Hannibal Vs Julius Caesar

I was going to link to this article in response to Mr. Llama’s comments on the last post, only to discover (to my great surprise) I hadn’t actually written it.

Hannibal Barca and Julius Caesar are two of the outstanding generals of the Ancient World (the other obvious candidate being Alexander the Great). However, it is a bone of contention between myself and the aforementioned Mr. Llama as to which fellow is actually the better (in military terms only). I think it’s Hannibal (I’d rank him approximately equal to Alexander), he thinks it’s Caesar (Scipio Africanus was more impressive, I think).

I’ll compare the two chaps in a number of categories to make my case. These are: Tactical and Strategic Ability, Enemies, Greatest Military Achievements.

Tactical and Strategic Ability

Tactically, there can be no contest. Lake Trasimene was one of the greatest ambushes in history, and Hannibal followed this up with arguably the most impressive battle of all time: Cannae. He also excelled in the difficult strategic challenge posed by Quintus Fabius Maximus and his cunning cunctatory ways. Last but not least, he was also talented at spotting opportunities others did not and doing the unexpected, such as his clever march through the Arnus Marshes or, even more unpredictable, marching through the Alps in winter.

Caesar had a very good battlefield record. However, from memory, I cannot recall him often deviating from the standard three line approach of the Romans. One such example was Pharsalus, where he faced an opponent so predictable Caesar knew to put a fourth line in such a way as to protect his force from the inevitable cavalry charge. Regarding logistics and strategic thinking, Caesar was certainly competent, but there is no battle he won worthy of comparison with Cannae, nor march comparable to the crossing of the Alps.

Enemies

Hannibal did fight the Celtiberians, but most of what we know of him was his warfare against Rome. Roman soldiers were tremendously well-equipped, not least with a pathological sense of patriotism. The earliest generals he faced were usually mediocre, however, he later faced the intelligent Marcellus, the talented Nero and the highly skilled Scipio Africanus.

Caesar had two great campaigns, against the Gauls and then the Romans Pompey commanded. The Gauls were certainly no pushover, however, they had a limited understanding of tactics and strategy, and Vercingetorix emerged too late to save his people. Pompey’s days of action were behind him, and the soldiers he commanded, whilst patriotic Romans, were inexperienced. Despite this, Caesar was defeated at Dyrrhachium and saved only by Pompey’s timidity. Later, Pompey could have avoided Pharsalus and so won through the style of Quintus Fabius Maximus, instead of which he emulated the magister equitum Marcus Minucius Rufus, allowed himself to be bullied by the senators and launched an attack he didn’t want to and which failed.

Greatest Military Achievements

Hannibal has a plethora of epic accomplishments, a single one of which would make a lesser man famous in its own right. He crossed the Alps in winter, with elephants, marching against hostile tribes. Cannae is perhaps the greatest victory on a battlefield ever seen, Lake Trasimene may claim to be one of the greatest ambushes. Those who say ‘He lost’ miss the point. If I have a machinegun and fight an arthritic granny and win it is far less impressive then if I tie my hands together and almost beat Jet Li in a duel.

Caesar’s victories were more easily acquired, but also had a long-lasting impact. Gaul remained Roman almost until the Western Empire crumbled, and his defeat of Pompey changed Rome from a republic to an empire. These are mighty achievements, but is there a battle he fought to equal Cannae, a march as heroic as the Alpine endeavour of Hannibal? No.

This is why I think Hannibal was the greater of the two men, in military terms. He went up against Rome at its most fanatically patriotic, when it issued army after army against him despite incurring losses that would have crippled any other nation. And yet, he came close to ultimate victory, and even the Romans acknowledged his greatness. Caesar defeated some disunited barbarians, and then narrowly led an army of veterans to victory over inexperienced soldiers led by a man who made a number of critical errors.

Thaddeus

Should Hannibal have marched on Rome after Cannae?

One of the interesting things about history is to ponder if certain key events had turned out differently. What if Alexander had lived to see his son to adulthood, preventing his slaughter at the hands of the Diadochi? What if the Ten Thousand had never made it back to Greece?

Some historical events are down to chance, but others are down to choice. After Cannae, Hannibal elected not to march upon Rome. The decision has been frequently debated in the 22 centuries since it was made.

First of all, a little background. Hannibal had already shocked the Romans by marching to Italy in winter, which involved passing the Alps (defended not only by bitter winds and snowfall but also hostile Celtic tribes). After this, he slapped the Roman army about, winning at Trebia, luring Flaminius into arguably the greatest ambush in history at Lake Trasimene and so demoralising the Romans that they made Quintus Fabius Maximus dictator. Quintus took the very un-Roman step of choosing to play a strategic game, refusing to battle Hannibal directly and instead dog his steps, starve him of provisions and generally prevent him from gaining the big tactical victories he had previously enjoyed. This was highly controversial, as the standard Roman tactic was to point a big army at The Enemy, march forward and kill everything that didn’t look Italian. Despite an uppity deputy, the dictator was highly successful and Hannibal did not gain another big victory to invigorate his supporters.

After this, the dictatorship lapsed and Varro and Paullus were made consuls. They combined their consular armies and, for good measure, doubled them in size, putting a force of about 80,000 into the field. This army, despite consular disagreement, then attacked Hannibal’s forces (roughly half the size) and was thoroughly obliterated by perhaps the finest battlefield tactics in the Ancient World (or, perhaps, ever).

Hannibal had survived the sly intelligence of the dictator, smashed the largest Roman army ever assembled in a battle with slaughter on a scale not dissimilar to WWI and was now posed a difficult question: Should he march on Rome?

He decided not to.

There are many sound reasons for this. Firstly, it was still an era when a Roman citizen and a Roman soldier were practically interchangeable, and Rome was a large city (despite the huge numbers Hannibal had killed). Secondly, it was a walled city, and Hannibal had no siege engines and little experience of sieges. Thirdly, it would tie Hannibal’s army down, and keeping such a force fed and watered and preventing an external army from attacking it could prove highly difficult.

Hannibal did survive for many years in the Italian peninsula after this, but to no avail. He was recalled to Carthage to face Scipio Africanus and had his first and last loss of the Second Punic War.

So, what if he had marched on Rome?

I think it unlikely that he could have taken it by storm. The Romans were patriotic to an almost deranged extent. After Cannae the land upon which Hannibal’s victorious army rested was sold at full value in Rome, indicating the confidence/bravado of the Romans even after a crushing defeat. It’s always possible an internal conspiracy could have opened the gates, but for similar reasons I think this unlikely.

What’s more interesting is to consider the social/political impact of such a move. An army encamped outside the walls of Rome, led by a man who had repeatedly massacred the Roman army, might have caused a shock to the allies of Rome. Might more of them have abandoned the city if she had seemed helpless before the Punic conqueror? This might have enabled Hannibal to grasp a strategic victory and either conquer Rome or force a favourable peace treaty.

Ultimately, I think Hannibal made the right choice. As I think it unlikely he could have taken Rome, marching to it and then leaving it untaken would have dealt a severe blow to the morale of his men. The misfortune he faced was to fight Rome at the time of its patriotic zenith. Centuries later, the city repeatedly fell, surrendered and crumbled before lesser men, but when Hannibal fought it was still blazing determination and confidence.

Thaddeus

Was Hannibal greater than Alexander?

Alexander never lost a battle. He never failed to take a city by siege. On a number of occasions he won battles where he was enormously outnumbered (although I’m more impressed by his victories over the Indians, to be honest). So, it might seem a bit odd that in my book Hannibal (who only lost one battle in the Second Punic War, but with it the war itself) was a greater general.

There are a few areas that need to be considered: authority and army, opponents, strategy and reinforcements, and personal qualities.

Authority and army

Alexander, although he became king at just 19, had already seen battle (playing a crucial role in the Battle of Chaeronea when he was 17). He was battle-hardened, king and commander-in-chief. Whilst the Macedonian king wasn’t fawned over like the Persian Great King, he was clearly in charge (like a Prime Minister rather than a President). His army consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, both of whom were Hellenistic and quite similar in terms of fighting style. As well as the throne, he inherited the best army in the world, brilliantly developed and trained his excellent father, Philip.

Hannibal also grew up fighting, first for his father and then Hasdrubal the Handsome, his brother-in-law (both in Iberia). Then he assumed command of Carthage’s Iberian forces. He did not have particular political authority, and had a mixed army of veterans from numerous corners of the world all speaking different languages and with different weapons and armour.

In terms of authority, Alexander had a clear advantage. Hannibal had a very good army, although here too I’d give Alexander a slight edge (his elite soldiers were so good they were still in high demand decades after his death).

Opponents

Alexander faced three sets of opponents. Firstly, the Greeks. They’d been smashed by his father and sought to escape the rule of Macedon when Alexander took the throne. They were cunning opponents and almost ended his career before it got going, but he overcame them fairly quickly. Secondly, he faced the massed armies of the Persian Empire. Although the horsemen were brave and talented, the foot soldiers were less so and no match for the high calibre of the Macedonian army. Furthermore, Alexander was tactically brilliant, and (by making the Great King flee twice) made hordes of Persians flee at Arbela and Issus. I’d say the Indians, who were pretty damned clever and had lots of war elephants, were his greatest opponents (particularly Porus).

Hannibal did fight the Iberians, but that was mostly under the command of others. Whilst he was in charge he only really fought the Romans. During this time he inflicted numerous defeats upon numerically superior forces, including one of the greatest ambushes in history at Lake Trasimene and the most crushingly brilliant victory in history (arguably) at Cannae. He did lose to Scipio at Zama, however. After the war ended he continued, after a brief pause to lead the city, to fight the Romans, on behalf of Eastern despots.

Alexander had the easier task, I feel. Yes, the Persians had huge manpower, but the armies crumbled like rotted wood when Darius fled and Alexander had the finest soldiers in the world. Hannibal, meanwhile, faced Rome at the zenith of its patriotic determination and fervour. Even after the slaughter of Cannae the city did not contemplate surrender, and although initially they were tactically naïve, later the likes of Marcellus, Nero and Scipio learnt the lessons Hannibal had taught them to good effect.

Strategy and reinforcements

Alexander’s strategy was simple. March at Persia, accept surrendering cities kindly and slaughter everyone who didn’t recognise him as king. However, the detail of this was intelligent. He did not leave strong cities at his back (unless they were besieged by his lieutenants), and if a city did rebel or refuse to kneel he was pretty ruthless, encouraging the others to fling their doors open instead of having them rammed to splinters. In the open field he was victorious, in siegecraft he was relentless and he made scarcely a mistake when it came to invading Persia. He did, however, bugger up the end of his reign by unnecessarily marching through the Gedrosian desert. Reinforcements came as and when he needed them and he also recruited heavily from Persian soldiers who had served Darius previously, much to the irritation of his fellow Macedonians.

Hannibal took the heroic/slightly mental approach of marching an army, including elephants, over the Alps. In winter. His strategy relied upon gaining local support in Italy itself, and he achieved this to a certain extent, but it was never sufficient to deliver him ultimate victory. He was hamstrung by the fact that Carthage rarely sent him reinforcements and, although rebellious Gauls did offer him some more men, the army of his brother (also called Hasdrubal) that crossed the Alps was immediately slaughtered by the consul Nero.

Alexander did better when it comes to strategy, I think. He made a damned silly error at the end, but he succeeded in his overall objective of smashing Persia. The ample reinforcements he received did help considerably. Hannibal’s strategy was difficult, but his objective was harder. Fighting in Italy was the right thing to do, but manpower became an issue in the later years and he was sadly unable to be reunited with his brother.

Personal Qualities

Alexander was a great leader, and not just in a tactical or strategic sense. He delegated well, he was merciful to cities that surrendered and he was always ready to lead the charge (indeed, he very nearly got killed when two scaling ladders broke and he was shot in the lung, facing numerous opponents and had just two bodyguards still with him). However, he did have little flaws, like murdering one of his best friends (Cleitus, who had saved his life at the Granicus) whilst drunk. His ambition enabled him to achieve great feats, but ultimately his army forced him to turn back from India, having grown wear of being away from home for a decade. It is notable that he treated the wives and children of Darius well, and was merciless to those Persians who had slain the Great King.

Hannibal’s personality is harder to judge because his history is written by the opposing side. Despite having a mixed force with very few actual Carthaginians in it, he suffered from desertion just once (a few hundred Numidian cavalry after years in Italy) during 10 years in enemy territory. He was rather more civilised than the Romans when it came to honouring the dead, searching for Flaminius’ body for hours after the ambush at Lake Trasimene so that he might give it a decent ceremony. By contrast, the consul Nero, who slew his brother Hasdrubal, cut off the head and had it hurled into Hannibal’s camp.

Hard to assess. I think it’s reasonable to say that Alexander exceeded Hannibal in vices (Hannibal never got in a drunken fight and killed a close friend), but that Alexander may have been a better leader of men.

Overall, I think Hannibal’s achievements are the greater. He fought for longer against a more difficult foe, usually outnumbered, permanently (after the Alps) in enemy territory, rarely receiving reinforcements and lacking total authority over the Carthaginian state. That’s not to belittle Alexander in any way. He never lost, and deservedly became a legend in his own lifetime. Would he have done so well in Hannibal’s position, or vice versa? If he had lived and then gone west from Macedon I daresay Rome would have become yet another conquest of his.

Thaddeus