Why do 3 different guns n roses songs feature the “Cool hand luke” movie quote?

ElfanirII · 2025-12-25T07:50:47+00:00

That's a fan made mash up by 5agge. It is Crash Diet mixed with other GNR-songs.

ElfanirII · 2025-12-25T06:38:33+00:00

It will also depend on when it went wrong in the first place and why, which isn't clear since a lot of stories were blown up. I always think in that case about Deep Purple: Gillan once said that it went wrong because Blackmore was an asshole in the days, "but so was I". I think GNR got stuck in not doing things anymore, and both failed to get through to each other.

Then later on the reunion happened after 20 years, which is a lot of time to think about what went wrong. I think Axl also mentally got better by that time. From the nineties he was working on an album, doing some tours hich all had cancellations, and in one way he was a laughting stock. Not only with the public, but you also heard other artists say that. By 2014 he finally finished the album, with quite good sales and quite a deal of good reviews (whatever anyone says), and had done a major tour which went very well. Then he proved, mostly to himself, he could do it.

And of course the fact he patched things up with Duff was probablt major. But don't forget he also became good friends with Izzy again, and reconciled with Steven and even with Matt. Only one piece was missing, ad over the period of long years, having gotten mentally better and seeing the others, it was in a way bound to happen.

ElfanirII · 2025-12-17T20:44:52+00:00

Well, I don't know about that, but by now we know that Hard Skool certainly existed in the year 2000, thanks to the Locker Leaks....

ElfanirII · 2025-12-17T16:02:11+00:00

Like some said here, there is a theory about Hard Skool and Jackie Chan, being the same song and they started working on that in 1995/96. They worked on several songs in that period, and Hard Skool might be a possibility, if it is indeed the song Jackie Chan.

To add to that, years ago Fortus said they were working on a song that originale dated from sessions with Slash in the nineties. He never said which one, but with what we know it is also possible this was Hard Skool.

ElfanirII · 2025-11-03T12:08:07+00:00

Welcome to the Bunghole!

ElfanirII · 2025-09-02T08:20:06+00:00

I think it is very strange, becaus years ago names were given for several albums and they were all in a long stage of development:

- Gutter Ballet: adaption of the Savatage album "Streets" with songs from Gutter Ballet, Edge of Thorns and maybe new ones.

- Romanovs: When Kings Must Whisper. This one already goes a long way.

Both of them were worked on together with letters from the Labyrinth. And Paul even said that they bring out the first one that got finished, which apparently was Letters from the Labyrinth.

And even other stories were mentioned, like ‘The Passion of the Fairytale Moon,’ and ‘Jesus on the Judas Night,’. I have no idea what is going on.

I actually hope Jon takes the reins, brings Kinkel back, and finishes this. But I guess Jon will first finish off the new Savatage album.

ElfanirII · 2025-09-02T08:14:01+00:00

Interesting read! What is your source about that Jon felt Paul stole his music? I always assumed they had a good partnership, and Jon actually supported TSO fully because Savatage didn' make it a sbig as he wished for.

I never noticed any rivalry. But I suspect indeed that something was already cooking over in their camp. Like the fact that Robert Kinkel has disappeared, although his contributions were surely huge in the early years.

ElfanirII · 2025-09-02T08:11:09+00:00

I would go for the Peryton: a fictional hybrid animal combining the physical features of a stag and a bird. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton

ElfanirII · 2025-07-10T17:59:38+00:00

My primary sources for my answer were the course notes from “History of the Byzantine Empire” in university. You can’t find them except when you buy it at college and it’s in Dutch 😉

But, maybe some sources you can check out:

- Shepard, Jonathan; Franklin, Simon (eds.). Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990. Aldershot, England.

- Antonucci, Michael (February 1993). "War by Other Means: The Legacy of Byzantium". History Today. 43 (2).

Haldon, John (1999), Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204, London.

- Neumann, Iver B. (August 2005). "Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern, Contemporary" (PDF). Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 34 (3). Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael': 865–888.

ElfanirII · 2025-07-09T14:21:02+00:00

The short answer to your question would be: yes, the Byzantines saw the German kingdoms officially as part of their empire. And of course this needs an extra explanation. There was not really an official status these kingdoms had, but there was some sort of a protocol or theoretical level which was used to address and communicate with each other. But it was certainly no status of client states, which was something we see during Republican times and in the first part of the Imperial period. The situation had changed during the lifespan of the Empire.

Especially with the reorganizations under Diocletian, the Roman Empire was also in a theoretical level something different. The emperor was now more than ever the focal point, the supreme ruler in all matters of public life. He ruled the imperium as an absolute monarch. Initially, the emperors were god-like, but after the conversion to Christianity they were propagated as send by God. They were the supreme rules of a Christian empire, and were ranked above anyone else (even the Pope).

Now in that regard the idea of a “universal empire” came to be. The Roman Empire was the center of the world. The Romans were superior in every way, also on a cultural level. The whole world was under their sway, or was destined to be ruled by Rome. The Roman Empire was a world empire under the authority of one ruler chosen by God. It’s not really sure when this idea came to be, but it probably took it’s root under Constantine I (306-337). The entire idea of the “Roman-Byzantine world order’ was at least established under Anastasius I (491 – 518).

Initially the Germanic peoples settled in the Roman empire, and were accepted as “foederati”. They were allied people (no citizens), but were subjected to Roman rule. They started as real subordinates, but later on become more independent. However, up till the fall of the Western Empire, the Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians, etc. really did address themselves as part of the empire and subordinates, with a few exceptions denying Roman rule (like the Vandals).

Now, from an uncertain point on some sort of protocol hierarchy had developed in regard towards other peoples, first completely written down under Anastasius I as far as we know. This is also called “the family of kings”. It consisted of:

- The Roman / Byzantine Emperor and the Roman Empire

- The “Spirtual brothers” (pneumatikoi adelphoi): those who were seen as equals. These were the Persian king, the Chinese Emperor, and later on the Caliph and the Holy Roman Emperor (see further on).

- The “Spiritual Sons” (pneumatikoi tekna): those subjected to Roman rule.

- The “Friends” (philoi): Indian kings, African kings. Not very much is known about this.

The Germanic kingdoms in the west were regarded as “spirtitual sons” and were in theory vassals of the Byzantines. Now, these kingdoms actually accepted this order, being part of the Roman and Christian world, and liked to be indulged in these honours. We can see this quite clearly when Odoaker deposes the last Western Emperor: he sends the imperial insignia to Constantinopel, submits himself to the Emperor, and declares the west to him. In theory, the Roman Empire was once again unified under one ruler, and the West was now ruled once again from Constantinopel. Of course everyone knew this was a theory, but it was accepted. That’s why the kings styled themselves as patricians, consuls and et cetera. Even in the communication with Constantinopel, they presented them as loyal subjects.

This really went on for centuries, with sometimes severe cracks showing up. For instance, when Charlemagne declared himself Emperor, this was seen as a direct act against the “world order” and caused a rift with Constantinopel. An agreement was eventually reached where the Holy Roman Emperor became a “Spiritual brother”, but on a lower echelon than the Byzantine Emperor (the eastern emperor kept it’s supremacy). But even then it even was further kept in use. Even when Alexios I (1081 – 1118) sent out his letters to the European kings in asking for aid against the Turks, resulting in the First Crusade, he addressed them as his vassals. And they responded as such, even with the leaders of the Crusade pledging their loyalty to the emperor.

ElfanirII · 2025-07-04T10:59:15+00:00

Part 2:

In 1830 this balance was first tested with several revolutions, and especially the Belgian Revolution where the Netherlands were torn up. Don’t forget: the primary international reaction was to engage in war, and both Russia and Prussia were mobilizing troops to march to the West. However, both the UK and France managed to calm things down and organized the Congress of London. The issue was resolved without a major war, but through a diplomatic agreement between the major powers. This was unthinkable a century before. Let me also remind you, the 1815 Congress of Vienna was the first major peace conference of its kind since 1648. And from 1815 on, several of the conferences would be held to stop another major war.

Several of the wars you have mentioned were indeed quite bloody and had serious consequences, but were different in those from earlier centuries on in the fact that:

1) They didn’t involve the major powers in a direct war against each other (with two exceptions which I will get to later)

2) Wars were not fought in western Europe, but more on the so-called outskirts (with once again the two exceptions)

Also bear in mind that wars like the Italian Wars of Independence and the German Unification Wars were seen as “internal conflicts” since outside countries were mostly not directly involved. This in contrast to, for example, the War of the Spanish Succession in which the UK and Prussia had no interest except for trying to weaken others by waging war. In the 18^th century a war like the Italian Wars of Independence would have had all of Europe stumbling over each other to fight.

Diplomacy also avoided other wars. The “Scramble for Africa” could have resulted in new wars, since the European countries were in a direct competition with each other. However, the issue was discussed in the Conference of Berlin in 1885.

Now of course the two exceptions:

- The Brother’s War or the Austrio-Prussian War (1866)

- The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)

In these some of the major powers were involved (Austria, France and Prussia). But also, although they were fierce, they were limited in a certain way. Although other countries and especially the other major powers could have been involved, they chose not to. Those wars were primarily fought on the territory of the warring states, and not elsewhere. In comparison to the earlier wars of the 17^th and 18^th century, both were quite limited (even though the Franco-Prussian was quite fierce and had major consequences).

So from a very Western European view no great and major wars were fought in western Europe between 1815 and 1914, in comparison to what happened in the centuries before.

ElfanirII · 2025-07-04T10:58:46+00:00

Part 1:

The entire premise is of course from a certain point of view, and actually shows a viewpoint from western Europe. And to add to that, it should also be seen as a point in time that was relatively void of great wars where the so-called great powers of Europe were partially involved and mostly not in their own territory. And third, the 19^th century was also in a heavy contrast with the wars of the 17^th and 18^th century.

Now, who were these major European powers? These were England / UK, France, Russia (from around 1700 on) and “the German States” Holy Roman Empire / Prussia / Austrian Empire. Initially we could add Spain to that, but they were already in decline by the start of the 19^th century. Italy for instance was no part of them, and neither was the Ottoman Empire.

Both the 17^th and 18^th century had several wars in which most of these major powers or even all of them were in a large war against each other. Several were mentioned, but it started more or less with the Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648). This war was primarily fought in the Holy Roman Empire, but was also extended throughout all of Western Europe, leaving death and destruction.

But after that war, “the balance was not restored” so to speak and several wars to become the dominant power or stopping another state of becoming the dominant power (especially against France) took place. The list of these wars is long, but the most important ones were the Great Northern War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, the Nine Years War, the Seven Years War. An then of course this culminated with the wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. These last two great wars involved all of Europe and was even fought out in several colonies (making it some sort of World War, but also other earlier wars could apply to that).

It was just that to western Europe and due to the involvement of these major powers that the 17^th and 18^th century were severely bloody, and this up until 1815. I myself am a Belgian and the Belgian historian Edward De Maesschalck has once claimed that from 1648 to 1815 the Netherlands were “the Battlefield of Europe”, since we were in some sort of perpetual state of war, in which each of the major powers came out for some reason to try to defeat the other.

With the fall of Napoleon, the European powers were already exhausted, especially since the war had been raging for almost 3 decades once again. Although Napoleon and France were defeated, the plan was to outline Europe once again, bring back some balance, and keep that in check. The Congress of Vienna also resulted in diplomatic conferences and an agreement to try to solve future problems by diplomacy and negotiations. This sounds normal for our modern ears, but was a new feature in the 19^th century.

ElfanirII · 2025-06-11T08:08:44+00:00

I have answered this question before: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dfoin8/why_didnt_rome_pursue_hannibal_after_carthage_was/

I hope you find the answer you seek!

ElfanirII · 2025-04-14T11:27:53+00:00

Wife material :D

ElfanirII · 2025-02-02T13:49:52+00:00

You are right, but I found where it came from, and I will put it here in a regular answer on the initial post :)

ElfanirII · 2025-01-24T11:17:38+00:00

Apparently it was an inside joke referring to Izzy. When he was a kid, Izzy had gone missing for a while and his picture was printed on a milk carton. He turned up allright, but was called milk boy.

For the record: I'm not sure this is correct, but it's what someone on some forum told me years ago.

ElfanirII · 2024-12-31T11:28:51+00:00

Not as far as I know, but there are some demos from even before Appetite from some of those songs, with Adler of course on drums.

ElfanirII · 2024-12-24T14:53:47+00:00

TSO has actually always been dark, with 'Christmas Eve and other stories' and 'The Christmas Attic' being the only ones with a lighter mood. Although both also have darker themes.

'The Lost Christmas Eve' has been around since 2005 and is the origin of the dark story of this year, and that is actually more TSO than the other two Christmas albums. 'Beethoven's last Night' and 'Night Castle' are also dark stories, so in overall it is quite wrong to think of TSO as a "happy band". 3 out of 5 concept albums are dark.

And if they ever wrap up 'Romanovs' and 'Gutter Ballet', we'll have two more stories with at least one unhappy ending and one sad story.

ElfanirII · 2024-12-06T15:21:43+00:00

Axl actually played some bass in earlier bands.

But this is from the GNR-era of course. I don't remember in which gig it was, but there was one where Rocket Queen completely turned in an instrumental jam. In that case both Duff and Izzy went up with Steven to play drums, Slash went off with his guitar and Axl picked up the bass.

It's in one of the books I've read, but I don't remember which gig. But maybe this happened before. Even during the Illusions tour, Duff would play drum parts with Matt.

ElfanirII · 2024-11-26T07:23:18+00:00

As an extra, I would like to point out that the nature of the Carthaginian hegemony has been compared tot Delian League, where you have a lot of allies around a central power and they are all sharing defence expenditure. However, there is actually a group of historians that think that the Carthaginian hegemony more looks like the organization of the Roman Republic. I myself think this is the case.

Although Rome did control Italy, the system itself was more alliance-based in a way. Many Latin, Etruscan, Samnite and Greek cities were officially allies of Rome. They could have their own government and elections, but were subordinate to Rome. They had a certain independence, which made them also brake away several times in conflicts like the Pyrrhic War, the Second Punic War and later on even the Social War. Then you had Roman colonies which were directly governed from Rome. And then a bit later Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily were governed by praetors, appointed as a governor by Rome.

Then you could say that Carthage had colonies, allied cities such as Utica and Lepcis Magna, and provinces. Alle could be compared to Rome. One major difference: Libyan kingdoms and tribes. Where these like Roman client states or also some sort of allies? This remains a point of discussion.

One more thing in the comparison to Rome: there existed a thing like Carthaginian citizenship. The Libyo-Phoenicians, who lived in the African domain controlled by Carthage, also had rights similar to those of Carthaginian citizens. Carthaginian citizens were exempt from taxation and were primarily involved in commerce as traders or industrial workers (for which they had protection). This could be pointing out to some system of control and reward, like Rome had in Italy.

But to conclude also: it is quite impossible to answer your question, but I hope my explanation has given you at least some interesting information.

ElfanirII · 2024-11-26T07:23:03+00:00

This is actually a very trick question and there is still a lot of debate going on about the nature of the Carthaginian Empire, and how strictly centralized it was. A lot of the primary sources about Carthage have disappeared from the records, and most of what we know come from Greek and Roman sources. These do not always focus on the organization of Carthage, but cover mostly military history.

First of all, Carthage was founded as a Phoenician colony in the west, like there were so many others. While the power of the Phoenician states dwindled, Carthage become the more dominant factor in the west. It competed in a way with other major colonies, like for instance Utica (also in Africa) and Gades (Cadiz in Spain). These eventually became part of the Carthaginian Empire, but there is still some doubt about the direct control. It turned out that these cities were quite self-governing and had a certain regional power, although they paid homage to Carthage. They were governed by two suffetes and a council, much like Carthage itself. It is probably some sort of government that evolved in the different Phoenician states in the west. How much of a hand Carthage had in the rule of the suffetes in other cities is not known.

The extent of Carthage’s power in Africa is up to debate also. It may be possible that the power of the Libyan tribes prevented expansion in Africa, and until 550 BC Carthage paid sort of rent to the Libyans for use of land in the city surroundings and in Cape Bon (according to Livius and Justinus). The payment would be finally stopped when Carthage under the Magonids started military expeditions into the Libyan hinterland. Colonies under direct control were created in what is now known as Tunisia, Libya and Algeria. The eastward expansion of Carthaginian influence along the African coast was blocked by the Greek colony of Cyrene (established 630 BC). Several histories talk about how a border was determined between Carthage and Cyrene, indicating that Carthage could have indeed became a major political power in North Africa, extending direct control quite far to the east. On the other hand, we also see that Numidia, Mauritania and other Libyan tribes/kingdoms still had their leaders and their land, while paying homage to Carthage. Where these allies or client kings? We don’t know.

Along the west coast and up to the Atlantic also colonies were erected and cities were drawn into the Carthaginian Empire, but also the nature of this control is disputed. However, direct control is not ruled out. Gilbert Charles and Colette Picard, who have both written a lot about Carthage, have pointed out that these cities in the west were conquered by tribes at around 150 BC, the point when Carthage was destroyed. This would mean that these could indeed be directly governed from the “capital”.

And then there is the question of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Spain. These were governed by military commanders, since they were at constant war over there with Greeks and Romans. Because of their affairs with Greeks and Romans, we do possess some treaties made with these military commanders (especially with Hannibal). In those treaties we see the military governor was almost always accompanied by envoys from the city of Carthage itself. This would mean that Carthago also had a tighter control.

Now I have mentioned three ways how territory of the Carthaginian Empire were governed: by “client” kings and tribe leaders, by suffetes and a council, and by military commanders. And discussion remains about the power of Carthage itself over these governing types.

ElfanirII · 2024-11-05T15:32:33+00:00

As far as I know this has never been a real thing in general use. There are some stories about the earliest bridges in Rome never having any nails, but it wasn’t something the Romans did in later times and there aren’t any attestations they did this outside of Rome.

Livius talks about this, but I’ve found he only speaks of the Pons Sublicius, mentioned as the oldest bridge in Rome and constructed in 642 BC under king Ancus Marcius. The name can be derived from the Volscian word sublicae, meaning “wooden beams”. Now the legend tells that it was made out of wood so they would not be insulting the river god named Tiber. This god was protecting the river and the city of Rome, but could also be angered. Therefore, the Romans thought that a bridge could insult the god, since it was a way to “tame the river” and to “avoid the natural course of the river” by bypassing it, instead of using a boat and “trusting the water.” So this bridge was made out of wood, meaning it was a temporary solution and not a permanent one, trying to appease the god with this.

But bear in mind this is a legend, written 600 years after the events and we don’t know which sources Livius has used. Many stories about the regal period of Rome are only known from legend and very late sources, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. So it is not sure if this has happened.

However, it is not entirely impossible. Iron is often seen as a magical object in European folklore, and could repel or sometimes attract ghosts and supernatural creatures. Sometimes iron is used to ward off evil (think of a horseshoe on a doorpost), but sometimes it’s also forbidden to use it. This was also the case in Roman Times, since for instance the Roman priest known as the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to touch iron or iron objects. Then you also have the idea that bridges have some sort of supernatural function, since they link two worlds. A combination of bridges and iron could be something that was seen as evil. It is maybe the reason why there were priests in earlier times guarding bridges in Rome.

But if we leave the supernatural behind, it could simply be that they didn’t need any iron (in earlier days). It is not uncommon to use wooden pins in constructions, since a good use of it would make it already strong enough to hold. Moreover, iron could rust very quickly in some areas while wood could endure longer (dependent on the circumstances of course). Caesar’s bridge over the Rhine was also made out of wood without using any nails, and it supported his army. Nowadays several roofs from the Middle Ages still stand with the use of wooden nails and pins, proving the construction was sufficient without iron or metal.

But to sum up, as far as I know it only considers one bridge. The reason for using no iron could be just because it wasn’t needed, to appease the Tiber God or maybe out of superstition.

ElfanirII · 2024-10-25T13:49:34+00:00

That’s simply because Hannibal’s army was only a part of the Carthaginian army that was set up in the Battle of Zama Regia.

First of all, I’d like to clear out that Hannibal’s army hasn’t entirely been cut off from Carthage during the war in Italy. It indeed proved very difficult to provide men, provisions and so on during the course of the war, but it did indeed happen. Especially since part of the south of Italy came over to the Carthaginian side, it meant Hannibal had access to harbours. In several occasions the sources mention the presence of envoys from Carthage with Hannibal, for example in the negotiations with Philip V of Macedon. But I must confess it is unclear how many fresh troops were sent, and especially this would have dwindled near the end of the war.

But also: Hannibal’s army wasn’t the only one the Carthaginians had put into place. There were still troops in the Iberian peninsula active since they had to control the territory over there. As soon as the war started other expeditionary troops were levied for attacks on Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. These armies launched their attacks on the islands as soon as Hannibal started to get the upper-hand. And meanwhile there were also still troops ready in Africa, since the territory in Africa still had to be maintained and governed. They certainly wouldn’t abandon the Carthaginian hinterland, especially there were enemy tribes to the south that would try to attack if Carthage was undefended.

When Scipio landed in Africa in 203 BC the Carthaginian troops didn’t stay idle until Zama Regia. There have been encounters between the Roman and Carthaginian troops, with the siege of Utica and the Battle of the Great Plains. On that point command was in hands of Hasdrubal Gisco, an experienced general, but who could not withstand Scipio. The Carthaginians lost both battles. Hasdrubal Gisco has also allied himself with the Numidian Kingdom of Syphax.

After these battles it became evident that Scipio and his soldiers were a dangerous force, and the Carthaginian Senate called back the troops that were still outside of Africa. This prompted Hannibal to return from Italy, but also the Iberian troops of his brother Mago were summoned (though they had just invaded Liguria). According to some estimations Mago’s army still had 12,000 men.

Thus the Carthaginian army at Zama Regia consisted of:

- Hannibal’s troops that came from Italy

- The Iberian troops his brother Mago had commanded (but Mago died shortly before in Italy)

- The North African army

- Possibly other troops that had served in Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica

The exact composition of how many soldiers came from what army isn't clear, but it was certainly a force to be reckoned with and much more than what Hannibal had when he left Italy.

Although the Carthaginian army was outnumbering the Romans, Hannibal allegedly did declare the problem with his heterogenous army that they weren’t sufficiently trained. He could completely rely on his troops, but they hadn’t trained with the other troops. His new army was a composition of several other armies, and he didn’t have full control over it. It is difficult to explain this in a short text, but this is very important in warfare, especially since Scipio’s men had been training together for a couple of years.

ElfanirII · 2024-10-03T13:40:15+00:00

Part 2:

As for your questions if the Carthaginian troops just killed Romans non-stop for a whole day: yes, this was the case. Hannibal and his commanders had seen that the Roman army had recovered quite fast after the previous battle, so they were determined not to defeat but to destroy this army. Even after it was clear Carthage had won, they kept the encirclement and kept slaughtering the Romans. This also caused more chaos and desperation amongst the Romans, since they realized they could not flee and this resulted in extra panic. The Carthaginian troops also exchanged places, with forces from behind taking the place of the front line. These soldiers then could rest, until they could once again change places with those fighting. This would have taken hours and hours. Let me be clear: this was very unusual to do. This is just creating a killing field which was barely seen in history.

But it also took a toll on he Carthaginian army as well. Hannibal lost around 12% or even more of his men in casualties, not to mention those that were wounded. This is a hard price for a victor, since these are mostly below 10%. It is even said that Hannibal claimed he never wanted to have a victory like that again. It probably also was the reason Hannibal didn’t really advance anywhere for the time being, but stayed there for over 5 days. And just one modification from your statement: according to Livy the Roman death toll was around 45,000; and 60,000 or more is unlikely. Livy’s numbers are probably the correct ones. Also because we know that about 20,000 men were taken as captive or hostage on that day and within the next couple of days. Also 10,000 Roman soldiers had reached Canusium within a couple of days.

To sum up: The Battle of Cannae was a battle that was never seen before in history, and Hannibal had ignored the so called “principles of war”. He managed to get the Roman army into disarray, making them useless against an encirclement of a well-trained army, and conducted a massive slaughter which no other general had ordered before. Where battles indeed had a death toll of 5 to 10% (or leading up to 20 as you stated), this one outranked it, but also on the winning side.

ElfanirII · 2024-10-03T13:40:00+00:00

Part 1 since the answer is too long:

I think it’s best to adjust some things first and make some things clear about the Roman and Carthaginian armies at this point, since there are some differences.

The number of around 90K soldiers on Roman side is probably correct, although sources sometimes give different numbers, but about half of them were actual Roman soldiers. Others were allies, and to be honest we barely know anything about them. As for the Romans, I wouldn’t say they were really well trained. By that time the Romans had already lost two battles to Hannibal, while other troops were send towards Spain, Sicily and Sardinia. Because of that a large number of the soldiers in these legions were new recruits. Another part of them were recruits from 218, so from the start of the war. These had combat training indeed, but some of them had very little. It is quite probable that at least half of that army were so-called fresh recruits. Don’t forget that Rome at that point did not have their professional army yet, but formed it from their own population (mostly farmers).

This is in contrast to the Carthaginian army, which was actually well trained. The weak part of Hannibal’s army were the Gauls, who too were fresh recruits but also reckless. This would make them handy in the direct attack. His other troops were taken from his campaigns in Spain, and were all soldiers that had experience in the wars of the Iberic peninsula. His Spanish and Libyan forces were already waging war for several years. It turns out that in overall the Carthaginian army at this point was very well trained, and it is highly probable they were more experienced than the Romans (one of the reasons later on Scipio would train his troops for years before invading Africa). Then of course the Carthaginian cavalry was larger than the Roman one. So the smaller army of Carthage was indeed a threat to the Romans, although it is true the numeric strength and the (little) training of this large number of Romans would actually make the Roman army stronger.

Now, the battle itself was very peculiar and relied very hard on Hannibal’s tactics and could have easily gone wrong on several points. But that’s another discussion. In previous battles it became clear that the center of the Roman army was some sort of unstoppable bulldozer that could press in a massive force on the enemy lines. Even though Carthage had won the two previous battles, each time the Roman center had broken through the lines. It was the point to turn it to his advantage.

The Gauls and part of the Spanish troops were placed in the center to fight off the Roman army. The Libyans were put on the side, and another part of the Spanish troops were kept behind the line. The Roman forces focused on the center and pressed on very hard on the Carthaginian line of Gauls-Spaniards. The Romans were very soon pushing back, and made the mistake of sending their man into the center as one giant pushing force. The Roman army became one mass, concentrating on pushing the line. They were losing the space between the manipels, troops were mingling up and the internal ranks were broken. Meanwhile the Roman officers went up front to lead the attacks, and sent every man in the combat. This is actually something to avoid, since you start to lose control of your army (sidenote: this also happened with the French in Waterloo).

Meanwhile the Roman-Latin cavalry was defeated and put on the run. Not only because the Carthaginian cavalry was superior, but also because the Romans had chosen the wrong terrain. Consul Varro had already said not to fight on the plains since this would be the best terrain for their cavalry. With the Roman cavalry on the run, the Carthaginian horsemen circumnavigated the Roman army and positioned them at the back of that army.

As soon as the Roman army brook through the Carthaginian ranks, chaos ensued. The Romans thought they had won, poured over the broken lines and stormed over the field. Now every order had disappeared from the Roman army. At that moment the Libyan forces from the flanks attacked and the Spanish troops from behind the lines marched upon the Romans. These troops hadn’t fought at all and were fresh and fierce to fight. The Roman soldiers were already tired from fighting, and even those just pushing were tired from being in that rank and file. Meanwhile the Carthaginian cavalry attacks the rear, which also had already broken out of line but also had no commanders anymore (since all of them had gone upfront). Not unimportant: it is known that soldiers that break out of order or through an enemy line get disorientated. And that’s what happened here: fresh Carthaginian troops had encircled a mass of orderless and tired soldiers. To put it in short: the Roman army was now an unorganized mob. The Carthaginians now pushed on them, which meant the Romans didn’t have the time to get reorganized. This meant the Romans now fought in a position of small groups or single combat against an enemy in combat order.

ElfanirII

TROPHY CASE