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
Hannibal was as typically a fighter as even Alexander, though he
preferred to prescribe his own time and conditions. But all through
Alexander’s campaigns it happened that the results he aimed at could
be accomplished only by hammering. And he had the power to hammer.
Hannibal, on the contrary, found that he could not stand attrition;
that he must save men. Alexander was constantly seeking conquests;
Hannibal, like Frederick, only to keep what he had won, and in doing
this he showed the world the first series of examples of intellectual
war. Alexander’s strategy, in its larger aspect, was as far-seeing
and far-reaching as that of any of the great captains, and he was the
first to show it. But Alexander’s strategic movements had not been
understood, and ran danger of being lost. Hannibal was, probably, the
only man who understood what Alexander had done, and he impressed his
own strategy so thoroughly upon the Romans that it modified their whole
method of waging war. Alexander’s strategy was equally marked. Like
Cæsar’s, his strategic field was the whole known world. But he did not
exhibit that more useful phase of strategy, on a smaller theatre, which
Hannibal has given us.
While Hannibal’s movement into Italy was offensive, the years after
Cannæ partook largely of the defensive. He was holding his own till he
could get reënforcements from home, or the help of the Roman allies.
And yet it was he who was the main-spring which furnished the action,
the centre about which everything revolved. Perhaps there is no surer
test of who is the foremost soldier of a campaign than to determine who
it is upon whose action everything waits; who it is that forces the
others to gauge their own by his movements. And this Hannibal always
did. It made no odds whether it was in his weak or his strong years. It
was Hannibal’s marching to and fro, Hannibal’s manœuvres, offensive or
defensive, which predetermined the movements of the Roman armies.
We know little about the personal appearance of Hannibal. We only know
that in the march through the Arnus swamps he lost an eye. In the
British Museum is an ancient bust of a soldier with but one eye--by
some supposed to be Hannibal. But there is no authentic likeness of the
man. It is improbable that he possessed Alexander’s charm of beauty.
But in all his other qualities, mental and physical, he was distinctly
his equal; and in his life he was simple, pure and self-contained.
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