How did rome manage to lose majority of battles in the second Punic war, and go on to win the war?
>>1252801
Of course they exercised a measure of ingenuity, as reverse-engineering ships (which weren't great copies, but they were good enough), but the bigger issue, we're to understand, particularly in the latter part of Hannibal's campaign, was the decadency and incompetence of the Carthaginian oligarchy. Rome just wanted it more.
>>1252801
Resources.
>>1252801
Cos you only need to win the last battle. In a similar feat, see the brits.
>>1252801
Roman excellence
>>1252839
Pretty much this. While Hannibal was in Italy fucking everything up and for some reason not attacking Rome, my boy Scipio decided to pull off a Hannibal and sailed to North Afrika. Carthaginians were all like "Hannibal, come back and save us bro" and the rest is history.
>>1252948
Carthage didn't send Hannibal any fresh reinforcement or support while he ran circles around Rome for half a decade. One solid support flotilla would have ended the whole thing, then and there, and history would have been completely rewritten.
>>1252948
It's not like he could have taken Rome with such few men.
>>1253067
He laid siege to it for years, blocking supply routes and feeding his own troops off surrounding fields and orchards. Inside the city proper, poorer sections had to practice cannibalism of the freshly dead. When I was much younger, it was a saying to let you know you were in trouble if you didn't do as you were told, by older folks, that "Hannibal is at the gates!". It meant you were about the get an ass whoopin. That's how seriously the cultural impact of that series of events had on Romans, well over 2000 years later.
I'd say even in the later part of the campaign he had "not few men".
>>1252819
I always get the impression that Roman nautical engineering was pretty subpar, any truth to that?
>>1253136
I don't think it's so much that Roman ships were inferior as that Carthaginian ship technology was particularly superior and had a longer, storied history from the people we now refer as Phoenicians.
>>1252801
a victory means nothing unless you can use it to your advantage
>>1253151
Yeh, it's not like Rome wasn't already trading all over the Med, and just outside the Med to the nearest Atlantic shores. Carthaginians had these massive, juggernaut, solid warships with 5 decks of oarsmen, a relatively insane articulation of human propulsion. The Romans found one and reverse engineered it, and while it's arguable these new Roman versions were "cheap knock-offs", they did what they needed to do in the era, and would be improved over time.
>>1252948
>and the rest is history
Fuck you.
>>1253195
>>1253151
Yo guys might be interested in looking up the first punic war; that was the one that was more of a naval struggle.
But Rome eventually did win that one, and Carthage never really regained her initiative on the waters vis a vis Rome, in large part because fleets in the ancient world didn't last long. You required constant effort and resources to replace those boats, because they would be lost in storms all the fucking time. I'm pretty sure (but would need to double check, last time I looked was long ago) that both sides in the first punic war lost more vessels to "friction",storms, accidents, just returning to harbor with boats that couldn't be repaired, than they did ot each other.
Rome had the population/"industrial" base to keep turning out new boats. Carthage didn't, not and keep up with the stresses of having an enemy continually trying to knock holes in them.
>>1252801
The same way the Soviets won WWII
Carthago dalenda est
>>1252801
>How did rome manage to lose majority of battles in the second Punic war
They didn't. Hannibal was wrecking the Romans in Italy, but he only managed three really decisive engagements (Trebia, Trasemine, and Cannae) before the Romans just refused to meet him in the field.
Meanwhile, the Carthaginians were getting their shit slapped in Spain - that's where Scipio Africanus first rose to prominence. Hannibal's brothers ended up both getting soundly defeated in Spain, and, when one of Hannibal's brothers tried to bring an army to Italy to reinforce Hannibal, he too was defeated and killed by the Romans.
Also
>that map
>Carthage possessing Spain, Corsica, and Sicily all at once
>REEEEEEEE
>>1252801
Manpower. They had literally hundreds of thousands of men to throw at the Carthaginians.
>>1253376
This.
Or, more precisely : Political will.
You can look at History, and you'll see a lot of humiliating defeats. It doesn't matter. What matters is the sheer will of the governement, whether they want to fall, or fight until the end.
Even after the destruction of the roman army at the hand of Hannibal, Rome refused to ransom them, and instead, freed and armed slaves, which was much, much more costly. Why ? "Delenda Carthago". The roman Senate WANTED to crush Carthage, they wanted to crush Carthage and if you wanted to stop them, you would have needed to burn Rome down.
Hannibal, on the contrary, was fighting for a city full of conspiring, treacherous elites who did a lot to not help their own general.
>>1253545
>that map
>Carthage possessing Spain, Corsica, and Sicily all at once
>REEEEEEEE
I was about to post this, but it's probably just an anachronical map (that's how it's called in english, right?).
>>1253625
And Sardinia too
>>1253625
Anachronistic, actually.
>>1253891
Pretty sure anachronistic would be if Hannibal had a rollex in a painting.
>>1253574
This. And other logistical stuff like more iron, a better economy, a better functioning state that could survive defeats and not collapse because one charismatic leader got defeated in battle.
Aren't most wars won by the side that can increase it's forces quicker than the enemy can destroy them
>>1252801
Fabius and Scipio, my nigga.
>>1252801
Carthage had shit supply trains and either couldn't or wouldn't reinforce Hannibal. Romans had better power projection in the Mediterranean
>>1252801
Because the Romans could be resupplied endlessly, and the Carthaginians had only what they brought or stole.
>>1253136
No, the anon you are replying to is a moron and has no idea what he's talking about. Roman navy was without equal during the 2nd Punic War and had the Med locked down.
>>1252801
Determination to never quit. Cliche but the Romans embodied this during the Republicans years.
They beat everyone but Hannibal so Hannibal couldn't resupply and reinforce his army.
Scipio trains his army in Sicily.
Zama.
>>1254018
>Aren't most wars won by the side that can increase it's forces quicker than the enemy can destroy them
Nowadays, yes. Pre-industrial revolution, not so much.
>>1253574
>>1254018
This is a myth. Both sides had hundreds of thousands of men, the only use of them is how many you can employ.
Have a .png
It was a variety of factors. Rome could pull levies from her allies whenever it wanted, and I believe that to add further incentive, Rome offered seats in the Senate to some families of the various tribes around her. Also, some speculations on Cannae estimate that Rome may have lost up to 20% of its male citizen population. These figures do not include the male citizen population lost at the Trebia and Lake Trasimene.
In addition, Hannibal did not receive adequate support from Carthage, and really, it doesn't seem too easy. After the events in the First Punic War, Carthage lost its grip on the Mediterranean and influences in Sicily and Sardinia. The Mediterranean by the time of the Second Punic War was under Rome's control, more or less.
Further, in response to the lack of support from Carthage, Hannibal had to forget his strategy around the chance that Rome's allies would defect. If I recall correctly, most staped loyal, the majority of defectors being Gauls. And even then, those Gauls weren't necessarily the most trustworthy of fellows, as the main incentive Hannibal gave them to fight were war spoils, which didn't exactly come quick.
Rome's success on the Iberian front saw the conquering of Nova Cartago, the centre of Carthaginian power in Iberia. In taking Iberia from Carthage, Rome took as well Carthage 's primary method to pay her mercenary forces as well as the majority of influence she had in Iberia (note that the Iberian conquests took plave in the second expedition to Iberia, as the first ended in failure). It is imperative to note that the composition of the Carthaginians armies were mostly mercenaries and levies from her clients states. Carthaginians citizens themselves were not so numerous.
Another important turning point in the tides of war was Rome gaining the Massaesylians as allits. These western Numidians composed a good portion of Carthage's armies, and after Massinissa's alliance with the Romans, it was here Carthage began to sue for peace.
>>1256257
Same guy here.
I forgot to mention that the tribes around Rome weren't her only allies. I recall Hiero, the King of Syracuse to be a valuable ally to Rome. The dominance he had over that crucial area between Sicily and the southern tip of the Italian Peninsula meant that Carthage would be unable to use that route for reinforcements or a land invasion.
I probably skipped over a lot of stuff as its been a while since I've went over the events. Also I'm on mobile so forgive me if paragraphs look off.
Autism blocks infantry tactics.
Ironically Hannibal doomed Carthage, he was kind of like the bully who prompts the awkward nerd into straightening himself out, except this awkward nerd had one of the most dominant positions in the Mediterranean.
>>1256257
I forgot to address the first half of the question, sorry.
From what I've read, the Romans got outsmarted at every turn up until her major defeat at Cannae. Impetuousness and haste and the tendency for Roman to fight out on open fields in set piece battles were all qualities that Hannibal exploited. This doesn't mean that Romans were retarded in terms of tactics and strategy; there were actually competent commanders like Quintus Fabius and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, but their personas have been exaggerated since historians like Livy had a bias for them. They probably weren't the epitome of Roman virtues and wisdom, but they weren't incompetent and had sufficient understanding of strategy and tactics (Paulus, before the events of the Second Punic War, was successful in his Illyrian campaigns).
>>1256257
forge* his strategy not forget.
fucking mobile
>>1252801
One word: manpower.
