Battles Of The 2nd Punic War

[P.Clodius]

I'm leaving Zama off for obvious reasons. I voted for Metaurus, it being the potential make or break battle for the Romans. And for the gutsy move by G. Claudius Nero, hoodwinking the master hoodwinker, marching 200+miles in 7 days, breaking the law by entering another consuls delegated area or responsiblity, then having to work closely with someone whom he hated, and hated him for a common purpose. Then returning to "announce" the news to Hannibal about his reinforcements and his brothers fate. Now that's awesome movie material!!

Edited January 3, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Pertinax]

I agree ,and letting the Gauls get away to tell of the fate of their army.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Nova Carthago, heck, you just caused the enemy to lose a prime source of real fighting soldiers and other resources, not to mention the abundant metals (especially gold) needed to make weapons,armor, et alia.

Edited January 3, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Primus Pilus]

This may sound strange... but Cannae.

 

Destroyed, overwhelmed, thoroughly humiliated and any adjective you can think of... Yet, Rome perservered and defied the enemy in the face of what could have been ultimate disaster, while largely maintaining loyalty from its Italian allies.

 

By the definition of the question I know I am wrong, as any loss on this scale could not be defined as tactical victory, but Rome's quick recovery and resiliency is among the defining moments that made Rome what it was, in my opinion of course.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Funny, I voted for Cannae too. It taught Rome a valuable lesson--tactically, strategically, and poltically. It was an expensive lesson, but how many Lake Trasimenes would have been required otherwise before Rome woke up?

Edited January 4, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[P.Clodius]

Cannae is certainly a significant event but keep in mind rome was split between its traditional method of fighting war, i.e. the pitbull method and the new Fabian method. It was the concilium plebis that set Cannae in motion. Only after Cannae did the romans strike the balance between Fabian and pitbull.

 

Funny, I voted for Cannae too. It taught Rome a valuable lesson--tactically, strategically..

 

Certainly many of the future millitary leaders were at Cannae and learned great tactical lessons, but strategically? I don't think so. Hannibal's flaw was that he failed to appreciate the romans socially, politically and economically. Tactically he knew the romans and used their strength against them but had he fully appreciated the other factors he's have known his venture was doomed to fail. The strategic moves undertaken during the 2nd punic war, other than the initial move by Hannibal, were all conducted by the romans in Spain, Greece, Ilyria, Sicily, and North Africa. It could have been a different story had Hasdrubal not dalied in southern Gaul throughout the winter of 208 when Marcellus had been taken care of but he did. Even if he had not perished on the Metaurus and met up with H in southern Italy I believe roman victory would have been the ultimate outcome, it would have taken longer and been more desparate, but without a seaport H was in trouble.

 

Nova Carthago certainly has its merits too. It must have been a fantastic shock for the Carthaginians to learn they'd lost their spanish capital, their main arsenal, and their main port in one swoop.

Edited January 4, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Guest SPQR]

Cannae too in my opinion.

 

Like the slave riding on the chariot during a triumph; whispering in the ears of the general that he is still mortal.

[Pantagathus]

Tactically either Metaurus or Cannae

 

Strategically without a doubt Carthago Novo. That was a bold move for Scipio with a tremendous payoff. All the benefits Rome gained from taking that city the way they did are too many to be listed here...

Edited January 4, 2006 by Pantagathus