Timeline for Why didn't Hannibal attack Rome after the Battle of Cannae?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2023 at 13:41 | comment | added | Michael Borgwardt | @JuanAntonioGomezMoriano I have learned a lot about Rome since writing this answer, and can respond now: first, slaves were not a majority of the population of rome, high estimates are 30%. Second, Roman slaves could hope to be freed, and in the case of a siege, that would be an obvious way to motivate them. They were unlikely to fare better in a sack of the city, as Carthago was also a slave-holding society. | |
| Dec 21, 2022 at 22:22 | history | edited | Michael Borgwardt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 238 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2014 at 10:25 | comment | added | Juan Antonio Gomez Moriano | But one could argue that Rome's army at the time was maybe even smaller, regarding Rome's population most of them would be slaves, possibly not so interested on who would rule them, Rome or Carthago | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 10:09 | history | answered | Michael Borgwardt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |