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
encounter him,--except at a disadvantage,--and in Africa did not meet
him until he could do so on his own conditions, and under the very best
of auspices.
By some, Scipio has been thought equal to Hannibal. But great
soldier as Scipio was, he falls very far short of the rank attained
by Hannibal. The list of generals of a lesser grade numbers many
great names, among them that of Scipio, linked with commanders like
Brasidas, Epaminondas, Xenophon, Prince Eugene, Turenne, Marlborough,
Montecuculi. But between these and men of the stamp of Hannibal there
is a great gulf fixed.
Like all great captains, Hannibal not infrequently violated what we now
call the maxims of war; but when he did so, it was always with that
admirable calculation of the power or weakness of the men and forces
opposed to him, which, of itself, is the excuse for the act by that man
who is able to take advantage of as well as to make circumstances. All
great captains have a common likeness in this respect.
Napoleon aptly says: “The principles of Cæsar were the same as those
of Alexander or Hannibal: to hold his forces in hand; to be vulnerable
on several points only when it is unavoidable; to march rapidly upon
the important points; to make use to a great extent of all moral means,
such as the reputation of his arms, the fear he inspires, the political
measures calculated to preserve the attachment of allies, and the
submission of conquered provinces.”
Such men have used the maxims of war only so far as they fitted into
their plans and combinations. Success justifies them, but the failure
of the lesser lights who infringe these maxims only proves them to be
maxims indeed.
What has Hannibal done for the art of war? First and foremost he
taught the Romans what war really is; that there is something beyond
merely marching out, fighting a battle, and marching home again. He
showed them that with but a small part of their numerical force, with
less good material, with less good arms, with but a few allies, he
could keep Rome on the brink of ruin and despair for two-thirds of a
generation. He showed them for thirteen years that he could accomplish
more than they could, despite their numbers, and without battle. And
while battle should be always the legitimate outcome of all military
manœuvres, Hannibal taught the Romans that there was something far
higher in war than mere brute weight, and through the Romans he has
taught us.
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