Was Hannibal a genius?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32193
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 16:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Was Hannibal a genius?
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Subject: Was Hannibal a genius?
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 15:33
| Hannibal one of the greatest generals of all time though he was also an admiral. Does he qualify as a military genius? He had numerous crushing defeats over the Romans, Spaniards, Celts, and Pergamon. He won naval and land battles and never stopped fighting. His tactical masterpiece Cannae is one of the best tactical battles ever. Trasimen and Trebia are also model battles. His lesser none battles like Herdonia or Tagus River were also impressive. He wasnt deficient at siege warfare either taking, Acerrae, Tarentum, Saguntum, and numerous other cities. He crossed the Alps under attack by Celtic tribes a truly spectacular feat. His strategy of detaching Roman allies was working. The Etruria was unrestful, he took all of Bruttium, most of Magna Graecia, Tarentum and Capua plus all but one of the Samnite tribes went over to him. Rome was in dire straits having to reduce their coinage weight and lower the standards for military recruitment. 12 Latin conies could no longer send men or tribute. He fought the Rhodians in a naval battle and won Naval and land battles against Pergamon. His accomplishments are gigantic and can be extolled on for days. Do his accomplishments give him the title military genius? I of course say yes. What say you? |
Replies:
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 15:38
I fiind him very creative in a military way, almost romantic. In my book this is enough to qualify as a military genius. I have a weak spot for him though, so I don't know how objective I can be
------------- |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 15:44
|
Alas I too can't be fully objective. He is by far my favorite person in history. On another note, how can one deny his genius? Simply mentioning Cannae or Trasimene should remedy that. ------------- |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 16:02
|
Well, no need to pretend I understand more than I do... Cannae though seems like was fully controlled by Hanibal, even to the proverbial dust. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 16:03
|
If he can still be referred to for study of his campaigns and tactics; by institutions as redoubtable as Sandhurst..WestPoint..VMI..The Citadel..Anapolis..Norwich..Saint Cyr..CGSC and the US Army War College...then the answer remains obvious. ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 16:07
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 16:57
I have been studying this stuff for over 40 years...I doubt nothing. There will always be aficionados of 'this or that' general, campaign and tactics and diplomatic intrigue etc....it's why I avoid threads dealing with the 'best'. The key is to remain objective in the analysis of all the combatants within the context of the era. And more importantly how they....the governments and leaders of armies viewed warfare in the era. And its contextual usage as a means of enhancing a nation states development, security and expansion and personal ambitions. I had taught this stuff (now retired) in uniform and out, on the platform of higher academia and in the woodlands and mountains and deserts for 23 years. To include the arena of combat operations. To compare Scipio's brilliance in context with Hannibal's is to do a disservice to both. They were both brilliant. As exampled by that tremendous fight at Zama..stroke...counterstroke....chess like yet unorthodox. Or Scipio's campaign in Hispania. Yet tactics does not tell the tale alone..Scipio's greatness was further magnified by his unwillingness to raze the city, subjugate the populace and continue negotiations. Hannibal's... in his later exile, military ops and eventually suicide...perhaps to avoid further confrontation spurned on by his Roman foes who could not forgive him. Nor ever trust him. In the end, both of them were and remain classic examples of the old styled 'battle captains' of the past. Both master practitioners of the tradecraft-systems and tactics they were taught. And to do it objectively and effectively will require more then just a cursory effort on a history chat forum. Besides it's already been done. And I have tiswin cooking. And even greats such as Hannibal and Scipio must stand down for that. ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 17:06
|
Zama was a stalemate from each man'd actions cancelling out the other. It then devolved into a proverbial slogging match as you know :). Scipio actually was thinking more of himself in not besieging the city. Besides that he pretended to be earnestly negotiating then attacked Syphax and Hanno's camps in bad faith. Scipio's relectuance to besiege Carthage was the fact he might not have been able to take it. He had a small navy at the time and his siege of Utica took over a year. To take Carthage he would've needed a much larger army and navy. He recognized he wouldn't be able to take it and so instead of wasting his procounsulship on it and risking being replaced he concentrted and making Carthage accept terms so he could assure he took credit and received a triumph. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 17:15
''There will always be aficionados of 'this or that' general, campaign and tactics and diplomatic intrigue etc'' You just made my point...you were not the first nor will you be the last.  But Ole unkie Centrix likes to give credit where credit is due. And so for the exuberance and passion for the subject matter and history at large you have displayed. And especially as a new member..... you get a commendation. Which is only slightly a lesser an accolade then getting to drink tiswin with me out on the high and lonesome lonely. For that you must do much, much more work. ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 17:37
|
I thank you kindly :) ------------- |
Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 18:36
|
As I forget which commander said, "Strategy Is For Amateurs, Logistics Is For Professionals" Hannibals was most definately a professional. ------------- Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website <br / |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2012 at 18:42
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' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date 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! |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Amadeus
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2013 at 05:40
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... |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date 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. |
Posted By: Domen
Date 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.
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.
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.
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... . |
Posted By: emperor_stylianos
Date 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 |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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' |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2013 at 23:53
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 00:10
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. ------------- |
Posted By: HannibalB
Date 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. |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date 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. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 05:43
|
If Hannibal had passed Mensa tests over we would have known it:Did he act like Genius?!?IQ over 140?Today we have a lot of them over 200 without a job.Hannibal had it!(Job) |
Posted By: HannibalB
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2013 at 10:31
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. . . |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date 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. |
Posted By: HannibalB
Date 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. |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date 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. |
Posted By: HannibalB
Date 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. |
Posted By: SuryaVajra
Date 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  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 . |
Posted By: AnchoritSybarit
Date 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. |