- MehmedIf a guy states that you're ignorant for no reason, you get angry. "Please read a book at least on Hannibal Mehmed II" I won't tolerate these words from a guy who does not know that Islam was founded after Christ.
You shouldn't have taken it so personally Mehmed. After all, it's true what Stronghold said, you show a LOT of misinformation regarding Hannibal, and so you should really get more info before taking those kind of conclusions (and I have brought to this forum LOTS of that info). I mean, a guy who says "Hannibal: Declared war to one of the greatest empires of all times; won one major battle"...puhleeze one major battle?!??! Way misinformed Mehmed! Just to give an example, I name Trebia where romans had an army of 40.000+ and the 2 consuls present leading it.
- MehmedHannibal took his own life rather than surrender to Rome; Alexander died because of a stupid sickness at the height of his power. Yes, Anibal, the truth hurts doesn't it?
In fact it only makes me feel proud! I would be much more "hurt" if he had died one year after Cannae of a "stupid sickness", and with a reputation of gay, paedophile, drunk, paranoic and comrade's murderer.
OTOH, Hannibal lived a full life of great achievements, luxurious life and recognized respect everywhere he lived. One can only 'envy' his life, not regret it. His last act with 65 years old was a proof of his determination and strength of character. He feared not death, and prefered to die free, rather than living the last years as a roman slave (if he was not going to be executed).
And here I focus a point I had forgot to refute before. Siblesz posted, a page or 2 ago, a weird quote from Machiavelli regarding Hannibal's "inhuman cruelty was wholly responsible" for never facing "any dissention, either among the troops themselves, or against their leader, whether things were going well or badly". This is totally :wub: and I'm glad you Siblesz took the right conclusions, and at least you wrote that he was an italian and that he was writing during a period where Carthage's past history and information was very biased. I have to agree with Siblesz and say that Machiavelli's quote is very far from the truth. Hannibal may have performed cruel acts as anyone HAS to do during a war, but it was not "wholly responsible" to this that his men followed him so strongly "whether things were going well or badly". The main reason for this was his great human qualities as a men and military leader: He didn't drink nor he used prostitutes; he dressed and slept like his men during campaign (reports from his Iberian campaign where he was sleeping in the ground next to his men and dressing a linen tunic like his fellow Iberian soldiers); he always distributed fairly the spoils of war and the MAJOR fortunes he and his father gathered from the wealthy carthaginian possesions (for which some accused him of avarice) were used to arm/equip their soldeirs with the best possible, and to pay them fully and in advance. Adding to the respect and consideration he had for his men and every men in general, he was a military genious....and what better pair of qualities would one want to justify such sense of loyalty among his men?
I really think Machiavelli was being intentionally naive and nationalist coz another proof of Hannibal's lack of "inhumane cruelty" is the fact that the roman generals always got honored funerals and the roman captured soldiers were always given the chance for ransom (though the roman senate usually failed on their men), while the other captured (italian) men were freed.
To finish, a bunch of quotes that I could quickly find and proove some of my points:
"At length after eight months of hardship and anxiety he took the city [Saguntum] by storm. A great booty of money, slaves, and property fell into his hands. The money, as he had determined, he set aside for his own purposes, the slaves he distributed among his men according to rank, and the miscellaneous property he sent off at once to Carthage. The result did not deceive his expectations, nor did he fail to accomplish his original purpose; but he both made his troops more eager to face danger and the Carthaginians more ready to accede to his demands on them" - Polybius
"On the death of Hasdrubal, to whom after that of Hamilcar they had entrusted the government of Iberia, they at first waited for a pronouncement on the part of the troops, and when news reached them from their armies that the soldiers had unanimously chosen Hannibal as their commander , they hastened to summon a general assembly of the commons, which unanimously ratified the choice of the soldiers" - Polybius
At last, though not directly connected to the point but also not totally disconnected is Hannibal's also great suport after the 2nd punic war where he was freely and overwhelmingly elected as Suffete at Carthage(top job), and his immediate measures:
"201-196 BC Hannibal serves as Shofet in Carthage:
-restores order, moral and efficiency
-saw corruption and weakness of Carthage’s divided and petty government as the cause of her defeat
-stop the rich from over-taxing the poor to pay the war debt
-uncovered and denounced the corruption of many of the rich families
-introduced taxation based on wealth
-revived commerce, industry and trade as never before
-trade with the Levant via North Africa not effected by war
-Carthage prospers
195 BC-Hannibal’s enemies at Carthage tell Rome that he is planning another war with the aid of Antiochus III of Syria
-many rich families and rivals of the Barcids plot against him
-Rome is jealous of Carthage’s renewed prosperity
-Cato the Elder (consul) jealous of Scipio’s fame and wishes to capture Hannibal
-Rome demands he be turned over to keep the peace
-Hannibal fled to Tyre in Phoenicia, and then to the court of King Antiochus III of Syria"
He would then spend luxurious vacations at the courts of several kings till the end of his life (183BC, with 65years)
I agree with your words but this topic is not about who was successful or not, it's about the "greatest general of the ancient world"Hannibal may be the father of all military strategy(and I'm sure he is) or heck; he was maybe far more clever than Alexander. But, Alexander was succesful and Hannibal wasn't. It's plain simple.
I was talking of ancient Turkey [place and inhabitants], not ChinaNow tell me, Does any of Alexander's conquests have anything to do with the empire of China?