Hannibal Barca was a war general, and is known for being one of the only people the Romans feared. Hannibal and the Romans fought for around two decades, and Hannibal triumphed over any army that was sent his way. Although Rome ended up winning the war, the Romans will never forget the man who was in charge of many of their most disgraceful defeats. The way Hannibal led made his men have respect and loyalty towards him, which proved to be a better tactic than other generals. All of Hannibal’s enemies feared him, because of the techniques he used in battle. Hannibal’s way of leading worked very well for him and his army and is what allowed him to win numerous battles. Hannibal Barca was an influential leader to both his people and enemies, and …show more content…
Hannibal was a very determined leader and was a trait he took from his father and led his troops with much respect for them which is why he was so successful. In the excerpt from The Prince, by Machiavelli, one of the main ideas he stresses is that “It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved, when having to choose between the two” (Machievelli). Hannibal led with a lot of determination towards beating the Romans in battle, making the Romans view him as a headstrong person and frightening leader. Hannibal’s father Hamilcar Barca, was also a fantastic & determined war general, and Hannibal quotes that his father “bade him lay hold of the altar and swear that he would never be a friend to the Romans" (World at War). Hamilcar’s leading tactics, and determination against the Romans influenced Hannibal’s style of leadership. “Hannibal was described as a cruel leader by Machiavelli, who believed this character trait was an asset in his position…. To avoid internal conflicts and mutinies amongst the troops, a feared but respected leader like Hannibal was needed” (Eudaimonia). However, contrary to Machievelli’s statements, Hannibal …show more content…
According to Machievelli Scipio “was limited in the range of actions he could take… because it could damage his reputation which was seen as spotless among his soldiers” (Eudaimonia). One of the only things that backfired on Hannibal was that with the respect from soldiers, and fear from Romans “the Carthaginian Senate repeatedly refused Hanibal’s requests for aid and supplies'' which may have been from their own selfishness, or because they feared Hannibal would become too powerful and take over Carthage (Mark). Instilling fear into the Romans which caused his men, and later even the Romans, to respect him was a good thing since fear always stays with people, while love is hard to maintain. As Machiavelli says,“ love is held by a bond of obligation which, since men are shabby, is broken for their own utility upon every occasion;but timorousness is secured by fear of punishment which never lets you go” (Machiavelli). Even after eventually losing the war, and after his passing, Hannibal was still respected, and the Romans even built a statue of him to show their ability to beat such a great nemesis which just proves how influential he truly
Caesar was a great military leader, he was a man of strength, and he conquered all of Rome. Caesar was not afraid to take charge to take Rome high and make them more powerful. If he had to Caesar would kill anyone that stood in his way of making Rome more powerful. “Kill everyone inside” “without hesitation, his men, swords drown, burst inside the bar, and soon the street was quiet.”
A change in the Carthaginian senate in 203 greatly influenced Hannibal’s campaign in Italy. Hannibal’s popularity had declined and his faction no longer held the power in Carthage that it previously held by 203 B.C. A treaty enacted by the Romans and Carthaginians for peace could only come into force once Hannibal and his brother Mago left Italy. Clearly, Hannibal realized the Carthaginians had named him the scapegoat for the War. Livy states that no sooner had Hannibal realized this when he immediately blamed Hanno for this disgrace. Within a year, Hannibal returned to Africa, only to lose one of the decisive battles of the war.
Hannibal's strategy was to attack Rome and win over their allies. The Republic depended on its allies for power and reinforcements. Without them, Rome would weaken and Hannibal would have a good chance at gaining victory. When Hannibal attacked Spain in 218 BC, the Romans could no longer ignore the threat and war broke out. The Roman generals hoped to stop Hannibal before he could get onto the Italian peninsula, but
With an army that had great size and power it made it possible for him to conquer and expanded his empire. At control of one of the most power army and largest empire known to man at that time, Caesar could rule largely by fear and tactical control over aspects of life such as government, trade, politics, and society. In much of Greek and/or Roman culture and society during ancient times respect, popularity, and fame was judge by a man military experiences and
Since he became ruled by his vices that gained him power prestige his reputation grew for the honor to fear which led the Egyptians to decide death because "Dead men don't bite" (Pompey, 77). Julius Caesar was controlled by pride and greed just like Pompey and had the virtue of humanity also. But unlike Pompey, Caesar was a man who never shied away from praise and popularity. Caesar's humility at first was nothing but a ploy to make the Roman citizens like him, because of
Caesar’s popularity gave him many enemies while he ruled over the Roman Empire. In closing, Julius Caesar was a tremendous ruler, but he had bounteous
He states that the citizens are obligated on a individual and collective level (Polybius Constitution, 5). He also presents Hannibal not only as model citizen but a man. He is man skilled in politics, economics and combat, which should be a King’s
It amazes me that a man so lacking in courage is able to outdistance the pack and become the emperor” (1.2. 121-129). Cassius evokes the emotions of pride and pity. He makes Caesar seem feeble and vulnerable, discrediting his immense sense of pride and narcissistic personality. He uses these emotions to lead into his next point, where he questions how a weak and feeble man is suitable to be emperor. Furthermore, Cassius defames Caesar’s character while subtly hinting that Brutus
Even though Caesar made sure his enemies feared him, Caesar could somehow inspire his men to build a bridge that was the longest back then in ten days. The author of “Dictator for life” convinced the readers that Caesar both inspired loyalty and was ruthless because of the many actions Caesar did to his enemies and to inspire huge loyalty into his troops to have them build a bridge in ten days. The author convinces the readers that Caesar was both ruthless and inspired loyalty by telling the readers all the actions he did and what his troops could do when they were loyal to him. The author convinces the readers that Caesar is ruthless to his enemies on many occasions.
This paper will show you how Julius Caesar became the man he was and the pros and cons of his leadership. Before Caesar’s monarchy, he was a successful leader of armies. His victories in the Gallic wars only heightened his want for power. By 51 B.C. Julius’ ability to run a military was incomparable, which alone jeopardized Pompey’s leading. Thus, in 50 B.C. Pompey ordered Caesar to disband his army, step down from his military command, and return to Rome.
Death, uncertainty, and fear all come to mind when thinking about the Roman Empire. When Julius Caesar made the fatal decision of turning the Roman Government into an empire, it hurt Rome forever. Bad leaders damaged Rome’s image while citizens of Rome lived in fear and panic. No one could control bad leaders and limit their power, giving them the freedom to do whatever they wanted. Although Caesar was very popular among common people, there would be many dictators that weren’t.
Julius Caesar was the Dictator of Rome in 42 BC who accomplished many things. Many people believed that he was a hero, but Julius Caesar was a very ambitious dictator and was more of a villain than a hero. Julius Caesar was a villain because he didn’t think first before doing something, he forced the Senate to name him dictator for life and he also was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. To begin with, Julius Caesar was a was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. Caesar used his power as dictator more towards his advantage instead of helping the people in Rome.
Some flaws can make you a good or a bad leader, depending on how they are used or directed. One of these such traits is ambition. Marc Antony was very ambitious, which could have been very good for him as leader, but he was so ambitious that he killed his own family members. This is very important, because he does this to not anger his fellow rulers of Rome. If someone is willing to kill off their own family, then how can one know they will not kill others to stay in power?
Hannibal The Brilliant Carthaginian War Strategist Question: How did Hannibal?s efforts and life experiences change Roman conquests forever? Thesis Statement Hannibal was one of the most resourceful war strategists in the world because of his many achievements, such as: crossing the Alps as a shortcut to attack Rome, making many allies before he attacked Rome, and also because of his strategy in defeating Roman consuls Marcellus and Tiberius, among others.
He was always courageous and persistent in battle, which made many individuals admire him. Similarly, Julius Caesar was a leader of Ancient Rome. In the beginning of Caesar’s reign, he