04-05-2002, 02:08 PM
Hannibal was raised in the hatred of Rome and that in my opinion seriously impaired his judgement and his assessment of the general strategic situation.<br>
His "feat of arms" of crossing the Alps is not so much the crossing -- people had done it for ages-- but the fact that he managed to slip in despite the legions pursuing them. Good maneuvering, but certainly no genius in there.<br>
That maybe explained by the fact that Hannibal was a general raised in the hellenistic military tradition. In other words: a pro, and a good one. Whereas at that time the roman generals were nothing more than amateurs and sometimes very bad ones.<br>
Crossing the Alps and all that may have been very impresssive but strategically it was suicidal. In hindsight I have a hard time figuring out what he tried to achieve, exactly.<br>
Moreover, if Hannibal was very much up to date tacticallywise, he totally missed the political and cultural point.<br>
He was still in the hellenistic mindset, when a battle lost or won didn't lead to total destruction or submission but to another round of wheeling and dealing.<br>
War, afghan style.<br>
The Romans were in a different state of mind. They invented the concept of total war. At this time also, numerous italian cities, which Hannibal hoped would flock to his standards, didn't. The notion of a motherland was gaining ground over the one of city state. Another miscalculation of the punic general.<br>
Comparing him to Alexander strikes me as funny. With similar strategic views, the Macedonian wouldn't have gone further that the suburbs of Athens.<br>
Blinded by hatred, Hannibal wanted just one thing: revenge. Humiliate Rome, beat the legions and then what?<br>
The scope of Alexander's --and his father Philip-- strategic, political and cultural vision is still difficult to grasp today.<br>
As for the logistic feat of arms consisting of taking a 50.000 man regular army from Greece to India, and back, it was only surpassed by Gengis Khan's hordes.<br>
My bet is that against Alexander, Hannibal would have fared no better than Darius who, contrary to popular belief, had a good army led by competent generals.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=antoninuslucretius>Antoninus Lucretius</A> at: 4/5/02 4:14:05 pm<br></i>
His "feat of arms" of crossing the Alps is not so much the crossing -- people had done it for ages-- but the fact that he managed to slip in despite the legions pursuing them. Good maneuvering, but certainly no genius in there.<br>
That maybe explained by the fact that Hannibal was a general raised in the hellenistic military tradition. In other words: a pro, and a good one. Whereas at that time the roman generals were nothing more than amateurs and sometimes very bad ones.<br>
Crossing the Alps and all that may have been very impresssive but strategically it was suicidal. In hindsight I have a hard time figuring out what he tried to achieve, exactly.<br>
Moreover, if Hannibal was very much up to date tacticallywise, he totally missed the political and cultural point.<br>
He was still in the hellenistic mindset, when a battle lost or won didn't lead to total destruction or submission but to another round of wheeling and dealing.<br>
War, afghan style.<br>
The Romans were in a different state of mind. They invented the concept of total war. At this time also, numerous italian cities, which Hannibal hoped would flock to his standards, didn't. The notion of a motherland was gaining ground over the one of city state. Another miscalculation of the punic general.<br>
Comparing him to Alexander strikes me as funny. With similar strategic views, the Macedonian wouldn't have gone further that the suburbs of Athens.<br>
Blinded by hatred, Hannibal wanted just one thing: revenge. Humiliate Rome, beat the legions and then what?<br>
The scope of Alexander's --and his father Philip-- strategic, political and cultural vision is still difficult to grasp today.<br>
As for the logistic feat of arms consisting of taking a 50.000 man regular army from Greece to India, and back, it was only surpassed by Gengis Khan's hordes.<br>
My bet is that against Alexander, Hannibal would have fared no better than Darius who, contrary to popular belief, had a good army led by competent generals.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=antoninuslucretius>Antoninus Lucretius</A> at: 4/5/02 4:14:05 pm<br></i>
