Hannibal’s attempt to conquer Rome will forever and always remain an epic failure. Though he was a brilliant tactician, who was able to lead his army of men and elephants through the Alps and Apennines with minimal losses, he still failed to subdue the relatively new power of Rome. Rome was, to Hannibal’s dismay, terribly underestimated; he failed to see what he was dealing with. The Romans were able to defeat Hannibal for a number of reasons, which include Hannibal’s over-reliance on war elephants, and his choice to cross the Alps and the Apennines with them and his army. He was also overcome by Rome’s superior numbers on both land and sea, could not lay siege to Rome’s fortifications, and most importantly, failed to plan for Rome’s attitude towards war. In this …show more content…
As written by Michael B. Charles and Peter Rhodan, elephants were meant to strike terror into the hearts of their opponents, especially their cavalry, who had never seen such a creature. This tactic had been successful during the Pyrrhic Wars when the Romans faced elephants for the first time. The Romans thought they had been winning at the battle of Heraclea in 280 BCE, but then Pyrrhus released his elephants and the Romans were overcome with fear at the hideous sight, sound and smell of them. Indeed, it would have been terrifying, but only at first. This approach was only successful the first few times it was used, then the Romans became more prepared to fight them off. By the time Hannibal showed up with his unit of war elephants, it took less time for the Romans to prepare for this sort of attack. Hannibal's over-reliance on these animals and their use in previous battles against Roman forces most definitely acted against Hannibal when it came to his invasion of Italy. In addition to this, Hannibal lost most of his Elephants crossing the Alps and the Apennines. The conditions were so poor that the beasts would just die or
Hannibal is, perhaps, most notable for moving from Iberia over the Pyrenees, across the Alps and into northern Italy with an estimated army of 38,000 soldiers and war elephants braving the harsh climate and terrain, the guerilla tactics of the native tribes and commanding an extremely lingual-diverse army. He was a distinguished tactician, able to determine his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and coordinate his battles accordingly. He also wasn’t above making allies when the time called for it, winning over many allies of Rome in the process during his 15-year invasion before a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced ...
Although a genius on the battlefield, where he used surprise and maneuver to overcome the relatively small size of his force, I do not believe that Hannibal was an ethical leader. He did not always exhibit the essential intellectual traits of critical thinking, nor did he always enforce ethical standards. To clarify, Hannibal’s vision was for independence for territories. But based on some of his actions, the concept of ‘freedom for all’ was not a part of that vision. Hannibal exhibited the trait of intellectual hypocrisy; he didn’t hold himself to the same standards that he fought for when he was faced the ethical dilemma of feeding, equipping, and paying his troops for their service; or selling Roman captives into slavery. In an effort to take care of his men, he succumbed to the latter, after the failed attempt to negotiate a ransom with Rome. And so, Roman captives were sold to a local slave trader (Commire & Klezmer, 1994). Perhaps, he fell prey to ethical relativism, using this ethical trap as a way to justify the inconsistency between his thoughts and his actions. Or maybe he didn’t care; but we’ll never know. What we do know is that this lack of intellectual integrity is opposite of the behavior that is required of an ethical leader (CF03SG, 2013, p. 7). Most assuredly, his actions confused his team of warriors, and affected their view of his professional character, especially since non-Roman captives had been released to their respective countries.
In this case, the rise of Caesar’s power was considered by some as disregard and disrespect of authority, tradition, and Roman rules. Caesar on many occasions challenged Roman commander Pompey and his main opponent, thus leading to many civil wars. Additionally, his decision to cross Rubicon was contrary to the Roman law that restricted him to enter Rome because he was a governor of Gaul at the time. Additionally, following Pompey’s death, Caesar conferred more powers to himself by diluting the Senate’s reaches and powers (Alvin 82). One major flaw that Caesar possessed was his strong ambition. This made him overconfident and thought he had become invincible both in Rome and battle. Because his soldiers respected and loved him, Caesar thought that he would pursue whatever he desired. This is what led to his
According to Lazenby, to do. What Hannibal did required "great strategic skill, tactical ingenuity. and sheer force of personality"[3]. I will consider where these characteristics came from and how he used these characteristics to his advantage in the Second Punic War. After Hasdrubal was assassinated, Hannibal became general of the Carthaginian army in Spain.
even today for his campaign, the hatred Hannibal felt for Rome was clearly seen on the
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
For a long period of time, Rome seemed like an unstoppable empire. It conquered the majority of the land surrounding it, including Greece, Turkey, Iraq, and many of its other neighboring countries. It seemed as though Rome would conquer the entire world, as it was the center of it, until it began to decline in 476 C.E. The very aspects that made it so successful were the ones that caused its collapse. Various political, religious, and economic reasons caused its downfall. The fact that the entire economy of Rome collapsed and money became worthless was a major reason for the empire’s collapse. In addition, the loss of a common religion and lack of efficient ruling in relation to its vast territory affected the empire. The Roman Empire did not become so successful in a short period of time, and so its decline did not just happen overnight. Over several years all of these different aspects together caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
middle of paper ... ... strength and unity, was left unorganized and practically useless. Rome was the constant victim of barbaric waves of attacks. From the Visigoths, to the franks, to the Huns, they constantly overpowered the Roman armies. This is simply because they knew no limits.
The military might of Rome was second to none in its prime. Victorious battle after battle did nothing but increase Rome’s population of young men suited for combat, increase Rome’s borders, and increase Rome’s influence over its people and the surrounding people. With such great generals as Alexander the Great, Pompey the Great, and Julius Caesar Rome won many decisive battles. At its largest times, Rome controlled most of the Middle East, Asia Minor, present day Europe, and Egypt. It’s is hard to state that conquering and controlling all of the surrounding territory didn’t help aid in Rome’s great success. But would they have been so successful militarily if they didn’t have the trade routes or the technology?
Even before the war started, Hannibal knew what he was going to do. Since Carthage had no navy, there was no hope of going directly from Carthage to Italy over the Mediterranean Sea. Hannibal thought up a dangerous but ingenious plan. In order to get to Italy over land, Hannibal and his army would have to travel from Carthage-controlled Spain across the Alps and into the heart of the enemy. Hannibal left in the cold winter of 218 B.C. with 50,000 infantry, 9,000 cavalry, and 37 war elephants. While crossing the Alps, “Hannibal’s force suffered greatly from the elements and the hostility of the local tribesmen” (Beshara, 3). By the time they reached Italy, after only fourteen days, over 9,000 men had perished along with most of the elephants, but this number was soon replenished after 14,000 northern Gaul rebels joined Hannibal’s army. This group of 60,000 men proved superior to the Roman forces, and after at least three recorded major victories, the Roman senate was exasperated. An army of 80,000 Roman soldiers was sent to stop Hannibal’s army of now 50,000 once and for all. In July of 216 B.C., the Romans engaged the Carthaginians in “the neighborhood of Cannae on the Italian east coast” (Lendering, 2). Greatly outnumbered, Hannibal realized that he would have to win by strategy, and that is exactly what he did. As the two lines met, Hannibal’s cavalry gained the flanks and, moving up the sides, attacked the rear of the Roman line.
Another sizeable contributing factor to the expansion of the Roman Empire was the sacking of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C.. “The Romans were completely dumbfounded by the wild and undisciplined charge of the howling Gauls. The Roman’s tightly packed phalanx, a military formation they had adopted from the Greeks of southern Italy, collapsed, and the Romans fled” (Kidner, 129). The sacking left the Romans determined to prevent and avoid any similar outcomes in the future.
Hannibal's first battle took place when he was only nine. He went on an expedition with his father, Hamilcar Barca, to conquer Spain. From the beginning Carthage’s push into Spain, Hannibal vowed eternal hatred for Rome; Hannibal became Commander in Chief of Carthage’s army when he was 26 after his father was assassinated. His conquest of the Roman town of Sagunto in Spain led to a new declaration of war by Rome; which started the second Punic War and Hannibal’s promise to visit Roman injustice back on Rome a hundred fold. For Carthage to take the town of Sagunto was completely within the rights of the Carthage and the treaty but Rome at the time was getting too big and becoming very imperialistic. All Rome could see was that they had to have all of the Mediterranean and the only thing that stood in their way was a single General and his men. The way in which the Romans were unconsciously straying from "mos maiorum" to manipulate the course of events was disturbing. Though these actions were not entirely the "evil" work of Rome. Hannibal from his earliest memories could recall nothing but hatred for Rome. Hannibal’s Father had instilled a horrifically self-destructive desire within Hannibal to see the fall of Rome.
Elephants should not be killed because they are one of the main reasons that people visit the foreign land of Africa. Africa is incredibly hot and is not the most intriguing place to go on your vacation. If there were no elephants the amount of tourists would significantly decrease. Twenty eight percent of all tourist come to see the elephants. In the movie “Ivory Wars” the narrator says “ One of the few attractions for tourists is the African elephants that run wild and free across the vast plains of the continent of Africa.” When the amount of tourists decrease so does the money that they pay to see the elephants at a safari. Africa is obviously does not have the strongest economy to begin with and without the elephants to bring in tourists the continent of Africa will fall apart. Elephants are exotic and amazing to see, and without them would there really be a reason to visit Africa?
The number of African and Asian elephants in North American zoos is declining as a result of many medical issues. A new disease has recently been discovered that is now hindering elephant’s ability to survive even further. This is a major problem because according to Science Magazine, as of 1997, there are only an estimated 291 Asian elephants and 193 African elephants left in North American zoos. Since this survey was conducted, this number has severely declined. It is now estimated that for every elephant that is born in a zoo another three die.
Today, witnessing a herd of elephants is becoming increasingly uncommon, as more and more elephants die prematurely every year. Jessica Hatcher, writer for The Guardian News, reported that “There are between 410,...