How come so is he regarded as one of the greatest military strategists in history and one of the greatest generals of...

How come so is he regarded as one of the greatest military strategists in history and one of the greatest generals of antiquity if he just won 1 good battle and then lost his homeland to a lesser army? That's quite pathetic too be honest.

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.com/books?id=nyuqQgAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:"Serge Lancel"&source=gbs_book_other_versions)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nobody ever regards him as a great strategist.

He's regarded as a great tactician for repeatedly pullings wins out of his hat despite usually bringing to the field smaller armies that were more poorly equipped and trained than that of his enemies.

"Military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge called Hannibal the "father of strategy",[8] because his greatest enemy, Rome, came to adopt elements of his military tactics in its own strategic arsenal. This praise has earned him a strong reputation in the modern world, and he was regarded as a great strategist by Napoleon and others."

muh elephants
muh alps

because his tactics and form of battle are still being practiced today, almost 2300 years later. The double envelopment and pincer movements have been either attempted or practiced by every army since Hannibal, setting a new standard for warfare.

usually, battle tactics or strategy is a process that involves multiple men or generations of time to perfect, very rarely do you see tactics that are still taught at West Point today be attributed to just one man during one campaign.

I stand corrected then, although that's a weird ass definition, as it doesn't bear any relation to modern usage of the words "tactics" "strategy" or "doctrine"; Rome's falling before his tactical maneuvering in battle and changing their military doctrines as to how they train, arm, and organize their military forces doesn't actually touch upon their strategy except in the most peripheral of ways, as it doesn't actually advance any of their goals except insofar as it makes their military more effective for the pursuit of any number of objectives.

I mean hell, his entire campaign was based on a strategic misapprehension, namely that Rome's allies/clients would revolt away en masse if he showed up, beat them up, and could offer protection from their former overlord.

Yes, he was an amazing tactician. Rome adopted a greater hiring of native troops and changed their cavalry roles up a bit in response to the 2nd Punic War; guess what? They did a lot of tinkering with their tactics and armaments, and the Punics weren't the only people to inspire such a change.

How the fuck does that make him a great strategist?

>Won one good battle
and
>Never lost a battle after nearly 15 years in Italy
Are two completely different things
Also he literally spent his entire life devoted to being anti Roman, even after the 2nd Punic war, which is pretty badass.

To keep this thread alive:
Anyone want to speculate as to why we find prominent Romans named Hannibal in the late Roman period?

Africa had become really prominent part of the empire? Late Roman period Romans weren't often Latins or even Italians by blood due to citizenship law change so all kinds of foreign shit found its way into the culture (like oriental cults).

>father of strategy because of his tactics
>the romans adopted his tactics among their strategies
What the actual fuck is that paragraph.

>The double envelopment and pincer movements have been either attempted or practiced by every army since Hannibal
And also every army BEFORE Hannibal. Like, you know, at Marathon and at Hydaspes. Not to mention that even Sun Tzu describes it.

>(like oriental cults).
Oriental cults, like the Mithras and Isis cults, found their way into the empire long before the Late Roman Empire.

Hannibal was a very common name among followers of Ba'al.

I looked the guy up, he was a 19th century historian, dying in 1909. I guess they used the terms differently back then. Or he was just an idiot, I mean, this is the time period that produced cretinous "historians" like Creasy.

The point was that the kind of Roman spirit that absolutely despised Hannibal had been broken by the late Roman period.

How insightful

>How the fuck does that make him a great strategist?
He was an enemy of Rome. Like all enemies of Rome, he was puffed up far beyond his actual accomplishments by retarded "historians" who can only see history through the lenses of whatever ideological bias they hold. See: Boudicca, Vercingetorix, Arminius, Mithridates for other examples.

Because he managed outmanouvre his enemies, use infrastructure and supply his troops for more then a decade while balls deep in enemy territory. Name a single general who managed that. Also keep in mind that Hanibal was not the end-all-be-all within the carthagian state, he was activly opposed by a lot of people in the Carthagian Senate.

Oh shit, what up Carth. I didn't know you browse Veeky Forums

>Because he managed outmanouvre his enemies, use infrastructure and supply his troops for more then a decade while balls deep in enemy territory.
Only he didn't. He just managed to drive deep within enemy territory by sheer tactical superiority during pitched battles, but after that, he could never drive out of the territories that declared for him in the south, he could never force a confrontation with roman armies, he could never defend the land that declared for him, and was forced into ever smaller regions as Rome conquered back every single town and village, until he was pinned like an insect to the tip of the boot, incapable to maneuver out, incapable to do anything while Rome butchered the reinforcements sent to him piecemeal, and beheaded his brother just to throw his head in Hannibal's encampment.

>he was activly opposed by a lot of people in the Carthagian Senate
Only before the war. After he crossed the Alps the senate supported him to the full extent of Carthage's economical capabilities. They sent like 100k more men to the peninsula, but Hannibal never managed to join up with them, because the roman generals outmaneuvered him and kept him away from his allies.

Do you actually understand the difference between tactics and strategy?

wrong picture friend

>Like, you know, at Marathon and at Hydaspes. Not to mention that even Sun Tzu describes it

How are India and China relevant in this discussion that focuses on the Mediteranean

Not in that particular reply chain, but I believe he's responding to the implicit claim in post that Hannibal invented the double envelopment at Cannae.

>Marathon is not on the Mediterranean
>Alexander's exploits weren't extensively studied by mediterranean cultures
Oh wow. Talk about climbing mirrors.

Ok, amend the original statement to:

No one that understands modern English and isn't a douchenozzle calls Hannibal a great strategist since his strategy failed.

Does that fail to trigger your aspergers? Does it stand up to your rigorous standards? Do you want to nitpick the meaning of the word "douchenozzle"?

While you got me at hydaspes I never named Marathon

You quoted it. Can lead to misunderstandings.
Especially when not contesting Marathon is the same as conceding that Hannibal didn't invent the pincer movement.

Claiming one man invented a military maneuver when warfare had existed for thousands of years before him(with very poor record keeping) is bold.

People attribute things to famous people, it's been going on since the dawn of time but for a board that is supposedly devoted to actual history it is discouraging to see people believe these things.

Hell, if you buy it, you have a double envelopment in the Book of Joshua described when the Israelites attack the city of Ai. Even if it didn't happen that way (almost certainly not, in fact) you have a 6th-7th century B.C. text describing a double envelopment, proving people were familiar with the concept.

Do you? Because a campaign of more then 10 years falls squarely in the strategic scope of things.

Hannibal did not receive the support he asked for from the senate right after Trasimene and Cannae. He had to replace the trained soldiers he used with less reliable Gaulish mercenaries because the Senate sent reinforcements to Spain instead of to him.

>he could never force a confrontation with roman armies
He fought them twice at Herdonia and once more at Locri, winning all of them (with tactics yes). Hannibal failed because the support he received from the senate was inconsistent and half-hearted.

Yeah that's true I quoted it, but I never said it was not a double envelopment. Marathon was.

Was it a double envelopment by design though? There is still discussion on that part.

>Do you? Because a campaign of more then 10 years falls squarely in the strategic scope of things.

And it lasted 10 years not out of plan, but because the gamble he was counting very desperately on, that the various client states of rome would rise up and support him, didn't happen.

And then he had enormous difficulty getting home, what with no fleet and would have to go all the way back, cross the Alps AGAIN, even if his army would stand for it.

He demonstrated an incredibly bad strategy. That he hung on as long as he did was impressive, but hardly any sort of demonstration of strategic skill or depth.

>He had to replace the trained soldiers he used with less reliable Gaulish mercenaries because the Senate sent reinforcements to Spain instead of to him.

Roman naval dominance, remember?

> Hannibal failed because the support he received from the senate was inconsistent and half-hearted.

ROMAN NAVAL DOMINANCE, REMEMBER?

What the fuck do you think happened post 1st Punic war?

>And it lasted 10 years not out of plan, but because the gamble he was counting very desperately on,
This does not suddenly make it tactics, it remains strategy, planned or not.

>And then he had enormous difficulty getting home, what with no fleet and would have to go all the way back, cross the Alps AGAIN, even if his army would stand for it.
How was the fact that he did not have a fleet his fault? He could either wait and react to a roman invasion anywhere in because he lacked a fleet to counter the roman one, or he could attack Rome in at it's heart.

Hannibal could in no way defend all of Carthage because he lacked a fleet. He could not build one because he had not the full support of the Carthaginian senate so he had to do something else. He could A: Wait for the Romans allong the coast hoping they struck near where he was so he could react
B: spread his troops along the coastline and get destroyed piece by piece

or C: Go on a risky campaign right into the Roman heartland

Hannibal could not have won the second Punic war. Rome had too much resources and Carthage was not focused on the war like Rome was. Hannibal did the right thing by invading.

>What the fuck do you think happened post 1st Punic war? Most of fucking recorded history happened after the first punic war you cunt.

>Hannibal did not receive the support he asked for from the senate right after Trasimene and Cannae.
Hasdrubal was ordered to march to Italy with 40k men in 216BC, same year as Cannae.
>He had to replace the trained soldiers he used with less reliable Gaulish mercenaries
Dude, that's what his army was made of to begin with. Carthaginians don't fight outside of Africa.
>the support he received from the senate was inconsistent and half-hearted
Multiple attempts to send tens of thousands of men into Italy is not what I'd call "inconsistent and half-hearted". It's not the senate's fault that Hannibal didn't consider the difficulty of reinforcing him when he planned the invasion, tho it was kind of ecpected considering the only way he managed to get in was by trailblazing through the Alps and taking Rome by surprise.

>Hannibal could not have won the second Punic war.
>Hannibal did the right thing by invading.
Contradictory statements.

>This does not suddenly make it tactics, it remains strategy, planned or not.

No, it doesn't. Strategy is concerned with the question of

>How do I achieve my overall aims with the resources I have.

Unless Hannibal's aim was to hang around Rome for a decade and a half, his doing so is not strategic. At most it's operational, but in large part how he achieved it was by beg too much of a bear to approach directly, which again goes back to tactics.

>How was the fact that he did not have a fleet his fault?

Directly? It isn't. But if you're going to need regular resupply from your home in Carthage, you might want to check if sending of said resupply is feasible before you start the war.

>He could either wait and react to a roman invasion anywhere in because he lacked a fleet to counter the roman one, or he could attack Rome in at it's heart.


Or, you know, not start a war he can't win in the first place.

> He could not build one because he had not the full support of the Carthaginian senate so he had to do something else.

Stop with your "muh senate" shit. He couldn't build a fleet because fleets are enormously expensive and manpower intensive, and the last time they tried that, when they did have the "full support" of the Carthaginian Senate, the Romans kicked the shit out of them, something they would again do with ease because their relative strength is even higher than it was before. Why should the Senate sink tends of thousands of men and god knows how much gold on a hopeless venture like that?

>Hannibal could not have won the second Punic war

>Hannibal did the right thing by invading.

You know, most of us think that invading a country when you can't win is actually a bad idea. Clearly you operate on a different form of logic.

hol up

was Hannibal black or not?

this is important

The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, originally from the Levant, specifically the cities of Tyre and Sidon.

The Barcids were known as being Phoenician, with some sources Such as Serge Lancel's "Hannibal" tracing the family back to Phoenicia (source: books.google.com/books?id=nyuqQgAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:"Serge Lancel"&source=gbs_book_other_versions)

Depending on what sources to you use, the answer varies, meaning we really don't know for 100% certain.

Judging by his busts of the contemporary time, he has much more Semitic facial features rather than African.

so he was a kike?

holy shit

>he has much more Semitic facial features rather than African
You know, in Hannibal's day the north african natives were the numidians. Even had he been a native, he still wouldn't have been black.

jews are only 1 semitic speaking group, with the term being used to describe the language-family of the ancient Levant.

Jews, Philistines, Phoenicians, other cannanites, Akkadians, Babylonians, etc all fall under the Semitic language family and people-grouping.

ah ok

so he was jus a sandnigger

>Babylonians
Shouldn't you say "amorites"? Babylonians weren't really an ethnic group nor did they speak their own language.

HOL UP

SO YOU BE SAYIN

It's like you can't even follow a chain of posts.