How good a general was Hannibal?
|
|
The Primary Record The ancient record - which remember is exclusively Roman - was almost wall-to-wall eulogism. The Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (1st century bc) summarised: ‘it is not to be disputed that Hannibal surpassed other commanders in ability … for as often as he engaged with the Romans in Italy, he always came off with the advantage’. The Roman historian Florus (second century ad) said that Hannibal descended on Italy ‘like a thunderbolt’. The Roman general Frontinus (1st century ad) drew extensively on Hannibal’s tactics in his book on military Stratagems.
Polybius - for all he was the mouthpiece of the Scipio family - describes
Hannibal in 218bc as 'young, full of martial ardour, encouraged by the
success of his enterprises, and spurred on by his long-standing enmity
to Rome' (Polybius 3.15.6), but nevertheless portrays him throughout as
the perfect, thinking-man's general. Usually, when narrating his
actions, Polybius uses words which say that Hannibal ‘foreseen’, ‘reckoned’, ‘suspected’, ‘planned’, ‘learned from his scouts’, ‘guessed the danger’ etc. And, after criticising the authors who claimed hannibal ahd divine help over the Alps, Polybious chides: 'Of course Hannibal did not act as these writers describe, but conducted his plans with sound practical sense' (Polybius 3.47.10). Book 21, Chapter 4
But then, of course, it suited Roman writers to enhance Hannibal’s
abilities and reputation. If the Romans were defeated, then the enemy
general MUST have been a genius; no other explanation is explicable.
And, ultimately, when Hannibal is defeated, it gives all the more kudos to the
Romans (and Scipio Africanus) ... since the enemy
they had defeated was superhuman.
The Secondary Interpretations
Moreover, the secondary sources seem prepared to echo the adulation of the ancients!
Hannibal is STILL studied in military schools. 19th century US
Colonel Dodge confessed to ‘hero worship’, and German
General Von Schlieffen modelled his First World War
'Schlieffen Plan' on Cannae. Second World
War Fieldmarshal Montgomery criticised his overall strategy, but saluted his
'tactical genius' at Cannae.
This opinion was echoled in 1981 by British historian Ernle
Bradford: Hannibal's
genius in warfare has often and justifiably acclaimed, for he had all the
attributes of a great captain. When it comes to strategy, the movement
of great armies and their tactical deployment upon the battlefield, he is
almost imposible to fault.
'Genius' was also the word used by north-east historian and ancient warfare
expert John Lazenby (1996),
and by British historian Leonard Cottrell (1965) ...
although with reservations: 'Yet the genius - like
Hitler's - may have been an evil genius'.
Revisionists?
There MUST be some out there, but none that I have been able to find.
So if all this hero-worship makes you feel ill, you will enjoy reading my
revisionist blog-post which suggests that Hannibal was 'a
lousy general'!
|
Links:
You can read my revisionist deconstruction of Hannibal's military record here.
|
Task 1. Look back through your notes - and, particularly, study the commentaries on Polybius and Livy - which describe Hannibal's battles: first at Saguntum; next on the journey to, and crossing the Alps; then in Italy (Ticinus, Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae); and finally at Zama. Use your notes to make a list of all the POSITIVES about his military record.
2. Write an answer to the following question: ''Hannibal was a general of genius.' How far do the ancient sources support this opinion? In your answer you should: • give a brief account of Hannibal's military record; • explain how Hannibal succeeded; • show knowledge of the relevant sections of Polybius and Livy; • consider how reliable you think these sources are. [30]
|