Hannibal's Invasion Of Italy

[Spartan JKM]

Virgil, I disagree with you - respectfully, of course - on your disagreements with me.

 

Firstly, I don't think Polybius can be placed on par with Thucydides, in terms of objectivity. But the great Greek historian covered a conflict between enemies who were more akin to each other than Rome and Carthage. But that's very basic.

 

Polybius was a fine historian who wanted to establish the truth of events, but his criticism of Sosylus, the historian who actually was with Hannibal (and whose works have conspicuously 'not survived'), does not necessarily mean he was judicious and Sosylus negligible. Remember, Polybius' implication that Hannibal contravened the Ebro covenant remains a problem. This can be discussed at length if you would would care to do so. Look, we all have our opinions and gut feelings, but we must keep, at least a little, an open mind.

 

We might expect Polybius to have been hostile to the Romans for causing him to be exiled from his own country, but he did come to work and live under the patronage of the Scipionic circle (as you stated). This indeed meant he was in a very favorable situation to understand how the Roman political and military systems worked. He could be critical of Roman actions, such as their seizure of Sardinia in the wake of Carthage's 'Mercenary War', but his absorbing interest as to why Rome came to be the dominant power in his world certainly led him to see things through Roman eyes, and I'm sure he could not be completely 'neutral' and 'objective' when writing about the Scipios etc.

 

For example, Polybius does give Hannibal some praise concerning the Battle of Zama when he wrote in his Book 15.16,

 

"...Hannibal had shown incomparable skill in adopting at the critical moment all such measures as were in his power and could reasonably be expected to succeed...".

 

However, a couple of sentences later he writes,

 

"...For there are times when Fortune counteracts the plans of valiant men, and again at times, as the proverb says, 'A brave man meets another braver yet', as we may say happened in the case of Hannibal..."

 

Scipio BRAVER than Hannibal? BRAVER??? Is that a fair, objective thing to state?

 

Fabius' policy was sound, but only appreciated after the catastrophe at Cannae. It was an unpopular scheme, because the Romans were accustomed to breaking the ability of their enemies by direct action on the battlefield - aggressive action. I don't think you're correct about Minucius; he was infuriated by Fabius' policy. Yes, it seems Fabius saved him at Gerunium, where his rashness almost led to disaster in fron t of a Hannibalic trap. I find it very reasonable in the context of the time, that the people wanted revenge and the expulsion of Hannibal from Italy as soon as possible. Fabius merely shadowed Hannibal while the countryside was ravaged. Hannibal was not 'hindered' as many claim (unless I'm wrong). He provided for his men and marched where he wanted to. If Fabius' trap at the ager Falernus had worked, things would have been different, but Hannibal's classic breakout, one of history's famed ruses (with the oxen) showed why he was, well, who he was. Fabius was possibly not going to win the style of war he advocated, as the solidity of the federation would start to crack, which was Hannibal's strategic purpose.

 

The Roman people did not vote to give Varro and Paullus a huge force to stick to the hills and wage a war of attrition. They expected Hannibal to be brought into a decisive engagement and the war to come to a close. However, the wiser minds probably appreciated Fabius from the get-go, and the weakness of a popular government is that things are understood the hard way.

 

The army assembled for Cannae was not intended to do anything subtle; it would have been impossible to maneuver with sophisticated flexibility, even if Varro possessed the skill to do so. Varro's plan of brute force might have worked. How could he have guessed that a concave line of infantry, composed of 'barbarians', screened by skirmishers, could have been so ingeniouslt utilized? The inherent aggressiveness of Rome played into Hannibal's hands. This is the mark of agreat general, too - to know your enemy.

 

The historiographic tradition has blamed varro, and Paullus given the accolades of a fallen hero. maybe that is just, but all Varro did was simply attempt to seek a decisive battle. I think he handled his shame quite well, evidenced by his later actions, ones of minor importance, throughout the war. The forgiveness given to him by the Roman people also illustrates how their corporate cohesion and heroism was a factor in overcoming Hannibal in the end.

 

Just my view. Thanks, Spartan JKM

Edited January 14, 2006 by Spartan JKM

[Virgil61]

This one's from a while back.

 

Virgil, I disagree with you - respectfully, of course - on your disagreements with me.

 

Firstly, I don't think Polybius can be placed on par with Thucydides, in terms of objectivity. But the great Greek historian covered a conflict between enemies who were more akin to each other than Rome and Carthage. But that's very basic.

 

I overstated it of course, you're right Polybius isn't Thucydides. Polybius was in a more complicated situation. But he was closer to him in spirit than most ancient historians, especially in light of his special situation and his pro-Roman proclivities are transparent enough to any intelligent reader then or now.

 

Polybius was a fine historian who wanted to establish the truth of events, but his criticism of Sosylus, the historian who actually was with Hannibal (and whose works have conspicuously 'not survived'), does not necessarily mean he was judicious and Sosylus negligible...

 

His criticisms of other historians are instructive. He repeatedly assails them for conjecture and unwillingness to confirm sources. He criticises Sosylus for his conjectures on the proceedings of the Roman Senate after Saguntum, something which he would have little knowledge of.

 

Scipio BRAVER than Hannibal? BRAVER??? Is that a fair, objective thing to state?

 

In the Penguin translation it reads "a brave man meets one stronger than himself". Either way I think his point was that everyone finds his match.

 

Fabius' policy was sound, but only appreciated after the catastrophe at Cannae. It was an unpopular scheme, because the Romans were accustomed to breaking the ability of their enemies by direct action on the battlefield - aggressive action. I don't think you're correct about Minucius; he was infuriated by Fabius' policy. Yes, it seems Fabius saved him at Gerunium, where his rashness almost led to disaster in fron t of a Hannibalic trap. I find it very reasonable in the context of the time, that the people wanted revenge and the expulsion of Hannibal from Italy as soon as possible. Fabius merely shadowed Hannibal while the countryside was ravaged. Hannibal was not 'hindered' as many claim (unless I'm wrong). He provided for his men and marched where he wanted to. If Fabius' trap at the ager Falernus had worked, things would have been different, but Hannibal's classic breakout, one of history's famed ruses (with the oxen) showed why he was, well, who he was. Fabius was possibly not going to win the style of war he advocated, as the solidity of the federation would start to crack, which was Hannibal's strategic purpose.

 

Minucius despised Fabius, that is until he came to understand just how correct his strategy was at that time. Here's are accounts of his epiphany:

 

From Appian's History of Rome:

'''Thus did Fabius save Minucius from a great disaster, bearing him no malice for his slander.

 

Then Minucius, recognizing his own want of experience, laid down his command and delivered his part of the army to Fabius, who held to the belief that the only time for a skillful captain to fight is when it is necessary."

 

From Plutarch's Life of Fabius:

 

"Minucius (addressing Fabius) said, "You have this day, O dictator, obtained two victories; one by your valor and conduct over Hannibal, and another by your wisdom and goodness over your colleague; by one victory you preserved, and by the other instructed us; and when we were already suffering one shameful defeat from Hannibal, by another welcome one from you we were restored to honor and safety. I can address you by no nobler name than that of a kind father, though a father's beneficence falls short of that I have received from you. From a father I individually received the gift of life; to you I owe its preservation not for myself only, but for all these who are under me." After this, he threw himself into the arms of the dictator; and in the same manner the soldiers of each army embraced one another with gladness and tears of joy.""

 

The decimation of allied territory is the single most valid argument for seeking an engagement. Strong as that argument is, it's not enough to force one to waste one's army against someone who might be considered a genius at warfare.

 

The Roman people did not vote to give Varro and Paullus a huge force to stick to the hills and wage a war of attrition. They expected Hannibal to be brought into a decisive engagement and the war to come to a close. However, the wiser minds probably appreciated Fabius from the get-go, and the weakness of a popular government is that things are understood the hard way.

 

The army assembled for Cannae was not intended to do anything subtle; it would have been impossible to maneuver with sophisticated flexibility even if Varro possessed the skill to do so'

 

Impossible because of various levels of training within that army. No matter what the Roman populace wanted a good commander knows his limitations as well as the strengths of the enemy. Paullus fits that bill, Varro doesn't.

 

Varro's plan of brute force might have worked. How could he have guessed that a concave line of infantry, composed of 'barbarians', screened by skirmishers, could have been so ingeniouslt utilized? The inherent aggressiveness of Rome played into Hannibal's hands. This is the mark of agreat general, too - to know your enemy.

 

The better question is why did Paullus--who had more military experience in Macedonia (I think it was there) instinctively know it wouldn't work rather than Varro--with little experience think it would.

 

The historiographic tradition has blamed varro, and Paullus given the accolades of a fallen hero. maybe that is just, but all Varro did was simply attempt to seek a decisive battle. I think he handled his shame quite well, evidenced by his later actions, ones of minor importance, throughout the war. The forgiveness given to him by the Roman people also illustrates how their corporate cohesion and heroism was a factor in overcoming Hannibal in the end.

 

Paullus disagreed, but like a good soldier fought and stood his ground, Varro fled the field. No matter what his intent, Varro comes off second-best in history for that point alone.

 

There's no question about it, Roman cohesion and stubborn defiance against such an enemy is a large part of the story of the Punic War.

 

Just my view. Thanks, Spartan JKM

 

Opinions, everyone's got 'em, especially here at UNRV!

[Felix Marcellus]

A little off topic, but I just have to express myself. It's kind of funny to me. I just came from another discussion board that primarily discusses politics.

 

This debate between Virgil and Spartan would've resulted in name calling and trollism. And it would've happened quick.

 

I need to copy and paste your discussion into that board to show those bozos how to disagree while being agreeable.

 

Great posts people. The best part about this site is most of you know what you're talking about and back it up. I think I can still count on one hand the number of discussions I've seen get heated. And even then nothing compared to other boards I've visited.

 

My gratitude to all of you posting on this site, educating me and keeping it civilized.

[Virgil61]

A little off topic, but I just have to express myself. It's kind of funny to me. I just came from another discussion board that primarily discusses politics.

 

This debate between Virgil and Spartan would've resulted in name calling and trollism. And it would've happened quick.

 

I need to copy and paste your discussion into that board to show those bozos how to disagree while being agreeable.

 

Great posts people. The best part about this site is most of you know what you're talking about and back it up. I think I can still count on one hand the number of discussions I've seen get heated. And even then nothing compared to other boards I've visited.

 

My gratitude to all of you posting on this site, educating me and keeping it civilized.

 

I'm a veteran of the old usenet flame wars from several years ago so I've seen some pretty vicious stuff including people calling other peoples workplace, home or law enforcement among other things. You're right though, discussion boards where a lot of usenet posters went to in order to avoid the anarchy of ,do get out of hand quickly--even the history ones. The credit at UNRV goes to the administrators and mods who keep a tight ship, keep us all in line and the focus on Rome where it should be.