Carthaginian or Phoenician? - Page 2

Ironwood · October 18, 2001, 04:58

NOOOO! Phonecians must win!

Wernazuma III · October 18, 2001, 06:23

Wow, this is getting close. With my vote it's 12:12. The Phoenicians are the overall civilization that also includes Carthage. Carthage was only a political entity, no proper Civ.

Locutus · October 18, 2001, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by jsw363

Locutus-
Agreed, but it IS a great book. Good to hear that there are other people out there reading it. I think that it was one of my favorite books in Latin. I still remember the opening lines... Gallia est omnis divisa en partes tres... Actually seemed relevant and realistic. Yes, it's definitely propaganda, but it provides a great insight into Ceasar's psyche and the Gallic War. Just a shout out to Latin scholars out there...

Well, I was actually forced to read it by my Latin teacher

But looking back it is indeed a most interesting book, not in the last place because because Ceasar's Latin is a lot more readable than Cicero's

Alexander I · October 18, 2001, 23:32

I think Firaxis' general policy is to give the unit to whomever started it. India first brought out the war elephants, so it's only fitting that it should be their UU.

Carthage used Elephants well, but couldn't have done it without trade with India.

So civs like Phoenicia-Carthage and Persia could supplement their forces with War Elephants they bought from India, without having to have it as their UU. (That's like real life.)

Locutus · October 19, 2001, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander01
Carthage used Elephants well, but couldn't have done it without trade with India.

Eh...didn't you read my posts? Carthage got the idea of war elephants from Greece, not from India (though the Greeks *did* get them from India). Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post.

Rosacrux · October 19, 2001, 09:45

I hate to sound like a nitpick (once more...) but I have to add some details - flesh it out, so to say - to Locutus's thing about war elephants.
King Pyrros of Hepirus was the first one introducing elephants in the European theatre of war. His famus invasion in the Italian peninsula didn't achieved its aim (to get rid of Rome and unite Italy under Greek rule) but it gave the Romans for the first time the chance to face that huge beasts.

Pyrros himself has got his war elephants from the hellenistic kingdom of Egypt (I think... it might have been Syria though...) which got them from... yes, India. And the Carthagenian had aquired the idea of using war elephants both from Persia (they had been dealing with the Persian empire before Alexander eliminated it) and the Hellenistic kingdoms.

Elephants did not play a major part in Hannibals campaign - he didn't have even one in the famous battle at Cannes, where his army of less than 40.000 Carthagenian, Nubians, Celts, Iberes and Gauls slaughtered 75.000 Roman legionaires...

Did you knew his generals were Carthagenian and Greek - namely Spartans? And allmost the whole of his army were mercenaries - allmighty Roman Legions bowed before a band of mercenaries!!!

...btw does it seem quite funny to you too that Hannibal, being the great general he was, didn't seize the opportunity to ransack Rome and eliminate the potential danger for Carthago? I mean, it's one of the things I never could understand - Rome was virtually defenseless after Cannes and he was a one week march from Rome - why didn't he conquered Rome???

Locutus · October 19, 2001, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux
I hate to sound like a nitpick (once more...) but I have to add some details - flesh it out, so to say - to Locutus's thing about war elephants.

Good comments. Yeah, I deliberately kept it short 'cause I know that when I really let meself go I'll end up with a complete essay that's too long to fit in a single post

Quote:

Pyrros himself has got his war elephants from the hellenistic kingdom of Egypt (I think... it might have been Syria though...)

I think it was Syria.

Quote:

...btw does it seem quite funny to you too that Hannibal, being the great general he was, didn't seize the opportunity to ransack Rome and eliminate the potential danger for Carthago? I mean, it's one of the things I never could understand - Rome was virtually defenseless after Cannes and he was a one week march from Rome - why didn't he conquered Rome???

Rome was far from defenseless actually. Hannibal defeated a large portion of the Roman army but not all of it, the rest was still located in central Italy. More importantly, Rome still had a lot of allies in central Italy who together could muster an impressive army. Combine that with the mighty walls and other defenses of Rome itself and you'll see that Hannibal still had a tough opponent to face. Also, he had already lost a great number of his own troops in crossing the Alps and in the battles on the Italian countryside so he was in desperate need of reinforcements before he could besiege or storm any major Italian city, let alone Rome. The Romans were smart enough to prevent any reinforcements from reaching Italy by using what remained of their army plus a large mercenary force to attack Spain and Carthage itself.

Rosacrux · October 19, 2001, 11:25

Actually I did some reading about Cannes a few days ago and from the top of my head (if I can find the study I'll translate a couple quotes from it here tommorow) I can tell you it stated clearly that the Roman Legions remaining after Cannes were 2, both consisted of recruits (youngsters) - I guess you know that every legion was consisted (roughly) of 5000 Romans and same number of allies. The force they send to face Hannibal in Cannes, was 8/10 of their full military potential - and they have used the whole of their recruiting ability (ie no more youngsters to recruit - they were all dead in Cannes).

OTOH, the allies were surely a potential threat. They had many more troops and if combined together under Roman leadership they could hit Hannibal while stationed close to Rome and make him suffer badly.

That (an attack when camped) would also eliminate the great strategic advantage of Hannibal - the ability to pick the right place and the right time for the battle and move quickly to avoid his enemies if the odds weren't right.

But I still can't find this adequate - he could force some allies among the not-so-satisfied with Rome "allies" to join his ranks or at least remain neutral and Carthago could help him with a new fleet and recruits - hell, he and his army roamed the Italian peninsula for years.

His own brother (Hamilko? I don't remember the name right now...) has been bickering him for his lack of confidence that didn't let him go for Rome: "Hannibal, you know how to win but you yet have to learn how to take advantage of your victories"...

orange · October 19, 2001, 13:24

After the massacre at Cannes, Rome decided to ditch the battle of numbers which they had previously fought with, and went back to hit and run tactics until Hannibal was forced to leave. The homeland was a huge advantage for Rome, surprisingly Carthage wasn't able to use the same idea to their advantage at Zama.

TubalCain · October 19, 2001, 16:53

Hmmm... a 15/15 vote. At what point do we declare it a tie?

orange · October 19, 2001, 17:03

When and only when the Phoenician vote takes the lead

Rosacrux · October 19, 2001, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
When and only when the Phoenician vote takes the lead

Now that's what I call just and fair!

Rasbelin · October 20, 2001, 04:32

But what about me?

I want Carthage!

Locutus · October 20, 2001, 09:12

Rosacrux,
Well, I don't have any numbers but I'll assume the ones you mention are accurate. In that case you have 10,000 odd Roman soldiers defending a single, heavily fortified, city (like Orange said, after Cannes the Romans took a very defensive posture). You need an awful lot of men and equipment to defeat such a stronghold and Hannibal simply did not have those things. You give numbers on how little Romans were left but you don't give any numbers on how many Carthaginians were left, my bet is it can't have been all that many more.

At Cannes, Rome and its allies lost their courage to attack Hannibal out in the open but Hannibal, despite his many allies in southern Italy, Sicily, Spain, Greece and Macedonia, could not strike where and when he wanted either. The only place where the Romans were willing to fight him was from inside their fortified cities and, without the reinforcements that never came, Hannibal simply did not have enough power to take these cities on. That is exactly why he roamed the Italian peninsula for years without really accomplishing anything. True, there where complaints from Carthage about Hannibal's lack of confidence but who could better judge this situation? A bunch of arrogant and inexperienced aristocrats who safely observed developments from their cosy, well-fortified palaces on a faraway continent, or a brilliant and experienced general who was actually on the scene doing all the work? True, in the end Hannibal made a few mistakes and lost a war he could just as easily have won but to say that Rome was at his feet, ready for him to take at his leisure, is an underestimation of Rome's power.

Rosacrux · October 20, 2001, 11:24

Locutus
Could be, yes. What you and orange suggest might just be it, but still I believe a determined Hannibal who lost about 8000 men in Cannes (that should leave him adequate forces to march on Rome) could and should take the chance.

Anyway, just to point out that his bro wasn't orgying at Carthago, he was with him in the whole Italian adventure - ALL Hannibals generals suggested a raid on Rome after Cannes.

But, history is not written by "iffs" - Hannibal was ante portas but didn't go beyond portae

Rasbelin · October 20, 2001, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux

But, history is not written by "iffs" - Hannibal was ante portas but didn't go beyond portae.

I appologise for my apparently low education,
compared to a such scholar like You, Rosacrux
(BTW, sounds like the Rosetta stone).

But could you please translate that Latin
nonsense to more widely used English?

Rosacrux · October 21, 2001, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin

I appologise for my apparently low education,
compared to a such scholar like You, Rosacrux
(BTW, sounds like the Rosetta stone).

But could you please translate that Latin
nonsense to more widely used English?

RPFL

That latin nosense means "hannibal was at the gates, but didn't go past gates"... I guess it explains itself now, right? Aren't you aware with the very widely used saying "hannibal ante portas"???

BTW my name is latin too... the first one who comes up with an accurate translation/definition wins a cookie

Locutus · October 21, 2001, 08:31

Well, Rosacrux, like you said: could be. A more determined Hannibal might indeed have attacked Rome. Personally I think that it takes an enormous amount of confidence and courage to take an army (esp. one with elephants) through the Alps so IMHO confidence is the last thing Hannibal lacked but noone will ever know for sure.

Rasbelin, you heathen! How can you not know that saying!

Hmm, that's odd actually. I have always known the saying to be 'Hannibal ad portas', not Hannibal ante portas'. To me, the latter sounds more like someone took the English translation and translated it back to Latin. I did some quick research and apparently the world is divided on what the real saying is supposed to be. I noticed this with some other famous Roman sayings too: "alea iacta est" and "iacta alea est", "et tu, Brute?" and "et tu, Brutus?", "Carthago delenda est" and "delenda est Carthago", etc. The first version is how I know them, the second is apparently a common variation. Weird...

Oh BTW, Rosacrux means Rose Cross of course. If memory serves me, a red rose on a golden cross was a symbol that was originally associated with the Philosopher's Stone somehow but later Rosacrux became the name for some sort of Christian Brotherhood. I can't be bothered with looking up the details, I'm sure Rosacrux can give those himself. Did I win that cookie?

Rosacrux · October 21, 2001, 09:11

ROFL

You earned your cookie well and a cookie you shall get... choco? Or the dull one with raisin?

About latin grammar

Well, I always knew it to be "ante portas" but I wouldn't trash your "ad" thinking of it...

Still, the rest of the "your version" sayings are accurate - the "widely known" version are definitely wrong. I haven't seen anyone say "e preterea censeo delenda Carthago est"... that's more German syntaxis than Latin

The latin nitpicking reminds me of the "Life of Brian" scene... you know the one "Romani ate domini"?

And... you got the facts straight on Rosacrux (hence the cookie

) but... "sort of a christian brotherhood"??? Come on, read the "Illuminati" or "Fuceults pendant" to find out who those are...

...just a hint: Who are the real rulers of the world?

Rasbelin · October 21, 2001, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux

That latin nosense means "hannibal was at the gates, but didn't go past gates"... I guess it explains itself now, right?

O great scholar, thank you very much!

Quote:

Aren't you aware with the very widely used saying "hannibal ante portas"???

No but the Civ II's "Omnia paratus" slogan is
more familiar to me; and I think it's a good one.

"Ready for everything."

Quote:

BTW my name is latin too... the first one who comes up with an accurate translation/definition wins a cookie

I guess it's a browser cookie.

Rasbelin · October 21, 2001, 15:27

*celebrating the new prince status*

orange · October 21, 2001, 20:12

It's to close to call!

Ironwood · October 22, 2001, 01:07

Excelent. Carthage cannot win. For as Cato the Elder was so fond of saying:

"Carthage must be destroyed!"

How does one say this in Latin, Rosacrux?

Wernazuma III · October 22, 2001, 02:56

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

orange · October 22, 2001, 17:53

Can't you people make up your mind! Vote already! We need a clear and decisive winner in this poll so we can decide which civ to include in the game. Please vote!