Hannibal: One of the worst Tactician in history?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,323
Sydney
#11
Just to play the middle
Anibal was a supreme tactician and a good strategist
however a miserable operational leader
He could win battles time and time again in all sort of situations ,
He pretty much wrote the book on how to leverage an inferiority into a crushing victory
He understood correctly that the destruction of Rome was vital for the survival of Carthage and this could only be achieved by turning Italy against them

he just messed up in giving the final stroke when Rome was down and understood only too late that time was running against him
 
Jul 2017
2,281
Australia
#12
Just to play the middle
Anibal was a supreme tactician and a good strategist
however a miserable operational leader
He could win battles time and time again in all sort of situations ,
He pretty much wrote the book on how to leverage an inferiority into a crushing victory
He understood correctly that the destruction of Rome was vital for the survival of Carthage and this could only be achieved by turning Italy against them

he just messed up in giving the final stroke when Rome was down and understood only too late that time was running against him
Please explain when the "final stroke" was that Hannibal failed to exploit?

Also, I consider someone who can maneuver a mercenary army on Italian soil for years and years is a bit more than a "miserable" operational leader.
 
Likes: benzev

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,323
Sydney
#13
After Cannae , Rome was prostrate ,
a continuous destruction of its territory up to the suburb ,
denying food from reaching the city would have starved the town to extinction
....end
it didn't need to be a siege , simply a destruction campaign
instead Anibal went up and down the peninsula , achieving nothing
operations are the running of a campaign to obtain an objective
Anibal seems to have wanted some treaty of surrender and took years before he realized he was not going to get one

mere maneuvering is no proof of anything
 
Feb 2019
1
Lithuania
#14
Sparky,
you forget what none of Rome's Latin ally switched sides, majority of Etruscans city states did't left Rome's side. This meens that Hannibal's army lurking outside Rome would be deep in enemy's teritory and would be constantly harassed from all sides.
In my opinion after ancient Italy's unification wars (latin, samnite, Pyrrus wars) Rome with it's and it's ally's manpower was untouchable for other regional powers.
 
Mar 2019
813
Kansas
#15
The idea that Hannibal lacked strategic insight is just old school codswallap. It's easy to sit here as an armchair general/theorist, with all the events and preliminaries of the war displayed before you, and accuse someone in hindsight of lacking strategic insight, not considering the actual context and considerations of the person.
In the US they call them Monday quarterbacks.

Every influential character in history only had the cards in their hand to work with. It is very easy to be critical when an observer can see every card in every hand in play.

Good bad indifferent...... He scared the living crap out of Rome......that is an achievement within itself
 
Sep 2014
1,179
Queens, NYC
#16
Superb tactician.
Strategist? Before we can be sure, can we first ascertain who set Cartaginian strategy in the Second Punic War? Hannibal seems to have considered that the homeboys didn't send proper support, and apparently, after Zama, enough Carthaginians supported him to make him seem right.
 

Similar History Discussions