I thought that I had recently that genetic testing showed the modern Russians are Slavs, not Scandinavian. Is that wrong?

Hannibal's army of 50,000 defeated a Roman army of 86,000 at Cannae. The Romans had the proclivity to march in large formations in a frontal attack. Therefore, Hannibal devised a battle plan to defeat the Romans. It is estimated the casualties and losses to the Romans was 67,500 - 80,000. Hannibal lost 5,700 - 8,000.

In a nutshell, the great Roman army marched forward. Hannibal placed a line of heavy infantry in front of the Romans. He placed light infantry behind the heavy infantry. The Carthaginian cavalry had a sizeable advantage over the Roman cavalry and ran them off from the battlefield. Hannibal sent the light infantry to cover the Roman left and right flanks. Then his cavalry sealed the rear of the Roman army.

The Roman army was completely surrounded, and it continued to march forward. The Carthaginian army started to constrict the Roman army. The combination of the two conditions caused the Roman army to be condensed to the point soldiers had little room to fight effectively. It was impossible for the Roman soldiers to fight an organized defense because they were surrounded. It was said the brutality of the battle was so intense Roman soldiers tried to commit suicide and sometimes the Carthaginians cut the hamstrings of the Roman soldiers to prevent their escape.

agrams said:

---

imagine 70k+ people killed by hand weapons. the sheer longevity and physical demands and brutality of that event had to mind-staggering

---

I drove through the Leavenworth, KS national cemetery where 50,000 people are buried. It looked like an endless sea of white crosses. I could not fathom a battle consisting of 135,000 soldiers fighting it out. It is said the battle lasted two long days. The logistics support must have been staggering as well.

Americans fighting alongside Germans vs nazis at the end of ww2.

Tanker123 said:

---

agrams said:

---

imagine 70k+ people killed by hand weapons. the sheer longevity and physical demands and brutality of that event had to mind-staggering

---

I drove through the Leavenworth, KS national cemetery where 50,000 people are buried. It looked like an endless sea of white crosses. I could not fathom a battle consisting of 135,000 soldiers fighting it out. It is said the battle lasted two long days. The logistics support must have been staggering as well.

---

Its a staggering number. It likely would have been 0.5% of the entire military-aged male population in the entire Roman Empire at that time.

I literally have no tactical knowledge of this battle outside of just knowing how legendary the defeat was, so don't take this as an attack or anything, but listening to Carlin enough has also made me dubious of any large death figures from reports of early battles.

I haven't tried to search on this battle, but have there been any independent studies or hypotheses about the number? Any good links to read up on the battle? It seems fascinating to explore.

agrams said:

---

imagine 70k+ people killed by hand weapons. the sheer longevity and physical demands and brutality of that event had to mind-staggering

---

When a history book says a city was "sacked" - that is what it means.
This was fairly common when cities did not surrender.
For example, it took the English about a month to sac
the roughly 30,000 Scottish inhabitants of Berwick.

Buck Compton said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

agrams said:

---

imagine 70k+ people killed by hand weapons. the sheer longevity and physical demands and brutality of that event had to mind-staggering

---

I drove through the Leavenworth, KS national cemetery where 50,000 people are buried. It looked like an endless sea of white crosses. I could not fathom a battle consisting of 135,000 soldiers fighting it out. It is said the battle lasted two long days. The logistics support must have been staggering as well.

---

Its a staggering number. It likely would have been 0.5% of the entire military-aged male population in the entire Roman Empire at that time.

I literally have no tactical knowledge of this battle outside of just knowing how legendary the defeat was, so don't take this as an attack or anything, but listening to Carlin enough has also made me dubious of any large death figures from reports of early battles.

I haven't tried to search on this battle, but have there been any independent studies or hypotheses about the number? Any good links to read up on the battle? It seems fascinating to explore.

---

You have a very valid point. As a retired army officer, I like to write military history essays pertaining to battles and wars that interest me because I enjoy writing and military history. There are a lot of lessons learned from the past that are relevant today. Invariably, I look at more than one source of information to try to develop a cohesive picture of historic martial events. I want to know what happened at the Battle of Cannae and why it happened. I am also interested in strategic conditions that shaped battles and wars.

When the 18th Airborne Corps Task Force was deployed to Iraq, its C-1 personnel staff section tracked every service member coming into and leaving the area of operations. Thus, its numbers were good. When conducting research in regard to military history, rarely will sources of information mention the methodology in determining troop strengths in battles and wars. Sometimes the numbers are derived from historians and philosophers from antiquity. Variances from different sources can be dramatic. Therefore, the numbers of combatants will be debatable.

I don't want to be a smart ass but google can be your friend when conducting research. It will take looking at a few sources of information in order to understand why things happened and the big picture. I have written several military history essays with you if you are interested.

agrams said:

---

understood. but historic sackings often could last week or months. even if it's half the number (35k) over two days, that's just constant carnage and brutality.

probably the closest modern equivalent is the Rape of Nanking, which lasted around 6 weeks and nearly 200k were killed (estimates vary wildly though, from down around 40k to 300k).

---

I liked Genghis Khan's style. If they surrender peacefully then the town, city, or principality would be spared of violence, but choosing to fight would often lead to everything alive would be killed and massacred.

Stive said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

A Japanese soldier in a Philippines jungle does not believe the war is over and holds out for 29 years after the Japanese surrender to the US. Leaflets were dropped and loudspeakers were used to convince him the war was over, but he thought they were trying to trick him. Eventually, his former commander flies to the Philippines and gives him the order to surrender to which he complied.

---

I think there were multiple instances of this. This guy was the longest but I heard somewhere that there were lots of these situations that lasted for several years after the formal surrender.

---

There was a documented case of one that surpassed this one by something like a week. The one in the Philippines was compensated well by the Japanese government, but the other one was given only +$200. I believe this was the case because he was not on orders when he became a Japanese soldier.

Don't care if it turns out to be not true….

Reminder that Battle of Rafah in 217 BC was the only time in history that African elephant cavalry fought Asian elephant cavalry. pic.twitter.com/uv6qtIN41S

— Jacob Shell (@JacobAShell) May 6, 2024

To post a happier subject - it appears children's books have an art history.

Saw this lady floating in the Trieste, Italy harbor last week. Caught my eye for it's unusual shape and configuration. Could not really tell how large it was from my vantage point until I looked it up.



Turns out is a mere 468 ft long, $600,000,000 sailboat owned by a Russian Andrey Melnichenko and was seized by Italy when the Ukraine conflict started. Only costs a million or so a week to operate.

https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/sailing-yacht-a/

BQ78 said:

---

Yes, I remember during my high school years in the early 70s, four surrendered in a relatively short time. The first one was on Guam, then two in the Philippines and finally one in Indonesia.

---

Japanese held out on Iwo Jima until 1949. Dudes were freaking nuts.

San Antonio's red light district (The Sporting District) was the 3rd largest in the nation (behind New Orleans and San Francisco) before being shut down in 1941 by San Antonio Police Commissioner after pressure from Major General Richard Donovan and Dwight D. Eisenhower - who was the Third Army's chief of staff at Fort Sam Houston.

In July 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had signed into law a federal ban on prostitution near naval and army bases.

USA*** said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

Stive said:

---

So I'm a sailing/yacht idiot…..I know nothing about either one.

How does something like that cost $1,000,000 per week to operate? Fuel? If personnel, then how big would that make the crew? Or are their other costs that I'm not familiar with for that kind of boat?

---

Insurance, preventative maintenance and inspections, fuel, mooring and docking fees, and yeah, salary for full time staff (and food for staff too).

---

Hookers and blow

---

That's extra

p_bubel said:

---

San Antonio's red light district (The Sporting District) was the 3rd largest in the nation (behind New Orleans and San Francisco) before being shut down in 1941 by San Antonio Police Commissioner after pressure from Major General Richard Donovan and Dwight D. Eisenhower - who was the Third Army's chief of staff at Fort Sam Houston.

In July 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had signed into law a federal ban on prostitution near naval and army bases.

---

Waco lost its booming Red Light District in 1917 when the Army came in and built Camp MacArthur.
All those good Michigan and Wisconsin boys could not be trusted.....