04-23-2007, 09:35 PM
Quote: Would you say the same of Robert E. Lee? He, too, took on an enemy he knew to be able to field more men, to have a far superior logistical postion and which he would have to fight on its own ground. He, too, ran rings round said enemy until the combination of the loss of his best commanders, incompetence in his subordinates and the unreasonable behaviour of his superiors drove him to conduct the war in a way he would not have chosen. It's interesting to note, too, that Lee was effectively undone at Gettysburg by a failure in his cavalry, much as Hannibal's tactics were brought to nothing at Zama by the defection of his. So is Bob crap, too?
The American Civil War was not of Robert E. Lee's choosing. He was pretty well forced by circumstance to make the best of what he had, and he did very well. He acted and made decisions according to the interest of his country.
That is very different than starting a war, for *no* reason other than to make a name for yourself or supposedly to avenge your father's wounded pride, when you have no reason to expect victory. Carthage wanted nothing to do with this war because they didn't feel they were ready. This was not Hannibal's concern. Hannibal feared growing old and dying in obscurity before the war would start naturally, so he jumped the gun squarely against the interest of Carthage. Everyone was rightly shocked by his initial success, but the end result was *entirely* predictable.
Rich Marinaccio
