Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

SnoopyStyle Three hundred years before Christ, Carthage rules the Mediterrean but upstart Rome is threatening its dominance. Hannibal (Alexander Siddig) is pushing to fight Rome and leads an army from Spain through the Alps into Italy. Scipio would witness his father's shameful defeat and rescues him. Hannibal gathers disenfranchised northern Italian tribes and gains victory after victory. Roman Senator Fabius Maximus (Ben Cross) favors avoiding a direct battle with Hannibal. However he's ignored and Hannibal massacres the best of Rome in the battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Hannibal misses his chance to sack Rome and Carthage abandons him in Italy. Carthage suffers more and more losses from Scipio's troops until Hannibal is called home as a last resort.This is a functional educational docudrama. Siddig is a compelling actor. The CG battles are fine. There aren't big numbers of extras for the battle scenes but it's filled in with CG creations. At least, they have some real elephants. This is well-made TV movie that shows the big highlights of an epic life.

kendoka-azhrei Please give citations for your claims - for example, that Scipio declared that Hannibal become governor of Carthage - Hannibal became Shophete after the Romans had left, not because of them. Carthage signed for peace but did not give up their brilliant general, but Rome's wrath was so much that he was eventually forced to flee the city.You also claim that Hannibal honoured his agreement with Scipio and so did not return to Carthage to lead them in battle. I've found no such evidence of this, it was well known that he attempted to convince other rulers around the Mediterranean (such as Antiochus III) to make war with Rome. This behaviour is not in line with someone who agreed to never make war on Rome again.Thirdly, you say that Scipio is the greater general of the two - this is very much debatable. Did he beat Hannibal at Zama? Yes, he did, but there were many reasons for this and his supposed higher quality as a general is not one of them. Leaving these reasons aside, Scipio was so successful because he emulated Hannibal, not because he came up with brilliant strategies of his own. He turned Hannibal's own tactics against him and quite brilliantly, but the point remains that they were not his tactics to begin with.Finally, the film does flutter about Scipio's role in Roman politics - in real life, Scipio lost favour with the senate due to increasing pressure from his political enemies, and his popularity with the people, and dropped out of the public limelight entirely. It was not due to some honourable statement of his.

aristarchus-2 It is very good to see something about the historically neglected Scipio. Who, in my estimation, is the greatest General of all time. But his greatness goes beyond military prowess. He saved Rome from extinction and set the foundation for it being first the Ruler of the Mediterranean, then of the "Known World".His victory was historically very significant, as it meant that Europe and the "Western" World would be Christian and largely Caucasian. If Hannibal had won, Europe and the West would have been Oriental and probably Muslim. The Carthaginians were Oriental. And North Africa did become Muslim about 800 years later. Had Carthage lasted to that point, "we" would have most likely been Muslim and Oriental.The film is generally accurate, but fails on one significant point. Hannibal did not immediately escape to Turkey. After his defeat, Scipio appointed him--his defeated enemy--as military governor of Carthage. And within 5 years Carthage was more prosperous than ever before. And has repaid all the war reparations imposed by Scipio and Rome.Later, some dissatisfied militarists wanted Carthage to go back to war with Rome. They asked Hannibal to lead them, but he would have no part of it. He wanted to honor his agreement with Scipio. He fled the country to avoid having to start what he knew would be a lost war. Which the Third Punic War was. This time there was no honorable and rational Scipio, and Carthage was totally destroyed. Becoming part of the desert sand.The source for this is "A Greater than Napoleon", by B. H. Liddell Hart, the noted British historian. Perhaps the best military historian of the 20th Century. In the early 1930s he tried to persuade the British government about the danger of the Panzer Divisions Hitler was building. The German generals read his books. During the Second World War they would often muse to themselves, "I wonder what Liddell Hart would do now...?" After the war, none of the German generals wanted to talk to anyone. But when offered the chance to talk to Liddell Hart they said "Yes, yes! I would be honored to talk to him".But there is a seemingly unknown, very important side of Scipio. After his victory at Zama he was accorded a Triumph in Rome, granted by a grateful Senate and people. I can see him know, leading the remnants of the 5th and 6th Legions, defeated at Cannae, but reformed and used by Scipio at Zama. Leading the way up the Appian Way to the Senate.Scipio was again offered the position of Sole Consul for Life. Meaning "dictator". But he refused, saying the "The Honor of leading Rome to victory over its enemies and saving Rome from destruction is sufficient for me".Eventually, to honor those who had served him during the 20 long years or so, he relented and accepted. But only for the usual one year, saying "No man should rule other men, and certainly not for a lifetime". Therein lies his greatness. The understanding that ruling the lives of others is immoral. And irrational, as societal system based on coercion cannnot and never do survive in the long term.Sadly, some time after his victory and when he had retired to his ancestral home in Liternum, he was accused of corruption. "Why did he offer such lenient peace terms?! There must have been bribery".The Senate sent a young Centurion to Liternum to arrest Scipio on charges of treason. Scipio, interrupting his lunch, met the Centurion in front of his house.He reminded the Centurion that he was only a schoolboy at the time of his victory at Zama. That he would not understand the true history. That Rome was at the door of defeat, and he--Scipio—-had saved Rome. Had he not done so, "You, young Centurion, would be either dead or a slave of the Carthaginians. Along with your family. Return to the Senate, remind them that I saved Rome, and I want no more of their lack of gratitude and their impertinence".The chagrined and chastised Centurion did as he should, and there was no more of the matter.I am very, very grateful to Edward Bazalgette, Phil Dolling and all the others associated with the making of this film.

elspito A great story and a match made in heaven you'd think considering the Beebs past efforts. Despite its scholarly pretensions though this one's a real clunker. Hanibal starts out promisingly. Soon in though face off between the whiny and diminutive Hanibal and the extremely over acted Roman envoy set the tone. The writing is just awful and when in a strategic meeting Hannibal refers to 'France' and 'Spain' rather than 'Gaul' and 'Iberia' then you know this isn't gonna bit the usual BBC highbrow standards.The battle scenes in HD compensate for the toe curlingly bad dialogue though, especially those of the elephants charging collumns of Romans. (altough in reality only one elephant made it alive over the alps.)A good effort on the technical side. Now if only can marry the folks at the beeb who knock out the quality stuff with these guys we could be in for some epic TV.