"New" Discoveries about Hannibal Barca

[Cornelius Plautus]

Recently, the History Channel has been airing a series called Ancients Behaving Badly, which paints bloody portraits of ancient heroes, and capitalizes on shock value. While I think most of the new series is complete hogwash, some of the conclusions they draw are rather interesting.

For instance, they came to the conclusion that Hannibal Barca was a poor general, contrary to popular belief. They take into account that he lost twenty five thousand men, half his army, whilst trekking through the Alps, and the inclusion of elephants in his army ended up causing more harm then aid to his war effort.

They brought up that the Roman Legions against which Hannibal fought were of the Polybian Manipular sort, which was far weaker than later Marian and Imperial Legions, which seems to tarnish his military accomplishments.

They then bring up his troubled childhood, in which his father made him slaughter a cow, dip his hands in its blood, and promise to destroy Rome. According to the psychoanalitic experts they have on the show, this makes his a bit crazy, and his conviction that Ba'al was encouraging him to destroy Rome further proved their point.

They continue to mention Hannibal's cruelty to prisoners (for instance making a Roman captive fight an Elephant, and then when the Roman captive -amazingly- succeeded killing him on the spot) and to his own men (crucifying a scout for giving him incorrect directions), and his inability to take Rome itself.

Then, they come to the final conclusion that the myth of Hannibal's brilliance was constructed by Polybius, who was hired by the Cornelii Scipiones to write a history of their fammily, and who chose to aggrandize Scipio Africanus by making his mortal enemy seem all the stronger.

While I have trouble believing all of this (mostly because it's a television show whose entertainment factor is commensurately important to its historical accuracy -if not of paramount importance-), it is an interesting theory.

[Banana Jelly]

That's mostly BS.

Losing 25,000 men crossing the Alp's doesn't make him a bad general. It makes him look much better, since he still fought the Roman's with half a army.

In war, cruelty is everything. Did America care that they killed thousands of innocent lives in Japan with the A-Bomb? It had to be done, and it was done, so it cant make Hannibal cruel.

Hannibal's main troop's weren't much good with armour nor weopons. Yet they achieved victory because they were exp mercenary. That's what Rome lacked. They had the armour and weopons, they didn't know how to use it.

[Cornelius Plautus]

I suppose the writers of the television show just wanted to do something that flies in the face of reason and previously established truth; thus, we have an excellent example of why television cannot be trusted.

[Banana Jelly]

In fact, Scipio Africanus is the one who copied Hannibal's own tactics to use it against him. Now is that a bit hypocritical? Why would he have famous general's copy his own tactics, and yet they (History Channel) call him a poor/evil general? Scipio Africanus admit's it himself that Hannibal was a great general (Not so literally, but he said it indirectly). As much as I like History Channel (Only the good Documentaries, not the simple everyday crap), they want to go to alot of better entertainment and miss out on some facts, making him look much evil.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I hate when shows try to add modern psychological interpretations to their arguments. Few people at the time Hannibal lived would have thought him mad to follow the God Ba'al (except monotheists who are incapable of believing in other Gods).

Hannibal like most generals would have been judged on his ability to win battles which he did and his ability to keep his soldiers alive (which once in Italy he largly and effectivly did). His Strategy had the virtue as having not been tried against Rome by such a large and organised enemey with a suprising battle success rate at the time.

As generals go Hannibal was a good one and missed his one great chance due to lack of intelligence as to the oposition at Rome when he could have marched on it but thought it unlikley to need to and to be difficult to besiege.

In regards to history program trends, my biggest gripe is when they have actors dress up and pretend they were people at events and then have the actors answer questions or give an opinion on the subject as if they were the actual person who was there. Apeing modern documentries.

[ray243]

Oh course, which makes me wonder why are we even consider the documentaries made by history channel as valid in any historical research and new finds. Hell, even if documentaries said that they have make a new discovery, it is usually a piece of information that is known to historians for YEARS.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, clearly History Channel went too far this time...

However, Hannibal was not as great as what we believed to, and Scipio was generally underrated.

[ray243]

Well, clearly History Channel went too far this time...

Well, that what happens when you let the editors and producer who might have no historical training to create the documentary.

[Trey]

They then bring up his troubled childhood, in which his father made him slaughter a cow, dip his hands in its blood, and promise to destroy Rome. According to the psychoanalitic experts they have on the show, this makes his a bit crazy, and his conviction that Ba'al was encouraging him to destroy Rome further proved their point.

That is all most likely Roman propaganda that is used to cast Hannibal's actions as irrational and driven by hatred for Rome rather than taking into account geopolitical realities. But like you said, most of it is just for shock value.

[Angrychris]

Can't make an ancient great european culture looks weak now......

[Trey]

Can't make an ancient great european culture looks weak now......

I would say casting Hannibal as an amazing general would portray Rome in a more positive light, as you could attribute their setbacks to the singular brilliance of Hannibal, rather than any meaningful superiority of the Carthaginians over the Romans.

[Angrychris]

Rome could of been taken but just not held and at the expense of carthage. 50/50 in my eyes.

[Trey]

Rome could of been taken but just not held and at the expense of carthage. 50/50 in my eyes.

What is 50/50? Are you addressing my post or stating an opinion?

In short, I am of the opinion that Rome could not have been taken either, but primarily because of Carthaginian political infighting. You must also take into account the surprising resilience of Rome's allies on the whole.

[G-Megas-Doux]

There was a point after one of Hannibals decisive Battles victories where Rome had no available standing army to help and no clear defence where the City could have been marched upon. However it could have been argued that at the time almost all Romans would have had military experience and an emergancy Dictator could have been appointed to use powers to defend the city against those besiegning it.

[Trey]

There was a point after one of Hannibals decisive Battles victories where Rome had no available standing army to help and no clear defence where the City could have been marched upon. However it could have been argued that at the time almost all Romans would have had military experience and an emergancy Dictator could have been appointed to use powers to defend the city against those besiegning it.

I believe that was Cannae. However, it's not as if Hannibal would have been able to waltz into the city either way. The Romans had quite a pool of able bodies at their disposal and displayed a remarkable ability to raise armies at a rapid rate. Furthermore, Hannibal could not afford to to remain stationary for too long. Remember that initially the Roman armies moved to actively engage him, and that the Italian peninsula was not the only theater of war. He had to continuously produce results, and could not afford to enact a costly and protracted siege.

[G-Megas-Doux]

The seige of Rome at that time would have been the only one that mattered as there were Roman forces being held down elsewhere and it is not guarenteed that they would have had weapons to arm former soldiers or those available of age to fight and I believe I have read that the walls at that time were not greatly defended. It is possible that a large cripiling blow could have been delt however it is not certain as to the recovering posabilities of the day for Rome or if he would have been successfully engaged and defeated by Roman allies.

[Ebusitanus]

The seige of Rome at that time would have been the only one that mattered as there were Roman forces being held down elsewhere

Before the Marian reforms all able bodied man with a certain amount of arable land were bound to serve. Thinking Rome would not have had the manpower to man the walls after Cannae is a joke and Hannibal knew it (besides he did not have a siege train for that). Rome at that time was continuosly raising troops to fight Hannibal or send them overseas, Cisalpine, etc...The Martian Field was surely not empty of recruits to man the walls.

and it is not guarenteed that they would have had weapons to arm former soldiers or those available of age to fight

Legionaries before the Marian reforms were supposed to equip themselves. Retired soldiers or even normal families would surely have a weapons caché to get to.

and I believe I have read that the walls at that time were not greatly defended.

Enough so as to have Hannibal rather choose to raise more Italian allies rather than sitting inmobile in front of some walls surrounded by a mostly hostile country.

It is possible that a large cripiling blow could have been delt however it is not certain as to the recovering posabilities of the day for Rome or if he would have been successfully engaged and defeated by Roman allies.

Hannibal simply did not grasp that Rome was not a Greek city state where wars would be decided in one or two battles in an almost gentelmen conflict. Rome did not ask for terms when any other civilitzed nation around the Mediterranean would have done so.

[konny]

None of these would be "new discoveries" about Hannibal of any kind.

For instance, they came to the conclusion that Hannibal Barca was a poor general, contrary to popular belief. They take into account that he lost twenty five thousand men, half his army, whilst trekking through the Alps, and the inclusion of elephants in his army ended up causing more harm then aid to his war effort.

Losing 1/2 of an army during a successfull operation that every contemporary would have labled "impossible" doesn't make a bad general. I also cannot see what actual harm the elephants did to Hannibal's army.

They brought up that the Roman Legions against which Hannibal fought were of the Polybian Manipular sort, which was far weaker than later Marian and Imperial Legions, which seems to tarnish his military accomplishments.

Nevertheless those were the legions that defeated the famous Successor armies and conquered most of the Mediterranian world. Even though the reformed legions of the post-Marian periode where better in several aspects, the republican legions certainly not were crappy militias.

Not to mention the quality of the wild mix of everything available Hannibal fielded....

They then bring up his troubled childhood, in which his father made him slaughter a cow, dip his hands in its blood, and promise to destroy Rome. According to the psychoanalitic experts they have on the show, this makes his a bit crazy, and his conviction that Ba'al was encouraging him to destroy Rome further proved their point.

They continue to mention Hannibal's cruelty to prisoners (for instance making a Roman captive fight an Elephant, and then when the Roman captive -amazingly- succeeded killing him on the spot) and to his own men (crucifying a scout for giving him incorrect directions)

Roman propaganda.

and his inability to take Rome itself.

typical armchair-generalship: Hannibal never seriously intended to take Rome for good reasons.

Then, they come to the final conclusion that the myth of Hannibal's brilliance was constructed by Polybius, who was hired by the Cornelii Scipiones to write a history of their fammily, and who chose to aggrandize Scipio Africanus by making his mortal enemy seem all the stronger.

What would in consequence require to have all the Roman generals that were defeated by Hannibal on the payrole of the Cornelians too, so that they deliberatly behaved like amateurs fighting a genius in order to make Hannibal appear more dangerous.

While I have trouble believing all of this (mostly because it's a television show whose entertainment factor is commensurately important to its historical accuracy -if not of paramount importance-), it is an interesting theory.

No, it isn't. It is rather a pathetic attempt to make a show more interessting that seems to be lacking good new topics and/or lacking the ability to make good and usefull documentaries on topics already ridden to death, like Hannibal vs. Rome.

[melqart]

None of these would be "new discoveries" about Hannibal of any kind.



Losing 1/2 of an army during a successfull operation that every contemporary would have labled "impossible" doesn't make a bad general. I also cannot see what actual harm the elephants did to Hannibal's army.



Nevertheless those were the legions that defeated the famous Successor armies and conquered most of the Mediterranian world. Even though the reformed legions of the post-Marian periode where better in several aspects, the republican legions certainly not were crappy militias.

Not to mention the quality of the wild mix of everything available Hannibal fielded....



Roman propaganda.



typical armchair-generalship: Hannibal never seriously intended to take Rome for good reasons.



What would in consequence require to have all the Roman generals that were defeated by Hannibal on the payrole of the Cornelians too, so that they deliberatly behaved like amateurs fighting a genius in order to make Hannibal appear more dangerous.



No, it isn't. It is rather a pathetic attempt to make a show more interessting that seems to be lacking good new topics and/or lacking the ability to make good and usefull documentaries on topics already ridden to death, like Hannibal vs. Rome.

I would not like to seem rude with the other people who wrote in this forum but ...after reading this comment my thought was:
"Ohh..Finally someone who studied history seriously..."

[Ebusitanus]

I would not like to seem rude with the other people who wrote in this forum but ...after reading this comment my thought was:
"Ohh..Finally someone who studied history seriously..."

Not to doubt your reading abilities but what he said has been said several times along this very thread.