Scipio vs. Hannibal

Face-off between history's greatest commanders.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• humanities

[ArtCrumm]

Publius Cornelius Scipio: An under-rated and ignored historical personality. An academic classicist should write a modern biography of this pivitol figure. The real question is, would Rome have found another Military Leader to finally defeat Hannibal or was Scipio unique....????

Either way, the Roman victory at Zama was a critical turning point in Western History.

[rapid287]

But what is everything but learning, only a few people are original.

[scipio4052]

Oh my god! I'm famous!

[jorgekluney]

Belisarius trumps Scipio!!

[kivati]

What Hannibal needed was more victories - and though he destroyed the Roman armies twice at the battles of Herdonia and the battle of the Silarus river (and badly mauled Roman armies outside these victories) - paradoxically, the sheer scale of his victory at Cannae prevented this.

[kivati]

@ehukai26

After Hannibal's push into Italy he was more an aggravation than a true threat

I wouldn't agree with this at all - if we look closely at what Hannibal did after Cannae - the majority of Campanians and 40 per cent of Rome's other allies defected from Rome by 212 BC - after which the Etruscans and Umbrians began to waver. Even the Latin allies were not immune to Hannibal's strategy, in 209 twelve of the thirty Latin colonies refused to send men to serve Rome.

[kivati]

To sum up - Scipio has been underrated in the public eye - but on closer examination of the campaigns, we do see a genius at work, but he did not face what Hannibal did - and lots of people who study Scipio now overrate him - to put him above Hannibal is a mistake, at least in my opinion : )

[kivati]

@ehukai26

This was essentially Hannibal's strategy in Italy - except they were much harder to break than those allies in Spain and Africa - if all Hannibal had to do was win some battles like Scipio in Spain and Africa to turn enough allies to his cause and stop the supply of troops - Hannibal would have won - the very nature of the cultures involved proved a hindrance or a godsend to either campaign - the Spanish were not reliable - something the Romans would find out in the centuries ahead

[kivati]

@ehukai26 The Senate's handling of the war was superb, and from 211 onwards, it is hard to find much fault with anything they did. Scipio's invasion of Africa is often credited to Scipio's strategic genius... but it was ultimately sanctioned by the Senate and was no more than a reversion to the strategy originally adopted by that body in 218.

[kivati]

@ehukai26

right from the beginning of the war invasion of both Spain and Africa was on the cards - Scipio's father and uncle were sent and kept in Spain to do exactly this - and spent many years garnering Spanish support and causing trouble amongst those tribes still allied to Carthage, and beating Carthaginian armies.

[kivati]

@andrewgpayne3

The key thing to note was, however, that in pretty much every other fight - Carthaginian armies lost to the Romans - Hasdrubal Barca's army was hammered in 215 at Dertosa trying to bring Hannibal troops by the Scipios with their tried and trusted Roman tactics, Hanno was beaten in Italy badly at least twice, another Hanno was beaten in northern Spain, an army beaten in Sardinia, Hasdrubal Barca beaten at the Metaurus River.

[andrewgpayne3]

@Hektor88 Check again bro. Scipio totally revamped the centuries old roman battle tactics that Hannibal knew by heart. Hannibal was so successful in italy because he knew the romans tactics: a tried and true strong central infantry assault. our boy H used that against them and kicked their butts at trebia, trasimene and cannae like the romans were a rented mule. it wasnt till Scipio threw out the old play book and wrote his own that the romans beat hannibal. Sounds innovative to me