Funny enough, the Battle of Cartagena in the same period literally was an inside job, lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_(461)
By spring 460[1][5][2][6][7][3][8] (or 461[4]), Majorian had 300[5][6][7][4] ships already built and he would have had another few more ready by the autumn. The Vandals decided to strike before the Roman navy became unbeatable. On May 13, a fleet of Vandal ships under the command of King Gaiseric[1][5][7] surprised the Roman fleet. Many of the Roman captains had been bribed to switch sides. The Roman navy was totally destroyed, ending any hope of reconquering North Africa.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 hours ago
It’s actually the right picture both times.
From Wikipedia (this is 2nd Century but it’s the same kind of bullshit)
“Later in 149 BC a large Roman army landed at Utica in North Africa. The Carthaginians hoped to appease the Romans, but despite the Carthaginians surrendering all of their weapons, the Romans pressed on to besiege the city of Carthage. The Roman campaign suffered repeated setbacks through 149 BC, only alleviated by Scipio Aemilianus, a middle-ranking officer, distinguishing himself several times. A new Roman commander took over in 148 BC and fared equally badly.”
The Romans got repeatedly ass blasted by a Carthaginian army that had surrendered all their weapons
Absolutely clownish villain behavior from Rome in the whole Third Punic War that only got reversed when Scipio took over.
Tl;Dr nepotistic command structures of the Roman military meant the way they won most of the wars before the Marian reforms (and even after, arguably) was by getting armies killed until someone competent accidentally took over. Unlike all of their opponents, Rome could afford to lose and replace their field armies until they randomly got lucky/the enemy ran out of soldiers.