"Hannibal & Napoleon why do the losers get all the attention?" Topic

The mob always wins --- ultimatly and eventually. Attrition my friends, attrition!!

I think the word Tyrant pretty much depends on how you look at things and how you are treated.

To the world outside of Germany Hitler was a tyrant but to many Germans he was their hero…when reality set in and bad things began to befall the civilians personally their attitudes changed and he became the tyrant to many if not all. Civilians, if misled by a tyrant will believe what that tyrant says until the harsh realities of their existance are made clear to them eventually.

As for Napoleon, to the outside world he was viewed as a tyrant and to some Frenchmen and citizens of occupied countries he was a tyrant but to many many more he was a savior and hero, he brought many peoples out of the medievil world and brought equality to many oppressed peoples, modernization and prosparity. He modernized many nations and took away the oppresive rule that had been in place in these regions before he arrived.

I would dare to say regardless of the horror and death of those 23 years of European conflict he was NOT holy responsible for it as many would have us believe. I put forth that Europe became a better place and a much more modern place because of his influence. Hitler brought nothing but destruction and hatred resulting in the extermination of alomst an entire people, the wholesale slaughter of over 60,000 people and the total destruction of many of Europe's most beautiful cities.

Somehow Napoleon does not fit into that context as tyrant for me…

But of course it is how you view it as to how you judge him or any ruler for that matter. My understanding of the word "Tyrant" is an oppresser which I feel Napoleon certainly was not.

Shane

I agree that Napoleon should in no wat be mentioned in the same breath as hitler.

"And ultimately losing, which is the whole point."

My point was it is the people who precipitate and sustain great events are the focus of military and political history. Losing -- whatever that means in an historical context -- has nothing to do with it.

"In fact, in all the cases mentioned, their aims in war were in fact unachievable from the onset, and not one of them realized it until the end."

This is an absurdist reading of history.

err, I meant to say 60 million people killed, not 60,000..

sorry.

If Alexander the Great had failed his campaigns in Persia and India, people would probably mention him as a looser with unachievable goals.
Perhaps the great generals (or loosers to some, not me) understood what they could achieve and therefore knew that they had a chance. That they came as far as they did was an exception but so was their brilliance.
My understanding of Hannibal is that Rome did something exceptional not to give up during Hannibals campaign in Italy. I somewhere read that normally a state in Rome's situation would have asked for peace, but Rome did not. If that is true Hannibal would under normal circumstances have won.

Call them as losers if you want. Now consider how many people will discuss your achievments in 200 or 1,000 years time.

Kevin,

I simply used Hart's quote to make a point.

If you wish to spend time studying Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, Appian, Gellius, and others, it becomes quite apparent that Scipio was a man of genius who's efforts revolutionized the Roman army.

There is no way I would make such a statement based on one secondary source.

- Greg

Hannibal had a bloody good plan. I am sure if he had a time machine, he might have said 'Well, it WAS good plan …. but let's just have a crack at taking Rome after Cannae Instead.'

But he didn't. So he took the better option, which failed, but came very close to success.

Napoleon I know zilch about. Since this thread is on the Naps board I am in no way surprised someone has started a 'definitions' argument and hijacked it to hell and back though.

The WW2 Germans get a good press, in my view rather unfairly. Some of their Generals were good, some were pretty awful, most were just ordinary.

Bobby Lee? I am not going to join a discussion that could get Political.

Pat

It seems to me that some are not really getting the point. No one is suggesting that these men were not famous, charismatic, intersting, and all expierenced some great success,and they all deserve there place in history. But in the end they ultimatly were defeated which is known as being the loser.

the Gaul says

It seems to me that some are not really getting the point.

If everyone got the point, we'd never get to have all these lovely discussions. . . :)

Well, no one is suggesting that they didn't loose in the end either. But that doesn't automatically meen that their opponents were better generals than they were. I would say that in most cases the better man wins, but if they always did that too would be a statistical anomality. The opponents weren't incompetent either, just not as brilliant and colourful, and perhaps they weren't put to the test as hard. That being said, Scipio perhaps deserves more.

"They both are losers in the sense that their grand schemes were thwarted and they were bested by other generals"

I guess the USA are losers because Westmoreland was bested by Giap.. and even an angry Texan's generals can't bring Osama Bin Ladin to justice as he and his followers wage economic and psychological warfare on the USA, form caves in unincorporated lawless lands.

If given enough spread of time everybody and every empire is a loser, because all things must pass.

These single charismatic characters that seized their historical moment and tried to change history in their favor are not losers, even though their aims did not succeed. The mere fact that they beat the odds and almost suceeded makes them bigger than life personalities.

Obviously Napoleon's rise from obscurity to being the brief overlord of most of the European continent, is a fascinating study, since if it was written as fiction- nobody would believe it.

Hannibal's story is fascinating as well, how he conducted a pre-emptive war despite the wishes of his own government and people, how his victories allowed him to occupy most of his enemies territory for a long period of time, and yet they would not succumb to his terms, and how unsupported by other nations Hannibal was eventually forced out of his aggressive moves and defend his homeland, and by that time the alliances faded and his army had dwindled and become exhausted, as his enemies increased both in size and quality… that's the story…

Just another one of those painful lessons of history that modern folks don't seem to bother to remember when they make the same mistakes…

I visited Napoleon's tomb… I don't even know where Wellington is buried. Who was the better general? Who was the luckier general? Hard to say… The British honor Wellington as well they should, but they all know that the victory at Waterloo was possible mostly because of Trafalgar.. which they know was the critical battle of the Napoleonic Wars.

Wellington was lucky because his opponent Marmont was hounding his army back to Portugal, then got struck by a lucky cannonball hit as Wellington was trying a rather risky counterattack. Than turn of events could have gone either way for Wellington, in hindsight he could have had his army destroyed, his reputation, and Waterloo would never had happened at all… but that lucky stroke and the fact that the next two French generals to take command were also struck down, gave the British an unlikely smashing victory.

Hannibal was lucky that his initial opponents were incompetant and allowed him to ambush, and outgeneral Roman armies time and time again. The real 'Hero of Rome' against Hannibal was Fabius who stood firm and proved out his proper scheme to defeat Hannibal at great personal distess, being called a coward, and traitor. His actions allowed Cannae to be an absorbable disaster, and proved to smart guys like Scipio that sniping at Hannibal's vulnerable rear and flanks was a better strategy. Cannae proved that Fabius was right…

Scipio gained all the fame from following a course that initially humiliated Fabius.

So who was the real hero… the guy who won the last battle with all the cards stacked in his favor, or those who tried to reveal to their idiot people and leadership a prudent course of action, that ultimately gained success?

JJ

JJartist says

I guess the USA are losers because Westmoreland was bested by Giap.. and even an angry Texan's generals can't bring Osama Bin Ladin to justice as he and his followers wage economic and psychological warfare on the USA, form caves in unincorporated lawless lands.

This will stir up a lot of furor here in the states, I will not address either issue.

JJartist says

Hannibal was lucky that his initial opponents were incompetant and allowed him to ambush, and outgeneral Roman armies time and time again.

No argument here. Hannibal was a brilliant general. His brilliance in concert with Rome's poor generals and grasp of tactics allowed him to be so successful.

I also notice the reference to luck throughout your post. The randomness of war is always a factor. But good generals minimize the role of luck as much as possible.

JJartist

The real 'Hero of Rome' against Hannibal was Fabius who stood firm and proved out his proper scheme to defeat Hannibal at great personal distess, being called a coward, and traitor.

Fabius' tactics were correct, but they would certainly not enough to bring about a decisive Roman victory in the struggle against Carthage. But again what if Hannibal was reinforced? Or if Phillip had sent troops? Fabius stabilized the Republic but his plans could not have ensured any kind of victory for Rome.

JJartist says

So who was the real hero… the guy who won the last battle with all the cards stacked in his favor

That's a pretty glib interpretation of Scipio's role in the 2nd Punic War. Why didn't the great Fabius step forward and take command of Spain? Why did Fabius predict disaster and doom for Scipio's venture intro Africa? Was Fabius a great general who had a grasp of the way war worked? or was he a timid man, too unsure of his skills as a general to do what had to be done?

Scipio did not have all the cards stacked in his favor. And whatever he had in Africa, was through his own hard work and planning. His entirely volunteer army, Masinissa's support, his skill in bringing the Carthaginians to battle piecemeal, to gather supplies in a hostile country without initial Roman support.

Scipio did all this, Scipio defeated every Carthaginian army he faced, he defeated the "greatest" general of the day (make whatever excuses you want for Hannibal, he lost at Zama. If he knew he would lose he should have been smart enough to not fight). Scipio was never trapped, never outmaneuvered, & never attacked when the odds were against him.

JJartist says

or those who tried to reveal to their idiot people and leadership a prudent course of action, that ultimately gained success?

Fabius, was capable of realizing he couldn't win & cautiously avoided battle and tried to wait out Hannibal. I don't think Fabius can hold a candle to Scipio, but I'd be willing to listen to counter arguments.