Scipio's Brilliance

[P.Clodius]

I was re reading "Scipio Africanus, Greater Than Napoleon" over the weekend. Scipio is the most underrated general of the ancient times. Illipa, the Carthaginians lost more men than the Romans did at Cannae. They deployed 70,000 of whom only 6,000 escaped. He operated under the principle of never use the same tactics twice and subsequently never lost a battle. It would have been very interesting to see the outcome of a Scipio/Caesar confrontation.

[longbow]

I dont know why Napoleans considered a great General,he left Armys in Russia and Egypt,saving his own skin and leaving his men like thats not what i would call Great.L

[Guest Scanderbeg]

The book seems to like romanticizing him. I have not gotten the chance to read the book yet book the main sources that the author seemed to have used for the book was Livy. While I will pick it up as a fun read I wouldnt put too much on it. I would recommend The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy. It explores all the characters and battles of the 3 wars. Discusses the possible fictions and possible truths.

 

Napoleon was considered great because he left Europe in shambles. LOL. He forged a massive European empire in a relatively short time. The book uses a name Greater then Napoleon because Napoleon is often compared with Hannibal. In my opinion, it seems to be an indirect way of saying Scipio Africanus, Greater the Hannibal.

 

Also Scipio's tactics seemed to be a more refined tactic of Hannibal's. Ilipa was a brilliant, even though ultimately indecisive battle since it ended far too early, but drew alot of Hannibal's technique of encircling the enemy. Had it not been for Hannibal, Scipio would have never gotten up in power. But this isnt a comparison topic.

[P.Clodius]

Goldsworthy rules too. But I notice when posting about Scipio there's alway the negative element in responses. The author doesn't idealize Scipio, he attempts to expain the genius of his campaigns in relation to modern military concepts. LH was trying to communicate with his peers in Sandhurst and other military colleges when he wrote this. Gen Patton was a great fan of Scipio.

 

Ilipa was a brilliant, even though ultimately indecisive battle since it ended far too early

 

 

There's nothing indecisive about crushing an enemy army.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

He didnt really crush it. before the strategy could go to the full extent the battle was put off because of a storm. It did do a lot of damage but mainly to the Lybian force which made up the center due to Hasdubrals elaphants who panic. Im not saying the strategy wasnt genius. It was. He completely did away with the old Roman ideas of warfare. Not to mention his excellent sneak attack on the enemy camp which caught the Carthagenians completely off-guard.

[Fatboy]

Well Scipio was, for sure a brilliant and innovative general but I'd find it hard to describe Napoleon as anything other than a genius considering he, for many years bested the combined forces of Europes great powers. The man completely revolutionised warfare in his time.

 

I would have no idea who would be the superior of the two though as I don't know as much as I probably should about Scipio.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

The name could have also derived from the similarities drawn between Scipio and Napoleon. Both brought their nations from crappy to great. Napoleon competely revived Frrance after all the crap that had happened within the natio, the whole head chopping and civil revolting thing. Scipio revived Rome after Hannibal had almost completely wrecked it and conquered a lot of territory.

 

But this is not as good an explanation as the other one IMO. This seems pretty crappy to me anyway.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Ilipa was fantastic. Scipio really acted ahead of his time here by simply rewriting all the rules of classical warfare and playing the enemy right into his hands.

 

But it should be noted that H. Gisgo's overall losses in the actual battle were about 15,000 men, the Romans lost 800. After been temporarily saved by a suden storm in which Scipio called off his onsluaght, virtually all of Gisgo's Spanish allies deserted him and he attempted to escape south. Scipio then pursued him with his cavlary and light troops, slowing him down till the legions could arrive and slaughter what remained of his army save for 6,000 men. It is noted by Livy and Polybius that this engagement was not really a battle, but a total slaughter. This was also very similar to the way in which Cnaeus Scipio was hunted down and killed by H. Barca, Mago and H. Gisgo some five years ealier at Ilorci.

 

Ilipa was certanley deccisive, as it gave Rome total control of Spain as well as robbing Carthage of its wealthiest province. Had Gisgo won, then the Carthaginans would of had another chance to reinforce Hannibal, not to mention regaining control over all of of Spain.

 

As for Napoleon, he revolutionsed modern warfare but ultimately failed in what he sent out to do. He was basicly a 19th Century Hitler without the racism. Scipio Africanus was a far greater commander than him in my opinion, among the foremost reaons been that Scipio never lost a battle despite been outnumbered in virtually every engagement he fought. Among his great victories was the siege and capture of Carthago Nova as well as the huge battles of Baecula, Ilipa, Utica, Zama and Magnesia. He is also credited with been hugely popular with his men and the celtiberians, as well as been gracious to many a defeated foe.

[Scaevola]

Ack!

 

Apples and Oranges, Apples and Oranges! When you try to compare Napoleon and Scipio, IMHO.

 

I will agree though that the modern reader will find Scipio underrated and glossed over. Maybe because of the modern love affair with Hannibal (oh! poor, doomed, brilliant Hannibal- thanklessly serving a decaying nation that killed him ).

 

Scipio had the great ability to pull out of his men the trust necessary to execute a battle plan that puts them into momentary mortal danger while ensuring the defeat of the enemy. Who wants to die so his side will win? Not many, unless a leader like Scipio to inspire them. Combined with a genuine military bend of mind, and a first class intellect, and you've got a legendary general.

 

Plus, looking at a bust of the man, you get the impression of just a normal guy. He must have had a hell of a personal charisma.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

This was also very similar to the way in which Cnaeus Scipio was hunted down and killed by H. Barca, Mago and H. Gisgo some five years ealier at Ilorci.

 

 

Well he did let Hasdubral get away and he almost got his reinforcement to Hannibal had it not been for Claudius quick and stealthy action. Hasdubral had quite a few numbers on him also.

[P.Clodius]

Well he did let Hasdubral get away and he almost got his reinforcement to Hannibal had it not been for Claudius quick and stealthy action. Hasdubral had quite a few numbers on him also.

 

 

That's not true. Hasdrubal's army was so badly mauled he spent a significant amount of time in southern France replenishing his numbers. Also, he didn't give chase because was far from his supply (Carthago Nova), and there were two other Carthagenian armies lurking within striking distance should he choose to doggedly pursue Hasdrubal.

[Hamilcar Barca]

I should explain myself clearer

 

What I meant was that before the battle of Ilorci, Massinisa's Numidian cavalry pursued Cnaeus Scipio's retreating army and attacked its rear columns so that it was forced to make a stand as to defend itself, this allowed the main Carthaginian armies under H.Barca, H.Gisgo and Mago to catch up to him and destroy him. The same hapened to Hasdrubal after Ilipa. After he began his retreat, he was pursued by the Roman light infantry and cavalry who slowed him down until the legions could catch up and annihilate the remnants of his army.