Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to The History Guy podcast Counterfactuals. What is a
counterfactual in the context of studying history. It is a
kind of analysis where we examined what might have happened
had historical events gone differently as a thought experiment. The
goal is to learn and understand history as it is
by talking about what it could have been as a
(00:27):
twist on the historical stories that we tell on the
History Guy YouTube channel. This is a series of podcasts
that dwell on that eternal question what if. I'm Josh,
a writer for the YouTube channel and son of the
History Guy. If you're a fan of the channel, you
already know Lance the History Guy himself. To liven up
our discussions on what might have happened, we have invited
(00:48):
Brad wagnan history officionado and a longtime friend of The
History Guy to join us. Remember that if you'd like
to support us, you can find us on Patreon, YouTube
and locals dot com. Join us as we discuss what
deserves to be remembered and what might have been. On
today's episode, we talk about one of the most famous
(01:08):
battles in Roman history, when fifty thousand Romans were killed
in a single day. How might the world be different
if that battle went a little differently. Without further ado,
let me introduce the history guy.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Any annals of history, there are many great defeats that
live on in the cultural memory. I mean, after all,
in a great victory by one side often represents a
great defeat for another. And among the great defeats in history,
perhaps those remained more famous than one during the Second
Punic War, when the general Hannibal crossed the Alps intent
on destroying Rome. In this series of brilliant strategic victories
hand will threaten the very existence of the Roman Republic.
(01:48):
But perhaps he never came closer to finally destroying his
foe than when he met an unprecedented eight Roman legions
in August of two sixteen BC on the fields of Italia,
near the tiny village of Canay. It is history that
deserves to be remembered. The end of the First Punic
War was an embarrassing defeat for Carthage. The harsh terms
(02:10):
of the peace treaty inspired an even greater hatred of Rome,
and Carthage set out to capture new lands in Iberia,
which will provided with new wealth than a base for
a future war of revenge against the Romans. Carthaginian general
Hamilcar Barka led the invasion of Iberia, and after nine
years of fighting, had captured much of the southeastern portion
of the peninsula before he was killed in battle in
(02:30):
two twenty eight BC. The Romans demanded the Carthaginians cease
their expansion. Into twenty one b C. Hamilcar's son, than
twenty six years old, was given command of the Carthaginian army.
That son was Hannibal Handbell, quickly subdued most of the
Iberian peninsula. Hannibal would go to great lengths to plant
his attack on Rome. He made allies in Italy, which
gave him guides and conductors through the difficult passes of
(02:53):
the Alps. Hannibal fought a campaign from the Pyrenees to
the Alps, successfully using the land rout to Italy, while difficult,
so allowed the Carthaginians to avoid Roman supremacy at sea.
It isn't known exactly what route Hannibal used across the Alps,
but cross them he did, arriving in Italy in the
fall to eighteen BC. Thus began a devastating campaign. He
defeated the Romans in the Battle of Trebia, nearly encircling
(03:15):
and destroying most of the force, and following you destroyed
another Roman army in an ambush, killing around fifteen thousand
Roman soldiers and capturing ten thousand more. The Romans elected
Quintus Fabius Maximus dictator for their defense. Panic was rising
in Rome. Fabeas enacted his famous Fabian strategy, refusing to
be drawn into a major engagement while wearing down the
Carthaginian force through minor skirmishes and giving Rome time to recover. Meanwhile,
(03:39):
Hannibal was devastating some of the richest parts of the
Roman state and drawing Roman allies to his side, sick
of what they saw as cowardice. In two sixteen BC,
the Romans did not renew Phabeas's dictatorship and elected new
consuls Gaius Tertus Varro, who advocated from aggressive strategy, and
Lucius Emilius Paullus. Hannibal wanted an engagement, and two sixteen
(04:00):
he seized a base near Kinnay, which had exciteddel in
a supply depot. Polybius writes that it caused great commotion
in the Roman army, for it was not only the
loss of the place and the stores in it that
distressed them, but the fact that it commanded the surrounding
district cut off from a major source of supplies, the
Roman army could not displace Hannibal without committing to an engagement.
Varro and Polus were sent with instructions from the Senate
(04:22):
to bring Hannibal's army to battle.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
At last.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
The army that Rome raised to fight at Kinna was unprecedented.
According to Polybius, the Romans habitually enrolled ford legions per
year of up to five thousand heavy infantry a peace
and two hundred cavalry peace, along with an equal number
of allied troops. Most of Rome's wars are decided by
one consul and two legions. They rarely employed all four
at one time and on one service. However, Hannibal was
seen as so great a threat that Roum sent both
(04:47):
councils and eight legions around ninety thousand men. There were
difficulties for such a large army, however, Usually consuls would
command their own separate legions, but since all eight legions
were combined into a single army, Roman law required that
the consul's alternate command of the army on a daily basis. Traditionally,
Varrow is believed to be in command on the day
of the battle. The exact numbers of soldiers engaged the
(05:09):
battle is not fully certain. Most of the information we
have today about the Second Punic War comes from Polybius,
who is usually considered a trustworthy and relatively objective source,
however not a perfect one. Polybius puts eighty six thousand,
four hundred men at the battle, about eighty thousand infantry
in six thousand, four hundred cavalry. The exact makeup of
Hannibal's force is even more uncertain and drone from many
(05:30):
mercenaries and local troops, but probably wasn't more than fifty
thousand men. All the ancient sources agree that Hannibal was
significantly outnumbered. The exact date of the battle is uncertain
as well. Roman pontiffices who led the region, inserted leap weeks, years,
or days improperly, either accidentally or for political reasons, meaning
that even when a date is given, it's often impossible
to translate that into the modern calendar. What we do
(05:53):
know is that the battle took place in the summer
of two sixteen BC. Polybius says that Varrow, from inexperience,
ignored his colleague advice and marched to engage the Carthaginians
in an open, flat field, disadvantage for the Romans because
Hannibal had the superior cavalry force. The battle took place
on one side of the modern Ofonto River. The Romans
sent about a third of their force across the river.
(06:14):
Bar arranged his men in the traditional fashion, infantry in
the center, with cavalry on each flank. He shortened the
line in favor of a deeper infantry formation, hoping to
break the Carthaginian line at the center. Hannibal was well
aware of traditional Roman tactics and took advantage of them
to arrange his army. He placed his slingers behind his
infantry to attack the Roman mass infantry, with his own
Carthaginian infantry on the flanks and mercenary and local troops
(06:36):
at the center, Hannibal stood front and center of the
whole army. According to historians Appian and Levy, he sent
several hundred mercenaries to pretend to desert to the Romans,
who had caused chaos in the Roman rear during the battle.
But their accounts are considered less reliable. Hannibal used the
river to anchor one flank. The Romans would be facing
east into the rising sun, and prevailing wind would blow
(06:56):
dirt in their faces. Hannibal chose his battlefield well. As
the two armies faced each other, Putarch reports a tale
that a Carthaginian soldier named Gizego expressed his shock at
the larger Roman force. There's one thing, giz Go, yet
more astonishing, which you take no notice of, Hannibal replied,
And all those great numbers before us, there's not one
man called Gizego. As the infantry began to march, the
(07:18):
battle was opened with fighting on the flanks by the cavalry.
The Carthaginian cavalry destroyed one flank easily, while the second
flank delayed the Roman cavalry long enough that the victorious
cavalry from the other flank could cross behind the Romans
and route the remaining Roman cavalry. Meanwhile, the Carthaginian line
advanced unevenly, forming a cresset with the weaker Carthaginian center
nearest the Roman lines. The Romans faced several disadvantages the sun,
(07:40):
the dust, and thirst than to a Carthaginian attack on
Roman water supplies the previous day. When the strong Roman
center met the Carthaginian center, Hannibal let his man in
a slow reverse, a controlled retreat that drew the Romans
into the center of the line till the Carthaginian center
formed a cresset facing the opposite direction, with the Romans
jammed within the Carthaginian lines. Whether driven by their apparent
(08:01):
victory over the Carthaginian center or possibly obscured by the dust,
the Romans failed to appreciate the African infantry on their
opponent's flanks, who were left unengaged as the Romans port
passed them into the center. The veteran Carthaginians struck the
Roman flanks and enveloped the Roman rear. Supported by the
Carthaginian cavalry. The Roman force was entirely surrounded. Morale collapsed.
Hannibal ordered his maide into a wall which closed in
(08:23):
on every side. According to Polybius, seventy thousand Romans were killed,
ten thousand captured, and only a few thousand escaped. Livy
reports differently sing closer to fifty thousand were killed and
some twenty thousand captured, with around fourteen thousand escaping, his
source likely being a soldier fought in the war he
had consulted in the past. Polybius reports only fifty seven
hundred Carthaginians were killed in the fighting. Livy says Sannibal
(08:45):
lost eight thousand for Rome. The loss was nearly complete. Officers, consuls,
and senators died in the fighting, including Paulus, although Barro
was able to escape. Never when the city was in safety,
was there so great a panic and confusion within the
walls of Rome. Livy wrote of the aftermath. Now there
was neither any Roman camp, nor general, nor soldiery. Almost
the whole of Italy was in the possession of Hannibal.
(09:08):
The Romans were so panic that they turned to human
sacrifice twice bearing people alive at the Roman Forum. Nearly
a fifth of Rome's entire population of males over seventeen
had died in the fighting, and many cities in southern
Italy defected to Hannibal following the defeat. The city's despairing
of Roman power, Hannibal refused to march directly on Rome.
Livy rights at one of Hannibal's commanders exasperatedly declared that
(09:29):
you know how to conquer Hannibal, but you do not
know how to make use of your victory. But he
had little chance of taking Rome itself, and Rome was
far from defeated, did not sue for peace. The Allied
lands that had affected to Hannibal provided little in the
way of manpower, and Carthage only reinforced him once during
the whole year. He was expected to protect his new
allies with the same number of soldiers while Rome had
time to rebuild. Eight legions had been unprecedented, but Rome
(09:53):
took drastic steps to raise more troops, and just a
year after Cannae, Rom fielded twelve legions. By two twelve BC,
there were more than two hundred thousand Roman troops in
allies deployed, many of them in Italy, were they're deployed
in field armies of about twenty thousand, which made it
difficult for Hannibal to act freely. Cane led to the
reshaping of Rome's military doctrine units where reorganized. The importance
(10:14):
of a unified command recognized. Scipio Africanus, who had also
escaped Cannay, was made General in chief of Roman Armies
in Africa and guaranteed that role for the duration of
the war. Scipia would bring the Roman army to Africa
and defeat Carthage decisively at the Battle of Zama, where
Hannibal was finally defeated. He would die years later in Turkey.
The battle has had many admirers since, becoming one of
(10:36):
the most studied strategies in Western military history. Historian will
Durant said the battle set the lines of military tactics
for two thousand years. The double envelopment or pincer movement
at Cana is often considered one of the greatest battlefield
maneuvers in history. Battles of annihilation on the scale and
success of Cana are rare. Dwight Eisenhower wrote that every
ground commander seeks the battle of annihilation, tries to duplicate
(10:57):
in modern war the classic example of Kannae. The concept
of such a maneuver was sought after nearly two thousand
years later by men such as Frederick the Great, German's
general Alfred von Schliefan, whose Schliefan planing would guide germany
strategy in the World War One invasion of France was
inspired by Hannibal's strategy at Cannae. While not necessarily well
known among the general public, the Battle of Canae is
(11:19):
still studied by military historians and modern strategists as a
master lesson in strategy, including the psychological operation like denying
the Roman army their water supply. Some modern historians of
question whether the numbers that were supplied in Roman histories
might have been exaggerated, whether the armies that size really
would have been practical in that era, and even some
have argued that Hannibal's Crescent attack wasn't actually some grand
(11:41):
strategy but merely the result of the force of the
Roman attack. But in any case, Hannibal emerged from the
Battle of Canae with a historic reputation for brilliance. But ironically,
it was the great defeat at Cannae that would lead
to the rise of rome Is that revealed weaknesses in
the Republic that could be addressed in the eventual Roman victory,
and the Second Panic War would guarantee Roman dominance in
(12:03):
the Mediterranean for centuries to come.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Now for the fun part, where I the history guy
himself and good friend of the history guy Brad Wagnan
discussed what the world might look like if it all
went a little differently. So the Battle of Knae is
one of those counterfactuals that I think ate a lot
of people talk about, but I think we have got
an interesting spin on it, and I think it's an
(12:29):
interesting one to talk about because in some ways, I
think there's some really big counterfactuals here, but I think
there's also some ways that this kind of altered the
world in ways that are unexpected.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Yeah, it's interesting. One of the things it's interesting is that,
you know, because the Romans lost the battle, and so
when you talk about alternate history at the battle, it's
usually like what if the other guy had won? Except
that the Romans won the war, and so the discussion
of alternate history with Knae tends to be more around
what happens if they if the Carthaginians had pursued better
than if the Romans won, because you know, if the
(13:02):
Romans won, they just win the war more er.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Yes, yes, what is the what is the more win?
And what does that do to to history is a
little a little I think, Actually, I think you're right,
is that. Actually I think if the Romans win it,
you know, if they were to defeat Hannibal here I
mean it would have some impact, but I don't know
that it would have transformed.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
I mean, it could be because what if the Romans
essentially get the victory in the Second Punic War that
they eventually get in the Third Punic War and you
know there's a Roman hegemony in Africa earlier. But I mean, yeah,
you're right, it's it's it's it's more of a I mean,
the big question here at Kenna isn't that he won,
but what happens if because he wins, Rome surrenders. What
(13:44):
if this significantly reduces Rome they don't come back like
they did in the war. And that's a very interesting question.
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Yeah, there's also a there's also an interesting counterfactual that
suggests itself, and that is what if the battle is
tactically a draw and Hanno has to consider whether or
not he's going to send reinforcements to Hannibal in Italy
(14:11):
or whether has actually happened he ends up trying to
send multiple armies into Spain to hold on to to
hold onto the Iberian peninsula. So that's there's definitely a
whole lot of directions that this can go, you know,
and everything from you know, outright defeat to you know,
what if there's draw what if Hannibal follows up and
(14:34):
decides that he is going to go aggressively attack Rome,
He's going to show up at the at the gates
of the city. It really is I mean, we're really
looking at a very very interesting point in history.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, especially at least in Western civilization. How powerful Rome
sits in Western civilization and the Roman marshal tradition sits
in Western civilization too. So if you have something that
significantly impacts you're going to significantly impact the course of
Europe and North Africa. And that's a you know, that's
(15:06):
an interesting point to take right here. And so Cana
I mean, it was such a I mean, it's remembered
so much because it was a mismatch that the Romans loss.
It was rare that they would lose, and they were
they outnumbered than they were lost. And it shows the
brillions of Hannibal, which I mean, you can overstate the
brilliance of Hannibal when you look at you know, what
happened after Cannae. But you know, it doesn't end up
(15:27):
working out all that well for Hannibal. But if you
if you changed the course of the Roman Empire, whether
up or down, you are going to change the course
of history in ways that ripple through a much longer
period of history. It's just kind of the nature of
such a powerful influence on culture.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
Yeah, I think it's I think it's a very germane
to point out at this point that Rome is still
in the republican era and they are not anywhere near
their the apergy of the Empire, and if they suffer
a signify it's sent back. You know, what if Carthage
holds on for say another fifty two hundred years, and
(16:05):
essentially you get two great empires that are influencing Western civilization,
and you know, we don't get what we have currently,
which is essentially a Western Europe that is a direct
descendant of Rome Craco Roman culture.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Yeah, I mean, or what if Rome becomes essentially a
subsidiary state to Carthage. It's kind of hard to imagine
Carthage which just get rid of Rome, and well the
way that Rome eventually got rid of Carthage, But what
if Rome essentially becomes a vassal state at that point
in its history, and can Carthage hang on to the
rest of Rome? Do they become you know, roughly equals,
and then that changes, you know, who's competing, and then
(16:46):
you've got a long term because then of course the
wars are going to come through. I mean, there's a
lot of Mediterranean history that could be different if one
of these powers is more powerful earlier or less powerful earlier.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
And that's you know, when you talk about the specifics
of the counterfactules, you know, this battle could have gone
different ways. There's some interesting ways in the ways that
in how it was commanded, where you know, we had
these two consuls who were alternating command, and it's very
possible that you know, it just happened to turn out
the way it did because of who was in command
(17:17):
on that day and certainly the Roman consul, which one
that's Varro, seemed to seem to believe that there was
just no chance that Rome could win with when they outnumbered,
while the other console was maybe more was more cautious,
and maybe that's what they needed, because it sure seems
like Varro just walked himself right into the Carthaginian trap.
And still Hannibal's plan was not fool proof, and there
(17:40):
were some ways it could have gone very wrong, but
everything everything worked out for him in his double envelopment
works and boom, that is a fifty thousand strong army
that was essentially just annihilated.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Yeah, essentially became the Roman cavalry against the more experienced
Carthaginian cavalry and the auxiliaries. And if if you realize
that going in and you know, reinforced with some of
your overwhelming number of infantry, so that when your cavalry
is inevitably defeated, you know, you've got a second line
of defense there, and that gives enough time for the
Romans to break through at the center. And so, in
(18:13):
a very specific counterfacture, which is to say, if we
fought the battle differently, was the battle winnable for Rome?
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Of course it was.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
I mean they had they had greater numbers, they had
on paper a better army, and they were really caught
in a trap that they should have been able to see.
So it is, it is. And you know what if
they what if they break through? What if they capture
Hannibal and kill him, do they immediately go to take
over the rest of Carthage? Does Carthage negotiate? You could
see because Carthage wasn't too sure about Hannibal ever going
(18:40):
you can see a scenario where actually it works out
better for Carthage. If if Hannibal's defeated and Carthage sues
for peace and says, we don't want you know, we
disavowed Hannibal, then they might actually turn out better than
how it worked out in the in the in the
Punic War.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
And you know, now there's some reason to believe that
the whole reason the Romans sent, you know, sent an
army to Carthage was was partially because they were still
fighting Hannibal in Italy. And if if Hannibal wasn't there,
I mean, maybe the Romans choose not to do it.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah, and one they're making up for, you know, they
have to as amount of honor make up for for
a cane. So I mean, it would have been so
predictable for the Carthagenius. And one of the things about
that is we probably wouldn't hardly know Hannibal's name. He
would be a mirror put out in history.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
In terms of another person whose name we might not
know if this battle had gone differently. That's Fabius and
his famous his the Fabian strategy. If you know, if
we had defeated Hannibal. There there is no Fabian strategy.
If the other consul, Paulus, or however you might pronounce
that is, if he chooses either a similar strategy or
(19:47):
chooses a different field of battle or something like that,
that also could mean we don't we don't see this
this famous strategy in this famous Roman because and this
is this is really where you know, this is the
only time Rome really uses that strategy, but it was
it echoed throughout time. Of course, Fabian was also not
the only man who possibly could have come up, yes
(20:08):
a tactic, but but it would be it certainly would
have impacted at least we wouldn't know Washington is the
American Fabius, you know.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
So that is a case where if the Romans had won,
then it could have worked out negatively for them, as
that they might have learned the wrong strategic lessons and
then stuck their nose out someplace where they couldn't somewhere
you know, later in history. So, I mean, it's it's
interesting that Carthage won the Battle of Cana and still
lost the war. Is there a scenario where Rome wins
the Battle of Kana and then loses the war that
(20:37):
actually works out negatively for Rome. I don't know, but
I mean that's one of the ways that it could
be is that Rome doesn't go after Carthage and let's
Carthage rise again, or that Rome learns the wrong strategic
lessons and ends up getting into bad situations. Then you know,
I mean, you can win a battle and lose a war,
and you can lose a battle and win a war.
(20:58):
And if you flip two won the battle, you might
flip who on the war, and that would be a
significant difference. Again, if the Second Punic War goes to Carthage,
then that puts Roman and what's the worst position when
you talk about the Third Peutic War, which puts Roman
in a much worse position in terms of the hegemony
that they finally make across Europe that then still echoes
through Europe today.
Speaker 4 (21:18):
Yeah, and that cannot be understated because what we think
of as the Roman Empire and a lot of the
cultural impacts and the sheer reach of those cultural impacts
is ultimately determined by the fact that the Mediterranean becomes
a Roman like an alternate history in which the Mediterranean
(21:42):
is shared by two major superpowers, each with their spheres
of influence. Yeah, it's definitely a radically different, radically different world.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Yeah. I mean, if there's no Roman in Africa, then
that is going to change, you know, how the Mediterranean develops,
and that's you know, Roman Africa was what they took
from Carthage. So and you know that means that modern
nations might be defined differently if if that had gone differently.
So it doesn't take much shift in the balance between
(22:14):
Roman Carthage before it's looking very different, you know, for
European history, for European and North African.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
History over the long run.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Do you see because we're talking, you know, a good
deal of distance in between, do you see any potential
that if there was a difference in what happened at
Cana and thus in the Punic War, that Africa better
resists the caliphates, which eventually will run Africa and then
of course leads to Iberia and the Conquista and all
that sort of thing. Because that's another major factor that
if is there a chance that Islam is more restricted
(22:45):
and we don't see the attack on Vienna, we don't
see them taking the Iberian peninsula because the Romans are
more powerful early on. I mean, it's kind of there's
a long line between here and there to really stretching
the argument at that point to say that there would
still be a Roman empire that would still be you know,
capable of military defense.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
By then, it might be easier to argue that if
the Carthaginians had continued to exist. And in that case,
we're when we're talking about a counterfactual that deals with
you know, for if it's just Canae, it's hard to
see how just Cannae is the only influence that would
make that happen. But if there, if there's a future
where the Carthaginians, you know, there's still a Carthaginian power
(23:23):
by the time that the Caliphates are coming through. For
the Romans, Africa was still a frontier. It was in
the distance, and that was true for the even you know,
for the Eastern Roman Empire in the Byzantines, Uh, they
are far enough, it's far enough a way that that
was something that they could give up. But if if,
if that is the homeland of the Carthaginians, that's a
(23:43):
fair point.
Speaker 4 (23:44):
I think that there's also a point that and it
would depend on you know, which which timeline do you follow,
But would would the Carthaginians have created a true nation
state in the way that Rome was essentially technically, yes,
(24:05):
an empire technically got all roads led to Rome. However,
for all intents and purposes, Rome was a nation state.
It was not a series of aligned city states, satrapies,
client kingdoms and territories that speak radically different languages, have
(24:27):
vastly different religions, and you know, have have far more
not in common than they have in common. You know,
one of the reasons that Rome is one of the
pre eminent empires in all of history is because they
successfully imprinted so many people with again common language, common religion,
(24:53):
common military tactics, technology, and all of what we know
as being you know, the like a Roman West.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Yeah, it's it's uh, it's interesting. I mean that Rome
ultimately has had such an incredible impact. And I think
that when you start looking at almost any part of history,
especially you know, in Europe, how it ties back to
Rome becomes obvious. Almost all of the the I mean,
you know, the royalties, the all the laws that we
came up with, and every other part of the in
(25:23):
every part of Europe essentially would have had some basis
in Roman law and of course that affects society and
all kinds of.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Things, power structures, but also structure, martial history. I mean
even Patent, even Patent was looking at the Romans for
martial influence. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Yeah, and that's and we're and we're talking, you know,
that's two hundred years after this event something like that.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
So you might say that all roads lead to Rome.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Yeah, yeah, historically too.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Yah, I just thought that up. I don't think it's
ever been said.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
Definitely the Western world. Yeah, I mean if you think
about you know, think about any major you know, any
thing that we've covered that has that gets touched on
in Western Europe, you know, the Julian calendar. Yeah, even
the Demetriads are very much a product of the later
Roman empires conversion to Catholicism and their ability to keep
(26:19):
Catholicism alive and ultimately the you know, the Catholic faith
becomes more or less the dominant, the dominant religion in Europe.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Rome has such a large impact on Christianity that if
you reduce the power of Rome, then you reduce Christianity
across Europe. And that how a uge impact on history.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Is a fair point, and I do I mean I
do think that's possible at Cannae. One of the counterfactuals
I was thinking was that if if you know, they
have a battle at Knae where the Romans are able to,
as Brad mentioned, pull up more to a draw, but
Hannibal still remains. It feels Hannibal didn't have much time,
and of course his forces were mostly made up of
(27:00):
of mercenaries, and so he kind of had to He
had to have victories to keep his forces together or
he couldn't support them otherwise. But if you have a
battle there that were the Roman defeat is serious but
not total, maybe you don't have the Roman panic that
leads to the Roman you know, to them turning to
turning back to the Fabian strategies and to defeat Hannibal
(27:23):
and eventually descending the forces to Carthage itself. And if
you know, if that means they don't turn right then
if they decide to fight, you know, to have to
raise another army and face Hannibal again on the field.
Do we have another Canae, Do we have an almost
you know, cana is not as bad as it was,
but they send another army out there, that is another
(27:44):
devastating defeat. And there is a real question that while
Hannibal definitely underestimated the alliances and the loyalties of the Italian,
of these other Italian you know, states that were subservient
to Rome, I think they could have been broken eventually.
And the question is how many battles does that could
(28:05):
that possibly have taken? And how many battles would the
Romans have fought? Because Cane was so significant that it
wasn't just you know that they that they lost soldiers,
They had to change their recruitment standards, they had to
get younger people and older people. They made it so
that slaves could could volunteer and could win their freedom.
(28:26):
They changed a lot of things about how they were
raising their army. So the truth is there was, at
least for a short period, a manpower issue, and that
was significant enough that it altered Roman culture. And you know,
would that have happened. Without that happening, you have a
different Rome. And I don't know some of the ways
that it changed. Is perhaps difficult to see how that
(28:49):
ends up worming its way through all of history. But
this is this is something that it was not small.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
No, the fact that less than five years out there
are twenty five full legions marching up and down the
Italian peninsula. That's fair, there's definitely josh as you're saying, Yeah,
I mean that took a major, a major pivot from
the old way of thinking about, you know, the proper
(29:21):
role of the of the citizen in the republic. I
would say that it would be very easy to draw
the conclusion that, oh, well, yeah, you know, we just
we just need four legions or eight legions more and
we're good, Yeah, we don't need twenty five legions. And
(29:42):
what if you know, say that, you you know, say
that you put together ten legions, you don't go hog wild,
you don't go for the full twenty five. You go
for ten legions. And it comes time to actually land
in Africa with overwhelming force. Suddenly it's like, well, wait
a second, we didn't raise enough.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
We don't have the forces. And it does I mean,
it does affect. You know, this had an impact on
who was considered a Roman citizen on and that which,
of course it's it might have been a deeper impact.
But yeah, if they don't have the forces, the fact
that they raised, you know, twenty five legions, and that
might have been part of why they Ultimately, once you've
defeated the Carthaginians, well then you've still got a lot
(30:25):
of a lot of soldiers and suddenly, you know, expansion
looks less expensive, less uh more, more easy to do
when you've already got your men and all they have
to do is walk over there. And this, I mean,
you know, this also provides some some reasons for that because,
for instance, Philip and Macedon, who decides to fight the
(30:47):
Romans because he thinks that, you know, an alliance with
the with Hannibal and the Carthaginians is going to benefit him.
That just gives the Romans more reason to go beat
the crap out of the Macedonians and the Greeks. Greeks,
which I mean probably they would have found a way
to do that anyway, but certainly that made it easier.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
One of the you know, shift gears a little bit
focusing on a result of Cana that often gets overlooked.
What if the what if the Cana legions are not
exiled to Sicily I think that this is It's one
of the things very seldom covered in the history books.
(31:28):
But yeah, you know, the remnants of the two legions
that end up in Sicily essentially told that you know
you're here because you know your your abject failures. What
if those what if those people, because of the hypothetical
draw in our alternate timeline, they go back to Rome,
they aren't given heroes welcome, but they're told, hey, next time,
(31:52):
you better come back with your shield or on it
to borrow the Spartan. The Spartan saying.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Yeah, right, I mean that's the because that's that's why
they turn on them. They're scened as it was dishonorable
for them not to have continued to fight. Although man
if I were witnessing the slaughter at Cannae, it would
have been awfully hard if I could have gotten away,
to have remained. But that's you know, it's significant. And
they were also, I mean, those were those are veteran troops,
(32:21):
and they were not They were not insignificant forces, and
it does make you wondering if they're not, if they're
not exiled to Sicily. And of course the defeat of
Kanna at Cannae has Syracuse in Sicily turns decides to
try to, you know, make their move to escape Roman hegemony.
(32:41):
It's all, it's it's all connected, and it does. It
does lead you to think, you know, those were men
that would have been who would have served elsewhere. And
if you you know, if you have to change the
battle a little bit, then it would have been more
men who served elsewhere, and that might have been significant,
but it also might have might have meant you don't raise
the legions to place them in Italy since you have
(33:02):
them instead of you know, exiling them to Sicily.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Which means there's other men that might have done other
things in Rome. I mean when you ever, you know,
every time that you change the outcome of a battle,
I mean a thousand think of how much a thousand
people can affect history. So if a thousand less people
had died, or a thousand less people had been put
into the military, then how might they have impacted? She
could have been I mean, you know, could have been radical.
You know, might be just a thousand people we forget,
(33:25):
but I mean there might be in archimedees in there,
you know.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
And you know, to kind of be my own devil's advocate.
Without those two legions being exiled to Sicily and Syracuse
making its bid for essentially independence, they were troops on
the ground when the Romans needed them to demonstrate to
Syracuse that hey, this might not be such a good idea.
(33:50):
And if they weren't there because you know, there had
been a draw or a victory at Canay, then yeah,
there's there's another way. Because if you know, if the
Carthaginians hold on to Sicily, I think that that really
(34:11):
has an effect on the wall because a even if
there's a small Carthaginian army left, if you can evacuate
them from the Italian boot or if you can send
them some reinforcements, perhaps find a new general. Or of course,
if Hannibal himself survives, even after you know, this difficult battle,
(34:35):
you know, suddenly he he has relatively unfettered access to reinforcements.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
And supplies because one of his biggest weaknesses there is
that you know, he's he is trying to live off
the land, he doesn't have siege weapons. If he's got
access to siege weapons, I mean I could have changed
the war significantly. His hope and in terms of if
he was ever going to attack Rome was to turn
enough allies in you know, in Italy to support him
(35:05):
and hopefully they've got siege weapons. I mean, that's the
big problem with you know, there's the famous line from
his his his his like co commander or his one
of the men underneath him who tells him, Oh, you
you can win a victory, but you don't know how
to you don't know how to use it, because Hannibal
doesn't march on Rome. But Hannibal was not in a
great position to take Rome. If he marches on Rome,
(35:27):
he has to take it immediately. He has he has, Yeah,
he has to count on the idea. And it's not
impossible to think that, you know, you march on Rome.
They've just had this horrifically humiliating defeat, which is just
a series, the third in a series of really quite
humiliating defeats that maybe there's some possibility that just showing
(35:47):
up in force, Rome decides to capitulate. But if Rome
doesn't capitulate, he's got essentially no way of conquering that city.
He can't have a long siege. He's got no real
means to knock down the walls or to get into
the city, and he can't sit there for very long
before reinforcements are going to come from somewhere and catch
him where he doesn't want to be and so I
(36:10):
get why Hannibal decides, I'm not going to go take
on Rome because that's an awful risk and he doesn't
think he has you know, he's trying to play, trying
to get more cards in his hand, essentially. But if
Hannibal has access to reinforcements, which he kind of started
to open up some avenues after Cannae, but it doesn't
end up being significant enough, and it makes you think
(36:30):
maybe he needed one more victory, at least before enough
people were turning, before Sicily was able to be held
in some fashion, so that he could get reinforcements from
the Carthaginians. Because the Carthaginians are still thinking that Hannibal is,
even though he's having these brilliant successes, that it's tenuous
what he's doing in Italy and that it was too difficult,
(36:52):
and once they you know, really start the Fabian strategy
in earnest after Cannae, he never he's never able to
get any more reinforcements and significant numbers. And that's I mean,
it's a fair point. If they can hold Sicily and
they have this essentially this easy pathway to getting reinforcements
to Italy. Then the Carthaginians might feel like that's, you know,
(37:14):
it's worth sending reinforcements. But when they're given the option
between sending people to Spain, which they know they can
get reinforcements there first, trying to reach Italy, where they've
got you know, they're going to be landing in hostile territory,
they don't. They they've got to trust that their ships
can get there without getting attacked or betrayed before they're
able to land, And they still don't really have the
(37:37):
faith that Hannibal can actually defeat Rome on Roman ground.
Hannibal was, you know, he was an incredible general and
he did some incredible things here. I mean there was
true brilliance, but he was he was playing a losing
hands that really required his confidence.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
He shouldn't have. But it is easier to see a
scenario where the Romans win the Battle of Kenny then
it is to see a scenario where Hannibal is better
able to follow up his victory at Cane.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
Yeah, because he had a series of weaknesses and it
seems unlikely that those could have shifted so much without
more than the Battle.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Of Cannae, which, given the size of the victory really
shows how how great.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
The if the Carthaginians, because I mean they were you know,
they were dubious on the whole prospect of the of
the whole campaign. If they had supported Hannibal more, you know,
would have had a better chance. But I don't know
if Hannibal could have gotten siege equipment in marching over
the Alps. It was hard enough. I don't think he
could have. I don't know that he could have carried
(38:36):
anything more. If the Carthaginians supported him more, would that
have helped.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
But I mean that the Roman the legions didn't move
with siege equipment. They moved without it, and then they
cut down the trees and turned it into.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Sage, and and the Carthaginians didn't seem to have that
same They just didn't have that going on, right. And
then if they don't have that, uh, without the siege equipment,
it was hard for him to see to see him
taking Rome, and possibly after Cane was going to be
his best opportunity if Rome, if the city of Rome
was going to fall that that seems like in the
(39:09):
history we have that was the only moment, the closest
moment to it, and yet I still don't think he
was that close.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
I would tend to agree with that. And part of
that also is something that when you understand the strength
of Rome versus Carthage, and that is Carthage is largely
a mercenary based army. There's quite a bit of you know,
(39:36):
you've got people speaking different languages, you know, Numidians, Libyans,
Carthaginians as you know, very Spanish obviously so, but they
are warriors as opposed to Romans who are soldiers. And
(39:56):
the fact that the that the Roman army has, even
even at that point in the Republic, they had, you
know that they had a spirit, they had the spirit
de corps. Most importantly, they had an overarching philosophy of
what a soldier is versus some guy with the sword
with a bunch of other guys with the sword who
(40:18):
are going to go out and kick some tail.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
You know.
Speaker 4 (40:22):
The Roman commanders were like, no, we're going to go
and sees an objective. We're going to go and you know,
do this particular this particular task. And uh, that cannot
be underestimated because you know, up until you know the
ancient world, basically Rome really puts together the first and
more of a unified and cohesive professional military in a
(40:46):
way that you know, really hadn't been done before.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, and it was I mean, could the Carthaginians have
overcome that in the long run. I think that that
professional army was was one of the most signific vocant
Roman advancements. That that is a huge part of how
they're able to keep the empire that they capture, you know,
these legions, and of course they keep settling the legions
(41:13):
where they after they've conquered new Lands, you start building
soldier colonies and stuff like that, which is not something
you're going to get with mercenaries who are largely eventually
going to want to go home. And that's that's something
that the that the Carthaginians didn't have. And we see
the weaknesses of having an army that is built significantly
(41:34):
upon mercenaries in this war, because Hannibal is constantly having
to appease them, because if he doesn't appease them, they'll
just walk away. And that that is literally that's one
of his biggest challenges is keeping these mercenaries together so
that he can continue to threaten Rome. And you know,
there's considerably less worry at this point, especially that an
(41:59):
entire legion is just going to say, we don't want
to find this, we're gonna go Yeah.
Speaker 4 (42:04):
Kind of on the flip side, you know, just to
drive home the story about mercenaries, even though this happened
to the Romans, the Roman forces in northern Spain. The
Roman commander wakes up and you know, the accounts are
that thirty thousand of his mercenary troops were basically gone
because the Carthaginians had bribed them just to go away. So, yeah,
(42:29):
it is.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
It is one of those one of those weaknesses of
mercenaries is that they ultimately they're more loyal to the
coin than they are to the the power. And and
that's I mean, that was that was a significant advance
in terms of having professional soldiers, is that those soldiers
at you know, you can win glory, you can win
advancements in society, and you they're fighting for the for
(42:52):
the for the nation state, for the empire, or for
the republic instead of for themselves. And that that that
was I think we underestimate sometimes how big a deal
having that kind of culture is.
Speaker 4 (43:07):
Yeah, yeah, because you know, we live in an era
of nation states, and yeah, the ancient world was not
primarily nation states. It was primarily city states, kingdoms, and
you know, they were relatively in permanent you know, there's
some great exceptions to that. Obviously, some of the empires
(43:29):
in China were holding together for considerably long periods of time.
But yeah, pretty much in the West, you know, Alexander's
empire crumbles after well he dies. Yeah, and you know,
some of the other some of the other empires that
(43:50):
we've looked at and some of our previous some of
our previous shows. You know, it seems as if you know,
I like to come back to you know, two three
hundred years seems to be know, how long some of
the some of the empires kind of hang together. And
you've got an extraordinary one if you can last more
than five or six hundred years.
Speaker 1 (44:07):
So yeah, and Rome of course possibly the most extraordinary.
And how long it's able to last.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
Yeah, the Sultanates go on an awful long time and
they're still essentially Turkey is in this center of the Sultanate,
and you know, the the Axiom Empire continues to modern Ethiopia.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Yeah, they at least they at least there's there's a
good argument you could say that, yeah, Axium has had
and I well, gosh until the nineteen nineteen seventy. Yeah.
The argument. The argument was that it was a it
was an unbroken.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
A continual dynasty.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Yeah, yeah, unbroken line, which may not be quite as
true as they argue.
Speaker 3 (44:50):
But definitely not.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
Sad Sadly, it is a romantic tale and it is
one that, yeah, it makes a wonderful story.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
But there's a reason also why we talked about an
Axiom and an Ethiopian empire afterward. And you know, there's
I mean, there's but but it's it's they certainly had
had connections, but I don't know, if you start talking
about that, then you could also argue things, you know, what,
to what extent does the Carolingian Empire oh itself at
(45:23):
O to Rome as like an extension of it? And
of course their arguments of how much they were extension
of Rome was perhaps different than their actual lineage to Rome.
But Charlotte, I mean, ultimately Charlemagne is wins that argument somewhat.
When he's he's actually he's he's crowned in in Rome.
Isn't he an eight hundred?
Speaker 2 (45:44):
It's an interesting could we track and see who would
be the I mean, we can see who would be
the Napoleon hair could we we can see could you trade?
We see who could be the air in England if
we had decided we're going to take all the Catholics
out of the out of the you know, the not
a kingdom. But could we see who would be the
Roman emperor if if rum had continued.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Of course Rome, Rome, by the end of the House.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
Of Justinian still something trackable.
Speaker 1 (46:09):
I don't know that one might be better. Of course
by that by the time we get to the end
of the Roman Empire, they had a long and respectable
tradition of overthrowing whatever the ruling house.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
It wasn't really hereditary empire in Rome. So yeah, it
would be whoever, I guess the new Roman emperor? Who
would be ever?
Speaker 1 (46:28):
Who?
Speaker 3 (46:28):
You know?
Speaker 4 (46:29):
Whoever?
Speaker 1 (46:30):
Just had the you know, in that way, Charlemagne, Charlemagne
was very much living up to their their their traditions.
When he comes in and says, well, you're gonna crown me, now,
that's through force of arms.
Speaker 4 (46:43):
Now, I one of the one of the counterfactuals that
occurred to me was, and I alluded to it before,
what if Hannah is not the leader of Carthage during
and after the Battle of Kenney, because it seems as
(47:05):
if there was definitely some uh, there definitely was some
friction between Hannibal and Hanno, and Hanno the way that
he you know, refuses to send and just basically really
more or less humiliates and believes Mago, who was sent
to request reinforcements. Seems to me that, you know, there
(47:29):
was there was a lot of friction here. So what
if you have perhaps someone who was a distant cousin
in charge of Carthage, a distant cousin of Hannibal himself.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
Some of the more favorable to sending reinforcements did did, But
do they really have the capability to do that in
a meaningful way enough to be able to send people
from Carthage to arrive in Italy in order to attack Realm.
I mean, if if there's.
Speaker 4 (47:57):
More support for.
Speaker 2 (47:59):
For Hannibal that you know, is there even the capacity
for enough more support for it to change the scenario?
Speaker 1 (48:05):
Well, and it's it's a it's a fair question.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
I think there is in that. If you did not know,
there is a creature called the North African Bigfoot, which
is which is very similar to the North American Bigfoot.
And of course, you know, if if we have a
Carthaginian who could really strike a deal with eight foot tall,
five hundred pound by pedal creatures, then you really you
(48:31):
only really need a handful of those in order to
take a home, right, that's true.
Speaker 1 (48:35):
They don't need siege equipment if there.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Is tall No, no, no, they just they just checked
Carthaginians over the wall.
Speaker 4 (48:41):
And now can you imagine the ultimate uh, the ultimate
military expression of this, these bigfoot, these North African big
foot riding on African elephants.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Riding on African elephants. That's it. Yeah, so there elephant cavalry.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
Yes, this is when I was looking into bigfoot. There
there is this there's this Northern Italian bigfoot that's it
has has something somewhat more to do with, you know,
this kind of wild man European myth. But he he
was interesting because there is literally this Northern Italian legend
that the reason we learned how to I think it's
(49:23):
ricotta cheese is that this bigfoot makes cheese, and he
came and taught us how to how to make cheese.
And so it does seem like as far.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
As the story, I think the African Bigfoot is going
to beat up the Italian Bigfoot unless the African bigfoot
really likes cheese, and then the Bigfoot's become friends and
then turn on the Carthaginians and the Romans, And then
how is Roman? How is European culture different if it
is under they, yes.
Speaker 1 (49:53):
We have a we would have a much difference. We've
got an even greater culture of cheese.
Speaker 4 (50:00):
But yeah, but if there's an unfortunate if there's an
unfortunate falling out, and Racotta does not make its appearance
on the American pulinary scene, we no longer have Loazant.
Speaker 2 (50:12):
And we no longer have Alexander or Lasangnia cottage.
Speaker 1 (50:20):
Yeah, he also taught them how to make butter. So
this in this story, Italy's Bigfoot is a bringer of food.
Speaker 4 (50:29):
Are you sure this is not Wisconsin? I mean, there's
so much dairy it's.
Speaker 2 (50:33):
Hard to make it's butter. It is hard to make Italian.
But that is fair fair.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
And apparently, apparently, according to at least some legends, we
owe that to Bigfoot.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
But I agree that.
Speaker 1 (50:46):
It does seem like it does seem like the Italian
Bigfoot is more of a cook, a chef, an artisan
than he is a warrior.
Speaker 2 (50:55):
It sounds very Italy today.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
You see how they how the inection went.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
The African cook like ah, he's like job.
Speaker 1 (51:09):
Mud. So as far as the bigfoot go, do the
are the bigfoot able to shift the war? I am?
I am less than certain well and less than certain
on the Italian Bigfoot. I'm more certain only the African Bigfoot.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
What the numbers of African Bigfoot were in this period,
it's just uneknown But I mean, could they have come
in legion size you know bigfoots? Obviously they would have
been friends with the elephants, so they might have brought
their own elephants. And because they're you know, the coexisting
in the wild, and that could have been the force
that could be used to defeat from.
Speaker 1 (51:43):
Yes, you have to think that the legion worth of
African Bigfoot Africa might be enough.
Speaker 2 (51:48):
Mounted on African elephance.
Speaker 4 (51:49):
Can you imagine Scipio landing on the shores of North Africa,
faced immediately by the Bigfoot cavalry. I'm pretty sure he
would just say chase the right off the beaches.
Speaker 1 (52:07):
That would have if they were in great enough numbers.
That is what would have turned the that could have
kept the Caliphates out of North Africa, unless, of course
they also have more.
Speaker 2 (52:18):
Bigfoot, and at that point there's probably some form of
Middle Eastern big Foot. And look at that.
Speaker 1 (52:24):
Yeah, if you're get a Middle Eastern Bigfoot, especially one
that you know becomes is Islamic, we have Muslim.
Speaker 2 (52:33):
Bigfoot, Campbell Squatch, we have.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
We have a very different a very different history working
its way out along the Mediterranean.
Speaker 2 (52:46):
This has got to be a war game somewhere, as
everybody wants to know. Could yet a defeat Bigfoot, defeat
or pandic We haven't ever really had that competition.
Speaker 4 (52:59):
I can say that in my voluminous knowledge of war
games and wargaming history. That's a conflict that has not
been covered in standard constant wargames.
Speaker 1 (53:11):
So okay, So that's that when we when we launched
the History Guy Games Board Games imprint, the first thing
we come up with is the big big war big
per This is this is what is absence in the
gaming market of today.
Speaker 2 (53:29):
That's what it is. It's when you look at alternative history,
Bigfoot is under considered by historians. They're trying to see
how history could be different. I mean, I think they're
simply missing out on the great possibility that had Bigfoot
chosen to engage, history would be different.
Speaker 1 (53:45):
Very different. I agree, And that's that's really why we
we make this podcast.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
Is too someone has to advocate for alternate Bigfoot based history.
Someone's got to be doing it because it's just too
important to pass out.
Speaker 4 (53:58):
Yes, my mission in life.
Speaker 1 (54:03):
Thank you for listening to this episode of the History
Guy podcast. We hope you enjoyed this episode of counterfactual history,
and if you did, you can find lots more history
if you follow the History Guy on YouTube. You can
also find us at the historygui dot com, Facebook, Patreon,
and locals. If you want to hear more counterfactuals, stay tuned.
We release podcasts every two weeks