tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post113149087149258400..comments2023-11-04T01:41:23.277+00:00Comments on Memorabilia Antonina: Hannibal the Cannibal - oh no, the other oneTony Keenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1166412003537186502006-12-18T03:20:00.000+00:002006-12-18T03:20:00.000+00:00Thank you very much. Proper attribution will be ca...Thank you very much. Proper attribution will be carried out and as for the cricket; just say it was Yorkshire losing to us and not England. Best of luck and thank you for your help.<BR/> Matthew Malone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1166186156725441482006-12-15T12:35:00.000+00:002006-12-15T12:35:00.000+00:00Anything in this blog is in the pbulic domain, as ...Anything in this blog is in the pbulic domain, as far as I'm concerned, and can be quoted (with proper attribution, of course) without asking permission.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if you keep reminding me about cricket, you will find all co-operation withdrawn very quickly ...Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1165740214740493102006-12-10T08:43:00.000+00:002006-12-10T08:43:00.000+00:00After studying evidence from a variety of sources,...After studying evidence from a variety of sources, I conquer with your view for Hannibal not attacking Rome. The notion from Goldsworthy that Hannibal thought Rome would surrender is as full proof as your Ashes campaign over here (sorry to rub salt into your wounds). Why would Rome surrender if it still had most of its allies? It is the equivalant of Germany asking Britain to surrender in late 1943, they would never of surrendered because what the Germans did not realise was that they were going to get a stoney beach full of yanks and Poms in France.<BR/> As for you running the risk of doing my project, there is no risk of that. There has to be some form of debate over a certain event or person, so I chose this subject matter and I plan to use some of your comments (with appropriate accreditation, as well as your permission to do so first) to help form some of the debate. It is shaping up to be good 'battle royale' between you, our old mate Goldsworthy and Mr Livius. I extend my most sincere gratitude to you for the help in which you have given me so far, and I also offer my condolances for your loss on Wednesday, the fifth of December at the Adelaide Oval.<BR/> Thank you for help,<BR/> Matthew Malone.<BR/>(P.S. If I was not under age and my great, great, great, great grandfather never stole that hankerchief, there would be a carton of beer waiting for at your doorstep. Cheers.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1165705586264110412006-12-09T23:06:00.000+00:002006-12-09T23:06:00.000+00:00At the risk of doing your project for you ...The q...At the risk of doing your project for you ...<BR/><BR/>The question of why Hannibal didn't march on Rome after his victory at Cannae has vexed historians for millennia. The view in Roman times was that Hannibal was a tactical genius, but a strategic idiot - hence the comment Livy (22.51) gives to Maharbal, that he knew how to win a battle but not how to take advantage of it. More modern historians are not happy with that. Goldsworthy's suggestion is that Hannibal didn't march on Rome because he thought it unnecessary - Rome would surrender soon anyway. My problem with that is that it seems to me that, if Rome was on the verge of collapse, a march on the city would be just the thing to push them over the edge. I think the explanation has to be that Hannibal thought there was some risk in marching on Rome. And so I subscribe to the view, that many have held before me, that Hannibal knew he did not have the ability to take Rome by siege. Attempting and failing would have damaged his credibility. Since his strategy was based upon eroding Rome's credibility, and persuading her allies to abandon their allegiance, he couln't risk his own credibility. I also believe that his weakness in siege forces hampered his ability to establish himself in Italy. Roman control of Italy was based upon the colonies, fortified towns in strategically important locations. And Hannibal could do nothing about them.<BR/><BR/>As for Spain, I've pretty much set it out above. Spain was the basis of Carthage's power, and had to be defended before anything else. Hannibal's invasion of Italy was an attempt to defend Spain by pulling the main theatre of war away from the Iberian peninsular. This is why the elder Scipio's decision to continue the invasion of Spain rather than use his army to pursue Hannibal was of such importance. Carthage was unable to reinforce Hannibal from Spain, as the troops could not disengage from Roman forces (when they finally did in 208 BC, it was because southern Spain was now competely lost, and Carthage was left with a precarious toe hold in north-western Spain). Moreover, reinforcements from elsewhere, that could have attempted to get through to Hannibal, were drawn into Spain. So Hannibal's operations were hampered by the lack of reinforcement. Events in Spain relegated Hannibal's own campaigns to a sideshow in the Second Punic War. The decisive battle in that war was not Cannae, which did not lead to ultimate victory for the winning side in the battle, but Baecula, the battle which won Spain for Rome.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1165467407026559042006-12-07T04:56:00.000+00:002006-12-07T04:56:00.000+00:00Thank you for the response and references. In your...Thank you for the response and references. In your response you say that you 'do not buy Goldsworthy's notion that hannibal did not march on Rome because he expected the Romans to surrender anyway'. What is the reasoning behind your opinion and what evidence backs it up? Also, would the Spanish campaign during Hannibal's time in Italy have effected Hannibal's movements before his recall to Carthage?<BR/>Thank you and I appreciate your help with my project.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1165188666827777502006-12-03T23:31:00.000+00:002006-12-03T23:31:00.000+00:00I think the programme you saw is probably the one ...I think the programme you saw is probably the one I discuss at the end of <A HREF="http://tonykeen.blogspot.com/2006/05/hannibal-starring-alexander-siddig.html" REL="nofollow">this entry</A>. I thought it was poorly put together by the programme-makers, and leaving out the Spanish campaigns presents a very distorted picture of the Second Punic War. But that can't really be held against the historians who were the talking heads. I don't buy Goldsworthy's notion that Hannibal didn't march on Rome because he expected the Romans to surrender anyway, but that doesn't mean his work is worthless. I haven't read his work on the Punic Wars, or other recent volumes like Nigel Bagnell's, as it's been a while since I seriously studied the period. I think there's lots good in John Lazenby's <I>Hannibal's War</I>, and Brian Caven's <I>The Punic Wars</I> is still worth reading. <BR/><BR/>But you should read all this and make up your own mind.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1165123745484913982006-12-03T05:29:00.000+00:002006-12-03T05:29:00.000+00:00Is the program you are referring to the program sh...Is the program you are referring to the program shown on the Australian Broadcasting Centre on Sunday, the twenty sixth of November? I believe it was called Hannibal: Enemy of Rome, however it did include that Barry Straus who sounded like a stereotypical American (referred to Hannibal as the nuclear bomb)as well as Goldsworthy, Leckie and Gregory Daley. Some of the information that they referred to was exactly what was presented in this program, which is not handy for me as I am trying to undertake an Extension History assessment task on Hannibal's motives after Cannae. This throws the historians (whom were mentioned on the program) that I planned to use into doubt, so, therefore, I ask you if there are any 'trustworthy' historians which you may have encountered that would prove useful to my endeavour.<BR/> Cheers, Matt Malone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com