Throughout the ages there have been many generals and military leaders who have brought glory in battle and war, using and creating ideas used for winning. In ancient history, wars and battles were frequent, and in a time of expansion, conflict, and domination, winning these battles were important for a civilization. Since winning battles were essential to a civilization, having a good leader for battle was important. Hannibal was the most successful military leader of the ancient world because of the the strategies and tactics he implemented, the decisive risks he chose, and because of the statistics and facts on how much damage he dealt during the war.
Hannibal is arguably the best military leader of all time and the main reason for
…show more content…
One example of this trait and skill was in the beginning of the war where he completely caught the Romans off guard, starting the war strong with their first win, shifting the winning side towards Carthage at the start. In the beginning of the war, Hannibal made the surprising decision of taking the battle towards Rome, crossing the dangerous alps where he had to battle through hostile tribes, crazy terrain and weather (Mark). This just shows that Hannibal is fearless and is able to make smart risks knowing the consequences, but through his resiliency and determination he’s able to correctly make his choices almost always successful because in the end Hannibal was able cross succesfully, get more troops, and still surprise the Romans. During the course of the war he made even more risks and choices, some minor and some more significant and important for the outcome of the war. One of these decisive choices was when Fabius Verrucous had Hannibal and his army severely trapped, putting him in a fight or surrender situation, but Hannibal surprised Verrucous by escaping towards the Strong Garrison of Rome whom were sleeping, not expecting Hannibal to escape through that way (Mark). Hannibal in this situation …show more content…
Statistics can show factual evidence of Hannibal’s greatness in battle and war and show how much he dominated Rome. He won almost all his battles and his first defeat was in 202 B.C. which was 17 years after the war began and a year before the war ended (Cowley and Parker 200). In 216 B.C. Hannibal caused 50,000 casualties which was the worst defeat suffered by Romans even when outnumbered (Eckstein). He was so good in battle that it took him until near the end of the war to be defeated and he was so good that he was able to claim the title of causing the worst defeat to Romans while numerically handicapped. Hannibal was the only Carthaginian army fighting in Rome’s territory so he would have limited resources, less people in his army, low fatigue, and only one chance in trying to defeat Rome or else it’s over, but despite these disadvantages Hannibal still put up a fight and fought as if he was the one with advantages. The only way Rome were able to inflict the same amount of damage caused to them was not through open battle, but by shadowing his army and punishing towns swayed by Hannibal (Cowley and Parker 199). This meant that Hannibal
Although a genius on the battlefield, where he used surprise and maneuver to overcome the relatively small size of his force, I do not believe that Hannibal was an ethical leader. He did not always exhibit the essential intellectual traits of critical thinking, nor did he always enforce ethical standards. To clarify, Hannibal’s vision was for independence for territories. But based on some of his actions, the concept of ‘freedom for all’ was not a part of that vision. Hannibal exhibited the trait of intellectual hypocrisy; he didn’t hold himself to the same standards that he fought for when he was faced the ethical dilemma of feeding, equipping, and paying his troops for their service; or selling Roman captives into slavery. In an effort to take care of his men, he succumbed to the latter, after the failed attempt to negotiate a ransom with Rome. And so, Roman captives were sold to a local slave trader (Commire & Klezmer, 1994). Perhaps, he fell prey to ethical relativism, using this ethical trap as a way to justify the inconsistency between his thoughts and his actions. Or maybe he didn’t care; but we’ll never know. What we do know is that this lack of intellectual integrity is opposite of the behavior that is required of an ethical leader (CF03SG, 2013, p. 7). Most assuredly, his actions confused his team of warriors, and affected their view of his professional character, especially since non-Roman captives had been released to their respective countries.
Hannibal, the eldest son of Hamilcar Barch was born in Carthage in 247 B.C. At the age of ten Hannibal followed his father to Spain, a region that his father had begun to conquer. Hannibal was elect commander of the Carthaginian army in 221 B.C., at the young age of 26 after his father’s death in 229 B.C. and the death of his brother-in-law in 221 B.C. (“Hannibal”). Prior to his father’s death Hannibal is said to have sworn to his father eternal hatred toward the Roman Empire (Lendering, 2008). Once in command Hannibal decided to expand the control of Carthage and its empire.
However, Polybius says that "Hannibal had achieved the distinction of having drawn his line on that day with remarkable skill"[19] using his veterans as a van-guard. In conclusion we can see that Hannibal fulfils all of my criteria for being a great general except for a few. He fails in his dealings with Roman allies - he underestimated Rome's capabilities and grip on. their allies. He failed to secure his supply lines - this is an administrative failures.
...llectually superior leaders. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator was a Roman general that helped during the second Punic war. As a child he was known as being very slow to learn. This made the other children think that it made him inferior, but in all actuality i think that this helped him. I think this because he learned and then remembered what he learned. He was promoted from counsul to dictator when Hannibal was approaching Romes gates and Rome was in panic because two counsul members were killed. He came up with the strategy to slowly wear Hannable out instead of meeting him head on in battle. This strategy eventually saved Rome.
Imagine a general of immense wealth, integrity, and great perverseness. This description fits a certain person well: Pericles. Pericles was a brave man, and he did things to the best of his abilities. He was born a wealthy child, and of course used this to his advantage. He honestly thought that he could have a big impact on the city of Athens and maybe even the entire world. He have thought this way because, “His father Xanthippus had himself been a military commander for Athens at the battle of Mycale in 479 B.C. Pericles name in Greek means 'Surrounded by Glory' and as is evident that was certainly to come true for Pericles was he became an influential statesman for Athens during The Peloponnesian War until his death in 429B.C.” (Rodney) From this, people assume that Pericles was a commander at heart and a fantastic man in general. Pericles was a great man because he was a risk-taker, a leader, and possessed extreme intelligence in battle. These are all incredible attributes to being an marvelous person and Pericles definitely fit all of them, making him a prodigious general to have in a city.
In the first instance, one of the greatest achievement of Hannibal was during the Second Punic War (218-202), by catching the Romans off guard. He crossed the Alps with fifty thousand infantry, nine thousand horsemen and thirty-seven elephants because, although they had sea power, he proved that they also had land power. During the “Battle of Zama” Hannibal and his enemy Scipio Africanus stood face by face confronting each other for the first time. At this battle Hannibal was defeated Scipio Africanus, ending the Second Punic War. However, we shouldn't forget about all of Hannibal's other smaller achievements. In fact, one other powerful example of his achievements was “The Battle of Cannae”(216 BCE). During the battle Hannibal (who was fighting for Carthage) and Lucius Aemilius of Rome fought against each other. Hannibal won this battle with Roman losses falling somewhere in the range of 55,000 to 70,000 men and soldiers. In addition, there were many other achievements of Hannibal like when he got married with a Spanish princess, Imilce, and then through his improved position, he conquered different Spanish tribes. He fought with the Olcades and captured their capital, Althea, and later quieted down the Vaccaei in the northwest. In 221 B.C, making the seaport of Kart-hadst (modern Cartagena, Spain) his base, he won a battle with the Carpetania in the region of the
even today for his campaign, the hatred Hannibal felt for Rome was clearly seen on the
...hip failures on the part of Mark Antony. These decisions allowed an outnumbered and outclassed fleet to win an extremely decisive victory. It is truly a lesson in the power of good strong leadership.
Brasidas was a hugely influential and inspirational Spartan general renowned for his courage and efficiency. Fellow Spartans aspired to emulate his character, which was the source of much awe across all of Greece. In fact, it is actually Brasidas’s reputation outside of Sparta which warrants more significant study due to its significant effect on the Peloponnesian War. On the subject, Thucydides writes, “The present valor and conduct of Brasidas, which was known by experience to some, by hearsay to others, was what mainly created an esteem for the Spartans among the allies of Athens. He was the first who went out and showed himself so good a man at all points as to leave behind him the conviction that the rest were like him (4.81.2-3).”
Making Hannibal this way as a character is what I believe to be the best decision. A lot of times i...
Looking at Caesar, he is highly successful in his military battles due to his great organisation skills and strategic planning. Caesar values organisation since he receives hourly reports on how matters are abroad (Act I Scene 4 lines 34-36) and keeps detailed accounts of his battles. His logical thought also makes him so successful:
Being the great general he was, was entirely his own doing. Hannibal’s excellent skills as a general “Hannibal’s skills as a leader were shown as he had both the support of his troops and of the government above him. This was quite an achievement considering that the military he commanded was not made of one race or speech.” (Cottrell 83). Unlike the Roman soldiers, the state did not bind Hannibal’s troops. And still they all showed an uncanny loyalty to him. Hannibal’s leadership skills were one of the attributes that made him an exquisite general. There is another attribute although that many agree is his best. “Hannibal was both a forward thinker and a brilliant tactician.” (Cottrell 93) Hannibal knew that because Rome had invaded Sardinia and Sicily he could not possibly attack by sea. That is why, even though his journey across the north of Spain, across the Alps, and down into Italy, were considered by the Romans almost impossible, it was still “a model of daring and strategic skill” (Hoyos 171). In 218 B.C. Hannibal did the impossible, he marched his army of eighty thousand plus men, twelve thousand horses, and most importantly 37 elephants towards the North of Italy. The elephants exemplified perfectly why he was such a great general. It was an excellent strategy to bring the elephants because, they could bear excess weight, and the Romans had never seen elephants, so seeing such big creatures would induce fear into the Roman armies giving Hannibal’s army an upper hand. Getting to Rome via the Mountains was easier said than done, but Hannibal always found a way and stayed the course. To keep his troops alive, he would find farmlands and use them to grow food and feed them. When he encountered new foes, he would pay attention very carefully, so he can gain knowledge on how they fought, and use those tactics in the next battle. In August 219 B.C Hannibal’s army
... death and destruction for the Romans that Adolf Hitler would to our Civilization. Hannibal’s name became synonymous with the stereotype that Rome had of the Carthaginian perfidy. And it was this that Rome never wanted to see again; so to be a good Roman, one had to be taught what it was to be a "Hannibal" and how not to be a "Hannibal." In the end Rome was taught many valuable lessons and to the victor go the spoils; so it is a measure of the fear Hannibal’s name instilled, that long after he was dead and gone, parents would scold naughty children with the warning that if they weren't good, Hannibal would come to get them in the night.
...tature and refusal to see the realistic fact that he was in danger brought him to his end. He was ambitious, as we all should be, but he allowed his stature and achievements cloud his judgments and even the advice of those nearest to him, like his wife. A leader is not always loved and Machiavelli would not have had a problem with Caesar not being loved by all and in fact he may not even have had a problem with Caesar’s overzealous nature. Castiglione on the other hand, would not have been a fan of the image of Caesar. He, overlooking reality because of his societal stature, would anger Castiglione. That is not poised nor brave but rather ignorant and a stubborn nature.
Caesar, a famous military general, had great hopes. one day becoming sole ruler of Rome, but was prevented from doing so. by his own death. Caesar was a great man,- brave and noble,- having all the virtues of a hero, but most terrible in his ambitiousness. Ultimately it is his great ambition that leads to his downfall.