Ad Astra - Scipio to Hannibal

Damn I miss this manga... I hope they keep translating this at some point

What ever happened to this??

 

Scanlators have put it on an indefinite hiatus, apparently for personal reasons (something about a new job). So it may or may not eventually be picked back up. There was no official announcement, had to dig around a bit in the comments section to find the information.

What ever happened to this??

You’d think that with their resources they would just fix that problem by properly training cavalry.

errr, No. 

 

First technology

 

The horses where much shorter and sturdy than modern day, perfect for working on the fields (romas where also quite shorter). Since the saddle was basic and the stirrup was not to be invented in china in centuries to come, less used by the romans or any western nation much later. The introduction of the stirrup chanced horse riding once and forever as was easier to hold into the horse (but that's another history  

 

Fur such technology shortcomings the best horses for them where short ones that allowed for fast jump on, jump off, as the romans used them mainly to move fast form one part of the battlefield to the other, and to fled (as more or less shown in the comic) but fought mainly on foot.

 

Second, farming horses, no war horses.

 

Other than technology their main source of wealth was agriculture, the roman horses where used for agriculture mainly.

 

There was not even the thought of a dedicated military cavalry, as stated each solider had to bring his own equipment, horse included, so it make no sense to have a working horse and a fighting horse for the individuals, nor that they had the military strategy to use them anyway.

 

Third military strategy.

 

The romans where great at engineering, discipline AND coping others strategies and weapons if possible. They never excelled on research or technology development (as 1000 or 2500 years (east or west empires) of mostly unchanged civilization show). Why they didn't invest on research is too complex to discuss here.

So for them coping other armies that bested them at horse fight made no sense because the gap to bridge was too high, different fighting stile and living stile.  Also cavalry was not as powerful as it will be on the future (with the stirrup, war horses and horse combat strategies).

 

 

 

Anyway what matters is that in history you must NEVER use your present day mentality to try to understand the actions and facts of the past. Technology,ideology and living conditions of the day are much more important to get an idea of why things were the way they were.

 

And now i feel useless trying to explain this in a manga forum

I hope you enjoyed!

You’d think that with their resources they would just fix that problem by properly training cavalry.

“Rome’s cavalry are the weakest in the whole Mediterranean...”
 
What? Why?

Because Rome was a hill city surrounded by plantations. Not exactly a horse culture like Numidia or many of the northern Greco-Macedonian peoples. Also, the Legions were designed with cavalry support from Equestrians, a class of wealthy men whose military contribution to the state was a warhorse and a rider (originally meant to be themselves but usually replaced by mercs). The Roman cavalry was few in numbers and lacking in training because until Augustus Equestrians were mostly merchants and farmers. They also lacked cohesion because they were usually only mustered when needed. A harsher way to look at it is that the cavalry was largely composed of spoiled rich kids and their soft businessmen daddies.

Marius largely fixed this problem by replacing the Legionary cavalry with Foederati, drawn from allied horseriding tribes.

“Rome’s cavalry are the weakest in the whole Mediterranean...”

 

What? Why?

Historians have long debated on whether or not Hannibal should have gone after Rome itself. I would hardly say that it was a failure at strategy. It's easy to play armchair general in front of your computer screen, thousands of years later able to look at how things resolved and go: "Well obviously he fucked up, duh." But at the time? That choice was hardly clear. 

 

And more importantly, you forget that Hannibal never really lost in Italy. The only reason Carthage lost the war was because they pulled Hannibal out. They were losing in Africa so badly they ordered Hannibal to leave to help defend their other territories. If Carthage hadn't done that, who's to say Hannibal couldn't have eventually forced a Roman surrender by repeatedly beating them into submission in battle? 

 

Like Napoleon always said, Logistics Win War

 

Huge spoiler ahead of the 2nd Punic War

 

Historians have long debated on whether or not Hannibal should have gone after Rome itself. I would hardly say that it was a failure at strategy. It's easy to play armchair general in front of your computer screen, thousands of years later able to look at how things resolved and go: "Well obviously he fucked up, duh." But at the time? That choice was hardly clear. 

 

And more importantly, you forget that Hannibal never really lost in Italy. The only reason Carthage lost the war was because they pulled Hannibal out. They were losing in Africa so badly they ordered Hannibal to leave to help defend their other territories. If Carthage hadn't done that, who's to say Hannibal couldn't have eventually forced a Roman surrender by repeatedly beating them into submission in battle? 

 

Either way I think you can sum up Hannibal as a master tactician but a failure at strategy. He won the battles (tactics) but lost the war (strategy). Often in history, one battle could be decisive due to low population numbers, but fighting Rome was akin to fighting a more modern nation in terms of its ability to keep raising armies. So long as the political will existed, battles were never going to win Hannibal the war. 

Sure taking Rome was going to be hard, he could lose everything he'd fought for so far. But he wasn't going to win without it. He had to end the war when he had the chance. Either he underestimated the Romans' willingness to continue the fight despite massive losses or he was just terrible with strategy.

Consider that this master tactician knew the truth about how "taking Rome was going to be hard", as you put it.

Doing such a feat might've been impossible, and he knew that.

 

It's embarrasing to watch someone write about Hannibal as a terrible strategist on a manga site, it sure doesn't add any credibility.

Bla bla bla.

One of the many enemies of Rome from that historical period said that fighting against the romans was like fighting against the hydra, no matter how many heads were chopped down, more and more keep appearing to fight until the enemy is crushed. Maybe it was Pyrrhus or Philip or his son Perseus or maybe even Hannibal himself, damn it I don't remember.

 

It was Cineas, ambasador of Pyrrhus. From Plutarch:

It is said, too, that Cineas, while he was on this mission, made it his earnest business at the same time to observe the life and manners of the Romans, and to understand the excellences of their form of government;  he also conversed with their best men, and had many things to tell Pyrrhus, among which was the declaration that the senate impressed him as a council of many kings, and that, as for the people, he was afraid it might prove to be a Lernaean hydra for them to fight against, since the consul already had twice as many soldiers collected as those who faced their enemies before, and there were many times as many Romans still who were capable of bearing arms.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. No on knows for sure, but it's likely he didn't siege Rome because he thought his allies would desert. After the really really impressive crossing through the Alps (with elephants!) he lost a decent amount of men and as battles occurred, he lost more and more men who were loyal to him. By the time he was in a position to siege Rome, much of his army was composed of local anti-Roman factions and Gaulish mercenaries.

 

Needless to say, they weren't very loyal. It suited them to hook up with Hannibal, especially when it seemed he was a winning ticket. Victory after victory confirmed it. But if Hannibal is sitting around sieging Rome for months, then the towns that allied with him might get ideas without his army around.

 

So by not sieging Rome, he made sure his army and position was preserved. He couldn't lose, so long as he kept winning battles. The problem is, the Romans had deep pockets and could raise army after army. He only needed to lose ONE battle and he loses. What made him so good in battle - his careful planning and cautiousness - was what doomed him imo.

 

Sure taking Rome was going to be hard, he could lose everything he'd fought for so far. But he wasn't going to win without it. He had to end the war when he had the chance. Either he underestimated the Romans' willingness to continue the fight despite massive losses or he was just terrible with strategy.

 

Either way I think you can sum up Hannibal as a master tactician but a failure at strategy. He won the battles (tactics) but lost the war (strategy). Often in history, one battle could be decisive due to low population numbers, but fighting Rome was akin to fighting a more modern nation in terms of its ability to keep raising armies. So long as the political will existed, battles were never going to win Hannibal the war. 

One of the many enemies of Rome from that historical period said that fighting against the romans was like fighting against the hydra, no matter how many heads were chopped down, more and more keep appearing to fight until the enemy is crushed. Maybe it was Pyrrhus or Philip or his son Perseus or maybe even Hannibal himself, damn it I don't remember.

I remember it being stated that he wasn't willing to chance the locals and other territories that were allied but not totally under Roman control taking up arms against him. Also he didn't really get any support from the main body of Carthage and it's armies so lack of reinforcements meant that casualties couldn't be replaced easily. 

 

Theres also the possibility that Gallian mercs that made up for a large part of the army might grow uneasy with lack of loot from battles and lowered pay (lack of support from Carthage causing problems again) because of prolonged sieges that would be required for taking the heart of the Roman Empire. 

 

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

I think you've hit the nail on the head. No on knows for sure, but it's likely he didn't siege Rome because he thought his allies would desert. After the really really impressive crossing through the Alps (with elephants!) he lost a decent amount of men and as battles occurred, he lost more and more men who were loyal to him. By the time he was in a position to siege Rome, much of his army was composed of local anti-Roman factions and Gaulish mercenaries.

 

Needless to say, they weren't very loyal. It suited them to hook up with Hannibal, especially when it seemed he was a winning ticket. Victory after victory confirmed it. But if Hannibal is sitting around sieging Rome for months, then the towns that allied with him might get ideas without his army around.

 

So by not sieging Rome, he made sure his army and position was preserved. He couldn't lose, so long as he kept winning battles. The problem is, the Romans had deep pockets and could raise army after army. He only needed to lose ONE battle and he loses. What made him so good in battle - his careful planning and cautiousness - was what doomed him imo.

 

Sure taking Rome was going to be hard, he could lose everything he'd fought for so far. But he wasn't going to win without it. He had to end the war when he had the chance. Either he underestimated the Romans' willingness to continue the fight despite massive losses or he was just terrible with strategy.

 

Either way I think you can sum up Hannibal as a master tactician but a failure at strategy. He won the battles (tactics) but lost the war (strategy). Often in history, one battle could be decisive due to low population numbers, but fighting Rome was akin to fighting a more modern nation in terms of its ability to keep raising armies. So long as the political will existed, battles were never going to win Hannibal the war. 

A new chapter of this manga is always a good day. Thank you Turnip farmers. I can't wait to see the actual Battle in manga form. Gods it's gonna be glorious.

Cover 09!!

 

 

The Africanus! Looks so badass.

Cover 09!!

 

Cannae was a disaster for the Roman, you don't lose nearly 80000 men in a single battle and not think that it was a disaster...

 

But a Siege is a very different battle than an open field maneuver, there's a good reason why specialized equipment... tactics, logistics, personnel, heck... whole Strategy were created to handle a Siege.

 

Hannibal's army was powerful on the field particularly while it's mobile...

 

Siege however is not their strong suite, and certainly not without reinforcement with proper hardware from Carthage

and no matter which way you put it... taking Rome itself even if she lost most of her legions would still require a long Siege

I remember it being stated that he wasn't willing to chance the locals and other territories that were allied but not totally under Roman control taking up arms against him. Also he didn't really get any support from the main body of Carthage and it's armies so lack of reinforcements meant that casualties couldn't be replaced easily. 

 

Theres also the possibility that Gallian mercs that made up for a large part of the army might grow uneasy with lack of loot from battles and lowered pay (lack of support from Carthage causing problems again) because of prolonged sieges that would be required for taking the heart of the Roman Empire. 

 

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

 

Hannibal then decided to sue for peace, right? From that perspective, maybe Cannae isn't that much of a disaster for the Romans after all. He must have understood the nature of the Romans and that he cannot take Rome by force, putting him in a lose-lose situation.

 

That's probably the only moment where "Roman pride" actually saves their own asses.

And thus they get their collective asses encircled and murdered.

 

I wonder why Hannibal didn't go for Rome though, perhaps he's wary of certain individuals or his casualties are actually too heavy for a follow-up siege.

 

I remember it being stated that he wasn't willing to chance the locals and other territories that were allied but not totally under Roman control taking up arms against him. Also he didn't really get any support from the main body of Carthage and it's armies so lack of reinforcements meant that casualties couldn't be replaced easily. 

 

Theres also the possibility that Gallian mercs that made up for a large part of the army might grow uneasy with lack of loot from battles and lowered pay (lack of support from Carthage causing problems again) because of prolonged sieges that would be required for taking the heart of the Roman Empire. 

 

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

And thus they got their collective asses encircled and murdered.

 

I wonder why Hannibal didn't go for Rome though, perhaps he's wary of certain individuals or his casualties are actually too heavy for a follow-up siege.

It's coming!

This manga has quickly become one of my absolute favorites. Turnip Farmers, bringing two of the greatest war mangas of all time for our enjoyment!

uuuhh.... was it Cannae?

 The great moment we are all expecting!

 

Btw, how many others are reading this because their town appears on this manga? (happy to live in a 2500 years old city full of ruins, long ago destroyed by Anibal, so that two millenia later a Japanese can draw some pages about it! so weird, so dam weird )

uuuhh.... was it Cannae?

 

Bingo.