07-29-2005, 12:56 AM
One of the most persistant "problems" of ancient military history is trying to get a accurate view of Hannibal. Certainly there is a very strong tendency to rate Hannibal very high, but interestingly there is a tendency among many writers to feel that Scipio Africanus was a greater general than Hannibal. This is of course based on the fact that Hannibal lost the battle of Zama to Scipio. I find this reasoning problematic. Using this logic we would have to conclude that Peter the Great of Russia was a greater General than Charles the 12th of Russia, that Wellington was greater than Napoleon, and that Marshal Daun was greater than Frederick the Great. In all fairness this started fairly early with Polybius who claimed that Scipio was a greater general than Hannibal.
Remembering that our sources are very pro-Roman, Livy, and that even Polybius was very close to the Scipio family. In fact Livy had what are certainly mythical victories over Hannibal in his account. I wonder if we have the full story of what happened at Zama. Frankly the accounts of Zama, all ultimately based on Polybius don't give me much of sense about what Hannibal was trying to do. The result is a lot of conjecture but little substance.
Of course it would have been perfectly possible for Hannibal to be outgeneraled at Zama, although how this means given Hannibal's overall record, that Scipio was agreater general is beyond me. After all Napoleon had a "off" day at Waterloo and so deservedly lost to Wellington and Blucher.
Does anyone have any ideas about what Hannibal wastrying to do at Zama?
Pierre
Remembering that our sources are very pro-Roman, Livy, and that even Polybius was very close to the Scipio family. In fact Livy had what are certainly mythical victories over Hannibal in his account. I wonder if we have the full story of what happened at Zama. Frankly the accounts of Zama, all ultimately based on Polybius don't give me much of sense about what Hannibal was trying to do. The result is a lot of conjecture but little substance.
Of course it would have been perfectly possible for Hannibal to be outgeneraled at Zama, although how this means given Hannibal's overall record, that Scipio was agreater general is beyond me. After all Napoleon had a "off" day at Waterloo and so deservedly lost to Wellington and Blucher.
Does anyone have any ideas about what Hannibal wastrying to do at Zama?
Pierre
Pacal
