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…
this is how he created tactics, used strategies, and how he orchestrated his army to correctly execute his commands and instructions. This meant that his battles’ outcomes weren’t determined by who has the biggest army or who has the best armour or weapon, but by who was smarter. For each battle, foe, and situation he had a created strategy specifically for each one(Warrick 136). He would study his opponents and learn of their weakness and strengths (Mark). By planning ahead and knowing what to do in any given situation or battle he was able to win his battles by outsmarting the enemy, trickery, and strategy. In battle his strategies were very specific and very effective in how he uses psychology, tricks, and where to damage the most and least. One example was in the battle of Cannae where he let the Romans heavily attack the middle of their army, making them think that they were winning, but little did they know that the Carthaginian army was slowly forming a crescent around them until they finally fully surrounded their opponents causing a massacre (Mark). Hannibal was able to surprise the Roman army right in front of them without hiding or trying to ambush them, just using his knowledge of what his opponents would do and taking advantage of it. Hannibal was able to defeat his enemies by thinking ahead, knowing what to do with his armies and knowing how to do it effectively. Hannibal knew that to successfully win the war and his battles you had to take risks and not go through the safe route and Hannibal attempted many risky choices and decisions, but unlike other military leaders during his time he knew how to make these risks very effective.
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…
reveals that in any problem or situation no matter the severity, he will take risks and think out of the box. There were many more dangerous and important decisions he risked, but in almost all of them he demonstrated his skill of out of the box thinking with his unpredictable choices. Many people modern times still look and study all of the ingenious things Hannibal did and thought of, but what most people should also take in consideration are the overall statistics of damage and trouble he caused to Romans during the war even with his diminutive and small army practically fighting the bigger Roman armies every time.
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
inflicted so much damage that Rome couldn’t push Rome back or win battles to retake land. Although he lost in the end, if you were to look at the war statistically and through war reports it would seem as if Hannibal was the one with more advantages and upper-hand since Hannibal attacked Rome so much and attacked strong By implementing and inventing strategies designed for winning and by taking and using risks successfully, Hannibal during the Second Punic War, with statistics and reported facts to support, has left an imprint in history as the greatest military leader of the ancient world. Military leaders were key components and have control of the army on what to do in battles and situations. Having a military leader who can do this and more correctly can increase your chances of winning dramatically, demonstrated during the second Punic Wars. Hannibal’s strategies made his army seem invincible and strong. His choices and risks made his army unpredictable, tricking Roman Generals and armies. The amount of damage caused to Rome just from Hannibal was considerably high. Hannibal could’ve easily ended Rome knowing this, but Carthage’s choice in not helping Hannibal has doomed his glory in war, but even though he didn’t win his influence on future generals and demonstration of amazing skill in the military field will never be forgotten
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.
According to Lazenby, to do. What Hannibal did required "great strategic skill, tactical ingenuity. and sheer force of personality"[3]. I will consider where these characteristics came from and how he used these characteristics to his advantage in the Second Punic War. After Hasdrubal was assassinated, Hannibal became general of the Carthaginian army in Spain.
...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.
...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.
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.
Hannibal, a Carthaginian general and one of the greatest generals that ever lived was renown for his strategies and courageousness, such as crossing the Alps and using the "bottleneck strategy" at Lake Trasemene. He used strategies that a lot of generals at this time, especially Roman generals, would never think of and in doing this he almost destroyed the Roman republic.
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.
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:
Hannibal Barca, was a Carthaginian general, that was well known for his strategic thinking, and intrepid ways during battle. Although a clear majority of people will agree that Hannibal is a man whose name is synonymous with greatness, competence, and to an extent genius, many do not know why, or simply, what made him great. To figure out why Hannibal was such a polarizing figure, four questions must be asked, and answered. What was Hannibal’s childhood like, which battles made him such a distinguished and feared adversary, and what did he do in these battles to put himself and his troops in a position to win battles against other great generals of the time, and the most important question, why the elephants? Hannibal Barca was born in 247 B.C. Being the great general he was, was entirely his own doing.