that text has been moved here from the Hannibal article but some of it should be moved out to separate articles. This article should have only 1-2 paragraphs on each of the major battles.

Richard 16:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please forget that 32kb limit, it is just a suggestion. Moreover the battle sections (except the section on Cannae) don't deal with the actual fighting but only with the course of events that brought to the battles. Remove that and you make the article useless. However, if you want to remove something, moving Second Punic War#Battles of the Second Punic War to a new page cut this article's length to 38kb, that is IMHO acceptable. GhePeU 16:29, 17 April 2006

(UTC)

Yes, the 32kb limit is just a suggestion and many articles are longer than this one which is currently 39kb in size. And, yes, it's true that the sections on battles are not detailed in the tactics but are canted more towards the major movements of forces and strategic importance of the battle.

However, in re-reading the article, I still get the feeling that it is too long, but this might be resolved by helping the reader with a better overview and better flow. It's dense reading and that is what makes it seem like a long article. Let's have better section overviews so that the reader gets a "50,000 foot view" of the war rather than a detailed account of "who went where with whom".

Richard 17:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The text regarding the tactics of the battle need to be condensed or removed entirely, but I strongly suggest that the details regarding the events leading up to the battles, remain in this article. And I do not see why the size of this article is such a big concern, when there are several other articles that are just as big, if not bigger. The 32 kb limit, is, after all, a mere suggestion, not a requirement. --Chubdub 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's said that some preachers can make a one hour sermon seem like only 10 minutes and others can make a 10 minute sermon seem like an hour. It's a bit of a stretch but this article unfortunately is leaning towards the latter category. It needs to be shorter, not because of the 32kb limit but because it's too dense. We need a better overview that explains why this war was important in history. We also need the overview to provide a general outline of the flow of the war, key battles, key factors influencing the course of the war, etc. Then a really brief synopsis of the battles and movements of forces between battles. Most of the details about each battle should be moved into separate articles.

Richard 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a good idea to incorporate more links into this article and to state less minor details. Wandalstouring 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for merger

Very 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)

The Second Punic War part of Hannibal is divided into two sections. I put the "merge" request on the second one; please remove if it was not part of your original intent.UnDeadGoat 04:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that section contains information that needs to be merged as well --Chubdub 21:07, 30 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)

The *tag* . . . says "merged" . . . UnDeadGoat 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely what I meant. By "moved" I mean "merged". I should have specified earlier. --Chubdub 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Support: The Hannibal article should focus on Hannibal the person, and that Second Punic War section contains much more information than this entire Second Punic War article. UnDeadGoat 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This would also likely make the Hannibal article take up less than 50k. Right now it's over 60. Too long for slow connections. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I do not think a vote is needed. We have discussed this issue for a long time by now, and everybody always agreed to merge, by the end. So, I think we can be bold! gala.martin (what?) 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, The Hannibal article is too long. See the Hernan Cortes article for an example in which the detailed discussion of the conquest of Mexico was pulled and moved to the Spanish conquest of Mexico article.
• Strong Veto: Too much Hannibal. The music played in Spain. There were battles, sieges and treason DECIDING the war. What does this article state about it? Almost nothing. Furthermore the war did not end with the peacetreaty after Zama. Remains of Hasdrubal´s and Mago´s troops continued fighting for several years together with the insurgent Celts. Is there any mentioning of the Celts in Gallia cisalpina fighting their own war against Rome while Hannibal moves with his troops across Southern Italy? Wandalstouring 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Suggestion

There 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)

My preference would be to reduce the focus on Hannibal and present the war as combination of theatres.

"Stalemate in Italy" for example is POV as there were actually changes like Tarento and Capua. Polybius calls it numerous sieges, so "Sieges and Skirmishes in Italy" could be a NPOV title for that section. What is absolutely missing is the Gallic uprising and its battles with the support of remaining Carthaginian troops and Punic officers. It lasted till several years after the peace treaty between Rome and Carthage. This should be mentioned because the uprising and the Carthaginian attack on Italy are closely linked. This war was also of great importance for Rome as the Po valley was no longer settled by Roman colonies afterwards and the most important agricultural area lost by the Roman citizens (not the Roman state). Wandalstouring 13:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Discussion

BlackGriffen, 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)

About Ticinus and Trebia

The 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.

"Had they turned back, the battle may have gone very differently. Instead they retreated." is POV, Polybius contradicts this opinion. Wandalstouring 13:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that before Marcellus, consul Gaius Flaminius first died during Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC. Vale! User Horatius on it.wiki--151.46.246.32 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronological presentation

Could 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)

reorganizing Punic Wars

I 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)

Second Punic War

Prelude

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

Encirclement

Inner encirclement

Hannibal's march (+Roman countermarch)

Destruction of Roman forces(+naval expeditions)

uprise in Gaule

Fabian Strategy

Struggle for allies in Southern Italy (+intelligence coups)

Outer encirclement

First Roman expedition to Hispania (+naval engagements)

Second Roman expedition to Hispania (+Iberian uprises)

Campaigns on Sicily (+alliance with Syracus, defecting cities to Carthage)

Uprise in Sardinia and Punic expedition

First Macedonian War

Decision in new areas of conflict

Renewed campaigns in Northern Italy

Hasdrubal's march (+Roman counter march)

Mago's naval landing (+defection of Etrurian cities)

Gallic uprise after the peace treaty (+supporting Punic troops and officers)

Scipio's Campaign in Africa

Destruction of Punic forces and foundation of Massinissa's united Numidian kingdom

Broken armistice and final peace treaty

Aftermath

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)