Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon — John Shaqi
Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and NapoleonDodge, Theodore Ayrault
History
Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon
Dodge, Theodore Ayrault
Alexander, the Great, 356 B.C.-323 B.C. -- Military leadership; Caesar, Julius -- Military leadership; Frederick II, King of Prussia, 1712-1786; Gustav II Adolf, King of Sweden, 1594-1632; Hannibal, 247 B.C.-182 B.C.; Military biography; Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821 -- Military leade
Two facts are peculiarly prominent in Hannibal’s campaign in Italy.
First, he had opposed to him the troops of the strongest and most
intelligent military power of the world, some of which were, to be
sure, comparatively raw in active duty, but yet trained to war from
their youth, mixed with legionaries of many campaigns, and instinct
with the ardor of fighting for their household gods. It is often
assumed that Hannibal’s troops were veterans, the Romans levies of a
day. During the first three years this was in part true, and defeat
had somewhat drawn the temper of the Roman blade; but throughout the
rest of Hannibal’s campaigns the Roman army was much superior to his
own in all but one quality,--that strange influence which a great man
exercises over men. It will be noticed that whenever the fighting
was on equal terms, from the beginning the Roman soldier gave a good
account of himself. But Hannibal’s victories were won by stratagem,
or by tactical genius and skilful use of his cavalry arm, not by
brute fighting. In the latter act the legionary was fully the equal
of the phalangite. One cannot compare the task of any other great
captain with that of Hannibal. No one ever faced such odds. Secondly,
Hannibal had calculated absolutely upon being able to detach the
allies--the socii--from their fealty. We cannot imagine him to have
set out on his marvellous expedition without having made this the
prime factor in his calculations. Hannibal was no madman. He was a
keen, close calculator. But he would have been insane, indeed, if he
had undertaken his hazardous campaign without such expectation. He was
well justified in reckoning on such defection. There had always been
a good deal of opposition to high-handed Rome among all her allies,
municipal cities, and colonies, and it was a fair assumption that
many, if not most, of them would be glad to free themselves and humble
their proud conqueror and mistress. In this expectation Hannibal had
been entirely disappointed. None of the socii, who were the brawn of
the Roman body, had shown any disposition to meet him otherwise than
with the sword; none of the colonies, except in distant Gaul, had
met him even half way. He had captured towns and territory and had
garrisoned citadels. But the aid he received was not that which enables
a conqueror to hold what he takes except with the strong hand. And
without just such aid, Hannibal could not only not win, but could not
be otherwise than defeated, in his contest with the mighty republic. To
assume that Hannibal did not see all this, and that he was not fighting
against hope almost from the second year, is to underrate this man’s
intellectual ability. No one ever fathomed Hannibal’s purpose. He was
so singularly reticent that Roman historians called him perfidious,
because no one could, from his face or conduct, gauge either his
thought or intention, or calculate upon his acts. He had no Hephæstion
as had Alexander.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account