Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was Hannibal a genius?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
AnchoritSybarit View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
  Quote AnchoritSybarit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Hannibal a genius?
    Posted: 14-Mar-2017 at 01:46
Can we agree that Hannibal started a war that Rome was dedicated to provoking? 
If so then the question arises, do you want to fight the war in Spain or in Italy.  In either case you face the predicament of being cut off from your base (Carthage) which given Rome's naval superiority was inevitable.
If you fight in Spain then you still face the historical possibility of Rome making a descent on Carthage from Sicily and forcing Hannibal to scurry back to Carthage without his battle tested veterans and make do with the home militia.
If you fight in Italy then you at least have the possibility of striking a decisive blow against Rome.

I have often heard the criticism that Hannibal lacked strategic insight because he failed to bring siege equipment with him.  He barely made it across the Alps and then with the loss of a large percentage of his men.

The debate still rages as to his failure to march on Rome.  In his defense conventional wisdom of the day dictated that the defeated Romans would naturally sue for peace.  And furthermore even assuming a successful assault (which would have proved costly even against a depleted Rome garrison) he could not have possibly held it against a return Roman assault.

His basic failure if it can be so called was in not being able to break Rome's ties with it's allied states.  It is arguable that no one could have accomplished this feat.  Given the basic difference between Carthagenian and Roman cultures we should all be grateful.  For all its faults and failures Rome's basic foundation brought us the Western civilization we cherish today.
What I have I hold.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2013 at 00:45
Nope, Hannibal was just like anyone else. If making Romans shiver in fear should make you a genius, the Vandals, Huns,Arabs and Visigoths are better candidates.


Hannibal just had 36 elephants. And the Romans were just Proboscidaephobic Confused

If he were careful with his elephants (or perhaps you cant blame him for their dying ) , he could have stormed Rome with 6 or 7 elephants .
Back to Top
HannibalB View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote HannibalB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2013 at 12:51
Maybe, who knows fella, it is one of history's great unknowables. The city however, was far from undefended.


Edited by HannibalB - 25-Apr-2013 at 15:12
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2013 at 12:23
25,000 men are enough to invade a city that has no army to protect itself. They could sack Rome like Brennus did, with his Celtic hordes!
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
HannibalB View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote HannibalB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2013 at 07:43
His army was shattered after Cannae, a march on Rome was not possible - at least 11 percent wounded, and probably more than half injured - not to mention the hit his command staff may have taken. Rome was more than 250 miles away, and a forced march so soon after a battle would leave what he could drag that way (probably no more than 25,000 men) further exhausted - read the link I provided, it reveals Rome's military strength after Cannae. Judging by his normal rate of march, it could have taken him upwards of 3 weeks to arrive at Rome.




Edited by HannibalB - 29-Apr-2013 at 04:32
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2013 at 05:49
I very much doubt that Hannibal could not enter Rome with his large army soon after the final blow he gave to Rome... He had his chance and threw it away. The Roman army was just slaughtered and Rome didn't have time to muster a new army! His window of opportunity was open for weeks, to say the least! 
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
HannibalB View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote HannibalB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2013 at 10:31
Originally posted by TITAN_

If Hannibal was a genius, why did he allow the Romans to send an army towards Carthage? Why didn't he encircle Rome?  Why didn't he burn Rome, to the ground? If you are not ruthless, you lose. That is warfare. 


The Romans were going to invade Carthage from the beginning of the war, and his campaign essentially stopped them from doing that for 14 years. He didn't have the manpower to burn Rome to the ground, and, in my opinion, certainly couldn't have done that after Cannae (details of which can be found here:http://historum.com/blogs/markdienekes/530-why-didnt-hannibal-march-rome.html#comment2661)

He was in the process of encircling Rome, with Macedon in the east, the Celts to the north, southern Italy largely in his hands - sadly, Hannibal couldn't be everywhere, and couldn't forsee events such as the destruction of Carthage's army in Sicily through disease, and the loss of Syracuse due to festivities, or Philip being scared away from his invasion by a fleet of ten Roman ships, or that the Gauls would not press advantage (much to there regret, as the years after Hannibal's War saw them further invaded on the Italian side of the Alps). He had to rely on other commanders, all of which were defeated by Roman opponents time and time again, that struggled against Hannibal himself.

As my old friend SpartanJKM would say, it really reveals collective genius over individual. UP against many competent and even good commanders (who were better than Carthage commanders save Hannibal), it was only a matter of time before Rome would come knocking on their door. Hannibal's Italian campaign was ruining the Italian peninsular, ravaging its population, straining alliances. . .


Edited by HannibalB - 24-Apr-2013 at 10:38
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 05:43
If Hannibal had passed Mensa tests over  we would have known it:Did he act like Genius?!?WinkIQ over
140?Today we have a lot of them over 200 without a job.Hannibal had it!(Job)
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 05:30
If Hannibal was a genius, why did he allow the Romans to send an army towards Carthage? Why didn't he encircle Rome?  Why didn't he burn Rome, to the ground? If you are not ruthless, you lose. That is warfare. 
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
HannibalB View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote HannibalB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 04:09
I would also add that Hannibal staying in Italy would also give Carthage more to bargin with had Carthaginian forces beaten Scipio's African invasion.

He really was a great strategist, certainly one of the best of antiquity - and it was bearing fruit. Rome was becoming exhausted - the economy near collapsing. Fighting Rome with it's own resources, whilst his countrymen win back Sicily and hold onto Spain. If only results had gone Carthage's way in other theaters. . . Really, Rome conducted an excellent strategy themselves, able to do so due to competent commanders, supplies and manpower. It is the political realm where Hannibal failed, and that was largely down to centuries of local rivalries and conditions which determined which side people joined during the war.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 00:10
Originally posted by Domen























I think that Hannibal was a brilliant tactician (one of the greatest ones in history), but he did not understand strategy.If he understood strategy, he would have retreated from Italy to either Africa or Spain (where the 2nd Punic War was decided) much earlier than he really did (and as we know he really did it in early 202 BC or late 203 BC), instead of nesting in Italy without any prospects for victory. Scipio was defeating one Carthaginian army after another in Spain - because they were led by poor tacticians - while the best commander of Carthage was stuck in Italy, without having any influence on the couse of war, because the war in Italy was already over, Hannibal failed to conquer Italy - the conflict was to be decided in Spain and then in Africa. Hannibal did not understand this - he still hoped for a victory on Roman soil, which was impossible. But avoiding disaster was still possible - defeat of Carthage in the 2nd Punic War was not inevitable. The end of the 2nd Punic War could have been similar to the end of the 1st Punic War, or even better for Carthage - Carthage could repulse Scipio's invasion. Status quo ante bellum could have been preserved, if only Hannibal understood strategy as much as he understood tactics. In subsequent defeats of Carthago Nova (209 BC), Baecula (208 BC), Metaurus in Northern Italy (207 BC - defeat of Hasdrubal who was marching with reinforcements for Hannibal to Italy) and Ilipa (206 BC) and Utica (203 BC) and Po Valley raid in 203 BC (another Carthaginian incursion into Northern Italy) Carthage lost some up to some 138,000 troops captured or killed (according to sources cited by wikipedia).I think that those defeats could have been avoided if Hannibal was in charge in those battles. But instead Hannibal was wasting time in Italy with remnants of his once great army, meanwhile Scipio was slaughtering and capturing thousands of fresh Carthaginian troops elsewhere.Hannibal was a better tactician than Scipio (Scipio was so good because he was learning from Hannibal and studying his battles - but the apprentice did not outdid the master). Hannibal would defeat Scipio if he had sufficient forces. At Zama Hannibal lost because he was deprived of the most valuable part of his army there (much of his cavalry) and his infantry were also mostly raw recruits.
You don't stomp thru the enemy's home turf undefeated for 14 years, by mearly being 'competent'. 
Being undefeated when the enemy is afraid of fighting and thus tries to avoid battle, is not such a great achievement. Rome learned from previous defeats, and later tried to avoid any major battles against Hannibal. Instead, the Romans were harrasing Hannibal's army in a guerilla campaign and minor battles against detachments of his army (preferably not under his personal command), which worked fine for them. Hannibal on the other hand, maybe remained undefeated, but his army was constantly shrinking and he was losing his excellent battle-hardened veterans who had previously won Cannae and other battles for him. It was a war of attrition and Hannibal could not win it due to having limited manpower resources. When he finally returned to Africa in 203 / 202 BC, his army had to be reinforced by raw recruits, because his veterans were but few. Even his elephants at Zama were young and relatively untrained animals (recently caught) - this is why they panicked so quickly and trampled his own infantry.
Moreover,  he lost the final battle in the worst possible way: He
outnumbered the enemy (although he always defeated larger armies!) and
he allowed Romans to fool him: His elephants were neutralized easily.
At Zama he outnumbered Scipio but that was not significant superiority. Moreover - Hannibal was deprived of large part of his most valuable force (his excellent Numidian cavalry - which betrayed him and was fighting for Scipio at Zama), his infantry were also largely raw recruits (veterans from his campaign in Italy were only minor part of his army). His elephants were also young, untrained animals, hastily gathered / caught before the battle - there was not enough time to train them properly. This is why they panicked easily and then trampled Carthaginian infantry.If there was Alexander the Great instead of Hannibal in charge of the Carthaginian army at Zama, he probably would have lost the battle as well. So I don't blame Hannibal for Zama. I blame him for his previous mistakes - i.e. staying in Italy for too long, while Scipio was destroying Carthaginian manpower under poor commanders in battles outside of Italy, because Hannibal was not in charge in those battles.
Hannibal was a brilliant general: a man driven by hatred of Rome.<div ="msg"="">
His hatred of Rome made him blind. He did not want to accept the fact, that he already lost in Italy. He was not able to capture the city of Rome, he even did not have enough forces to occupy entire Italy, and the Romans were growing stronger and stronger on each day, while he was becoming weaker and weaker after each skirmish and ambush, or even siege. Because he was driven by hatred - instead of by reason and logical thinking - Carthage lost the war. For Hannibal, his desire to take revenge on the Romans was more important than his obligation to defend his country.This is why Hannibal turned out to be a poor strategist - for him strategy was not important, because he did not care for the well-being of Carthage, he cared only for killing as many Romans and burning as many Roman villages as he could. Hatred is not a thing which makes a good general....

























A bad strategist? Observe the fact his invasion of Italy caused the army heading to invade Africa was recalled to Italy. He caused the war to be fought in Italy a huge plus. Retreating to Spain does nothing to further the war and leaves Carthage open to invasion. Not to mention deserting a huge number of allied cities. Here you are incorrect. Hannibal gave his last hope of victory in Italy up with his brother Hasdrubal's defeat. He was hemmed in in Southern Italy and could not break through. He was too massively outnumbered by now. It would have taken a fleet from Carthage which was not within his control. If you would recall the Punic forces won several major victories in Spain.


So you blame Hannibal for being in a different theatre and not one out of his control? Logical fallacy right there. His government wanted him in Italy and so he stayed until recalled.

Scipio's tactics were quite different from Hannibal's.


Lets not forget the at least 3 major battles won by Hannibal after Cannae. 1st and 2nd Herdonia and Silarus. In all 3 thr Romans were slaughtered. Hannibal never lost his touch. The reason he stayed in Italy was to protect his Italian allies. Leaving them assured that Rome would conquer all of italy.



You have to understand Hannibal was a general not a ruler. He has to rely on the fact that other generals can fight too. He can't be everywhere at once.

How so? I don't really believe he exactly hated Rome. Thats blatantly false. Hannibal was always cool and calm. We never hear of him making a SINGLE emotional decision. Wouldn't someone who hated Rome commit brutal acts or act on emotion? Hannibal never did. 2 reasons to stay i Italy. He had to protect the Italian cities allied with Carthage and his presence in Italy had prevented those troops being sent elsewhere. Again I remind you the Punic Government made deployments not Hannibal.

I have thoroughly disproved this.



Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 23:53
Originally posted by emperor_stylianos

I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am a firm believer that Hannibal is not a military genius. He was a good commander, but I don't think he deserves the title of military genius. His victories against the Romans were sound, considering that Roman generals were for the most part senators that knew nothing about war and had invested vast amounts of money to become consul, and simple say "roll them over" and expect to win....


This is where you need to research something before you jump to conclusions. You need to have extensive proofs and facts. Roman counsuls and praetors (the ranks of those who led armies) were very experienced. Military command and service was a requirement for counsulship. Thr Romans had actually just finished a campaign with the Celts and Illyrians crushing them.

What about his victories against the Spanish tribes, Celtic tribes, and the smashing of at LEAST 6 Roman armies? Or the fact he remained undefeated in Italy for 14 years? He lost a single battle in his career and conducted one of the very few double envelopements of history. Not only that but he literally fought the perfect battle, Cannae. Shall I list the battles and astoundingly sound tactics he used? The man simply can't be said to have been anything but genius.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 04:43
There is nothing your post to offend anyone. If they disagree fine. Ntl your entitled to your opinion and if anyone is offend then that's immaterial.

Historians professional or layman are not required to be politically correct or even total adherents to a particular school of thought....or an agenda simply because they have read half dozen books and articles by even the best in the business.


They are expected to be as objective as possible; and tho all opinion is subjective the effort to maintain the objectivity of it and to receive counter opinion, even negative, is key.


If you can remember that and practice it, then you will do well.


You don't have to be liked to be an honest and credible historian.


ya want that...go into politics or religion.


Amen.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
emperor_stylianos View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 10-Dec-2012
Location: Brisbane
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
  Quote emperor_stylianos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 01:59
I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am a firm believer that Hannibal is not a military genius. He was a good commander, but I don't think he deserves the title of military genius. His victories against the Romans were sound, considering that Roman generals were for the most part senators that knew nothing about war and had invested vast amounts of money to become consul, and simple say "roll them over" and expect to win....
God? God has nothing to do with it - Napoleon

Fighting in the forefront of the Hellenes, the Athenians at Marathon destroyed the might of the gold-bearing Medes -Inscription of Greek tomb at Marathon
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 04:52
I think that Hannibal was a brilliant tactician (one of the greatest ones in history), but he did not understand strategy.

If he understood strategy, he would have retreated from Italy to either Africa or Spain (where the 2nd Punic War was decided) much earlier than he really did (and as we know he really did it in early 202 BC or late 203 BC), instead of nesting in Italy without any prospects for victory. Scipio was defeating one Carthaginian army after another in Spain - because they were led by poor tacticians - while the best commander of Carthage was stuck in Italy, without having any influence on the couse of war, because the war in Italy was already over, Hannibal failed to conquer Italy - the conflict was to be decided in Spain and then in Africa. Hannibal did not understand this - he still hoped for a victory on Roman soil, which was impossible.

But avoiding disaster was still possible - defeat of Carthage in the 2nd Punic War was not inevitable.

The end of the 2nd Punic War could have been similar to the end of the 1st Punic War, or even better for Carthage - Carthage could repulse Scipio's invasion. Status quo ante bellum could have been preserved, if only Hannibal understood strategy as much as he understood tactics.

In subsequent defeats of Carthago Nova (209 BC), Baecula (208 BC), Metaurus in Northern Italy (207 BC - defeat of Hasdrubal who was marching with reinforcements for Hannibal to Italy) and Ilipa (206 BC) and Utica (203 BC) and Po Valley raid in 203 BC (another Carthaginian incursion into Northern Italy) Carthage lost some up to some 138,000 troops captured or killed (according to sources cited by wikipedia).

I think that those defeats could have been avoided if Hannibal was in charge in those battles. But instead Hannibal was wasting time in Italy with remnants of his once great army, meanwhile Scipio was slaughtering and capturing thousands of fresh Carthaginian troops elsewhere.

Hannibal was a better tactician than Scipio (Scipio was so good because he was learning from Hannibal and studying his battles - but the apprentice did not outdid the master). Hannibal would defeat Scipio if he had sufficient forces. At Zama Hannibal lost because he was deprived of the most valuable part of his army there (much of his cavalry) and his infantry were also mostly raw recruits.


You don't stomp thru the enemy's home turf undefeated for 14 years, by mearly being 'competent'. 


Being undefeated when the enemy is afraid of fighting and thus tries to avoid battle, is not such a great achievement. Rome learned from previous defeats, and later tried to avoid any major battles against Hannibal. Instead, the Romans were harrasing Hannibal's army in a guerilla campaign and minor battles against detachments of his army (preferably not under his personal command), which worked fine for them. Hannibal on the other hand, maybe remained undefeated, but his army was constantly shrinking and he was losing his excellent battle-hardened veterans who had previously won Cannae and other battles for him. It was a war of attrition and Hannibal could not win it due to having limited manpower resources. When he finally returned to Africa in 203 / 202 BC, his army had to be reinforced by raw recruits, because his veterans were but few. Even his elephants at Zama were young and relatively untrained animals (recently caught) - this is why they panicked so quickly and trampled his own infantry.


Moreover,  he lost the final battle in the worst possible way: He outnumbered the enemy (although he always defeated larger armies!) and he allowed Romans to fool him: His elephants were neutralized easily.


At Zama he outnumbered Scipio but that was not significant superiority. Moreover - Hannibal was deprived of large part of his most valuable force (his excellent Numidian cavalry - which betrayed him and was fighting for Scipio at Zama), his infantry were also largely raw recruits (veterans from his campaign in Italy were only minor part of his army). His elephants were also young, untrained animals, hastily gathered / caught before the battle - there was not enough time to train them properly. This is why they panicked easily and then trampled Carthaginian infantry.

If there was Alexander the Great instead of Hannibal in charge of the Carthaginian army at Zama, he probably would have lost the battle as well. So I don't blame Hannibal for Zama. I blame him for his previous mistakes - i.e. staying in Italy for too long, while Scipio was destroying Carthaginian manpower under poor commanders in battles outside of Italy, because Hannibal was not in charge in those battles.


Hannibal was a brilliant general: a man driven by hatred of Rome.


His hatred of Rome made him blind. He did not want to accept the fact, that he already lost in Italy. He was not able to capture the city of Rome, he even did not have enough forces to occupy entire Italy, and the Romans were growing stronger and stronger on each day, while he was becoming weaker and weaker after each skirmish and ambush, or even siege. Because he was driven by hatred - instead of by reason and logical thinking - Carthage lost the war. For Hannibal, his desire to take revenge on the Romans was more important than his obligation to defend his country.

This is why Hannibal turned out to be a poor strategist - for him strategy was not important, because he did not care for the well-being of Carthage, he cared only for killing as many Romans and burning as many Roman villages as he could. Hatred is not a thing which makes a good general...

.



Edited by Domen - 15-Apr-2013 at 05:22
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2013 at 08:26
He was one of the greatest generals, ever. He was not invincible though. Moreover,  he lost the final battle in the worst possible way: He outnumbered the enemy (although he always defeated larger armies!) and he allowed Romans to fool him: His elephants were neutralized easily. Unfortunately, his final embarassing defeat kind of spoils his reputation. So, I can't really put him in the same class with Alexander the Great. 
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
Amadeus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25-Mar-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
  Quote Amadeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2013 at 05:40
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Oh don't doubt Hannibal's haters. I have met numerous people who argue Hannibal was merely compotent if that. They much prefer Scipio. Anyway, at Trasimene Hannibal hid his whole army from Flaminius. Most of Hannibal's victories were total with few survivors and he used cavalry decisively. He used his diverse army to its strengths and so achieved victory.
 
Hannibal was the greatest General in history IMO...
 
You don't stomp thru the enemy's home turf undefeated for 14 years, by mearly being 'competent'.  
~Rough life breeds men out of boys...
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 19:21
With this I take issue. The supposed hatred of Rome factor has been shown to br highly unlikely. That oath he supposedly told Antiochus about was never to be a friend of Rome. Rome didn't have equal friends she had subservient friends. So even if he stated this which is iffy he never actually said he hated Rome at all. He went to war due to Roman meddling and the seizure of Sardinia and Corsica.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 19:13
Hannibal was a brilliant general: a man driven by hatred of Rome. His successful crossing of the Alps with elephants in tow is itself an impressive feat
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 18:42
Originally posted by Toltec

As I forget which commander said, "Strategy Is For Amateurs, Logistics Is For Professionals" Hannibals was most definately a professional.
 
 
 
 
 
 
My old boss at 4 star level....'Stormin' Norman.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.