It's already that day of the week, the last day to post a few blogs. Six days of procrastination and here I am again, at the edge of another deadline. Well, time to get to work I guess.
The Ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been an area of controversy ever since the empire that built it collapsed. Tribes from all over the area claim to be the descendants of the people that built the ruins. Europeans argue amongst themselves about the identity and race of the people that constructed Great Zimbabwe. It has been used in the political agendas of the people in charge and has been the rallying point of both racists and minorities. It is often in the center of conflicting ideas, so it would be best to know the facts about this ancient ruin.
The empire that first raised the walls of Great Zimbabwe reached its height between 1100 to 1450 CE and encompassed an area slightly larger than its modern descendant, Zimbabwe. It was a trading center that had ties quite far from its location in inland Africa, including Chinese artifacts. Near the end of the 1400's, the empire collapsed. The reason is unclear, but the common theories of drought, disease, famine, and poverty have been thrown around. For a time, the Shona people lived inside the ruins and continued its legacy as a trade hub until the Portuguese conquered them in the early 1600's and Great Zimbabwe sank into obscurity.
In 1867, a European hunter rediscovered the ruins and in 1871, a German geologist named Carl Mauch surveyed the ruins and proclaimed them to be connected to a biblical city of riches led by a Queen Sheba or the site of King Solomon's gold mines. Subsequent archaeologists deemed the site to have been a colony by white settlers, because they believed that the African population were too primitive to construct such a permanent structure. Some of these first archaeologists also caused damage to the site in their quest to prove that white settlers constructed the ruins. The white settler belief was not discredited until David Randall-Maciver came in 1905 and suggested that locals had built Great Zimbabwe and Gertrude Caton-Thompson's expedition supported that idea.
Up until that point, Great Zimbabwe was being used by the white colonists to cement their dominance over the African populace, by saying that Whites were there before the Africans, and that the Whites were superior to them. These discoveries were covered up until 1980, when these discoveries weakened the racist stranglehold of power, and would cause Africans rally behind this new symbol of African legitimacy over their own lands.
The Great Zimbabwe ruins have shown that the African populace was far more advanced than they were given credit for and have given the Africans their freedom back. The African citizens of Rhodesia changed their country's name to Zimbabwe in honor of the ruins that granted them their lands and freedom. Today, the Great Zimbabwe ruins are still part of a political agenda, but now, it is a symbol that unites people, instead of proving one's superiority over another.
More information can be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A21025513
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
All Roads Lead to Cuzco
When we think of roads of ancient empires we think of the Persians or especially Rome. However, the impressive roads of the Inca Empire normally do not come to mind. The Inca Empire was based in the Andes Mountains and covered a distance of 2500 Miles, from modern day Ecuador into Chile. The Incas used their roads to connect their large empire. In all the Inca Empire had 40,000 kilometers of roads.
What makes the Inca roads impressive is the engineering feat to create them. The roads had to be built in all terrains, such as deserts, jungles, and the mountains. Many of the roads had drainage systems that protected them from erosion. In the mountains the Incas used bridges to span great canyons. Some of these suspension bridges were 150 feet long, made out of strong fibers. The Inca roads do not resemble the roads of today or of Rome. They were designed for walking, because the Incas had not wheeled transportation or horses. Many roads, especially in the mountains, were more like stair cases. Local workers built and maintained the roads as service to the emperor.
The road network not only served for transport and travel but also for communication. This communication was carried out by messengers called chasqui, who were stationed every three kilometers. This system resembles the Pony Express created in the United States to connect the east and west. Also, on the roads were settlements each at a days walk apart, to serve as a resting spot for the night.
The Inca roads were a huge engineering feat. They connected the Inca Empire from one end to the other, and were built in challenging terrains and climates. In the mountains the engineers used suspension bridges that were more impressive than any other bridges in the world to date. Many roads still survive today and are even used.
For more information
http://archaeology.about.com/od/iterms/qt/inca_road.htm
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_inca_and_their_roads
http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/bridges.html
What makes the Inca roads impressive is the engineering feat to create them. The roads had to be built in all terrains, such as deserts, jungles, and the mountains. Many of the roads had drainage systems that protected them from erosion. In the mountains the Incas used bridges to span great canyons. Some of these suspension bridges were 150 feet long, made out of strong fibers. The Inca roads do not resemble the roads of today or of Rome. They were designed for walking, because the Incas had not wheeled transportation or horses. Many roads, especially in the mountains, were more like stair cases. Local workers built and maintained the roads as service to the emperor.
The road network not only served for transport and travel but also for communication. This communication was carried out by messengers called chasqui, who were stationed every three kilometers. This system resembles the Pony Express created in the United States to connect the east and west. Also, on the roads were settlements each at a days walk apart, to serve as a resting spot for the night.
The Inca roads were a huge engineering feat. They connected the Inca Empire from one end to the other, and were built in challenging terrains and climates. In the mountains the engineers used suspension bridges that were more impressive than any other bridges in the world to date. Many roads still survive today and are even used.
For more information
http://archaeology.about.com/od/iterms/qt/inca_road.htm
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_inca_and_their_roads
http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/bridges.html
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Profiles in History: Confucius
Hey, let's get another one of these things going.
Confucius or K'ung-fu-tzu, was a Chinese Philospher whose views on politics and wise proverbs still affect many countries and billions of people. He preached a family based government and how to act correctly, and his views, labeled Confucianism, eventually overtook Legalism and Taoism as the primary political view.
Confucius was born in 551 BCE into a lower-middle class family, called Shi, who are a group of commoners that rose up through the ranks because of skills and talents, and are ranked just below nobles. However, Confucius's family was in the lower strata of that social level, and that situation definitely did not improve when he lost his father at the age of three. His mother raised the family during this time of poverty and died when Confucius was 23.
Confucius worked many odd jobs such as herding and accounting until he attained a position in the Lu government as a Justice Minister at the age of 53. He stayed at this position until he felt that Lu was not the place to be and traveled all over China, preaching his philosophical views and trying to get a job as a government official. It's kind of funny how jobs were hard to come by back then too. Anyways, back to Confucius.
What Confucius preached was basically the same unified government format as the old days, but with a few key changes. One of the main changes was that the rulers would be chosen by morals, ability, and merit instead of who their parents were. By choosing people such as this to rule, the people could learn from their proper morals, instead of having proper behavior forced onto them with laws. Other things that Confucius proposed was to develop the self through self-reflection, learning about the World, and proper morals. He was also a big supporter of the Golden Rule, Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.
As he traveled, Confucius explained his ideas to the royalty, but none of his ideas were placed into effect in his lifetime. Disappointed by the lack of work, Confucius moved back to Lu at sixty-eight and began to teach his philosophy to disciples and students. There are no texts anywhere that are proven to be written by Confucius himself, but his students and followers recorded much of his teachings and collected them in The Analects. At the age of seventy-three, Confucius died and left behind a legacy that still affects us today.
If you want to find out more about Confucius, feel free to click on this link.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
Thanks for reading this all the way, and if you skip/skim it, that's cool too.
Confucius or K'ung-fu-tzu, was a Chinese Philospher whose views on politics and wise proverbs still affect many countries and billions of people. He preached a family based government and how to act correctly, and his views, labeled Confucianism, eventually overtook Legalism and Taoism as the primary political view.
Confucius was born in 551 BCE into a lower-middle class family, called Shi, who are a group of commoners that rose up through the ranks because of skills and talents, and are ranked just below nobles. However, Confucius's family was in the lower strata of that social level, and that situation definitely did not improve when he lost his father at the age of three. His mother raised the family during this time of poverty and died when Confucius was 23.
Confucius worked many odd jobs such as herding and accounting until he attained a position in the Lu government as a Justice Minister at the age of 53. He stayed at this position until he felt that Lu was not the place to be and traveled all over China, preaching his philosophical views and trying to get a job as a government official. It's kind of funny how jobs were hard to come by back then too. Anyways, back to Confucius.
What Confucius preached was basically the same unified government format as the old days, but with a few key changes. One of the main changes was that the rulers would be chosen by morals, ability, and merit instead of who their parents were. By choosing people such as this to rule, the people could learn from their proper morals, instead of having proper behavior forced onto them with laws. Other things that Confucius proposed was to develop the self through self-reflection, learning about the World, and proper morals. He was also a big supporter of the Golden Rule, Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.
As he traveled, Confucius explained his ideas to the royalty, but none of his ideas were placed into effect in his lifetime. Disappointed by the lack of work, Confucius moved back to Lu at sixty-eight and began to teach his philosophy to disciples and students. There are no texts anywhere that are proven to be written by Confucius himself, but his students and followers recorded much of his teachings and collected them in The Analects. At the age of seventy-three, Confucius died and left behind a legacy that still affects us today.
If you want to find out more about Confucius, feel free to click on this link.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
Thanks for reading this all the way, and if you skip/skim it, that's cool too.
The Death of Alexander
After class on Friday, I was curious what exactly was the cause of death of Alexander the Great. Our professor mentioned he essentially partied himself to death. I thought that there must be extenuating circumstances or some conspiracy of assassination. I found an article by Cameron Battersby titled "What Killed Alexander the Great?" To my surprise, Battersby said that Alexander essentially partied himself to death.
Without raking over any more academic coals, it seems reasonable to conclude that modern medical knowledge seems to suggest that Alexander died from the effects of a surgical catastrophe resulting from excessive alcoholic consumption and Antipater and Cassander had no input into that. There can be little doubt that Alexander came to replicate so many of the attitudes and actions of his father, Philip. ‘In the warrior society, epic toping was a source of admiration’.This surprised me. Battersby mentioned the prevalence of the culture of alcohol in the time of Philip II. I never expected The Great Alexander was one to succumb to alcohol. I would have thought that such a famous instance of death by alcohol would be a common argument for the evils of drinking in excess. In any case, I found it interesting that surgical historians can issue diagnoses based on the description of events thousands of years ago.
For this reason, Boerhaave’s Syndrome may be the likely diagnosis. It would fit in with the onset of pain described by Diodorus in the middle of an alcoholic binge with repressed vomiting. Philip’s son could hardly be seen to vomit his liquor!
Profiles in History: Alexander the Great
Well guys, it's been a relaxing, blog free two weeks, but it's that time again. Time to break out the old internet and pray you can think of a topic or two and write a few paragraphs before the week is out. I don't know about anyone else, but due to the lack of comments with suggestions/corrections, I am going to go ahead and assume that I am doing things right. So, down to business.
Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King that went on to conquer everything to the east of Greece until his own men grew tired of war and turned back at the Indus River. He brought Greek thinking to empires thousands of miles away, to millions of people in Asia. His conquests began the process of globalization, bringing many isolated cities, kingdoms, and empires into contact through the trail of destruction and victory behind him.
Alexander was born in 356 BCE, the son of Philip, the Macedonian King who had developed the country of Macedon, controlled an efficient, and after the pacification of Greece, experienced military. Alexander studied under one of the greatest minds of his time, Aristotle, a philosopher who taught Alexander about science and philosophy. At the age of sixteen, Alexander got his first taste of kingship, when he ruled Macedonia as a regent while his father conquered Greece. This is pretty impressive, considering how when I was sixteen, I was still learning to drive. At the age of twenty in 336 BCE, his father was assassinated and Alexander rose to the throne and began a rule that would soon extend across much of Asia.
Even at the beginning, Alexander the Great's rule was a bit rough. Many of the states that his father worked hard to bring under Macedonian rule did not feel that they owed this boy any allegiance. Alexander had to go back and reconquer many cities and crush numerous rebellions and by 335 BCE, having secured his borders, he marched out to destroy the Persian Empire for trying to do the same thing to Greece years ago.
Alexander's army began at 42,000 men and went on into the heart of Persia with amazing speed. Alexander conquered several Persian treasuries, coastal cities to deny the Persians Naval superiority, and to top it all off, routed the Persian army, led by Darius the Third, the Persian King. During the retreat, Alexander the Great captured Darius's personal treasury and his family. Alexander went on to capture almost every Persian city and fortress, leaving death and new cities behind him. He was not a very forgiving man, there's actually a pretty brutal story about one of Alexander's battles. After the siege of Tyre, Alexander had all men of military age crucified and had everyone else sold into slavery. Again, not exactly a good Samaritan. At the Battle of Aguala, Darius was routed again, but this time, Darius could not get away. One of Darius's regional chieftans captured and killed the Persian King in hopes of getting on Alexander's good side. Instead, Alexander got angry and executed him. With no more Persia to conquer, he felt it was time to go on. He believed in his destiny to rule and pushed on into Egypt, Assyria, Syria and Babylon.
At the banks of the Indus River, Alexander's own men refused to advance any further. After a decade of war, they could not stomach another battle. Without an army, Alexander realized his dream of World domination was over. On the way home, Alexander put many of the conquered regions in order and executed those who did not govern properly.
In 323 BCE, Alexander the Great became extremely ill in Babylon. As he lay on his deathbed, his soldiers demanded to see him and they did. They walked slowly by his bed and he could only wave with his hand, as it hurt him to speak. This is a great example of the loyalty his men felt towards Alexander. As he lay dying, his generals asked him who would inherit his Kingdom. It is reported that Alexander told them, "The strongest." By June, 323 BCE, Alexander died and the massive Empire he built in twelve years splintered into rival factions, all because of Alexander's last words.
Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King that went on to conquer everything to the east of Greece until his own men grew tired of war and turned back at the Indus River. He brought Greek thinking to empires thousands of miles away, to millions of people in Asia. His conquests began the process of globalization, bringing many isolated cities, kingdoms, and empires into contact through the trail of destruction and victory behind him.
Alexander was born in 356 BCE, the son of Philip, the Macedonian King who had developed the country of Macedon, controlled an efficient, and after the pacification of Greece, experienced military. Alexander studied under one of the greatest minds of his time, Aristotle, a philosopher who taught Alexander about science and philosophy. At the age of sixteen, Alexander got his first taste of kingship, when he ruled Macedonia as a regent while his father conquered Greece. This is pretty impressive, considering how when I was sixteen, I was still learning to drive. At the age of twenty in 336 BCE, his father was assassinated and Alexander rose to the throne and began a rule that would soon extend across much of Asia.
Even at the beginning, Alexander the Great's rule was a bit rough. Many of the states that his father worked hard to bring under Macedonian rule did not feel that they owed this boy any allegiance. Alexander had to go back and reconquer many cities and crush numerous rebellions and by 335 BCE, having secured his borders, he marched out to destroy the Persian Empire for trying to do the same thing to Greece years ago.
Alexander's army began at 42,000 men and went on into the heart of Persia with amazing speed. Alexander conquered several Persian treasuries, coastal cities to deny the Persians Naval superiority, and to top it all off, routed the Persian army, led by Darius the Third, the Persian King. During the retreat, Alexander the Great captured Darius's personal treasury and his family. Alexander went on to capture almost every Persian city and fortress, leaving death and new cities behind him. He was not a very forgiving man, there's actually a pretty brutal story about one of Alexander's battles. After the siege of Tyre, Alexander had all men of military age crucified and had everyone else sold into slavery. Again, not exactly a good Samaritan. At the Battle of Aguala, Darius was routed again, but this time, Darius could not get away. One of Darius's regional chieftans captured and killed the Persian King in hopes of getting on Alexander's good side. Instead, Alexander got angry and executed him. With no more Persia to conquer, he felt it was time to go on. He believed in his destiny to rule and pushed on into Egypt, Assyria, Syria and Babylon.
At the banks of the Indus River, Alexander's own men refused to advance any further. After a decade of war, they could not stomach another battle. Without an army, Alexander realized his dream of World domination was over. On the way home, Alexander put many of the conquered regions in order and executed those who did not govern properly.
In 323 BCE, Alexander the Great became extremely ill in Babylon. As he lay on his deathbed, his soldiers demanded to see him and they did. They walked slowly by his bed and he could only wave with his hand, as it hurt him to speak. This is a great example of the loyalty his men felt towards Alexander. As he lay dying, his generals asked him who would inherit his Kingdom. It is reported that Alexander told them, "The strongest." By June, 323 BCE, Alexander died and the massive Empire he built in twelve years splintered into rival factions, all because of Alexander's last words.
Political China
Although many a joke is made of Confucius and his wisdom, there is no doubt that his principles paid a chief role in developing Chinese political thought and culture into what it is today. However, prior to the implementation of Confucian principles two other ideologies affected the governing body and it's populace. These ideologies seem at times to be polar opposites and it can b difficult to see how they all could come from the same people within a thousand year period. However, these three views combine to form the basics of Chinese thought and therefore must be explored.
Confucius, the father of Confucianism, was born in 551 B.C.E. in an age where China was desperately searching for order and stability. Confucius looked at the role of superiors to solve the political crisis. His system called for a hierarchy of the people to be put into place, the upper class or the Junzi, would be respected and obeyed simply for the significance that they were of higher class. But in order to receive this power, these men must have Benevolence, Propriety, and Piety to show that they were worthy.
The relationship between the Junzi and lower classes were intended to be modeled after the relationship of father and son. Just as the son must respect his father, the father should respect his superior, and the superior and so on. The Emperor would respect the Heavens and would dote upon his subjects as if they were all his children. So through these principles everything would naturally flow smoothly...so as natural human beings the ideology was rejected for a time.
Legalism sought a new way to control the populace, through control itself. Harsh and often remembered for creating a resenting populace, Legalism sought to control the people through strict enforcement of specific punishments. According to Han Fenzi, a prominent Legalist philosopher, "If rewards are high, then what the ruler wants will be quickly effected; if punishments are heavy, what he does not want will be swiftly prevented"(http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/newcatalog.aspx?isbn=031245287X). With enough power, fear, and control, the Chinese world. Not drawing a connection to the Star Wars Emperor would be difficult with Legalism.
Daoism would be another Chinese philosophy concerned with the nature of things. Literally. Daoist believed that nature should be allowed to take its course without human intervention and that through this pacifistic view, a great Empire could be created. The Chinese elite would see past the conflict of Daoism and Confucianism and see the two as complements of one whole, yin and yang if you will. Confucianism promoted the education of the populace where Daoism pushed for a return to a natural state. All in all they contributed to creating a state where Confucian politics ruled and Daoistic thought could be respected by those often in touch with nature, as well as a reminder not to abandon their human aspects.
All in all, these three concepts strove to create peace and stability in the face of anarchy and unrest. Confucianism in relationships, Daoism through natural occurrences, and Legalism in the realm of sheer power. Although separately little can be said as to which is better than the other(alright Legalism creates Death Stars) a little portion of each of these theories not only represents Chinese political mindset, but can be noted as parts of all political bodies.
Confucius, the father of Confucianism, was born in 551 B.C.E. in an age where China was desperately searching for order and stability. Confucius looked at the role of superiors to solve the political crisis. His system called for a hierarchy of the people to be put into place, the upper class or the Junzi, would be respected and obeyed simply for the significance that they were of higher class. But in order to receive this power, these men must have Benevolence, Propriety, and Piety to show that they were worthy.
The relationship between the Junzi and lower classes were intended to be modeled after the relationship of father and son. Just as the son must respect his father, the father should respect his superior, and the superior and so on. The Emperor would respect the Heavens and would dote upon his subjects as if they were all his children. So through these principles everything would naturally flow smoothly...so as natural human beings the ideology was rejected for a time.
Legalism sought a new way to control the populace, through control itself. Harsh and often remembered for creating a resenting populace, Legalism sought to control the people through strict enforcement of specific punishments. According to Han Fenzi, a prominent Legalist philosopher, "If rewards are high, then what the ruler wants will be quickly effected; if punishments are heavy, what he does not want will be swiftly prevented"(http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/newcatalog.aspx?isbn=031245287X). With enough power, fear, and control, the Chinese world. Not drawing a connection to the Star Wars Emperor would be difficult with Legalism.
Daoism would be another Chinese philosophy concerned with the nature of things. Literally. Daoist believed that nature should be allowed to take its course without human intervention and that through this pacifistic view, a great Empire could be created. The Chinese elite would see past the conflict of Daoism and Confucianism and see the two as complements of one whole, yin and yang if you will. Confucianism promoted the education of the populace where Daoism pushed for a return to a natural state. All in all they contributed to creating a state where Confucian politics ruled and Daoistic thought could be respected by those often in touch with nature, as well as a reminder not to abandon their human aspects.
All in all, these three concepts strove to create peace and stability in the face of anarchy and unrest. Confucianism in relationships, Daoism through natural occurrences, and Legalism in the realm of sheer power. Although separately little can be said as to which is better than the other(alright Legalism creates Death Stars) a little portion of each of these theories not only represents Chinese political mindset, but can be noted as parts of all political bodies.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Battle of Cannae: Great Victory or Defeat?
The Battle of Cannae was one of the most decisive victories in military history. In the battle the outnumbered Carthaginian Army under Hannibal, surrounded and decimated the Roman Army. However, this battle led to Hannibal's defeat and the defeat of Carthage.
The Battle of Cannae took place in 216 BCE during the second Punic War. Carthage, having lost the First Punic war, was determined to take revenge and maintain its power.When the war broke out in 218 BCE Hannibal march to Italy from Spain. His plan was to defeat Rome's armies causing her allies to defect to him.
After winning two decisive victories against the Romans at The Trebbia River and Lake Trasimene, Hannibal looked invincible. In 216 BCE a third Roman army was sent to destroy Hannibal. At Cannae the Romans, who again outnumbered Hannibal, hoped to use the open plain to their advantage. When the infantry met, Hannibal's center fell back creating a crescent shape, which the Roman infantry pushed into. Meanwhile the Carthaginian cavalry defeated the Roman cavalry, and attacked the Roman rear. This encirclement caused the Romans to panic, and a slaughter ensued.
The victory at Cannae was exactly what Hannibal wanted, to destroy Romes armies and have her allies defect. Unfortunately, Romes allies did not defect. Rome also changed its tactics. Instead of destroying Hannibal in a battle, they would contain him in southern Italy and harass his army. This continued until 202 BCE when Hannibal escaped Italy and returned to North Africa to defend Carthage against the Roman general Scipio, who landed there in 204 BCE. They met at the battle of Zama in which Hannibal was defeated. The defeat at Zama led to the surrender of Carthage and the loss of her empire.
Why did Hannibal lose? Hannibal lost because he failed to break Romes alliances. Also, I believe he lost because the Romans changed their tactics. Before the defeat at Cannae, Rome attempted to destroy Hannibal's army by force. However, only after the disastrous defeat at Cannae did they try a new tactic. If Hannibal would have won Cannae but not decisively or withdrew for a draw, would Rome have changed its tactics? I believe they would not of. If Cannae was a small Roman defeat or a draw, Rome would have continued to pursue Hannibal and destroy him in battle. Therefore, Hannibal should have withdrew from southern Italy. By staying there he allowed Rome to rebuild its army, and pursue Carthage on other fronts. Therefore, this great victory led to the defeat of Hannibal and Carthage.
For more information about all three Punic wars visit http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/punicwar/
The Battle of Cannae took place in 216 BCE during the second Punic War. Carthage, having lost the First Punic war, was determined to take revenge and maintain its power.When the war broke out in 218 BCE Hannibal march to Italy from Spain. His plan was to defeat Rome's armies causing her allies to defect to him.
After winning two decisive victories against the Romans at The Trebbia River and Lake Trasimene, Hannibal looked invincible. In 216 BCE a third Roman army was sent to destroy Hannibal. At Cannae the Romans, who again outnumbered Hannibal, hoped to use the open plain to their advantage. When the infantry met, Hannibal's center fell back creating a crescent shape, which the Roman infantry pushed into. Meanwhile the Carthaginian cavalry defeated the Roman cavalry, and attacked the Roman rear. This encirclement caused the Romans to panic, and a slaughter ensued.
The victory at Cannae was exactly what Hannibal wanted, to destroy Romes armies and have her allies defect. Unfortunately, Romes allies did not defect. Rome also changed its tactics. Instead of destroying Hannibal in a battle, they would contain him in southern Italy and harass his army. This continued until 202 BCE when Hannibal escaped Italy and returned to North Africa to defend Carthage against the Roman general Scipio, who landed there in 204 BCE. They met at the battle of Zama in which Hannibal was defeated. The defeat at Zama led to the surrender of Carthage and the loss of her empire.
Why did Hannibal lose? Hannibal lost because he failed to break Romes alliances. Also, I believe he lost because the Romans changed their tactics. Before the defeat at Cannae, Rome attempted to destroy Hannibal's army by force. However, only after the disastrous defeat at Cannae did they try a new tactic. If Hannibal would have won Cannae but not decisively or withdrew for a draw, would Rome have changed its tactics? I believe they would not of. If Cannae was a small Roman defeat or a draw, Rome would have continued to pursue Hannibal and destroy him in battle. Therefore, Hannibal should have withdrew from southern Italy. By staying there he allowed Rome to rebuild its army, and pursue Carthage on other fronts. Therefore, this great victory led to the defeat of Hannibal and Carthage.
For more information about all three Punic wars visit http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/punicwar/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)