"You would have had me crawling on all fours like a beast!"

Comments

• PugJesus@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Explanation: During the Second Punic War, the brilliant Carthaginian ("Punic") general Hannibal Barca destroyed several Roman armies in rapid succession. The Roman people, in their desperation, appointed as dictator Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, who quickly became unpopular by his (wise) refusal to engage Hannibal in open battle. The up-and-coming Roman politician Varro advocated for an immediate confrontation, which was a popular position at the time. Fabius refused.

  When Fabius’s term as dictator was over, Varro was elected Consul (one of the two heads of the Roman government), and, with his co-consul, combined their armies (an unusual move) to create a massive ~80,000 strong force with which to BOLDLY CONFRONT Hannibal!

  … they lost. Horribly. Legendarily. The resulting Battle of Cannae is still used as an example of total annihilation to this day.

  Rome, contrite, then appointed Fabius as dictator again, and resumed its policy of hemming in Hannibal and not attempting to confront the military genius on the military genius’s own terms.

  original

  • CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Rome NEVER figured out Hannibal almost always sneaks up from behind and often attacks by night or that he often used fog as cover… the Punic war reenactments really make you realize how low strategy the Roman’s were and how much they relied on armor and numbers. Hannibal could have and should have sacked Rome, the word ridiculous literally comes from his refusal to do so.

    original

    • PugJesus@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Rome NEVER figured out Hannibal almost always sneaks up from behind and often attacks by night or that he often used fog as cover…

      That’s… not quite the core issue.

      the Punic war reenactments really make you realize how low strategy the Roman’s were and how much they relied on armor and numbers.

      Numbers, sure, but Roman armor at the time was not particularly superior to that of the Carthaginian forces.

      Numbers and motivation, more like. The Roman infantry were immensely well-disciplined, even at their lowest point, and capable of retaining cohesion under pressure and reconstituting after defeat.

      Men who believe in a cause - even a vague one, like that of civic nationalism - can be frighteningly determined.

      Strategy, in fact, was what brought the Romans victory - that the Romans had a plan of strategic value (under Fabius and Scipio), while Hannibal, a tactical genius, was unable to formulate one - either by his own thinking (a common issue amongst tactically gifted commanders, especially before modern military science in the 19th century) or by the fact that his own government was only half-invested in his success to begin with, stripping him of the necessary decision-making power to formulate an effective strategy.

      Hannibal could have and should have sacked Rome, the word ridiculous literally comes from his refusal to do so.

      Rome at the time still had formidable walls and an army to man it. Taking Rome would have involved a siege - which would have been easily harassed while deep in Roman territory.

      Also, I’m not familiar with that etymology.

      original
  • First_Thunder@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    To quote oversimplified regarding napoleon “when he gets close, we run… away crowd cheers”

    original