Comparing Fabius, Scipio, And Hannibal

Another ancient one-sided perception of Hannibal is in the source: “Hannibal turned back once more towards Placentia, and after marching about ten miles went into camp. The next day he advanced against the enemy with twelve thousand foot and five thousand horse. [2] Nor did the consul Sempronius, who had now returned from Rome, decline the combat. That day there were only three miles between the two encampments. On the following day they fought, with great spirit and with shifting fortunes. At the first encounter the Romans had so far the best of it that not only were they victorious in the battle, but they pursued the beaten enemy to his camp, and were soon attacking the camp itself. Hannibal stationed [p. 177]a few defenders on the rampart and at the gates1 and received the rest in a crowded throng within the enclosure, where he bade them watch intently for the signal to sally forth.” [2] This written source perspicuously outlines the chronology of the Second Punic War, and Livy’s one sided perception, on how they fought with ‘great spirit and shifting fortunes’, in order to embellish the Roman Empire’s image, ultimately resulting into him going into great length to demonise Hannibal. A final source to quintessentially exemplify the ancient Roman depiction of Hannibal is: “Hannibal moved out of his winter encampment. He had tried before this to cross the Apennines, but had failed because of the intolerable cold. [2] And the delay had been

Rome’s main military opposition was Carthage, a kingdom located on the northern coast of Africa. Carthage and Rome fought in a series of three wars known as the Punic Wars. The second Punic War, fought from 218-202 BC was led by Hannibal on the Carthaginian side and Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus with Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus on the Roman side. The Battle of Lake Trasimene 217 BC was a major battle in the Second Punic War. Under Hannibal, the Carthaginian army defeated the Romans, who were lead by the consul Gaius Flaminius. This battle helped the Carthaginians to bring the Romans close to defeat, Hannibal was able to execute his father Hamilcar’s strategy perfectly in this battle. In the Battle of Cannae, the Carthaginians were just as lucky. Rome’s larger army, under Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro, was efficiently and easily defeated by the Carthaginian forces. Though Carthage surprised Rome with many victories, the Punic War ended in 202 BC with the The Battle of Zama. Scipio lead the Roman army and defeated the Carthaginian army led by Hannibal. Though Hannibal's army had more men than Scipio's, and he had eighty elephants, Rome showed their superiority and skill in ending the Second Punic War with this battle. Many years after this, another kingdom of North Africa, Numidia, fostered a connection with Rome. King Jugurtha of this region was able to benefit from the Roman soldiers through bribery and connections with them.

Hannibal was born in 247BCE, he was the son of a Carthaginian general named Hamilcar Barcareerred, who rallied his North African nation-state from defeat in the First Punic War (264–241 BC) to conquer much of Iberia. Hannibal grew up in military service, and following the 221 BC assassination of his brother-in-law Hasdrubal, who had replaced Hamilcar, Hannibal took charge of the Carthaginian army. He soon proved a brilliant field commander who applied his intellect and martial skills to the singular end of winning battles. Hannibal, a sworn enemy of all things Roman, declared war against them and this was the start of the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Victory in Italy was Hannibal’s sole objective. To achieve it, he marched the bulk of his army in Iberia across southern Gaul and over the Alps into the Roman heartland. Hannibal’s strategy was to attack Rome. Although his tactics for battle were superior he had strategic failures which would eventually lead to his campaign in failure.

The two greatest leaders of Rome are without a doubt Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. These two men have defined leadership for a country. Many other countries have modeled their ethics and used them as their own to better themselves as a whole. Without these two men, our world would not be the same in just about every way. Although these two men were both great, one of them was better than the other. Although Julius Caesar was a dominant leader, Augustus Caesar was certainly the better leader.

Octavian Augustus is one of the fiercest leaders in the history of the Roman Empire because of his successful military expansion, his Control of Finance, and his political leadership.

Antony, another Julius Caesar character, employs three Machiavellian skills: using fickleness to his advantage,“...while you treat them well, they are yours” (Prince 3), and ruling by fear. Antony’s objective was revenge toward the conspirators for killing Caesar. Antony also successfully used the fickleness of the Roman people to his advantage. After Brutus explained why the conspirators had killed Caesar, the crowd was understanding and agreed with the conspirator’s actions. The Roman peasants are convinced; they even want Brutus as their new emperor, with better qualities than Caesar. The plebians say, “Caesar’s better parts / Shall be crowned in Brutus” (3.2.54-55). But the level of the masses’ support for Brutus did not deter Antony’s opinion of the wrongdoing of the conspirators. In Antony’s speech, he spoke both confidently and assertively, which led to Antony convincing the crowd to support his cause and fight against the conspirators. Additionally, in Machiavellian style, Antony understands the crowd’s perspective; they need praise to believe in Antony’s cause. Antony appeased the Roman masses when Antony

Throughout Rome’s history there has been a strong and seemingly indivisible bond between war and politics. The generals of Rome were not only masters of war but would sooner or later become masters of politics. “In the Name of Rome: The men who Won the Roman Empire”, written by Adrian Goldsworthy not only explores the specifics of war but also the character of some of the most famous and successful generals of Rome. I will put focus on a few of the most infamous generals as well as my personal favorites. From oldest to youngest these include: Quintus Fabius Maximus, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Scipio Africanus, Caius Marius, Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus, and Caius Julius Caesar. All of these had failures and success in common but the way they lead

One famous quote “Veni, Vidi, Vici; I came, I saw, I conquered” (Julius Caesar) taken from Shakespeare’s, Julius Caesar, expresses his personal views of Rome. The patricians people described in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar being a bad dictator. Which may have also leads to his assassination on the ides of March (March 15). The plebeians and some patricians such as Mark Antony, and his adoptive son Octavius Caesar, saw him as a good military leader. He won many wars, conquered lands, and expanded the roman republic. Julius Caesar was known for having the most advanced military mind in history.

In ancient history there have been many great leaders who had saved the Roman Empire from destruction and demise. The leaders and heroes of the Roman Empire are countless, but one leader stands out from all the rest. Augustus Caesar’s contributions to Roman history helped make Rome the dominant empire we know of today. Augustus Caesar was without a question the greatest political leader in the history of the Roman Empire.

Hannibal of Carthage: "The Father of Strategy" Through out history there have been many great military leaders, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Generals Washington, Grant and Charles Lewis Puller. The one however that sticks out the most is General Hannibal of Carthage. Often called the "Father of Strategy" his march over the Alps is one of the most famous attacks in military history. Hannibal beat the Roman Army time and time again before in suicide in 183 BC. Hannibal was born 247 BC, the son of Hamilcar Barca, the current General of the Carthaginian Army. Hannibal's training as a military leader began at the age of nine when he went to Spain to be with his father. At Hamilcar's request Hannibal pledged an oath

Ever wondered what it takes to be a good king or ruler? Julius Caesar is one of the most famous rulers of all time. He was one of Rome’s greatest and most powerful leaders. His changes to the empire helped take Rome to new levels of success. The life of Caesar was short, yet great. It is important to learn about this great man and his many accomplishments.

Julius Caesar is and was one of the most influential people in history. He created laws, stuck wars, and developed new strategies for leadership and battles. "Caesar is widely considered to be one of the greatest military geniuses of all time, as well as a brilliant politician and one of the ancient world's strongest leaders (Julius Caesar pg.1)." He transformed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire and he extended his land all the way through Gaul to The Atlantic Ocean, as well as fighting a civil war and being proclaimed as dictator for life.

Even with his fast cavalry and strong infantry Hannibal knew that he did not have resources like Rome. In fact, he was always outnumbered in every battle. Yet despite of being outnumbered, his strategies helped the Carthaginians win most of the battles in the second Punic war. For example, in the battle of Lake Trasimene, Hannibal trapped the Romans in an ambush without an escape route. What he did was to draw the Romans in close ranks, then sneak attack them with his infantry, and block the way out with his fast cavalry. This lead to the death of 30,000 Roman soldiers plus a high ranking Roman general named Flaminius. In this battle, the casualties of Hannibal’s forces were only 2,500 soldiers.

On the other hand, he gives credit to Scipio for being an extraordinary man but states that Scipio gave his men more liberty than military discipline should allow and his own men rebelled against him. His tolerant nature allowed the wrongdoing of the Locrians to go uncorrected adding to his reputation as a leader who only knew how not to harm his people, but didn't know how to prevent them from harm either.