About Napoleon vs Hannibal
|February 10th, 2008||#1|
| || |
Napoleon vs Hannibal info
|February 11th, 2008||#2|
| || |
I'm afraid it is impossible to compare military leaders from different eras. General, the way how army is conducted, depends from various factors, including what kind of weapons and logistics are they using and what objectives must be completed. Both of leaders were masters of their own era. If You take away their original equipment and give them new, equal one, they first will need to use to it, learn capabilities of new equipment and best methods and ways to use it...
|February 11th, 2008||#3|
| || |
Moreover, a later leader will learn from an earlier one. It's like comparing scientists from different eras, one stands on the shoulders of the previous. Scipio learnt a lot from Hannibal and subsequently the Romans based a lot of their strategy and tactics from Hannibal (as indeed they had earlier copied the shipbuilding techniques of the Carthaginians)
I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. Frank Lloyd Wright
Last edited by perseus; February 11th, 2008 at 08:03..
|February 14th, 2008||#5|
| || |
First of all we have the cannons as you say whose purpose was partly to shock the enemy (like Hannibal's elephants) but most effective practical effect was to shower grapeshot or shrapnel on the enemy. However few infantry wore armour in the 19th century yet quite a few of Hannibal's men must have had armour protection which would have provided some protection against low velocity projectiles.
Secondly we have the effectiveness of the slow firing musket against the fast firing bow and arrow. Consider again the lack of armour in the 19th century.
Thirdly we have he effectiveness of 19th century cavalry against the phalanx type structure prevalent at the time of Hannibal.
I would guess that Hannibal would wait until a time when the cannon and muskets may be ineffective, do they work when raining? is range important in fog or the dark? how long does it take to set up cannon, what about guerrilla warfare?
I doubt if in a 'head to head' of technology the result would have been inevitable.
|February 14th, 2008||#6|
| || |
|February 14th, 2008||#7|
| || |
With regard to armour, I am not saying that the shot wouldn't have been effective, just less effective than against unprotected troops
Jewish resistance to foreign rule was expressed in the series of fierce guerrilla operations against the Romans in the 1st century AD led by the Zealot sect, this revolt was climaxed by the seizure of Masada and the massacre of the Roman garrison there in AD 66
Last edited by perseus; February 14th, 2008 at 08:13..
|February 14th, 2008||#8|
| || |
The reason that Bowman went out of fashion was that it took years to train a decent bowman, yet some one could be trained to use a musket in a day.
Body Armour. well it had been up as useless from the 19th Century to just recently.
Muskets.....Although the fire rate was not very high with these, the short fall was made up by volley firing which could pour a large amount lead at a fair rate into a an advancing force, which they found very of putting.
Guerrilla Warfare....Well they would not have used cannons on this sort of thing as it is all about hit and run.
|February 16th, 2008||#9|
| || |
This discussion sounds a lot like what would I arm a high tech cyborg?
An equally high tech rapid firing firearm such as an automatic rifle with all the fancy bells and whistles, or a Samurai Sword?
Of course the more modern weapons are more useful. Or else who would be stupid enough to invest money into making them?
There are places where an older weapon could do better. i.e. if you were nose to nose with your enemy, a battleaxe would be more effective than a musket but if you were to go to war tomorrow and you had to pick one of the two, which would it be?
|February 19th, 2008||#10|
| || |
Actually both Generals are very similar, they were both expert tacticians that used maneuvering tactics to get the upper hand, and both Generals invented tactics they provided victory against a numerically superior enemy. They both tended to exploit their enemies overconfidence.
They were also both beaten by their own tactics used against them, by enemy leaders who acknowledged their military genius. And both enemies leaders (Rome and the UK) copied elements of both of these Generals Armies and incorporated them into their own, particularly of specialized units.
In other words both the British Army and the Roman Legions paid the ultimate hommage to their sworn enemies by copying them.
One final point, both leaders final defeat was by their own hand. Both leaders had so far over-extended themselves that their armies had simply become skeletons of their former selves and that they were simply beaten by exhaustion. Napoleon was permanently weakened by the Russian Campaign, and similarily Hannibal by his endless campaigns in Italy.
"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch
I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris.
Last edited by mmarsh; February 19th, 2008 at 18:33..