Defeated by a superior commander? As i recall, Hannibal had been separated from most of his Italian army, and was fighting with almost entirely raw recruits, except for his reserve. Scipio had the army he had been fighting with during the entire Spanish campaign. Hannibal had lost this battle before it even started. It is worth noting that Scipio at no time dared to engage Hannibal on Italian soil with his army, instead going to Spain, then to Carthage itself, forcing Carthage to call Hannibal back to fight a battle on unfavorable terms.
What is weird is that Hannibal agreed to engage Scipio on an open field without an explicit cavalry advantage. After all the traps and stratagems, it seems very unlike him, and points to him being forced by the overall politics of the situation (not Hannibal being forced by Scipio, but Carthage being forced by Rome) to engage in a pitched battle. By that point Rome had already won, and it was just a technicality that Hannibal himself had to be defeated.
I don’t mean to sound strident, but rather to point out an alternative view to the battle.

By Ziggy on Oct 19, 2009 at 7:46 pm

well, scipio i would say is not appreciated enough, granted hannibal did fight very indenpendent from supply and such and won many decisive victories, scipio though is not recognized for illipa as much as he should be, i mean it was on par with hannibals victories for the most part, also scipio showed better adaptability than hannibal, scipio adapted to deal with the elephants, hannibal tried to mimic to a degree the 3 line roman formation, and it proved less effective, i would personally argue that they are very evenly matched, with hannibal MAYBe being better by a small amount

By ben w. on Oct 20, 2009 at 10:12 pm

I agree with what Ziggy said. On the tactical level, Hannibal lost his Numbian cavalry, which was vastly superior to Roman and Carthaginian ones, that and he was outnumbered in cavalry. If we trace back to Hannibal’s victories, the deciding factor was most often than not, the cavalry, and only by having a superior one, he could achieve the double envelop in Cannae.

Since Hannibal could not rely on his cavalry, let alone the infantry (news recruits vs battle hardened army from the Spain campaign), his best and probably the only move that would gain him the initiative was the elephants; both him and Scipio knew that, and then the rest is history.

The battle was won already not at the tactical level but the strategic one. The Roman strategy was, since the 2nd Act of the war, to deprive supplies to Hannibal, and that strategy was consistent and paid off amazingly at the end game. Carthage lost Numbia, Spain, the sea, and finally the homeland. One has to keep in mind that Carthage had no coherent strategy at the time; it was more or less Hannibal himself vs Rome. It would be very hard to conclude Scipio was on par with Hannibal, let alone superior, given that they were fighting vastly on unequal grounds.

By Gob on Nov 4, 2009 at 5:34 am

Well, the point is that Hannibal could have easily won the Battle of Zama, and he didn’t. If the cavalry of Laelius and Massinissa didn’t return in time, the battle could have gone either way.

Remember, it was Scipio who advocated the African campaign. Fabius and others opposed it, preferring to simply expel Hannibal from Italy. It was Scipio who argued invading Africa with the idea of Carthage recalling Hannibal from Italy and fighting to defend the home city.

So in a real sense, it was Scipio who was responsible for forcing Hannibal to fight in Africa.

By Tonifranz on Nov 14, 2009 at 1:25 am

Could have easily won? As i recall, the battle was more or less stalemated until Scipios cavalry came back. It could have gone either way. And Hannibal had no way of making sure Scipios cavalry DIDN’T come back, so i think saying he could have “easily won” is a bit misleading.
And yes, Scipio could be given credit for forcing Carthage to call back Hannibal, but that was part of the overall strategic advantage that he had (being from Rome which, while it had its disagreements, was much more organized and focused than Carthage), rather than being a better general. Hannibal was just more or less stranded by that point, and didn’t have any kind of outside help, which Scipio did have.

By Ziggy on Nov 17, 2009 at 9:59 pm

im not saying scipio is better than hannibal, im just saying hannibal was only slightly better than scipio, scipio adapted whereas hannibal stayed the same, scipio learned how to defeat the elephants, worked to gain a strong cavalry arm, and used the three line roman system effectively, hannibal tried to use a three line system like the romans but it did not work that well really, and was in reality most likely going to lose anyway before the cavalry reappeared, it just wud not have been by as much tho

By ben w. on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 am

Ben w., the problem is that you have no way to make the conclusion on who was better, when the battle was won strategically. Hannibal had to open with his elephants because they were his best bet, given that his had inferior cavalry. he seemingly “stayed the same”, because he had no better moves, given the constraints.

By Gob on Nov 23, 2009 at 8:06 pm

But the point is, Hannibal could have won the battle. As has been pointed out, until Laelius’ and Massinissa’s cavalry arrived, it could have gone either way.

Hannibal could have won. He could have lost. Remember, strategically, in 218-216 BC, he strategically is not in a much better situation than in 202 BC. He was in enemy territory, surrounded by hostile cities, with no hope of reinforcements except that of the unreliable Gauls in northern Italy, outnumbered, etc. His army was mowed by attrition from the trip on the Alps, he lost all but one of his elephants. But he won. Spectacularly. The only advantage he has is his genius.

Truth is, Scipio is a much better general than Varro and Flamininus and his own father.

In fact, I would argue that strategically, Hannibal’s situation in Africa in 202 BC is better than in 218-216 BC in Italy. He lost the Numidians, but he still has his Libyans. His army outnumbered that of Scipio, and he has his elephants. He still has his genius, and he still has his core of veterans–remember the third line? He has access to reinforcements from Carthage itself.

The fact that he nearly won the battle testifies to his advantages, both in mind and in resources.

The only difference is that his opposition is not of the caliber of a Varro, a Flamininus, or even a Marcellus. He would have won, easily, against those generals, at Zama.

Did Scipio make adequate preparations before Zama? Yes. But it all could have been undone had he been defeated at Zama.

The fact is at Zama, Hannibal was out-generalled by Scipio, both tactically, operationally, politically, and strategically.

By Tonifranz on Nov 27, 2009 at 1:23 pm

In addition, it could be pointed out that Scipio, when he first landed at Africa, did not have the initial strategic advantage.

There were large armies led by the Carthaginians and the Libyans under Syphax. He had Massinissa.

It was his victory at Great Plains and at Utica which forced Carthage to sue for peace.

Of course, when Hannibal went home because the war supposedly ended, the Carthaginians declared war on Rome feeling superior with Hannibal back.

So, if Scipio did not win at Great Plains and Utica, Hannibal would not have been recalled to Africa. So whatever strategic advantage he had over Hannibal he created by his own earlier victories over Syphax and the Carthaginians.

Which is why I think tactically, Hannibal is much better than Scipio, but strategically, Scipio is better.

By Tonifranz on Nov 27, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Your correct, Hannibal was out-generaled, but hardly to his fault. Remember, Scipio basically had his nation backing him. Rome had their disagreements, and yes he was initially considered too young, but as a whole Rome was united in their effort against Carthage.
Hannibal on the other hand was one mighty warrior with a tough army working against Rome. Carthage itself was more of a third player, and none of Carthage’s generals came near to Hannibal’s genius. Most of them weren’t even a match for the generals Hannibal defeated.
By saying “Hannibal could have won” your making it sound like it was a simple matter. Of course he COULD have won. Likewise, Varro COULD have won Cannae, but he didn’t. While Scipio was not on the caliber of Hannibal, you are correct that he was a high caliber general himself, and knew better than to fall for any of Hannibal’s tricks. Hannibal was in a desperate spot: his army was 2/3 new recruits, he was deficient in cavalry, he was in an open field where no ambushes could be laid, and he was strategically against a wall. Scipio won that battle basically by playing it safe and letting his superior army (not in numbers, but in skill and experience) do the trick. It almost came undone when his cavalry ran away, but it came back in time to nick Scipio the victory.
I think Scipio’s main advantage is that he came after Hannibal, and so could learn from him. Hannibal fought over 20 battles in Italy and never really lost any of them ( a few were a draw).

By Ziggy on Dec 2, 2009 at 5:05 am

I mostly agree with you. But I think Hannibal created some of his own disadvantages early on in the war.

Maybe Hannibal shouldn’t have agreed in attacking Saguntum without explicit orders from Carthage.

The way he did it, it almost ensured at best lukewarm support from Carthage. And by his invasion of Italy, he united the Romans against him.

If Rome attacked Carthage first, I’m sure Hannibal will get much more enthusiastic support from Carthage.

By Tonifranz on Dec 7, 2009 at 11:20 am

battle of cannae must be added as soon as possible

By Burak on Jan 3, 2010 at 10:57 pm