Message from @Dr. WaveZey
Discord ID: 669194802503483402
@Deleted User pffftt the Vikings sold u to the moors
Including the Slavs as well
A lot of english people from today have some med dna
Carthage lost three wars to Rome because Hannibal, despite all his tactical genius, simply could not compete with Scipio Africanus.
The government did screw him over, but he lost his means of attacking Rome in the alps as well without fault from them
If anything, Scipio was screwed over harder by the senate, having to get troops on his own instead of being granted them
Hannibal was a genius of warfare, but he was a winner of battles
He could not win a war
Especially not against a foe who kept on adapting and recovering from every blow inflicted
The fact that Rome didn’t fall after Cannae was proof that Hannibal was fighting a foe he couldn’t beat
Yeah sure, I wouldn't deny the Romans were great adapters. but majority of the reasons why carthage lost was traitors abandoning it and bad leadership.
Bad leadership is true. That and an over reliance on mercenaries
Mercenary armies NEVER work out in the long run
Rome learned that lesson the hard way later on
Yeah, tho Carthaginian society wasn't as militarized as Rome is
True
Carthage was a better economic and sea power than the Roman republic was, which dominated the land militarily
At least until the third punic war. Even then, Rome barely used its navy in conflicts after taking Carthage
It didnt have to anymore.
Yea
After Greece and Anatolia were taken, its biggest threats were landlocked tribes and an empire whose only coast was the Persian gulf
It was simple, their empire was more trade focused rather then.... you know. that's why they focused more on navy rather then land military.
Well done @Dr. WaveZey, you just advanced to level 4!
Yeah
Under the right leadership, if they only had a few more hannibals, they could’ve defeated Rome in that second war and taken them down for good, even when facing them at their best
But that potential for dominance of the Mediterranean was squandered by a leadership that didn’t know how to use the resources they were given
Parthians mostly used cavalry, which DID pose a huge threat to Rome
Even though Roman cavalry was some of the best, Parthian cavalry was simply better
Hell, the East adapted their tactics in the form of cataphracts
weren't they the first to mass use Horse archer cavalry
Yep.
Mounted archers were the Parthians’ bread and butter
Just ask Crassus
Carrhae was a massive slap in the face for Rome that made them suddenly remember people could use bows on horses
I believe Byzantine cavalry used archery?
I heard they had some sort of regiment of turkic captured troops that converted to Orthdox and became their own thing.
That would sound about right
They were also used by the crusader states as well.
To counter the light Muslim cavalry, both sides adapted to the other side army, the muzzies army started getting heavier. And the crusaders also started having much lighter troops since you can’t run in a desert with full plate armour for long....
It makes me wonder if the crusader states would’ve been able to hold out for longer
Well I gtg
@IliasSpook tbh they could’ve lasted much more if Guy of lusignan wasn’t that retarded to March out of Jerusalem to fall for Salahdin trap.
@Deleted User u still here?