04-23-2007, 09:46 AM
Quote:As far as I can tell, the single most important quality of these 'great generals' is a whole lot of good fortune. Some guy and his friends go on a criminal rampage, and when he isn't killed immediately we call him 'great'.
Good description! Sounds like the history of the rise of Rome! :lol:
Quote:Take Hannibal for example. Everything he did was extremely rash. Very often taking his troops to battle in inferior numbers with no supplies. That's not what a great general does. He stumbled into a series of unlikely victories so we assume there was something special about him other than his willingness to take huge risks and hope for devine favor. Well, guess what, his luck ran out and his culture was snuffed out for all eternity. All because of his hubris! Great commander? Not in my mind.
Would you say the same of Robert E. Lee? He, too, took on an enemy he knew to be able to field more men, to have a far superior logistical postion and which he would have to fight on its own ground. He, too, ran rings round said enemy until the combination of the loss of his best commanders, incompetence in his subordinates and the unreasonable behaviour of his superiors drove him to conduct the war in a way he would not have chosen. It's interesting to note, too, that Lee was effectively undone at Gettysburg by a failure in his cavalry, much as Hannibal's tactics were brought to nothing at Zama by the defection of his. So is Bob crap, too?
The Romans were famous for their implacable and ruthless pursuit of those who offered them most resistance or gave them the worst scares; their persecution of Hannibal measures their respect for his generalship.
Quote: I strongly tend to prefer commanders who, faced with these kind of megalomaniacs on their own soil, conduct themselves with courage, wisdom and caution. I'd sooner follow Fabius Maximus or even Leonidas rather than die for Alexander's ego.
Fabius Maximus did a great job. His behaviour also reflects his respect for Hannibal's generalship. The Carthaginian may have been a megalomaniac, but there's plenty of reason to see him as someone who recognised the ruthless opportunism of the Romans and the inevitability of a conflict to the death between the two civilizations. Unable to persuade the Carthaginian senate of the need to beat Rome to the punch, he acted independently. It was Carthage's failure to follow up energetically on his success which led ultimately to his withdrawal from Italy and the defection of his North African allies. Again, the Romans recognised his genius by making the arrangement of said defection a primary aim of their policy.
