05-03-2007, 01:36 PM
Quote:If a strategic situation is progressively deteriorating, (and I suspect this one was, from the Carthginian point of view), the options are limited. Either start fighting now, before things get worse, or pre emptively surrender, (and learn Latin).
The thing is, Hannibal's view was rather different than the Carthaginian view. It's very odd that the Carthaginian senate was informed of Hannibals actions by a Roman envoy. If that's not a breach in military discipline, I don't know what is. Their senate was obviously not thinking along those lines.
We know Rome today as a predatory state, but I don't think this was so clear cut in Hannibal's time. They had a war, and both sides decided to stop the war. What changed in the interim? Our sources tell us that that Rome had hoped to avoid war even after the attack by Hannibal. According to the sources, Hannibal's action looks like a fairly outragious pre-emptive strike that he wasn't even authorized to make.
When you are alone in your opinion on something, and by your action force everyone to go your way, and you turn to be wrong in that opinion to the ruin of everyone, I think you open yourself up to serious criticism. :lol:
I remember in "Patton" the movie, Patton wanted to attack the Soviets straight away after Hitler died. Imagine if he just went ahead and did it on his own authority! That would have been some movie!
Rich Marinaccio
