04-26-2007, 10:10 PM
What you say here still depends on the underlying assumption that Hannibal's decision to go to war was unnecessary. My contention is that, if we look at the course of the Punic Wars and the history of Rome's rise to dominance in Italy, it is apparent that there are only two ways to deal with Rome; destroy her or be destroyed by her. Hannibal knew plenty about Rome's behaviour in the Punic Wars and it's fair to assume he had some knowledge of the history of Rome beyond this. Judging by the fate of the Celtic tribes of Italy, of the Etruscans, the Volscians, the Samnites and so on, it was clearly impossible to reach an accommodation with Rome; the best you could hope for was subjugation. Defeating her was not sufficient, as the Celts and Samnites had cause to know. Even subjugating her proved no long-term solution for the Etruscans. To someone in Hannibal's position, it must have been obvious that "there could be only one" mistress of the Mediterranean. The survival of his country was already at stake and he may well have believed that it would have its last best chance with him (its first best chance having already been squandered).
We get pictures of implacable haters on both sides in the Punic Wars, so there's no moral high ground to be had for Rome, and to measure Hannibal as a general by what motivated him to fight, rather than by how he conducted his campaigns is to avoid the point. I actually find the traditional view of Hannibal being schooled from childhood to hate Rome as the type of thing that gets made up as part of the legend, although Rome's behaviour would certainly have justified such an attitude, not only in Hannibal, but in countless others who had the misfortune to find themselves in her way, or in the way of her politicians who themselves often started wars for the sake of the victory parade rather than for any military or political end other than their own election to a given office.
The vehemence of your character assassination attempt gives me the feeling that your opposition to Hannibal stems from your love of Rome, so that you view any opponent of Rome as bad - and worse in direct proportion to his success. Thus, Hannibal, whose name was used to scare Roman children into silence for centuries, is, for you, the vilest of villains and his success due to anything but his own deserving. You praise his troops:- Peddie, in "Hannibal's War", makes the diversity of Hannibal's army a point which demonstrates his generalship - he was able to command and inspire men who were not of his nation in the face of extreme hardship and many reverses, as well as leading them to spectacular victories by being a better general than his opponents. Until Zama, no Roman general had beaten Hannibal himself in battle and, at Zama, he was fighting with his army crippled by the defection of the Numidians- in effect, with one hand tied behind his back.
You argue against boldness in war. George Washington took command of his own armies when his generals counselled caution. Had he accepted their advice, the flag below your avatar would not be Old Glory. On the other hand, most Americans consider Montgomery a bad general for being over-cautious. Are you a fan of his? Or do you prefer "Blood-and-guts" Patton?
And what about Julius Caesar, taking on Pompey, the greatest general of his time, Pompey Magnus, when Pompey had far more men? Julius is to be condemned, too, is he? I don't know about you, but I've heard it suggested that there was no need for Caesar's Gallic Wars nor for his (failed) invasion of Britain, other than to raise his profile in Rome. So he's obviously an even worse general than Hannibal...
We get pictures of implacable haters on both sides in the Punic Wars, so there's no moral high ground to be had for Rome, and to measure Hannibal as a general by what motivated him to fight, rather than by how he conducted his campaigns is to avoid the point. I actually find the traditional view of Hannibal being schooled from childhood to hate Rome as the type of thing that gets made up as part of the legend, although Rome's behaviour would certainly have justified such an attitude, not only in Hannibal, but in countless others who had the misfortune to find themselves in her way, or in the way of her politicians who themselves often started wars for the sake of the victory parade rather than for any military or political end other than their own election to a given office.
The vehemence of your character assassination attempt gives me the feeling that your opposition to Hannibal stems from your love of Rome, so that you view any opponent of Rome as bad - and worse in direct proportion to his success. Thus, Hannibal, whose name was used to scare Roman children into silence for centuries, is, for you, the vilest of villains and his success due to anything but his own deserving. You praise his troops:- Peddie, in "Hannibal's War", makes the diversity of Hannibal's army a point which demonstrates his generalship - he was able to command and inspire men who were not of his nation in the face of extreme hardship and many reverses, as well as leading them to spectacular victories by being a better general than his opponents. Until Zama, no Roman general had beaten Hannibal himself in battle and, at Zama, he was fighting with his army crippled by the defection of the Numidians- in effect, with one hand tied behind his back.
You argue against boldness in war. George Washington took command of his own armies when his generals counselled caution. Had he accepted their advice, the flag below your avatar would not be Old Glory. On the other hand, most Americans consider Montgomery a bad general for being over-cautious. Are you a fan of his? Or do you prefer "Blood-and-guts" Patton?
And what about Julius Caesar, taking on Pompey, the greatest general of his time, Pompey Magnus, when Pompey had far more men? Julius is to be condemned, too, is he? I don't know about you, but I've heard it suggested that there was no need for Caesar's Gallic Wars nor for his (failed) invasion of Britain, other than to raise his profile in Rome. So he's obviously an even worse general than Hannibal...
