Comparisons between Napoleon and Hannibal?

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Now its always occured to me that Hannibal and Napoleon were the most ruthless generals of their eras, they both won victories but lost the wars that of were immense signfiance.

Also, they both ended up destroying their empires. That's another interesting thought.

What do you find comparisons between the two generals?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

They operated similarly in terms of strategy and tactics, in fact we could probably argue that Napoleon's methods were a modern continuation of Hannibal's methods. Also both lost because Rome/Russia refused to make peace (although for Napoleon this includes other enemies). Both of them became rulers of their countries after campaigns in Italy as well. An interesting thing to note was that some of Napoleon's close friends said that Napoleon believed that he was actually the reincarnation of Hannibal.

[MarkusAntonius]

Yes makes sense both made great campaigns. And both failed and died prisoners of their enemies. But still i see Napoleon more as a Roman " The Last Caesar ". Besides have a resemblance. And being an ethnic Italian. He was the last Latin to be Emperor of something. I mean the last Great Latin.

[HannibalB]

Yes makes sense both made great campaigns. And both failed and died prisoners of their enemies. But still i see Napoleon more as a Roman " The Last Caesar ". Besides have a resemblance. And being an ethnic Italian. He was the last Latin to be Emperor of something. I mean the last Great Latin.

Hannibal never died a prisoner of his enemies. He killed himself rather than face that.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm wondering if Corsican can really be considered actually Italian because it seemed somewhat differnet, although his grandfather was Genoese.

[Gauloisier de la Gauloiserie]

Ethnically N. was corsican and the closest you can think is italian.
In his head, and culturally he was also heavily latin/corsican even anti-french when he was young; his hero was Paoli, we all know the story...
But when he became a general of the republic, a consul and later an emperor, he considered himself as totally french, and he simply loved France for what it began after 1789.

[Gauloisier de la Gauloiserie]

N. tried to commit suicide too... but failed (poison didnt "work" properly)

[Keyser]

Napoleon crossed the alps too.

Although i am not sure there are that many common points between them, excepted for the fact they are the most reknowed generals from their era but were beaten in a decisive final battle by an undefeated general who captured spain...

[Biggus Splenus]

Napoleon was more remarkable to be honest. Hannibal took on Rome with an army of allies, which is amazing, but Napoleon took on literally all the major powers of Europe, and eventually, nearly all of Europe.

Both wars went on for a very long time (technically the Napoleonic Wars was split into a bunch of smaller wars, but logically, they can be called the same war). Hannibal fought Rome for about 20 years, Napoleon fought Europe for about 15 years, although comparing years for a war doesn't say anything of it's epicness, especially not when the time frames are this far apart.

Both leaders ended in defeat.

If Napoleon wasn't there, the French Revolution would have failed much earlier. If Hannibal wasn't there, well, the 2nd Punic War as we know it wouldn't have happened.

Both were tactical masters, but I'd dare to say that Napoleon was better, just because he was skilled in the use of all tactics, especially assault, whereas Hannibal fought the most effective when the battle was on his terms (all Rome's major defeats against him, and Zama was the first major battle not on his terms).

Napoleon completely reorganised the Army along a model that suited him (tactics, organisation, administration, etc.), which was mimiced by nations across the world for years (perhaps even now days)

I think the lesson Napoleon taught Europe was much more important than what Hannibal taught the Romans.

I could go on for ever about Napoleon but I'm no expert on Hannibal.

but were beaten in a decisive final battle by an undefeated general who captured spain...

I never even noticed that.... mind blown?

Wellington receives far too much credit for the defeat of Napoleon though.

[Keyser]

Hannibal's battle weren't fought on his terms, how was being attacked with a diminished army a few weeks after the crossing of the alps and in numerical inferiority a battle on his terms ?
He made the battle fought on his terms by not letting the roman eat and cross a freezing river while being ambushed by a hidden force. All of that is an important part of generalship.
Same for Cannae, how fighting an ennemy outnumbering you two to one on a plain is fighting on your term ? He used the roman strength against itself and exploited his own strength (superior cavalry) to its maximum.
The only battle really fought on his terms was the ambush at lake Trasimene.

Also, Napoléon didn't perform any major reform of the french army, for the most part he used what he inherited from the late royal army and the changes made by the republican government.

[Biggus Splenus]

Hannibal's battle weren't fought on his terms, how was being attacked with a diminished army a few weeks after the crossing of the alps and in numerical inferiority a battle on his terms ?
He made the battle fought on his terms by not letting the roman eat and cross a freezing river while being ambushed by a hidden force. All of that is an important part of generalship.
Same for Cannae, how fighting an ennemy outnumbering you two to one on a plain is fighting on your term ? He used the roman strength against itself and exploited his own strength (superior cavalry) to its maximum.
The only battle really fought on his terms was the ambush at lake Trasimene.

He chose the battlefield for all the first 3 major losses for Rome, therefore, it was on his terms. Like you said, he made the Romans cross the river to come to him, at Cannae he was smart enough to deploy his army so that the Roman left flank would be pinned against the river.

Also, Napoléon didn't perform any major reform of the french army, for the most part he used what he inherited from the late royal army and the changes made by the republican government.

I can fairly safely say that is false. While some of the design was inherited from the later army, a lot of it was hand crafted by Napoleon himself.

[Keyser]

He chose the battlefield for all the first 3 major losses for Rome, therefore, it was on his terms. Like you said, he made the Romans cross the river to come to him, at Cannae he was smart enough to deploy his army so that the Roman left flank would be pinned against the river.

The roman army tried to engage him each time, they never managed to fight on a ground of their chosen (that could be argued for Cannae though, the ground was agreed by both sides this time)... That speak highly of Hannibal's generalship i think.

Anyway, how that affected the outcome of the battle exactly ? (@Cannae)

That theorically prevented his cavalry to manoeuver as they wished and meant they had to engage the roman head on. It didn't suit it more than it suited the romans, it's just the romans didn't exploit it as they should have (by anchoring their infantry line to the river and massing the cavalry on the other wing)

I can fairly safely say that is false. While some of the design was inherited from the later army, a lot of it was hand crafted by Napoleon himself.

So what did he handcraft exactly ?

The only thing i can think about the french army that didn't exist before Napoleon came to power is the imperial guard...

Edit

Okay he also added lancers and voltigeurs (at least conceptualised the use of light infantry into the voltigeurs concept) to the french army and a few new units there and there (mamelouks, guides etc).

The bulk of the army was already there, from the weapons (the revolutionnary and imperial versions were just upgrades of the late royal army gear) to the organisation (division, corps etc) and doctrines (mass use of skirmishers, ordre profond, powerfull artillery (although being an artillerist himself he certainly made a more radical use of it)).

[youngfool]

Keyser's right, Hannibal did not fought as much battles 'on his terms' as we might think, in fact his whole invasion plan was doomed at the very start, as Philip V of Macedon's incompetence failed to unite forces with Hannibal in Italy which was a major setback.
In regards to the scales of the war, it might seem Napoleon had all Europe worked up and therefore a winner, but Hannibal too was fighting a continental war. In Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece and Spain, Hannibal had kindled something like a third of the whole military force of Rome and her allies was constantly under arms.
And if we take the inferior transportation and therefore poor telecommunication efficiency in the Second Punic War era into account, I say Hannibal surpasses Napoleon.

[Biggus Splenus]

And if we take the inferior transportation and therefore poor telecommunication efficiency in the Second Punic War era into account, I say Hannibal surpasses Napoleon.

That's certainly a bold opinion, but I'm afraid I don't agree. There's a difference between taking on Rome and its allies (Italy and some Mediterranean islands), and taking on Britain and her allies (Prussia, Russia, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Sicily, Naples, even Mamaluk Egypt and Ottoman Empire at one point), and I see the difference as rather huge.

[Biggus Splenus]

You're definitely right, it does show Hannibals excellent generalship, but I was pointing out that when he was forces against all his terms, he wouldn't perform as well as expected, despite his knowledge and skill in tactics. But I suppose this is to be expected of any general.

Pinning the Roman cavalry flank against the river was a huge advantage for Hannidals Celtic and Iberian heavy cavalry. Its been accepted that the Roman cavalry of that battle where lightly equipped, while the Celtic and Iberian cavalry were very heavily equipped, especially the ones in the front ranks (see Livy). So the advantage of the lightness (is that a word ) of the Roman cavalry was negated, because they couldn't manouver at all (which is what light cavalry excelled at, out flanking heavier enemies). So Hannibals cavalry could littelry trample and smash them off their horses, rid around the back of the army, surround the allied socii cav, and then assault the Roman heavies.

Well, for starters, yes Napoleon did create the Imperial Guard, and he also recreated most the organisation and composition of the entire army, as well as reform the artillery.

Sorry for English errors, I'm comfortably on my phone in bed

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4

[youngfool]

That's certainly a bold opinion, but I'm afraid I don't agree. There's a difference between taking on Rome and its allies (Italy and some Mediterranean islands), and taking on Britain and her allies (Prussia, Russia, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Sicily, Naples, even Mamaluk Egypt and Ottoman Empire at one point), and I see the difference as rather huge.

Yes, you are right. Honestly I am not very familiar with Napoleon War. Perhaps my personal admiration for the characters and the stories take place in the Second Punic War had me blinded and to make 'bold' claims in defense.
I mean I need to defend Hannibal as much as I have to defend many of his well met enemies, such as the determined elder Scipio Africanus, the ancient house of the Fabius, Varro when laying down his command before the people and much more. For as long as I stay ignorant in regards to the Napoleon War and Napoleon, Hannibal will always be my favourite.

[Biggus Splenus]

I think ill be the same with Napoleon too, you're not alone

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

In my opinion Napoleon is like the next Hannibal as far as command goes. His strategies and tactics were relatively similar except Napoleon tweaked them up a bit to suit his needs. Although the biggest difference between the two is that Napoleon had more control and more resources while Hannibal was only a general and after the war Hannibal did not lose his "throne", instead he became the ruler of Carthage.