Hannibal- Overrated enemy of Rome. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Rome, Greece, Egypt & other ancient history (c 4000 BCE - 476 CE) and pre-history.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13965026
Hannibal is severely overrated. He is seen as the arch nemesis of Rome. But in reality all he did was cause a little bit of chaos and wander around Italy for 15 years bankrupting Cathrage.

He then headed home and got his ass kicked by Rome in the battle of Zama.

While the Germanic king of the Visigoths Alaric is severely underrated. He actually sacked Rome. His sack of Rome in 410 was a pivotal moment in the decline of Rome.
#14111355
Kirby wrote:Hannibal is severely overrated. He is seen as the arch nemesis of Rome. But in reality all he did was cause a little bit of chaos and wander around Italy for 15 years bankrupting Cathrage.

He then headed home and got his ass kicked by Rome in the battle of Zama.

While the Germanic king of the Visigoths Alaric is severely underrated. He actually sacked Rome. His sack of Rome in 410 was a pivotal moment in the decline of Rome.


Hannibal was a good military commander but in terms of strategy he failed, mainly because the Roman client towns in Italy remained loyal to Rome even after several severe defeats. Carthage's only hope during the war was to take Rome itself, something they never threatened to do. It eventually became a war of attrition and Rome with the manpower of Italy was able to out bleed their opponents.
#14194194
Kirby wrote:Hannibal is severely overrated. He is seen as the arch nemesis of Rome. But in reality all he did was cause a little bit of chaos and wander around Italy for 15 years bankrupting Cathrage.


Hannibal had a devastating impact and was a brilliant general. As one writer put it, the tragedy of hannibal is that, for all his brilliance, he had virtually no effect on the subsequent course of history. Despite his best efforts, Rome rose to complete supremacy. In other words, it's not that Hannibal was bad, but that Rome was ultimately even better.

He then headed home and got his ass kicked by Rome in the battle of Zama.


The only battle he lost and a rather close run affair.

While the Germanic king of the Visigoths Alaric is severely underrated. He actually sacked Rome.


Big deal. Some traitor opened the gate for him. More importantly the two situations were diametrically different. Hannibal fought a Rome at the zenith of its resiliency. In sharp contrast Alaric was up against a complete pussycat. The western empire relied on barbarian recruits and after alienating many of them around 408, was almost entirely bereft of fighting power. Its citizens would no longer fight at all.

His sack of Rome in 410 was a pivotal moment in the decline of Rome.


The fundamental cause of decline was already in place before he came.
#14194199
Hannibal fought a Rome at the zenith of its resiliency. In sharp contrast Alaric was up against a complete pussycat. The western empire relied on barbarian recruits and after alienating many of them around 408, was almost entirely bereft of fighting power. Its citizens would no longer fight at all.

Precisely. Rome's situation in the years leading up to 410 was, in objective military terms, no worse than the situation it faced in the time of Marius just over half a millennium earlier, when the Germanic tribes of the Teutones and the Cimbri threatened the very existence of Rome. The outcome, however, was very different.

The fundamental cause of decline was already in place before he came.

Agreed, and in my view the roots of that decline can be traced back to Rome's victory over Carthage. The huge influx of slave labour and subsequent concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite destroyed the economic and social basis of Rome's citizen-armies of the Republican period. The resulting decadence and pussification of Rome over the following half a millennium was inevitable and, ultimately, fatal.
#15173701
starman2003 wrote:Hannibal had a devastating impact and was a brilliant general. As one writer put it, the tragedy of hannibal is that, for all his brilliance, he had virtually no effect on the subsequent course of history. Despite his best efforts, Rome rose to complete supremacy. In other words, it's not that Hannibal was bad, but that Rome was ultimately even better. :)



Cannot believe I am replying to a post from 2013. But I agree with you totally. It is too simplistic to dismiss solely on the fact that he lost, what he lost against has to also be factored in. For crying out loud Hannibal kept his Armies in the field on the Italian peninsula for years and years. That by itself is an incredible feat
#15173702
starman2003 wrote:Hannibal had a devastating impact and was a brilliant general. As one writer put it, the tragedy of hannibal is that, for all his brilliance, he had virtually no effect on the subsequent course of history. Despite his best efforts, Rome rose to complete supremacy. In other words, it's not that Hannibal was bad, but that Rome was ultimately even better. :)



Cannot believe I am replying to a post from 2013. But I agree with you totally. It is too simplistic to dismiss solely on the fact that he lost, what he lost against has to also be factored in. For crying out loud Hannibal kept his Armies in the field on the Italian peninsula for years and years. That by itself is an incredible feat
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]