Hannibal Should Not be a Leader Choice ...

[Timhotep]

But Hannibal did not bring war elephants primarily for use as transport.

Yeah, I reconsidered that as soon as I posted.

Still, they couldn't have been a total waste. I imagine there were some scuffles with the Gauls before they even got to the Alps, and maybe they had a diplomatic effect as well. An army looks a lot more imposing with elephants in it, and the idea was to gather as many Gauls (and later Italians) as possible who would think "maybe these guys can beat Rome after all" and join their side.

 

[Goodfella]

That is true. Except for FDR. He was the best

Though FDR is quite famous.

 

[calibur]

He brought them primarily for shock/fear value. There are more effective military tactics and African elephants are quite difficult to train, they are quite aggressive. Imagine seeing a horde of giant horned beasts with armed men on top of them. Even the beasts themselves aside, imagining the strength of men who could tame them would strike fear into your hearts.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I thought this was about how Hannibal shouldn't be a leader because he wasn't a head of state.

If it's just about animals, Napoleon lost a lot more horses in 1812. Even a genius can make a mistake.

Carthage was a naval super-power, which they used to enforce their trade monopoly in the western Mediterranean. The Roman crows ( drawbridge devices which allowed the roman marines to board their enemies ) and some weather put an end to all of that.

Hannibal knew Rome was too ambitious an empire with which to co-exist. He had to strike back before it was too late, and he had to do it overland.

Hannibal is called the father of strategy for a reason. He was both a logistical planner and a tactical innovater. His admirers included both Wellington and Napoleon, and he is still studied today.

HANNIBAL VS ROME

Battle of Trebia
30 thousand men VS 42 thousand
4 to 5 thousand casualties VS 26 to 28, and possibly 32 thousand

Battle of Lake Trasimae
30 thousand men VS 40 thousand
2,500 dead VS 15 thousand

Battle of Cannae
50 thousand men VS 86,400
5,700 to 8,000 dead VS 53,500 to 75 thousand dead
.. 4,500 Romans surrendered

These successes ( and there were others )were not against your average enemy, but ROME. They were the best equiped army in the history of the world at the time, defending their homeland . These successes were a result of Hannibal's tactics.

Amazingly enough after that, Rome still refused to surrender, and Carthage refused to send Hannibal seige weapons or anything else to finish the war. Consequently, Carthage lost it's chance to re-assert itself and was eventually crushed in the next war.

Hannibal was left living off of the land for 15 years, but unlike Alexander the Great and Napoleon, Hannibal's men never mutinied.

Hannibal is one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world for is abillity to inspire men to achieve the "impossible". His words "We shall find a way, or we shall make one." are an eternal testament to that.

 

[calibur]

I thought this was about how Hannibal shouldn't be a leader because he wasn't a head of state.

Me too.

I come to see "oh, he killed elephants".

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I thought this was about how Hannibal shouldn't be a leader because he wasn't a head of state.

Me also. I like elephants, too, but they can't be heads of state either.


I'm surprised that they didn't use Dido instead, in order to appeal to the female fan base. Who cares if she may not have been real or was shrouded in mystery? Gilgamesh is only mostly mythological, if not completely.

They could have tarted her up like Boudica and appealed to the teenage boy fans in the demographic.

That being said, I think that Hannibal is a perfectly acceptable leader, considering a couple of the other choices that were made.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Me also. I like elephants, too, but they can't be heads of state either.


I'm surprised that they didn't use Dido instead, in order to appeal to the female fan base. Who cares if she may not have been real or was shrouded in mystery? Gilgamesh is only mostly mythological, if not completely.

They could have tarted her up like Boudica and appealed to the teenage boy fans in the demographic.

That being said, I think that Hannibal is a perfectly acceptable leader, considering a couple of the other choices that were made.

Yeah, Gilgamesh is probably a mythical king, and there is more evidence for Dido's existence.
I wish they would have added Dido to Carthage in BTS, instead of adding Boudica. Dido was a much better leader, founding Carthage and all, and Boudica only led an unsuccessful revolt against Rome. But I guess that's what Mods are for, eh?

 

[damerell]

Me also. I like elephants, too, but they can't be heads of state either.

If Caligula's horse could be a senator, I don't see why not.

I'm surprised that they didn't use Dido instead, in order to appeal to the female fan base. Who cares if she may not have been real or was shrouded in mystery? Gilgamesh is only mostly mythological, if not completely.

I think part of the trouble there is that there's no better Sumerian leader. As I understand it, Gilgamesh is about as real as King Arthur - likely a real person, albeit with a lot of associated myths. But he's the only Sumerian king anyone can think of, so he might as well get in - but Dido instead of Hannibal would be like King Arthur instead of the British leaderheads.

They could have tarted her up like Boudica and appealed to the teenage boy fans in the demographic.

Bleh, there's quite enough of that already.

That being said, I think that Hannibal is a perfectly acceptable leader, considering a couple of the other choices that were made.

I think the main thing about leaderheads is they have to have been successful. Stalin was a monster, but he still makes the cut. From that point of view, Boudica's the real oddball.

 

[AdamCrock]

From my (ever so ignorant ) point of view Hannibal was a Hero and freedom fighter ! Down with the foreign influence ! Go away evil Roman slavers ! If a few elephants had to be killed than it's the price that must have been paid. For freeeeedom ! And remember "children" Glorious Rome was build on the back of it's slaves !

Joking of course Now seriously. I've read that Hannibal was ingenious and when crossing Alps he scorched the obstructing rocks with fire than spruced them with cold water to make it vulnurable to crack. Than he ordered his troops to hit the rocks with heavy hammers to make ... roads ^^ tadaa ! Ingenious indeed - a rocky road trough mountains range available for crossing with horses, elephants and other animals. Users of that roads later called them the "Hannibal road" . Sure it took some time, sweat and hard work (and with those elephants and all) but in the end it worked out, he was "... ante portas." On the other side of the coin as mentioned in the first post it really was a journey wrought with peril. But tell me now which war escapade isn't perilious ? Alexander the "Great" was even worse. (not to mention he was a wine "junkie" and a womanizer )

Conclusion - If I would be standing in Hannibal's shoes I'd do the same. He was a legend, even if told by roman agitators. He is a legeng today ! (I mean everybody has heard about Carthage leader Hannibal and his elephant troopers ) His fame lived up to our current date and has earned him the place in history books and civilization's leaderheads. Ow c'mon at very least he deserves some recognition for spanking a 'Ceasar' arse .. in the end he was beaten thou...

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Ow c'mon at very least he deserves some recognition for spanking a 'Ceasar' arse .. in the end he was beaten thou...

Actually, back then Rome was run by the senate; Caesar didn't come around 'till the 40's BCE.

 

[AdamCrock]

Actually, back then Rome was run by the senate; Caesar didn't come around 'till the 40's BCE.

tou·ché my friend You're right of course. In my rant I forgot that Rome was a Republic during the time of Punic wars.

+1 for You

On topic joke : That makes Hannibal an evil Sith Lord trying to overthrow the Republic, burn the Senate to cinders and stomp the remaining ruins with war elephants to level them to the ground All the more reasons to like him being a leaderhead ^^ Now I know I must play with Carthage more often hehe

 

[bitplayer]

Im now wondering how many men died on that trek in ratio to the elephants. Im guessing it's a lot more than two to one.

Silly me my mind wanders as bit now and then.

 

[CivNoobie]

I think what the OP saying is that Hannibal is supposed to be a black man. But in game, he is portrayed as a white man. Historical inaccuracy that is

 

[calibur]

Why would Hannibal be black?
He is Phoenician, not African. Carthage was a Phoenician colony.
Plus, that's not at all what the OP was saying.

 

[Bowsling]

I just got finished watching a documentary I got from the library, "Ancients Behaving Badly" (History Channel)

I found your problem.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Why would Hannibal be black?
He is Phoenician, not African. Carthage was a Phoenician colony.
Plus, that's not at all what the OP was saying.

He surely wasn't black, but he looked too European in the game.

 

[God-Emperor]

Me also. I like elephants, too, but they can't be heads of state either.

Babar disagrees.

They could have tarted her up like Boudica and appealed to the teenage boy fans in the demographic.

And certain post-teenage girls...

 

[King Kalmah]

I found your problem.

I know...the only one that was any good was Caligula...Attila wasn't bad,but it was mostly speculation....

 

[shakabrade]

Napoleon attacked Russia late and fool got struck by winter badly, therefore, following the same logic as OP states, Napoleon isn't worthy to be Civ leader.

 

[AdamCrock]

Therefore the best leaderhead is Luis XIV. Not only he is best dressed gentleman in the game but he was actually succesful monarch. He is not the head of state "He is the state"

Here is a little tip what makes him "The" king :