Cato....no, not the Green Hornets spin kicking off-sider, but 'The Elder' in the Roman senate had a mantra.

"Carthage must be destroyed." Anyone wishing to make informed comment on this, should read the background here "Punic Wars"

http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/punicwar/

Read it? :) good..now you can comment.

Once Carthage had finally been reduced to "client of Rome" status when Hannibal was defeated, they were rather left to go their own way within strictly defined borders.

The bleeding hearts had learned nothing from the 1st or 2nd Punic wars which almost destroyed Rome, (hmmm echo's of WW1 and WW2?).. so they were happy for Carthage to carry on it's merry way...and it did, surpassing Rome in trade and commerce.
This annoyed Rome, and good ol Cato, predicted that they would indeed launch another anti Rome adventure, and of course in due course, they did. 3rd Punic war. (Kuwait?)

So..Cato frequented all the right cocktail parties and in every 2nd sentence added "by the way..Carthage must be destroyed"...

Eventually, it was, and from that day to this, no more 'Carthage problem'.

Cato the NeoCon, (I believe he was genetically connected to Oswald Mosely :)aah..

<<Although Hannibal never again actually threatened Rome,>> said the bleeding hearts "He's never been convicted of a crime" they said...

<<his memory did constantly. He became a monster, a cruel and crafty invader who was stopped only by epic courage and perseverance. It is a measure of the fear his name inspired that long after he was dead and gone,>>

OOoooyeah.. see how the NeoCons turned him into the international boogy man? Of course the 1st and 2nd Punic wars had nothing to do with this, nor the one battle during which more men were lost than any other in history..ever (Battle of Cannae) Nope..it was just Neocon hype and 'intolerant hate speech' :)

What do you think?

What?

"Carthage must be destroyed."

And do you wonder why I keep refering to

"Carbon Tax - Socialism by Stealth"?

Bugsy... *think* :)

Did you read the information? I doubt it.. very illuminating.

Learn from history, or.. die due to ignorance of it.

"There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiasties)

Neocons.. Socialists...bleeding hearts... soft left.. hard right...hard left ...it's all there...

David, I can see some parallel's betwenn you and Cato but much of the rest of what you have written has not come from the articles you refered to.

As I've pointed out elsewhere you owe a lot to the "bleeding hearts". Maybe a bit more time thinking about just what you owe them would help rather than constantly griping about those with more compassion than yourself.

R0bert

Thanx Rob, yes.. I do identify a little with Cato... my spin kicks are getting better...oops..hang on.. getting confused there :)
No.. the difference between me and the Roman Cato is pretty simple. He advocated the literal physical and total destruction of Carthage.(for the reasons of the punic wars.. Hanibal.. who was clearly an excellent General, had fantastic intelligence(gathering) and used his resources to the max.
My goal is the ideological destruction of anything which takes people away from God, and towards that horrible place called hell.
Paul put it this way.
a)"eternally condemned" to those who preach a different gospel.
coupled with
b)"the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (i.e. not earthly,human, fleshly, military type..no..they are ideological)

The problem is.. if you allow an ideological "Carthage" to trade freely, and prosper, we will end up with the '3rd Punic war' on the cultural level. Note how it began.
Factors:
1/ Carthage was being raided by non Roman tribes who used the safety of the Rome imposed borders across which Cathaginians were forbidden to go. (Does Afghanistan come to mind?)
2/ They eventually got sick of being raided, and finally we had the Cronulla riots.. WOAH.. no.. not that sorry,slips we had the 3rd Punic war :)

THE BATTLE OF CANNAE... 85,000 Romans destroyed by around 40,000 Carthaginians.

I wonder if there is any brave soul out there, who can look at the various forces, tactical layout and marshalling by the 2 sides, and suggest why the Romans lost? (Note the topography, the river, troop deployment)

Is there any lesson in that for us today? If so..what? (besides 'institutionalize BD' :)

Actually Boazy, I do not need to read your basic summary of the Punic Wars to know what they were about, and the rise of Hannibal etc.

But I seriously do not see anything that resembles the neo-cons and any current situation, except in the most superficial of ways.

Carthage was an ancient Mediterranean superpower before Rome was an upstart colony living in their own filth. It was Rome that had to take it down if it had any chance of taking over the Mediterranean, the only way to expand was to take from Carthage. The 'Carthage Problem' was one of colonial type expansionism that had a serious and close to equal foe.

After Carthage's destruction of course, all sorts of rumours and tales were started to justify that particular genocide (and genocide it was), like they sacrificed their own babies etc.

Yes, I do see some resemblance between you and Cato then, but the comparison is not flattering.

BUGSY.. that was a much more meaningful contribution.. even though a tad critical.
I don't know why you compare me unfavorably to Cato, I explained that my 'war' is ideological not physical.

Now.. how about applying that briliant mind of yours to the Battle of Cannae? :) let's have a distraction/diversion from the 'heat of battle' and see how we might shape up as 'generals'... might be refreshing.
I'll outline a strategy when I see the first from another, then you can crit it's strengths (if any) and weaknesses....

Call this 'Mini Duntroon' grin.

Dear David,

Your version of events differs from mine.

Carthage was one of the greatest cities of ancient times. It was probably the first city-state to control an empire. Much of western North Africa, southern Spain, Sardinia, Corsica, and the western half of Sicily came under Carthage's rule.

The people of Carthage were more interested in trade than in conquest.
However, the Carthaginians used military power when they felt that it was necessary.

Carthage did fight and lose three wars called the Punic Wars with Rome, from 264 to 241, 218 to 201, and 149 to 146 B.C. The genius of Hannibal, a Carthaginian general, nearly won the second war for Carthage.

Carthage later became an important city in the Roman Empire.
St. Augustine was one of its famous inhabitants.

The final destruction of Carthage did not come until A.D. 698 - not at the hands of Romans, but at the hands of Arabs.

As for Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder, he began his political career under Valerius Flaccus, a Roman with great influence. Flaccus was impressed with Cato's service to Rome in the war against Hannibal of Carthage. Cato was known as a man who generally opposed change.

For 50 years after the war, Cato fought against the luxury Romans enjoyed as the city's wealth increased. As 'censor' (a high administrative official) Cato tried to restore simplicity to Roman life. He became known as 'Cato the Censor.'

It wasn't until towards the end of his life, when he became alarmed by the recovery of Carthage, that he used the phrase "Carthage must be destroyed." It had nothing to do with the Punic Wars - they had taken place much earlier.

Jeez Boazy, you really know how raise topical issues of the day!
<sarcasm rating=9/10>

And Foxy, your version of events seems to differ from everyone's! The city you may be referring to as 'Carthage' (destroyed by the Arabs), was the Roman one, rebuilt at the same site.

This is another link as why comparison with Cato is not favourable:
http://www.unrv.com/empire/third-punic-war.php

Boazy, while you say it's only 'ideological' you are in the same camp as the imperial expansionists, the destroyers of independence and peace. You may not want to physically wipe out your enemies, but your philosophical allies differ. How many people will it take to die before you realise what ultimate consequences your 'ideological' war will have (and is having)?

Bugsy, from what I recall from the history lessons I had some time ago, Carthage was Rome's first large opponent.

Boaz, this quote from you caught my eye: "My goal is the ideological destruction of anything which takes people away from God, and towards that horrible place called hell."

Given that secularism is an attempt to live without religion at all, including the concepts of god, do you then admit you're opposed to secularism, or are you going to qualify that statement?

Dear Bugsy,

I should have clarified the point I was trying to make for you, that is:

Carthage fought and lost three wars called the Punic Wars with Rome, from 264 to 241, 218 to 201, and 149 to 146 B.C. The genius of Hannibal, nearly won the second war for Carthage. But Carthage was destroyed in the third war. Carthage later became an important city in the Roman Empire.

Carthage was overrun by the Vandals around A.D. 430. The final destruction of Carthage came in A.D. 698 at the hands of Arabs. (my source of information is - The World Book Encyclopedia).

David, perhaps you should read the material which you insisted everybody else read.

Some good parallels, we had a hate filled rabbel rouser calling for the destruction of Carthage. We have the Carthagens who are good at trade and in competition with Rome. We had Carthage take what was a sensible action to defend itself against the hostile actions of a third party. Those actions posed no direct threat to Rome but provided a convenient excuse for Cato to incite violence against Carthage.

Cato used the flimsiest pretexts to carry out his campaign of hate against his competition. He went around inciting violence and hatred at every opportunity.

I see why you identify so closely with him.

R0bert

Hi Rob...
I disagree that Cato was 'hate filled'...he might have been, but I don't see that as his prime motivation. He was motivated by a knowledge of both human nature and history.

*flimsiest Pretexts* ? oooooh my.. errr tap tap.. helloooo 2 Punic wars, whereby Rome could have been eternally destroyed. The only reason it wasnt is because Hanibal held back from a final attack. He may or may not have won, but given his track record..I think he would have done it.

Cato was very 'neocon' in his desire to see the danger spots of the 'World' as it was then, under Roman control and dominance. He knew from bitter experience what might happen if it were otherwise.

One of the points I'm seeking to highlight in this thread, is the rather 'pragmatic' and self seeking nature of earthly politics, no matter how it's dressed up as 'national interest' and self defense.

My hope then is, that the likes of Wobbles Passy, Marilyn Shepherd, Bronwyn, Vanilla,Fractelle, Ginx and Keith, will recognize that THAT is what drives people and there is really no 'good' guy..its only the 'winning' bloke that ultimately counts. (not that I'm advocating this approach, I'm simply demonstrating how it works...using history as the example.) Pericles is one of the few who deep down recognizes this, but if "I" am the one speaking about it (*smile*) he cannot resist taking a shot at me and coming up with the standard "You are spreading hate/you are part of the problem" mantra.

How people can naively believe that the UN does anything other than 'mask' these realities for a gullible chunk of humanity continues to fascinate and amaze me.

PS.. where are the "Generals" among us ? Battle of Cannae? c'mon..its not a trick question.

BUGSY... learn from the past to understand the present. History is ALways relevant to the issues of the day mate. We have the continual uninformed and naive chirping and muttering from the false political prophets claiming that 'their way' will solve all our problems.. UTTER ROT and you know it. The REASON neither Left nor Right, Green Red or brindle will solve our problems is... the same problem Rome faced.
Or as Jim Carey in Liar liar said as he exited the now very smelly lift "It was MEEEEEE" :)

Last post refers to the silliness of 'blaming' this or that force for out ills, and I 'name and shame' a few of our left leaning posters :)

TRTL I'll clarify. I have an absolute goal of utterly destroying secularism as an idea on which to base society. I know it will not be successful, but the bigger objective of destroying 'secularism' is to remove it as something to have 'faith' in for life.
But my 'weapons' are simply argument, reason history and logic. There will be not 'Christian Gulag' for secularists :)
Paul argued daily at the hall of Tyrannus.

<<But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.>>
Acts 19:9

TRTL..the alternative is true Christian community. Not for government, but for personal and social renewal. A government which emerges from that, will hopefully reflect also the values of the Lord. Sadly, due to the many 'Cathages' in this world, and the competitive nature of people, and greed, it's better for the government to be secular so that people are not put off from Salvation by repressive Christian governments.

Foxy..that extra information is welcome.

NOW.... how would 'you' fight the battle of Cannae as a Roman? :) (thats addressed to all)

Gee, thanks for dragging me into this thread but I feel that, when it comes down to it, people have ALWAYS been driven more by self-interest than some higher principle.

They grasp onto things that support their beliefs and prejudices, whether they are political parties or mythical deities. People tend to take a position and work backwards from there to justify it.

Unlike some, I have no vested (self)-interest in achieving eternal life by promoting one belief by simply attacking another. My arguments are based on the individual premise of right or wrong.

I think you’ll find my approach has always been to demonstrate that BOTH sides are usually at fault, which you may have mistaken for a defence of the indefensible. I think its important to stray from the “script” from time-to-time. That's the degree of my own self-interest, to challenge prejudices.

As for the neo-cons and other vested interests, I think this sums it up well for me –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

http://www.horstwisdom.com/wiki/index.php5?title=War_is_a_Racket

If you want to use ancient Roman analogies, how about this one for some perspective?

http://spiritofmaat.com/archive/may2/prns/faktrror.htm

The UN is just a façade for those who really call the shots. If you believe the UN somehow runs the world, I think you’re sadly mistaken. It’s a lot like the IOC – an organisation based on self-interest and under the control of powerful interests.

The UN (particularly the Security Council) is obviously imperfect but what is there to replace it? Until something better comes along, what alternative do we really have? The Law of the Jungle?

Dear David,

The answer to your question, "How would we win the battle of Cannae?"
lies in these two websites:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

Have fun!

WOBBLES... nice to see we are on the same page for a change :)

You also feel into my "TRAP" hehe.. aarr..which trap he says? the one which showed me you read my posts *wink*

On the UN.. mate..I'm way ahead of you there.. straining at the bit, yelling it loud and clear.

It gives me no joy to condemn certain idealogical dangers as I see them, but I do see some as real dangers rather than the type Crassus invented for his own benefit. I liked that article, read it, and it just confirms my long held belief that things are indeed that way at the highest levels of power, whether democratic or otherwise.

FOXY.. hey :) err.. you just gave me links to descriptions of the battle.. not a 'strategy' which might have won it for the Romans.

In the same way that Hanibal made good use of his resources, even though numerically inferior (except his cavalry) the Romans COULD (if Varro had at least half a brain in his head) have... better deployed their resources.

My approach is to use the same levels of deception and faking, attack and blocking that are used in physical combat. Of course the principles apply to any combative sport. One thing is certain, approaching say a boxing bout with the same rashness as Varro, will result in a very severe 'whacking' :)

In fact.. I was sparring with a friend the other night, and as I did one move, I moved my other hand around to protect my face which otherwise was exposed.... but.. got whacked.. and whacked.. until I realized that I wasn't holding my protective hand far ENUF around.. aah..then I was ok. So, for those who would love to give me a 'whack' sometimes :) don't worry.. already done.

"My approach is to use the same levels of deception and faking"

Yeah I'd noticed and that from somebody who claims to serve a god who is supposed to be about truth. That's one of the reasons many of us don't have a lot of respect for your faith. You value deception and fakery.

R0bert

Dear David,

The links I gave you clearly illustrate the tactics that the Romans should not have used. The battle of Cannae has served as a classic example of a 'double-envelopment' maneuver, a way for an inferior force to defeat a superior force on an open terrain. Hannibals tactics at Cannae are still studied in military academies.

Clearly the Romans should not have allowed themselves to get surrounded - with no place to move, they should have attacked the wings, not the centre. It's a case of putting 'all your eggs into the one basket.' Militarily, big mistake.

Quite so, R0bert. Boazy's tiresome predilection for "deception and faking" in his posts to this forum is one reason I lack respect for him. - and not just intellectually. It's hard to respect continual mendacity.

Which is of course the very reason I've avoided this silly thread thus far. Ciao!

Dear Foxy... well_done :)

yep.. in my view they (Romans) concentrated far too many of their best troops in the centre, and used 'military orthodoxy' as their guide rather than practical common sense.

It should have been clear that if you just mass troops on the centre, those AT the very centre can't even DO anything, until the others are killed around them.

I don't know that attacking the wings alone would have done it, I think an associated faking of frontal attack, then apparent withdrawal..(exactly as the Hanibal did) and then..IF the quarry took the bait, then you can indeed surround and destroy them.

In terms of intelligence, the Romans SHOULD have known that Hanibal had superior heavy cavalry, and that the potential for being outflanked was high.

I would be most interested to see what Hanibal did, IF the Romans had fought for a while then feined 'defeat' by withdrawing.. would he recognize his own tactics being used against him, or been sucked in and told them to just go for it? or.. withdrawn for a re staging after reveiwing the tactical situation.

The Romans biggest problem was Vallus.. 'rash and impuslive'

Given the river as a 'barrier to escape'.. I think I would have done the following:

1/ Placed physical impediments against cavalry on the flanks (to counter the Carthaginian superiority of numbers.

2/ Used my strongest infantry along with the Cavalry at the flanks to take out Hanibals cavalry, while the centre is more a 'treading water' exercise..keeping the enemy occupied.

3/ If the victory over Hanibals flank cavalry was successful, then the Romans would be in the same position Hanibal was after the Roman centre became deeply enmeshed in his own, and they could embark on a pincer movement themselves.

4/ At all costs, the river flank of the Cathaginians would need to be held from advancing, to seal the encirclement and prevent escape or a flanking movement by them.

I can well imagine why this and other battles are studied. The Battle of Yarmuk (Byzantine/Roman defeat by Muslims) is another worthy of serious contemplation.

Dear David,

Just for your information... My husband became quite fascinated with the Battle of Cannae, and especially with the challenge you put forward.

The end result being was, he came up with the same conclusion as you did.
Almost word for word.

How about that?

So, Thank You for an interesting thread.

Ur most welcome Foxy

If I have achieved some interested interaction.... I'm very happy :)

Simply 'thinking' about such things can better prepare us all for events which may some day engulf us.

I hope some of our other 'brainiacs' like Bugsy and CJ and Pericles will venture a strategy :) but they seem best at just criticizing the work of others than offering original information. (now that should annoy them enuf for a retort :)

I'm interested in 'PEACEFUL' solutions if anyone has any to offer.

We so often hear "We must not resolve conflict with violence".....

ok..wait...

a bit more...

still recovering.....

Almost there....

OK.. NOW I'm ready.. the choking, laughing fit my quote there triggered took a while to recover from :)

Serious now, .. we do need to distinguish between international conflict and more personal localized. No way should we solve ideological disagreements with a punch on!

Not sure what you want to hear, Boaz.

>>I hope some of our other 'brainiacs' like Bugsy and CJ and Pericles will venture a strategy :) but they seem best at just criticizing the work of others than offering original information. (now that should annoy them enuf for a retort<<

The pattern I associate with your habit of grabbing at gobbets of information and turning them into a "topic", is that they usually morph into a sermon on the beauties of your religious faith.

Until that happens I'll keep my powder dry, thank you.

So, when exactly do you intend to drop the other shoe?

Pericles.. actually.. I am most interested in alternative strategies to apply to this battle... no other shoe I'm afraid this time. No sermon.

We are dealing with history here, and also, I'm rather hoping that some of us represent sufficient sense and creativity to approach an important battle in a way which would win it.

I often wonder about these ancient battles.. I mean.. I read in one part about this battle that 'after 3 hours of fighting'..... good grief.
I'm about as fit as I've ever been now.. and I (and blokes 1/3 my age) can last about a minute flat stick in one go, and that's not eve with my life at stake.

Combat (even the friendly kind) is so incredibly draining, that I just 'boggle' at the idea of a 3 hour battle involving hand to hand combat, heavy armor and increasingly heavy weapons.

We can see small glimpses into the mindset of these generals..they were fully aware of the differences between elite trained troops and barely trained canon fodder.

Vallus had a group called 'hastarti' from memory.. less trained.. he put them at the FRONT of his 'centre'.. and I can only imagine this was to wear out the front line soldiers of Hanibal so the stronger troops (at the rear)could more easily deal with them.

This seems to fly in the face of Roman strategy of using the 'Turtle' to penetrate or defend.

Seems Hanibal not only read Sun Tze, but remembered more :)

Pericles.. *fair warning*... you might wish to describe this one as 'the other shoe' but not really.

I want to allude to a strategy gleaned from the Old Testament, Gideon in particular, and show how this strategy fits the approach also of Sun Tzu who said "Deception" is the best thing in war.

BACKGROUND.
Midianite oppression, burnt earth strategy against Israelites.
Israelites fading, dying, starving.
They cry for help from God.
God orders Gideon to save Israel.
Gideon raises an army of around 30,000
God prunes them back to 300 (so the Israelites cannot boast about 'their 'strength)
Gideon then approaches the Midianite camp, and orders his vastly outnumbered men to do a strange thing.

Move around the Midianite camp, with trumpets and torches (Hidden in Jars). His method was simple. "What you see me do, do also"

The command was given, Jars were broken, torches exposed, trumpets blasted...and the impact was such that the Midianite camp fell into total confusion and panic, and ended up killing each other (night time..poor visibility)

Applying this to the Roman predicament may have worked wonders!

The Romans at Cannae fell into the very trap that Gideon was told to avoid "By our strength, we will win"

Overconfidence is often our worst enemy. Surprise, deceit, can be our greatest allies against seemingly insurmountable odds.

There must be a host of scenarios of deception and diversion and distraction which come to some bright minds among us? Please share.

With the greatest respect, Boaz, this is nonsense.

>>We are dealing with history here, and also, I'm rather hoping that some of us represent sufficient sense and creativity to approach an important battle in a way which would win it<<

History cannot be massaged in this way for any useful purpose.

"Sense" and "creativity" are all very fine attributes, but cannot come to any justifiable conclusions, since they can only produce a sequence of "ifs".

As my wise old grandmother used to say, "if 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers"

I know a lot of Germans who would like to rule that Geoff Hurst's goal hadn't crossed the line, and they would have been certain to go on and win the 1966 World Cup. But it wasn't, and they didn't.

Incidentally, what evidence do you have that Hannibal read Sun Tzu?

>>Seems Hanibal not only read Sun Tze, but remembered more<<

I somehow doubt that there was an Arabic translation available to him, or that he was able to read Chinese.

Whatever happened to your original theory, which postulated that Cato was a "NeoCon", and related to Oswald Mosley?

Perhaps you would like to explain that a little further, rather than rabbit on about changing history.

aAAh.. sorry Pericles.. when I have tongue in cheek you can't 'see' that from the post :)

Hanibal and Sun Tzu? I haven't a clue if he knew he existed. Just postulating and playing with words and ideas.

How about a strategy to defeat Hanibal?

It is so difficult to tell sometimes, Boaz.

>>aAAh.. sorry Pericles.. when I have tongue in cheek you can't 'see' that from the post :)<<

You quite regularly say things as if they are incontrovertible fact, only to back off when challenged. Since I had no idea from the context whether you actually think you know what you are talking about, or "have tongue in cheek", I thought it worth another challenge. After all, you brought up the connection on two separate occasions...

>>Hanibal and Sun Tzu? I haven't a clue if he knew he existed. Just postulating and playing with words and ideas.<<

Well, to paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, you would say that, wouldn't you? The sheer pointlessness of bringing up the connection, if you were fully aware that there was none, defies exaggeration.

>>How about a strategy to defeat Hanibal?<<

News flash: Hannibal was defeated by Scipio at Zama, losing 20,000 men to the Roman 1,500.

Next question?