The Handy Military History Answer Book. Samuel Willard CromptonЧитать онлайн книгу.
the final attack, and after a hard battle, won.
After Scipio defeated the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama, instead of wreaking revenge and destroying his opponents completely, he spared Carthage. This became known as the “Continence of Scipio,” which became the subject of numerous later artworks, such as this 1788 oil painting by Nicolas-Guy Brenet.
What happened to Hannibal?
He went into civilian life and seemed to make the adjustment, but in 196 B.C.E. Rome—unnerved by rumors—demanded that he be sent to Italy for trial. Instead, Hannibal escaped to the east and spent many years trying to stir up trouble for Rome. Most of his efforts failed, and in 183 B.C.E., he committed suicide—by biting into his ring which contained poison—rather than fall into Roman hands.
How complete was the Carthaginian defeat?
It was total. Perhaps 20,000 Carthaginians were killed at Zama, but the rest simply melted away. Hannibal galloped all the seventy-five miles to Carthage and told the city fathers to sue for peace. When Scipio and his army arrived, Carthage practically begged for terms.
Scipio exacted revenge for all of Rome’s difficulties, but he did not destroy Carthage. The city had to pay a large indemnity and surrender all but twenty of its warships. Carthage was also forbidden from waging war without Rome’s consent. The end of the Second Punic War left no doubt as to who was the number-one power in the Mediterranean world.
Who was Cato the Elder?
His full name was Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 B.C.E.). He was a vigorous defender of traditional Roman values, which means that he was dead-set against the Greek influence in Roman life. Cato argued long and hard against the employment of Greek tutors, for example, saying they would bring about a decline in Roman virtues, especially military ones. It was toward Carthage, however, that Cato directed most of his anger.
Time and again, during a particular speech in the Roman Senate, Cato held aloft fresh figs, saying that they were still fresh because they had come from Carthage, only four days’ sail. He went on, each time, to say that for this reason he believed that Carthage must be destroyed! Cato kept alive a vengeful spirit toward the city-state, which had been thoroughly defeated already.
Why was the Third Punic War necessary?
It wasn’t. By all accounts, the Third Punic War (149–146 B.C.E.) was forced by Rome. When the Roman army first landed in North Africa, the Carthaginians tamely surrendered nearly all their weapons, including 2,000 catapults. But when they were told they would have to assist the Romans in the destruction of their city before being removed to the interior, the people of Carthage fought with all the energy of despair.
The Siege of Carthage lasted nearly three years, but the last ten days were, by far, the worst. The citadel finally fell, and the Romans sold nearly 100,000 people into slavery. They then sewed salt in the soil for miles around the city, intending to prevent—or at least discourage—anyone from ever settling there again. It is the height of irony that Rome herself would later settle some of its veterans in that region.
What did Scipio say as he watched the final destruction of Carthage?
Scipio Amelianus, a grandson of Scipio Africanus, wept quiet tears as he saw his men conquer the last ramparts, overwhelming the final Carthaginian defenders. The historian Polybius, who was standing next to him, asked why he cried, to which Scipio replied that he did so because he had realized that all cities—and civilizations, including his beloved Rome—would one day meet their doom.
How many casualties resulted from the three Punic Wars?
Some historians believe that Rome lost 400,000 men in the first and perhaps 150,000 in the second Punic War. Carthaginian losses are much more difficult to determine, but if they were comparable to the Romans, then it is possible that roughly one million people died. When we consider that later conflicts, including World Wars I and II, saw the use of much more effective weaponry, we can only shudder about the intensity of violence during the Punic Wars.
Historians often cheer for Rome, saying that its civilization was more advanced and that it has given us—her modern descendants—much more than Carthage ever could. We have to remember, however, that these words are written by the victors and their descendants. In truth, we know rather little about Carthaginian civilization, not least because it was so thoroughly destroyed.
How quickly did Rome rise to become the greatest power in the entire Mediterranean?
Rome’s progress was achingly slow during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., but things really picked up after the double conquest of Carthage and Corinth, both accomplished in 146 B.C.E. By that time, the Roman legion was essentially developed and Roman generals could rely on the smoothest-running military machine the world had ever seen.
What was so different about the legion?
It combined power with flexibility and ease of maneuver in a way that was truly unprecedented. The Macedonian phalanx, as we have seen, was incredibly powerful, but rather bulky and slow on the battlefield; the Romans developed the legion to bring out the best in speed as well as strength.
Roughly 6,000 men strong, a legion was composed of centuries—of one hundred men apiece—and maniples, which averaged about 300. Any one of these groups or sec-tions could swiftly change direction or go from offense to defense. The Roman legionnaire was highly alert to the trumpet calls that directed the action and to the centurion—the commander of the group of one hundred—who acted much like today’s master sergeant. If the legion had any weakness, it was in cavalry, which the Romans did not form into a cohesive group. Each legion had its separate section of cavalry, and the Romans often lost when a battle was fought strictly in terms of horsemen.
Napoleon famously declared that an army marches on its stomach.Was this true of the Romans?
They had an excellent commissary system and better delivery of supplies than any of their opponents; even so, the Romans sometimes lived off the land. They did so in a highly disciplined manner, however, with sections of each legion specifically detailed to the task. This means that looting—in the truly wild, undisciplined sense of the word—was a rarity.
Rome went one step beyond what Napoleon later prescribed, however: its men marched on their stomachs, but they also slept well because of the use of their shovels. Every legionnaire carried a shovel as part of his basic equipment, and each night on the march, the Romans dug a major trench around their perimeter. They adopted this practice after being surprised by foes at night, but once learned, the lesson of digging trenches was never forgotten. The typical Roman legionnaire was as skilled with the shovel as with the sword, and there were times when the former was just as important as the latter.
Were the Roman legions composed entirely of Italians?
In the first four centuries of the existence of the Roman Republic, this was the case. By about 100 B.C.E., however, Italy ran short of manpower. Rome, therefore, began the practice of recruiting in the provinces, and many of the soldiers who later accomplished great victories under the leadership of Julius Caesar were Spaniards, Sicilians, and even North Africans and Greeks by descent.
Rome was so skilled in making citizenship a desirable thing that many, if not most, legionnaires from foreign countries later settled in Italy, greatly benefitting the Roman motherland. Some retired legionnaires rose to political positions and thereby added another aspect of value to the Roman state.
It sounds as if everything was just about perfect. Did the Romans ever lose?
They lost plenty of battles and skirmishes along the way, but they nearly always won when it counted the most. By about 60 B.C.E., there was a sense of inevitability about Roman triumphs. Of course, it helped that Rome was led during this time by its greatest military genius, Julius Caesar.
Born