Battle of Hibera, 215 BC ⚔️ Hannibal (Part 17) ⚔️ Second Punic War 

Happy New Years Everyone.

Heeeeyyyy mech arena! ayy

why r U keep moving a map 90 degree backwise ???

Both Hannibal and Hasdrubal tried to pull off the same tactic. Is it possible that they were inspired from Hamilcar Barca, their father. Will you like to make a video on him as well?

@@madhurawat155 It's possible. At some point I will focus on Hamilcar

Exactly, you have perfectly planned encirclement, but the cheap units just start running away after they fought for more than minute.

It is so nerve-wrecking when that happens!

A shameful display.

@@stepanrusinko2456 I wonder if they were bought off by the Romans, or were simply treated poorly by the Carthaginians

That's what happens when you fight for moeny not for your country You just fight without spirit you can't buy that with moeny

i love strategy in classical battle so much. So damn interesting.

Big agree

Absolutely true 👍👍

Take your day up a notch, watch napoleon battles alongside playing "total war: napoleon"

@@m.hughmungus121 I already watched all Napoleon videos from epic history and kings and generals. My laptop have low specs to be able to handle total war Napoleon.

To the new year! May Hannibal rise again...

@@jonbaxter2254 Scipio Africanus does not approve

@@ecurewitz Scipio can go eat salt...

You realize that’s just an overly complicated way of saying the Mediterranean.. or even “The Mediterranean theater”. It literally covers all those you mentioned 😅

Early World War

*Laughs in Pyrrhus*

Bro i was watching these series as a movie, and you just told me a spoiler by saying that rome won lol

Mediterranean war.

Its far from over the war ended in 202 BC

@@Spiderfisch---I was talking about the number of video's in this series. I feel that their's only a few left.

Hazdrubal will face and annihilate scipio brothers . He will be defeated in north italy after he crosses the Alps like hannibal

@@hannibalbarca8411---I see. Thanks for telling me.

There's quite a bit still. Keep in mind Hannibal was in Italy SIXTEEN YEARS. This isn't even the first half! Also, just a hint, this isn't Hasdrubal's last attempt to reinforce Hannibal. But I'll leave have you find out the details by yourself. Otherwise, feel free to ask.

this is more exciting for me than Attack on Titan

it is on the same level as the napoleonic series of epic history tv in my opinion

cannae slaps so hard, it was like waiting for a major film release.

@@jonbaxter2254 not really it was just a huge event and sadly nobody but this channel is doing everything after cannae and before zama and on all stages. You can’t even find this battle on any ofter channel . History marche is certainly and by far the best

@@bingingbinging8597 yes it was better battle than gaugamela and ipsus, hannibal > alexander

"I will never financially recover from this" Carthage after every major win against Rome.

This is like the Monty Python Black Knight battle... Except the Black Knight actually beats King Arthur without only his single leg left.

ikr

Hehe, the Messi problem

That's a bit unfair considering Hasdrubal clearly trying to emulate Hannibal in this battle and actually had succeed almost envelope them. Unfortunate then that his center broke before the encirclement is complete.

@@iseeyou5061 Hasdrubal's mistakes: A. Using INEXPERIENCED Iberian Mercenaries of QUESTIONABLE loyalty as a weak centre, and hoping they'd hold their own. Iberians, while great warriors when well-led, were still mercurial and FICKLE tribesmen at the end of the day. B. NOT augmenting said centre with hardened troops. At Cannae, Hannibal augmented his Gallic Infantry with his Iberian VETERANS. Then again, said Gallic Infantry had also been hardened in the few years since the Battle of the Trebia. C. NOT leading the Centre himself, like Hannibal did at Cannae.

@@nemo0036 's mistakes: using superfluous CAPITALS. he makes good ARGUMENTS but emphasises HIS points with UNNECESSARY capitalisations

@@Altimaden Intentional. The capitalisations emphasize the key words I deem important. Second reason: breaks up what could be a large monotone wall of text.

Happy new year!

Happay new year bro.

Encirclement is the most meta tactics beside flanking....the reason is 1.when an army gets encircled they unconciously thinks they had no escape so morale is already plunging down 2. They gets pushed in any direction...making the center proposition of the army get crushed and couldnt breath and possibly already lose valuable stamina 3.directly correlates to 2nd point...when and army gets cramped and stuck in a very tight formation due to an imploding pressure from any direction could result in the weapons they held turns againts them and hurt them accidently

Well, honestly holding off 3 lines of Roman infantry with just one line of yours is a gamble you cannot expect to pay off just every time you do it.

@@27Nets probably the higher quality libyans and punic troops who were on the sides would have been a better choice for the center to hold instead of the fragile iberians

hanno was reluctant because hannibal is too far away. they’re more concerned on iberias lost which carthage relied for its wealth

Thank you. Working on part 20

Voice-over: 2022 didn't get any better

You mean 2021?

Happy New Year.

Yeah 2020 was super crazy!!!! Let’s hope 2021 is better for us bro

@@TehAlvarez bro is this real life

Glad you enjoy it!

Except the STOPPED the Series halfway through,..Arrrgggh

Happy new year!

I agree. At Cannae, Hannibal stayed with the Gallic and Iberian troops troops in the center. I suspect this was to bolster their morale. I wonder if Hasdrubal was with his Iberian allies in the center?

He was the Pompey To Caesar. Great on his own, but c'mon against CAESAR!?

@@jonbaxter2254 could not have said it any better ,lmao

I think Hasdrubal showed enough courage and intelligence to be on par with Hannibal in this two areas, but he was lacking in men management and that was really costly.

@@haythemsaidi91 he was also against the Scipios

Hehe, you know me :)

Synthesis of 2nd punic war: the romans were willing to bleed more than their adversaries

In all fairness, Hasdrubal's Iberian mercenaries were GREEN and not moulded to his will. IN CONTRAST, the Gallic-Iberian Centre Hannibal used in Cannae consisted of Gallic troops who had fought under Hannibal for the past few years since the Trebia, further augmented by his Iberian VETERANS who had followed him since LONG BEFORE his crossing of the Alps (and probably also long before Hannibal even besieged Saguntum). And yet... We saw Hannibal's Gallic-African Centre shattered by the Romans at the Trebia despite Hannibal's victory. Many of these Gauls would later hold the line at Cannae. We also see the same Romans' vanguard break through the Carthaginian decoy force at Trasimene. Dogged Roman determination is nothing to scoff at!

Happy New Year Dan! Thanks for sticking with my channel on this journey :)

Happy new year!

They lost because a few cowards didn’t want to travel to Italy and broke rank when they were winning 🙄

@@ciaranbrk I wonder had Hasdrubal instead put the Libyan and other African infantry and left the Iberians on the wings if things would have gone any different?

@@ciaranbrk "I am le tired"...

@@jaythompson5102 That's the last thing an experienced commander would ever do. By placing less reliable troops on flanks, you're actually allowing them an opportunity to betray you and to outflank your more reliable forces. On the other hand, by placing your less reliable troops in centre, then in the worst case scenario, your troops on flanks could put up an orderly retreat covered by the reserve units. Unfortunately, he didn't have the reserves though.

@@jaythompson5102 That's the same idea that came to my mind, but I think the main reason why he didn't opt to that strategy is: he wanted the casualties to be taken by the iberinans who are replaceable and to give the finishing blow with the punic and lybian strong loyal troops.

If his strategy depended on men not losing heart and he didn't know the state of his men's heart and minds, then his strategy wasn't so perfect.

​@@prs_81 Classic example of why Rome's "decimation" punishment for fleeing -- although, barbaric and remorseless, had its merits. They didn't use it often, but they DID use it, and it would serve as a great deterrent for soldiers thinking about fleeing.

@@prs_81 I understand what you are getting at, but *all* tactics depend on men not losing heart. There is 2 method that a general could use to mitigate their likelihood of running. a) if it is lawful to do so, enforce strict military laws which severely punishes cowardice. (Even if you survive the battle due to cowardice, I'll make you wish you were dead approach) b) Put those untrustworthy men in a position where if they do not fight, they will die (nowhere to run), and pray that your enemy does not offer clemency to those that surrender. (A siege scenario against a ruthless foe for example) Both approaches are flawed and not always possible to implement, particularly (B) The true goal of the general is to avoid using such units *at all*. Disband them, reject them, train it out of them, and weed them out before battle. Because they are a liability for any tactic, so long as it involves them fighting, and what good are soldiers who are unwilling to fight.

Or the historians’ account of what really happened is unreliable because of their severe anti-Punic bias, casting the carthaginians as being untrustworthy, back-stabbing liars. As this video shows, Carthage didn’t have the naval power to seriously challenge Rome’s. How were they going to reinforce him in Italy from Africa? And also, given the choice, do you think Hannibal would prefer fresh, untested troops from Africa or his own veterans in Spain?

@@BoxStudioExecutive I doubt who the anti punic bias have something to do with this, remember who Hannibal will be backstabed by the elites when he become ruler (After Zama) and they tried to handle him to the Romans, that is why he fleed to Seleucia. Besides it's worthy to note who the problem in Carthage was the senate, (similar with the one in Rome) Hannibal was a known reformist, (like Grachus, Marius or Caesar in Rome) while the majority like Hanno were status quo elitists, (like the Optimates in Rome) so they were eager to see Hannibal fail. However, the point here is, if wasn't for this battle, the Cartagenians would not had overreacted in the wrong ways. And would had stick themselves to mantain comunications with Italy, besides now they didn't need to challenge Rome for the sea, as Syracuse had revolted.

@@omarbradley6807 Actually they did need to challenge Rome for control of the sea. The fact that Rome was able to blockade Syracuse without Carthage being able to relieve them is proof of this. Hiero died in 215 BC, Hieronymous then came to power and he broke Syracuse's alliance with Rome. He was then assassinated in 214 while preparing an army to take to the field against Rome. Rome laid siege and blockaded the city in 213, by land and sea, and took the city in 212. In contrast, Lilybaeum held out for NINE YEARS in the first punic war, back when Carthage still had capable sea captains with excellent ships who could run circles around the Roman fleet. Also, you need to step back and think about why Carthage was so eager to go to war in Rome in the first place if the elitist faction in power was anti-Hannibal and didn't want war but just sought $$$ from peaceful trading (the supposed reason they 'betrayed' him). They could have betrayed him much earlier, when the war was just beginning. Then the 2nd Punic War wouldn't have been known as the 2nd Punic War, but just Hannibal's War, and we'd be learning about how the rebel general Hannibal invaded Italy, and Carthage and Rome allied together to destroy him.

@@BoxStudioExecutive The problem here is the elitist faction, could not afford to loose Spain, and wanted to fight the war, but they didn't had what it takes, they also could never let Hannibal get the glory, so they bet who he was going to be crushed. Also Hannibal had his power with the people, and they couldn't just make him a "rebel general", but the truth was who as far as $$$ was flooding their arks, the Hanno faction, didn't care of what happen, they only wanted to hold Spain because it was rich, and they send troops to hold the Iberian lands instead of knocking Rome out of the game, remember who the Romans were not so strong after all the defeats, and the Roman army in Iberia was the only functional one at the time, they could have forced their army out of Iberia by threatening Italy, but they didn't. Besides once the 2nd Punic war ended, Hannibal become Cartaghe gobernor, and despite an incredible growth, it was the same faction who denied him reinforcements in Italy the one who plotted with Rome against him. Or do you forget how this ended? The Cartaghenian elite become more powerful with Roman "protection", and the rightfull leader deposed by traitors. The war of course was a Cartaghenian intrest, and nobody was against the war, however it was clear who once the war become a Hannibal masterpiece, and the Romans were "generous", as well as that issue of cash, the elitist faction was eager to make peace, and especially to get rid of Hannibal and his reformist faction. There was no Punic traition, but the Punic nation was betrayed by the intrest of the few, and Hannibal was a victim of such developments. Besides if there is a military justification on doing so, it is because this battle psicological impact, who is what i said in the first place, who as uninportant as this battle looks in comparison to Trasimene Trebia Tesinus Cannae etc, it certainly settled was worsened by the bad desitions of the Carthagenian government, intentional or not

@@omarbradley6807 Your logic makes no sense. By disavowing Hannibal when he started his trek towards Italy, Carthage would have been able to convert control of Spain from the Barca family to Carthage instead of Spain being under the control of the Barca family as it had been since Hannibal's father conquered it. And of course Carthage wanted to hold onto Spain. Did you forget how Hannibal accumulated a huge army but left half of it in Spain? Spain was important. Hannibal thought keeping Spain was important. Rome thought controlling Spain was important. Your opinion that it was solely borne out of greed that Carthage wanted to keep Spain is totally unsupported by the facts. All the major players considered Spain to be of utmost importance. Their actions infer a level of importance that far exceeds what your naïve perspective realizes. I have no idea what you're talking in the rest of your post. You call Hannibal a "reformist" and how the elitist faction betrayed him for being a reformist even though he wasn't involved in Carthaginian politics until after the war. You say he was deposed by the elitists in collaboration with Rome, which is false. Your post is full of factual inaccuracies.

Happy new year ,legend

The people back then probably thought of it as a second trojan war. For the Romans, their Etruscan and Umbrian friends, the Carthaginians and their allies, aswell as the macedonians, numidians and others involved in the conflict it probably felt like a global war.

Happy new year!

Check video descriptions.

I firmly believe there's a time machine of sorts!

There are lots of books about them

Happy new year!

Hehe

Happy new year!

Best wishes for 2022!

Agreed , only a handful of generals could compare to him