04-14-2002, 12:26 PM
I really do have to finish writing that article which I've been working on for ages now, but haven't had the time to finish: "In Defence of the Carthaginian Senate".<br>
<br>
A. Barca - go back to the "original" historical sources, instead of uncritically swallowing the assessments of 19th and early 20th historians (do I detect yet another person to swallow T. H. Dodge raw?). All the evidence is there for anyone to read in the original sources, and it in no way supports the idea that Hannibal received anything but the full and unqualified backing of the Carthaginian Senate throughout the war.<br>
<br>
Dodge's assessment of Scipio (which yours resembles) is obviously coloured by bitterness that someone actually managed to outwit and defeat Hannibal. He was in fact neither the first, nor the last general to do so.<br>
<br>
Going on at length about how Scipio is merely a copy of Hannibal ignores the accounts in Polybius of the strategies of Xanthippos and Hamilcar Barca, both of whom employed all the strategies later used by Hannibal: double envelopments, ambushes, elephants, etc.. Are we then to say that Hannibal is not a great General because 99% of the stratagems and tactics he used were well-known and used before his time by Xantippos and Hamilcar Barca (and in fact many other Generals as well)? Then how can we say that Scipio is less of a general (especially considering that the majority of his stratagems have little in common with those of Hannibal except the result - victory)? This sort of arguement is silly, and can only recoil on the person arguing for it. Military science is simple - it is the application of this science in a real-life situation that is hard. At this problem, both Hannibal and Scipio excelled.<br>
<br>
Talking of legends, it is interesting to note that for most of the ancient and medieval period, Scipio - not Hannibal - was considered the greater legend. It is primarily with the fervent propaganda efforts of the historians of 18th and 19th centuries that this trend was changed and Scipio (like another great general, Wellington) was eclipsed by the modern mindset of always favoring the underdog.<br>
<br>
Regarding GZ's questions:<br>
1. The Roman system of government was designed to prevent any one person from achieving pre-eminence. Thus Hannibal would have had his 1 or 2 consulships of glory, and have passed on in history as yet another of the many illustrious military heroes of the Roman world: Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the Scipios, the Decius Mus's, Fabius Maximus, etc.<br>
<br>
2. The Roman conquest of "Europe" took place over a period of more than 250 years. Yet another military man would not have changed this progression of events significantly.<br>
<br>
3. Whether or not Rome could have defeated Persia depends very much on what time period you're looking at. At the time of Alexander's invasion, Persia was ripe to fall - as Xenophon's march of the 10,000 clearly indicated. Any competent conquoror could probably have destroyed it, given the military ressources required. It was a far more dynamic (and resilient) entity during the time of Cyrus the Great (incidentally, a man that Scipio is supposed to have admired greatly and sought to emulate) and Darius the Great. It is worth noting however that Rome repeatedly "conquered" Parthia (which covered most of the Persian empire), though these campaigns did not result in a permanent presence. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 4/14/02 3:02:44 pm<br></i>
<br>
A. Barca - go back to the "original" historical sources, instead of uncritically swallowing the assessments of 19th and early 20th historians (do I detect yet another person to swallow T. H. Dodge raw?). All the evidence is there for anyone to read in the original sources, and it in no way supports the idea that Hannibal received anything but the full and unqualified backing of the Carthaginian Senate throughout the war.<br>
<br>
Dodge's assessment of Scipio (which yours resembles) is obviously coloured by bitterness that someone actually managed to outwit and defeat Hannibal. He was in fact neither the first, nor the last general to do so.<br>
<br>
Going on at length about how Scipio is merely a copy of Hannibal ignores the accounts in Polybius of the strategies of Xanthippos and Hamilcar Barca, both of whom employed all the strategies later used by Hannibal: double envelopments, ambushes, elephants, etc.. Are we then to say that Hannibal is not a great General because 99% of the stratagems and tactics he used were well-known and used before his time by Xantippos and Hamilcar Barca (and in fact many other Generals as well)? Then how can we say that Scipio is less of a general (especially considering that the majority of his stratagems have little in common with those of Hannibal except the result - victory)? This sort of arguement is silly, and can only recoil on the person arguing for it. Military science is simple - it is the application of this science in a real-life situation that is hard. At this problem, both Hannibal and Scipio excelled.<br>
<br>
Talking of legends, it is interesting to note that for most of the ancient and medieval period, Scipio - not Hannibal - was considered the greater legend. It is primarily with the fervent propaganda efforts of the historians of 18th and 19th centuries that this trend was changed and Scipio (like another great general, Wellington) was eclipsed by the modern mindset of always favoring the underdog.<br>
<br>
Regarding GZ's questions:<br>
1. The Roman system of government was designed to prevent any one person from achieving pre-eminence. Thus Hannibal would have had his 1 or 2 consulships of glory, and have passed on in history as yet another of the many illustrious military heroes of the Roman world: Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the Scipios, the Decius Mus's, Fabius Maximus, etc.<br>
<br>
2. The Roman conquest of "Europe" took place over a period of more than 250 years. Yet another military man would not have changed this progression of events significantly.<br>
<br>
3. Whether or not Rome could have defeated Persia depends very much on what time period you're looking at. At the time of Alexander's invasion, Persia was ripe to fall - as Xenophon's march of the 10,000 clearly indicated. Any competent conquoror could probably have destroyed it, given the military ressources required. It was a far more dynamic (and resilient) entity during the time of Cyrus the Great (incidentally, a man that Scipio is supposed to have admired greatly and sought to emulate) and Darius the Great. It is worth noting however that Rome repeatedly "conquered" Parthia (which covered most of the Persian empire), though these campaigns did not result in a permanent presence. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 4/14/02 3:02:44 pm<br></i>
