Hannibal was an incompetent general

In addition to the rules in Round 1, we have agreed to define “competence” in terms of one’s ability to accomplish a set task. We have also agreed that a war’s outcome does not necessarily determine competence (i. e. , winning/losing the war does not automatically make you competent/incompetent). With that, I will make my case. Hannibal is one of the most famous and competent generals in history. Although he ultimately lost, he holds a rightful place among the ranks of other highly skilled yet defeated generals such as Robert E. Lee, Napoleon, and Erwin Rommel. Hannibal proved his competence through his ability to innovate, win on the battlefield, and strike fear into his enemies. Innovation A good commander has the ability to innovate new strategies and strike in ways his enemy least expects. Hannibal proved more than capable of accomplishing this task. His most famous feat was the march over the Alps and invasion of Italy from the north. This approach was so unexpected the Romans considered it impossible and did not even bother defending it. Instead, the Romans attempted to seize the initiative by sending two invasion forces by sea to Spain and Carthage [1]. Yet, after landing in Spain, the Roman commander Publius discovered that Hannibal had already taken his army with unimaginable speed into the Alps and that Italy was now defenseless. As the historian Polybius records: "Now the Roman consul Publius arrived at the crossing of the river three days after the departure of the Carthaginians, and finding the enemy gone was in the highest degree astonished, as he had been convinced that they would never venture to march on Italy by this route . . . he himself turned back and made sail for Italy with the design of marching rapidly through Etruria and reaching the foot of the pass over the Alps before the enemy. [2]” Similarly, the Roman invasion fleet lead by Tiberius was recalled while en route to attacking Carthage to “hasten to the help of his own country [3]. ” Without even fighting a battle, Hannibal seized the initiative, thwarted two Roman invasion fleets, and put Rome completely on the defensive. These are not the actions of an incompetent commander. Furthermore, Hannibal proved his innovation through his flexibility and creativity on the battlefield. When a barbarian army gathered near a vital river crossing Hannibal intended to use, he quickly reacted. While ordering half his army to begin constructing boats to draw the enemy's attention, he sent the other half at night to cross up river and move in behind them undetected. The next morning, he ordered his men to begin crossing in their boats, which forced the barbarians to gather at the far bank in preparation for a battle. Precisely at this moment, his flanking forced arrived in the enemy’s rear, causing them to flee and allowing Hannibal to cross uncontested without losing any time [4]. During another river crossing, Hannibal's war elephants refused to move near the water. He solved this by constructing a pontoon bridge and packing earth and grass on top of it to fool the elephants into thinking they were still walking a dirt path, and they all crossed without major incident [5]. Creativity and innovation are skills incompetent commanders do not have. Winning on the Battlefield Hannibal proved his ability to defeat his enemies on the battlefield time after time. His string of victories in Italy included Ticinus, Trebia, Trasimene, Herdonea, and Cannae [6]. He achieved these victories by using a superior knowledge of the battlefield topography and his enemy’s capabilities and weaknesses. Much like Abraham Lincoln’s inability to find a Union general who could defeat Robert E. Lee, the Roman senate frantically cycled through numerous commanders in hopes of finding one who could defeat Hannibal. Hannibal’s campaign only began losing momentum after the Romans adopted a strategy of attrition – Hannibal was so good at crushing the Romans that the only way to win was to avoid fighting him! Ones does not typically avoid fighting an incompetent commander. Fear Finally, Hannibal’s skill bred fear throughout Rome. Not only did his presence terrify the Roman government enough to immediately recall all their invasion armies, but his victories inspired numerous Roman allies to break ties with Rome and join him. Nations and tribes do not lightly break alliances in order to support someone who is incompetent and unlikely to win. Furthermore, the Romans elected a temporary "dictator" to handle the invasion, something that at that time was only done in dire emergencies. There would have been no cause to implement emergency procedures if Hannibal was an incompetent commander who could be easily defeated. Finally, as a result of Hannibal’s near destruction of Rome, generations of Roman parents used a common proverb to scare misbehaving children into obedience: Hannibal ad Portas, “Hannibal is at the Gates [7]. ” This is quite remarkable considering the Romans ultimately defeated Hannibal and yet still regarded him as a symbol of national fear. People do not develop terror that lasts for centuries at the prospect of an incompetent enemy. While admitting that Hannibal was ultimately defeated, I submit that he indeed displayed more often than not his ability to accomplish set tasks to such a degree that he remained a symbol of fear in Roman culture for centuries and is regarded by historians as "one of the great captains in military history. [8]" [1] Polybius, The Histories, Book III. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Fronda, Hannibal: Tactics, Strategy, and Geostrategy. (Blackwell Publishing, 2011). [7] Dr. Joseph Hughes, Lecture on the Second Punic War: We are the Champions, Missouri State University [8] Fronda, Hannibal: Tactics, Strategy, and Geostrategy. (Blackwell Publishing, 2011).