Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

Thread: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

  1. #1

    Default Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    I just watched the show "Ancients: Behaving badly" and from what ive saw, it seems like Hannibal was nothing more than a D grade general.

    1)His elephants. They chulked up alot of provisions, and slowed his army, and on the battlefield werent doing as good as thier cost. For people who never saw elephants, theyre scary as hell, but after that(when they get to know them) you can just move out of thier way(like scipios army did in zuma). Furthermore, just the fact of having elephants increased the time hannibal needed to spend in the alps to two weeks, when it should have been only one week travel.
    2)The alps. He lost 25,000 men there, and most of his elephants. WTF? I mean, wouldnt it had been better for hannibal to go for sardinia, and then sicily, and then raid the southern countryside of rome? Carthage anyways had a superior navy.
    3)He may had crushing victories over the romans, but lets look at the romans. From what ive seen, at that time the roman army was managed by two consouls, and they had 24 hour shifts on the general office. Some day one general tried to dig in, while the other went on the offensive. We also know that the roman generals were motivated by oppertunities of glory and politics, rather than co working together for strict military goals.
    4)Why didnt he just go for rome when he could? Instead he tried to make failing alliances of Italian cities, letting the much manpower superior romans regroup and rebuild thier army. He just wandered in Italy untill he had to be called back to africa to defend carthage, where he was crushed.



    And as we know, history in older times was influenced much from politics. Roman historians maybe wanted scipio to look like a great general. Had he just won over a loser that wouldnt have been as glorious as defeating the "greatest general of them all". That just makes scipio a much better general.

  2. #2
    Primo's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,007

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    I just watched the show "Ancients: Behaving badly" and from what ive saw, it seems like Hannibal was nothing more than a D grade general.

    1)His elephants. They chulked up alot of provisions, and slowed his army, and on the battlefield werent doing as good as thier cost. For people who never saw elephants, theyre scary as hell, but after that(when they get to know them) you can just move out of thier way(like scipios army did in zuma). Furthermore, just the fact of having elephants increased the time hannibal needed to spend in the alps to two weeks, when it should have been only one week travel.
    You can easily say that afterwards, but just imagine what it was like for the romans: Big grey monsters charging at your ranks, killing several men with each dealed blow - And they are ideal for breaking formations, which is needed to fight the romans.

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    2)The alps. He lost 25,000 men there, and most of his elephants. WTF? I mean, wouldnt it had been better for hannibal to go for sardinia, and then sicily, and then raid the southern countryside of rome? Carthage anyways had a superior navy.
    He had the surprise factor. Thats what counted. If he would have gone to Sicily first, he would have been expected by all the manpower Italy would have been able to muster directly.

    He would stand no chance. By using the alps he attacked the romans unprepared, and that is the only reason why he could roam Italy for as long as he did.

    If they would have expected him, they would have thrown him out again very fast, even if Hannibal would have won the early battles.

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    3)He may had crushing victories over the romans, but lets look at the romans. From what ive seen, at that time the roman army was managed by two consouls, and they had 24 hour shifts on the general office. Some day one general tried to dig in, while the other went on the offensive. We also know that the roman generals were motivated by oppertunities of glory and politics, rather than co working together for strict military goals.
    Well, yes. Many People think the Roman Army of Hannibals time was the same as the later Post-Marian Legions and its tactical knowledge was as high.

    Truth is, the only thing the Roman Army was really good for at that time, was to mass the enemy down.

    Hannibal did use some basic encircle tactics, but the main reason for his victories was that they werenīt effectively countered. If the Romans had used later manouvers, Hannibals encircle tactic would have failed.
    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    4)Why didnt he just go for rome when he could? Instead he tried to make failing alliances of Italian cities, letting the much manpower superior romans regroup and rebuild thier army. He just wandered in Italy untill he had to be called back to africa to defend carthage, where he was crushed.
    This is still debatted by many historians. I personally think he was convinced he couldnīt take it, that he would waste time laying siege to it and building siege equipment, and a newly recruited legion would then attack him - and he wasnīt able to predict the outcome of this battle.

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    And as we know, history in older times was influenced much from politics. Roman historians maybe wanted scipio to look like a great general. Had he just won over a loser that wouldnt have been as glorious as defeating the "greatest general of them all". That just makes scipio a much better general.
    Scipio just knew how to deal with the elephants - Thats what made the difference. If any of the other roman comanders facing Hannibal would have known how to deal with them, he would have been stopped after the first battle.

    But you are right, of course.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    So the alps, the elephants, and encircling movement - we can all conclude that hannibal was basically a huge one trick pony(shall we say one trick elephant?)?



    And i dont get it. Didnt reports about a massive army of elephants and 50 thousand men reach italy? I mean, they must have laid a whole trail of sacked villages, army waste, and he had a few encounters with barabric tribes. Or did the romans knew about hannibals journey, yet they didnt excpect hed go for the alps?


    And if you say that the romans outnumbered hannibal so much - why fight at all? Or was it like that in that time? To race to the capital, lay siege, slaugther thier nobillity and goverment and watch as the rest of the kingdom gets disheartened and surrender?

  4. #4
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Because, much like British during WW2, Roman needed to find an excuse why their perfomance sucked in Second Punic War.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  5. #5
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    So the alps, the elephants, and encircling movement - we can all conclude that hannibal was basically a huge one trick pony(shall we say one trick elephant?)?



    And i dont get it. Didnt reports about a massive army of elephants and 50 thousand men reach italy? I mean, they must have laid a whole trail of sacked villages, army waste, and he had a few encounters with barabric tribes. Or did the romans knew about hannibals journey, yet they didnt excpect hed go for the alps?


    And if you say that the romans outnumbered hannibal so much - why fight at all? Or was it like that in that time? To race to the capital, lay siege, slaugther thier nobillity and goverment and watch as the rest of the kingdom gets disheartened and surrender?
    To understand why Hannibal thought he had to fight a war, you have to understand the Sardinian affair. After the first war, Carthage had concluded a peace with Rome, and both sides respected their side of the peace treaty. Carthage then had trouble with its unpaid mercenaries, whom they couldn't pay because the state was exhausted. After they finally managed to deal with that problem, after what Polybius called the cruellest war in history, with acts on both sides that were seen as atrocities even by ancient standards, Rome demanded Sardinia by unfairly stretching the terms of the peace treaty, and when Carthage hesitated, they declared war and forced Carthage to hand over both the island and an additional indemnity. This left many Carthaginians bitter at Roman faithlessness, with Hamilcar Barca chief among them. Hamilcar made his son Hannibal swear to forever be Rome's enemy, and went to Iberia to build up a power base for what he saw as an inevitable future war with Rome, with the moment coming when Rome wanted to curb Carthage's power.

    Hannibal, and possibly Hamilcar before him, saw the source of Rome's strength as the confederation of allies they had built up, which gave them a greater source of manpower than Carthage's mainly civilian population. As long as they fought on neutral ground, Rome's power base would never be threatened, while Rome, using Sicily as a base, could launch attacks into Africa, as in the first war. Fighting in Iberia, Gaul or Sicily offered no possibility of ultimate Carthaginian victory, no matter how many battlefield victories they won. Therefore Hannibal had to somehow fight his way into Italy, and cause enough problems for Rome to persuade her allies to split away. Could Hannibal have made a better job of getting into Italy? I've not seen any conclusive arguments either way, but his line of thought was reasonable enough - evade Scipio, steal a march and get into Italy before Scipio could get back.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    There are lot of false assumptions made there.

    If he was so average, why the best strategy the roman devised against him for 16 YEARS, was to temporise and attack everyone else then ?

    Why do you think crossing the alps was thought to be one damned feat ?
    Because it was thought it was impossible to do it at the place where Hannibal did, with the kind of army he had (and with elephant, no less), the roman thought he would come from the south, via the much easier access near the sea. As was said, surprise was what he tried to achieve and he achieved it, the roman couldn't prevent his entry into Italy despite the easy defensible border offered by the mountain range...
    Also it's very wrong to believe the carthaginian had the naval advantage against the roman and could go as they wished at sea.
    If Hannibal took the land route, it was because he feared to be intercepted at sea and to loose his army, his own naval forces were puny and even the main carthaginian fleet was probably inferior to the roman one at that time (maybe not in ability, but in power).
    The first punic war was lost at sea by Carthage...

    Also, why he didn't go for Rome after Cannae ?
    Good question, maybe he should have indeed, however that's easy with the hindsight...
    It wasn't evident the roman would panic and if they didn't, his army was battered after Cannae and he had only a few tens of thousands of men. 40 000 probably.

    It took the roman 3 full years to take a much weaker, isolated and (supposedly although it's arguable given the ease with wich they rearmed themselves) disarmed Carthage during the third punic war with twice the number of men he had at that time...
    I don't know why people discussing about the second punic war assume taking Rome would have been as easy as just going there...
    There could have been a panic, sure, but who knows ?
    Apparently Hannibal didn't expect it despite the huge blow the roman suffered and maybe he wasn't wrong after all.

    As to be a one trick poney, ask the roman what they thought about his assault with a hidden force at the trebbia after luring them to cross a frozen river with empty stomachs, or about the ambush at lake Trasimene, or the double enveloppement with cavalry not pursuing the ennemy cavalry until the end of the world like most ancient cavalry did, but actually returning, not one time, but twice, to be able to execute the plan and trap the roman infantry...
    Or the irregular spanish and celtic infantry who was able to hold its ground against the roman mass while they were directed by Hannibal himself, in the front ranks...

    Ask them about their 16 years trying to outsmart him in Italy with superior forces and being unable to beat him decisively or make him reembark until Carthage itself was threatened.

    His battles are still text book exemples of direct application of military principles and were (and probably still are) studied as such in military academies.

    Even at Zama, it could be argued he changed his strategy to use what he had at hand the best he could. He probably expected to disorganise the roman infantry with his elephants while his own cavalry, largely inferior to the roman one this time, was distracting the roman horses and his infantry crushed the disorganised roman center with their own classical trick, by pushing line after line to better use his superior number and his last line of veterans.

    However his plan went to hell when his elephants disorganised his own lines and when the roman cavalry came back after pursuing the carthaginian cavalry, all hope to reverse the situation was lost.
    Last edited by Keyser; March 29, 2012 at 06:52 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Maybe the war was lost before it even started, yet hannibal went into it because of his fathers obsession for destroying rome(hope you know the story at the altar when he has 9)?


    So question is: Was hannibal a tactical genius - yet an awuful stratagist? The series ive seen focused much on his personality and stratagey but not much on his tactics.

    Maybe we can assume that he was a really good tactician - yet his defeat was inevitable because he severly lacked stratagey skills and political skills?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    Maybe the war was lost before it even started, yet hannibal went into it because of his fathers obsession for destroying rome(hope you know the story at the altar when he has 9)?


    So question is: Was hannibal a tactical genius - yet an awuful stratagist? The series ive seen focused much on his personality and stratagey but not much on his tactics.

    Maybe we can assume that he was a really good tactician - yet his defeat was inevitable because he severly lacked stratagey skills and political skills?

    "Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it"
    Stay Scheming. #Raptors

  9. #9
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    Maybe the war was lost before it even started, yet hannibal went into it because of his fathers obsession for destroying rome(hope you know the story at the altar when he has 9)?


    So question is: Was hannibal a tactical genius - yet an awuful stratagist? The series ive seen focused much on his personality and stratagey but not much on his tactics.

    Maybe we can assume that he was a really good tactician - yet his defeat was inevitable because he severly lacked stratagey skills and political skills?
    It all goes back to whether or not Carthage are happy to be a second rate power, only having what Rome allows her to have. The Sardinian affair showed that Rome will actively curb Carthage's activities as and when they feel like it, regardless of legality. If Carthage weren't satisfied with this state of affairs, then it leads to war, with Hannibal's strategy offering the best chance of ultimate success. What other strategy offered a better chance of success given the situation as it was?

  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by pannonian View Post
    It all goes back to whether or not Carthage are happy to be a second rate power, only having what Rome allows her to have. The Sardinian affair showed that Rome will actively curb Carthage's activities as and when they feel like it, regardless of legality. If Carthage weren't satisfied with this state of affairs, then it leads to war, with Hannibal's strategy offering the best chance of ultimate success. What other strategy offered a better chance of success given the situation as it was?
    ... Like destroyed Scipio's force in Iberia before moved into Italy? Afterall, his Alp campaign was completely worthless since Scipio still intercepted him successfully in Italy and forced him to fight a battle. If the pitched battle was inevitable than why wasted your time and manpower on... crossing that Alp?
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    ... Like destroyed Scipio's force in Iberia before moved into Italy? Afterall, his Alp campaign was completely worthless since Scipio still intercepted him successfully in Italy and forced him to fight a battle. If the pitched battle was inevitable than why wasted your time and manpower on... crossing that Alp?
    The original plan was to go for rome. Im not much of an expert on siege warfare and anicent politics so i ask - had hannibal besieged rome and won - would he win the war?

  12. #12
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Yes, obviously, if Rome had fallen to Hannibal when he was actually besieging it he would of won the war since the Senate and much of the govt was in the city.

    However, it wasnt easy. The city could last for years, and it was supplied by the sea.

    Regarding Scipio. He never lost a battle. And he learned from Hannibal. Copied his tactics and used them against him and his brothers in Spain.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    Maybe the war was lost before it even started, yet hannibal went into it because of his fathers obsession for destroying rome(hope you know the story at the altar when he has 9)?


    So question is: Was hannibal a tactical genius - yet an awuful stratagist? The series ive seen focused much on his personality and stratagey but not much on his tactics.

    Maybe we can assume that he was a really good tactician - yet his defeat was inevitable because he severly lacked stratagey skills and political skills?
    Maybe.

    However i would argue that even if Carthage could be seen, with the hindsight (and probably even back then) as the inferior power between both (lacking the stability and unity of roman leadership, both internally and with its allies and vassals, leading to better management of the manpower among others advantages), it still probably had the means to win this war.
    If we look back at how the war evolved, indeed Hannibal efforts seem futiles and Carthage look defeated from the start of the war since nothing of what they tried diminished Rome and on the contrary Rome unleashed on them armies after armies on all theaters untill the victory.
    But, did Hannibal and Carthage had the means, finnancially and in manpower to beat Rome at the start of the war ?
    I would say yes, given how many armies Carthage raised too and the time it took to the roman to decisively crush them. And Hannibal's strategy to bring the war in Italy was, as it has already be pointed the best to beat the roman. It means Hannibal had on the contrary a good strategical vision.
    So, what went wrong ? Things not in his direct controle for instance, like how all the other carthaginian commanders got defeated regularly in the others theaters wich negated the effect of his strategy and cut him (and the carthaginian state) from precious ressources, especially in spain.
    Hannibal couldn't be anywhere, and where he wasn't more often than not, the roman arms prevailed. However that's probably not something he could have planned, even if he knew the valor of roman soldiers and how dangerous they were (and the precautions he took to fight them in major pitched battles show he didn't underestimated them), but he couldn't predict all the others carthaginian would fail as epically as they did.
    He probably also didn't expect the roman to be able to take his efforts in Italy and do as if nothing bad was happening. Even if they couldn't outsmart or beat him, they managed to prevent his progress way better than the carthaginian did to prevent roman progress on the others fronts.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    ... Like destroyed Scipio's force in Iberia before moved into Italy? Afterall, his Alp campaign was completely worthless since Scipio still intercepted him successfully in Italy and forced him to fight a battle. If the pitched battle was inevitable than why wasted your time and manpower on... crossing that Alp?
    A pitched battle is a major risk that Hannibal wouldn't have taken lightly, we know how superior his army and him were to the first roman commanders, but he didn't. He expected to win the war (and so battles too), of course, but he wasn't sure he would crush his opponents. So either he wait for them in spain and take the risk to loose the intiative and having his own backyard (just recently pacified and not under carthaginian rules since a long time) turned in a battlefield, or he takes the initiative, try to go to italy by all means and fight a pitched battle only if it's necessary. His aim wasn't necessarilly to crush roman army after roman army, it was a major risk each time. His aim was to campaign in Italy, get allies, turn roman allies, devastate their countryside and riches etc.
    Military operations are more complex than get there, fight a battle, battles are usually the last course of actions if any other move can't unlock the situation.

    His goal was to get to Italy, Scipio's goal was to prevent him to get there. By passing the alps where he did, he made sure he would actually fight in Italy, rather than in in the gallic "wilderness" or in his own turf, he would take certain casualties, but would be sure to be in Italy. Fighting a battle on the other hand would mean taking casulaties too and he could have been defeated without having any chance to get in Italy.
    I get your point, but i think you summarised the situation too much, the choice wasn't fight a battle now with more men, or fight a battle latter with less men. Wich if you look at it like that looks indeed like a stupid choice, but there are other strategical factors involved in Hannibal motives to cross the alps.
    Last edited by Keyser; March 30, 2012 at 03:27 AM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Good post, Keyser!

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    I just watched the show "Ancients: Behaving badly" and from what ive saw, it seems like Hannibal was nothing more than a D grade general.

    1)His elephants. They chulked up alot of provisions, and slowed his army, and on the battlefield werent doing as good as thier cost. For people who never saw elephants, theyre scary as hell, but after that(when they get to know them) you can just move out of thier way(like scipios army did in zuma). Furthermore, just the fact of having elephants increased the time hannibal needed to spend in the alps to two weeks, when it should have been only one week travel.
    2)The alps. He lost 25,000 men there, and most of his elephants. WTF? I mean, wouldnt it had been better for hannibal to go for sardinia, and then sicily, and then raid the southern countryside of rome? Carthage anyways had a superior navy.
    3)He may had crushing victories over the romans, but lets look at the romans. From what ive seen, at that time the roman army was managed by two consouls, and they had 24 hour shifts on the general office. Some day one general tried to dig in, while the other went on the offensive. We also know that the roman generals were motivated by oppertunities of glory and politics, rather than co working together for strict military goals.
    4)Why didnt he just go for rome when he could? Instead he tried to make failing alliances of Italian cities, letting the much manpower superior romans regroup and rebuild thier army. He just wandered in Italy untill he had to be called back to africa to defend carthage, where he was crushed.



    And as we know, history in older times was influenced much from politics. Roman historians maybe wanted scipio to look like a great general. Had he just won over a loser that wouldnt have been as glorious as defeating the "greatest general of them all". That just makes scipio a much better general.
    That documentary is nonsense.... you should read quite a few books on it instead.

    Carthage didn't have a superior navy, the only route for him was the land route through the Alps... of which he achieved his strategic and tactical goals of reaching Italy, and acquiring aid and defeating Roman forces in the field of battle. I'd also take the casualty figures through the Alps with a grain of salt... armies had moved through it successfully in the past... and if we take it by Polybius' figures, it is a wonder that the Gauls were willing to join such a ragtag, half-starved army whose commander had already lost so many men getting to Italy...

    Hannibal's greatest victories weren't against the most competent generals, but his years after Cannae reveal his quality as a general too... he went up against far more solid opposition than Scipio did in Spain (in both commanders and armies, and as we see, Scipio wasn't the only general to trash Carthaginian armies, his own father and uncle were victorious for 7 years, and the other generals managed to take out Hasdrubal and Mago Barca), and faced a far tougher political situation.

    He didn't go for Rome as it may have been impossible at that time - something as mundane as lack of food could have prevented him - he was over 250 miles away (about 3 weeks march) and his army had just fought in one day, one of the longest and bloodiest battles in European history - it was exhausted, half probably wounded, 11 percent dead... Rome was also far from undefended, and had he decided to march directly after Cannae, he may have had as few as 25,000 men with him. Hannibal correctly identified the only way to defeat Rome, by stripping it of its manpower and resources... sadly, Hannibal's generals in other theatres let him down in the end, or were just unlucky (the army in Sicily was wiped out by a plague) and the navy, which could have supported him much more, lacked balls, fleeing engagements or losing to Romans even when they did outnumber them...

    Hannibal probably wasn't a genius, he appears quite conventional in his practice of warfare, but his leadership and abilities kept his army together and mostly victorious in battle. Hannibal failed politically, but then that wasn't always in his hands, as the nature of alliances on the peninsular was often determined by interstate relationships and local rivalries... lots of allies required their own autonomy, and Hannibal couldn't recruit their men without their consent (for example Capua) who often went off to do their own thing, got in trouble and had to call on Hannibal to bail them out... Hannibal's generalship certainly impresses me during these years. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist... and hsi strategy was working (12 of 30 Latin colonies were exhausted and couldn't supply Rome, and large areas in southern Italy had sided with him, hostages had to be taken from Etruria and legions stationed there which was said to be wavering too, but he was going up against a very tough opposition (far tougher than other famous ancient commanders like Alexander the Great).

    Books really are far better than documentaries. Makes me want to stop such rubbish from ever being presented on tv...

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    Maybe the war was lost before it even started, yet hannibal went into it because of his fathers obsession for destroying rome(hope you know the story at the altar when he has 9)?
    That's assuming he had a choice, and believe what has been transmitted through a Roman filter which bears the marks of innate sociocentrism. With no Carthaginian sources available, it is highly questionable to apportion blame, raise allegations, or make accusations of treaty breaches. (Beck, The Reasons for the War in Hoyos (ed) Companion to the Punic Wars, p.225)

    If we take the treaty recorded by Polybius between Hannibal and Philip of Macedon, it clearly envisaged Rome's continued existence, so destroying Rome was never his goal... only reducing their power across the peninsular...

    In my opinion, he is rightly considered one of the greats, and deserves to stand next to names like Alexander and Caesar...
    Last edited by HannibalB; March 30, 2012 at 07:04 AM.
    "Hannibal was like a boxer faced by a heavier opponent; he feinted, weaved and dodged, and kept out of range - but his punch was devastating when he saw the chance."

    -Professor John F. Lazenby


  15. #15
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    ... Like destroyed Scipio's force in Iberia before moved into Italy? Afterall, his Alp campaign was completely worthless since Scipio still intercepted him successfully in Italy and forced him to fight a battle. If the pitched battle was inevitable than why wasted your time and manpower on... crossing that Alp?
    Because he needed a base? Wonder general though he was, his army still needs to eat, rest, etc. He can provision himself from Iberia. Once he leaves Iberia, the closest area he can reasonably expect to find friends in is Cisalpine Gaul, and that only if he can convince them he has a decent chance of success (since Rome had them under the cosh for some time). Does he dally in Iberia to no great effect, thus forgoing his only chance of ultimate success and handing the Romans the initiative? Or does he cross the unfriendly country as quickly as possible, arriving in Cisalpine Gaul with an unopposed army and showing the Gauls he meant business?

    Remember Scipio's original strategy was to intercept Hannibal in or near Iberia, with reinforcements coming up, and no doubt even more in time, all operating near a Roman ally (Massilia). If Hannibal wants to fight in Iberia before crossing the Alps, Scipio would be happy to oblige, although probably not with the decisive battle that you're thinking of. Meanwhile, with the north being held down with 6-8 legions, with Rome's heartland untouched, this leaves room for an expeditionary force to Africa, probably 2-4 legions for Africa and Sicily combined. In the OTL, Hannibal's strategy held down 20+ legions for years at a time, both by himself and by the insurrections against Rome that he inspired.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by pannonian View Post
    Because he needed a base? Wonder general though he was, his army still needs to eat, rest, etc. He can provision himself from Iberia. Once he leaves Iberia, the closest area he can reasonably expect to find friends in is Cisalpine Gaul, and that only if he can convince them he has a decent chance of success (since Rome had them under the cosh for some time). Does he dally in Iberia to no great effect, thus forgoing his only chance of ultimate success and handing the Romans the initiative? Or does he cross the unfriendly country as quickly as possible, arriving in Cisalpine Gaul with an unopposed army and showing the Gauls he meant business?

    Remember Scipio's original strategy was to intercept Hannibal in or near Iberia, with reinforcements coming up, and no doubt even more in time, all operating near a Roman ally (Massilia). If Hannibal wants to fight in Iberia before crossing the Alps, Scipio would be happy to oblige, although probably not with the decisive battle that you're thinking of. Meanwhile, with the north being held down with 6-8 legions, with Rome's heartland untouched, this leaves room for an expeditionary force to Africa, probably 2-4 legions for Africa and Sicily combined. In the OTL, Hannibal's strategy held down 20+ legions for years at a time, both by himself and by the insurrections against Rome that he inspired.
    Indeed, perhaps he hoped it might force Scipio to come after him, or that, with the resources available to his generals in Spain, they might be able to beat them. Its all great in retrospect.
    "Hannibal was like a boxer faced by a heavier opponent; he feinted, weaved and dodged, and kept out of range - but his punch was devastating when he saw the chance."

    -Professor John F. Lazenby


  17. #17

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Hmm. Would you be kind to refer me to the books you read? I dont know from where to start.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by StandardUser View Post
    Hmm. Would you be kind to refer me to the books you read? I dont know from where to start.
    Hannibal's War (http://www.amazon.com/Hannibals-War-...3113430&sr=1-2) by John Lazenby is a good start and in my opinion is the best general book on the war available, but I also consider The Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworthy as quite good as well (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Carth...3113462&sr=1-1), along with Hannibal by Ernle Bradford (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibal-Wor...3113565&sr=8-1). Hannibal by Dodge (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibal-The...3113533&sr=8-3) is great and is incredibly detailed (with lots of maps and diagrams of his battles, Roman legion positions across the peninsular etc), though there is a lot of hero-worship here, which you can counter by reading Scipio Africanus by Richard Gabriel (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scipio-Afric...3113651&sr=8-2) and either Hannibal's Dynasty (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibals-Dy...3113600&sr=8-3) or a slightly shorter Hannibal: Rome's Greatest Enemy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hannibal-Rom...3113634&sr=1-1) both by Dexter Hoyos. It might also be good to purchase Polybius and Livy's books on the war as well, as these are the two best sources we have...
    Last edited by HannibalB; March 30, 2012 at 08:21 AM.
    "Hannibal was like a boxer faced by a heavier opponent; he feinted, weaved and dodged, and kept out of range - but his punch was devastating when he saw the chance."

    -Professor John F. Lazenby


  19. #19
    Eat Meat Whale Meat
    Technical Staff Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,812

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalB View Post
    Indeed, perhaps he hoped it might force Scipio to come after him, or that, with the resources available to his generals in Spain, they might be able to beat them. Its all great in retrospect.
    Seeing how Scipio later conducted his campaigns, if Hannibal had stayed put rather than making the trek to Italy, Scipio would probably have screened Hannibal's main force with one army while another would campaign against his communications. If Hannibal then tries to deal with both these threats, then further reinforcements coming up would allow the Romans to further diversify their targets, bogging Hannibal down into a war of resources where Rome have the overwhelming advantage. Meanwhile, the Cisalpine Gauls would see no good reason to fight, having been repeatedly thrashed by the Romans in the past decade and with this Carthaginian general showing no signs of ever making it out of his own territory. There might well be 2 legions stationed nearby as well to remind them who's boss. And while this is going on in the north, the Romans are raiding Africa with a consular force, making life uncomfortable for the Carthaginian government.

    All the above is based on Rome's original plans.

  20. #20
    Manuel I Komnenos's Avatar Rex Regum
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Athenian Empire
    Posts
    11,553

    Default Re: Why is Hannibal considered so great?

    I see some very educational posts here. I think you guys pretty much covered this. I'd only add that at least to me, the march through the Alps can be seen as a rare strategic masterpiece. Hannibal managed to catch the Romans off-guard, surprise them but the feat of crossing the Alps itself -regardless of casualties- was quite the achievement considering how difficult it was even for modern armies.

    As for the strategy he followed after his arrival, it was probably the only sane option he had. Hannibal did not have the means to engage Rome directly, i.e. siege the powerful city with an army which would hardly be able to encircle it effectively, so he could only attack indirectly and try to strip Rome of its allies. However, the determination of the Roman society and the ability of Rome to keep a long list of allies loyal and dedicated to the cause meant that Hannibal was not left with much of a choice. A direct approach could have been achieved if Hasdrubal managed to unite forces with Hannibal something which would have probably allowed the commence of a siege against Rome.
    Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
    "Steps to be taken in case Russia should be forced out of war considered. Various movements [of ] troops to and from different fronts necessary to meeting possible contingencies discussed. Conference also weighed political, economic, and moral effect both upon Central and Allied powers under most unfavorable aspect from Allied point of view. General conclusions reached were necessity for adoption of purely defensive attitude on all secondary fronts and withdrawing surplus troops for duty on western front. By thus strengthening western front [those attending] believed Allies could hold until American forces arrive in numbers sufficient to gain ascendancy."
    ~General Pershing, report to Washington, 26 July 1917

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •