Comments on: Rome's Craftiest General: Scipio Africanus http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:13:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: justin posnik http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-786580 justin posnik Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:49:50 +0000 #comment-786580 I'm doing a report on scipio and this article has a lot about him but not a ton so if your doing a report this is good but not great I'm doing a report on scipio and this article has a lot about him but not a ton so if your doing a report this is good but not great

]]> By: Mr Stadden http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-780447 Mr Stadden Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:24:04 +0000 #comment-780447 Good article. However, the last paragraph makes some assumptions about Scipio wanting “power” that are suspect. It falls into the modern pitfall of espousing the concept that Romans were all power hungry men. From what I’ve read, Scipio may have been the noblest Roman of them all and I’ve never read anything that pointed to him seeking “power” per se in any significant way. After all he turned down requests to make him supreme leader or King after his return from Carthage. One of the characteristics that Romans considered noble (and also 18th century men such as George Washington by the way) was to shun power after saving their country, i.e. follow the example of Cincinnatus . Most of what I’ve read about Scipio implies that he wanted dignatis more than political power, but unfortunately the industrious jealousy of his enemies caused the opposite and left him to die a broken hearted man for the lack of appreciation. One other comment, the use of the work Empire is anachronistic – Rome was a Republic at this time. Good article. However, the last paragraph makes some assumptions about Scipio wanting “power” that are suspect. It falls into the modern pitfall of espousing the concept that Romans were all power hungry men. From what I’ve read, Scipio may have been the noblest Roman of them all and I’ve never read anything that pointed to him seeking “power” per se in any significant way. After all he turned down requests to make him supreme leader or King after his return from Carthage. One of the characteristics that Romans considered noble (and also 18th century men such as George Washington by the way) was to shun power after saving their country, i.e. follow the example of Cincinnatus . Most of what I’ve read about Scipio implies that he wanted dignatis more than political power, but unfortunately the industrious jealousy of his enemies caused the opposite and left him to die a broken hearted man for the lack of appreciation.

One other comment, the use of the work Empire is anachronistic – Rome was a Republic at this time.

]]> By: warmoviebuff http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-361017 warmoviebuff Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:29:32 +0000 #comment-361017 I agree with Jason and Robert. To me the remarkable thing about the cavalry was that it returned for the coup de grace. That was highly unusual in Ancient and Medieval warfare. I would not classify this as luck nor would I call it planned - I would classify it as another example of that vaunted Roman discipline (which apparently translated itself to the Numidians). I am a huge fan of Scipio, but I must say that the article neglects to mention that the night attack was done during a truce and that Scipio's men set fire to the Numidian camp and then ambushed the Carthaginians coming to help fight what they thought was an accidental fire. Not exactly sporting behavior and tactics the Romans would have decried the Carthaginians for. I agree with Jason and Robert. To me the remarkable thing about the cavalry was that it returned for the coup de grace. That was highly unusual in Ancient and Medieval warfare. I would not classify this as luck nor would I call it planned – I would classify it as another example of that vaunted Roman discipline (which apparently translated itself to the Numidians).
I am a huge fan of Scipio, but I must say that the article neglects to mention that the night attack was done during a truce and that Scipio's men set fire to the Numidian camp and then ambushed the Carthaginians coming to help fight what they thought was an accidental fire. Not exactly sporting behavior and tactics the Romans would have decried the Carthaginians for.

]]> By: Alan http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-139742 Alan Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:14:04 +0000 #comment-139742 this is obly about one problem this is obly about one problem

]]> By: jason taylor http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-58230 jason taylor Mon, 04 May 2009 17:04:29 +0000 #comment-58230 "There’s something I can’t figure after reading the article and another account of Zama: If Scipio went out of his way to cultivate the Numidians just to have superiority in cavalry for that flanking option on which so much depended, did he just leave it to chance that his cavalry would return on time ? Could he have instructed at least his roman cavalry commander that his job was to turn and flank after seeing the enemy horse off the field ?" There are several answers to that question. One is simply that war is largely about luck and an experienced commander knows that. Another is that the cavalry's job was in fact not to turn and flank. Rome never had a cavalry tradition and the best that could be hoped for was to chase away the enemy horse. Scipio could count on his infantry to win against enemy infantry one way or another but the enemy cavalry was a wild card that Romans had long found difficult. The Numidians returning and blindsiding the Cartheginians was in fact a bonus. Furthermore for him to tell the Numidian prince how to command cavalry or that his primary mission was to help Romans would go quite a ways against cultivating him. We do not in fact know what he told him along that line but it would have likly had all the awkward compromises involved in coalition warfare. Scipios Numidians in fact likly thought of Hannibals Numidians as their primary enemy and thought of the punic wars as a background for their local power struggles. Furthermore cavalry is notoriously hard to control and there are many instances of it charging to far. I suspect that Scipio thought of his cavalry primarily as a counter to enemy cavalry which had been so deadly earlier in the war and relied primarily on his infantry which he was familiar with. "There’s something I can’t figure after reading the article and another account of Zama: If Scipio went out of his way to cultivate the Numidians just to have superiority in cavalry for that flanking option on which so much depended, did he just leave it to chance that his cavalry would return on time ? Could he have instructed at least his roman cavalry commander that his job was to turn and flank after seeing the enemy horse off the field ?"

There are several answers to that question. One is simply that war is largely about luck and an experienced commander knows that. Another is that the cavalry's job was in fact not to turn and flank. Rome never had a cavalry tradition and the best that could be hoped for was to chase away the enemy horse. Scipio could count on his infantry to win against enemy infantry one way or another but the enemy cavalry was a wild card that Romans had long found difficult. The Numidians returning and blindsiding the Cartheginians was in fact a bonus. Furthermore for him to tell the Numidian prince how to command cavalry or that his primary mission was to help Romans would go quite a ways against cultivating him. We do not in fact know what he told him along that line but it would have likly had all the awkward compromises involved in coalition warfare. Scipios Numidians in fact likly thought of Hannibals Numidians as their primary enemy and thought of the punic wars as a background for their local power struggles. Furthermore cavalry is notoriously hard to control and there are many instances of it charging to far.
I suspect that Scipio thought of his cavalry primarily as a counter to enemy cavalry which had been so deadly earlier in the war and relied primarily on his infantry which he was familiar with.

]]> By: Robert Griffiths http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-6721 Robert Griffiths Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:25:09 +0000 #comment-6721 Once cavalry had been 'fired' at the enemy, commanders in the ancient world had great trouble getting them back for another shot. This would particularly apply to Rome where the cavalry were likely to be auxiliaries from some distant province and not Romans. The normal event saw cavalry charge through their enemy and then, in its rear, lay into the enemy's baggage train for booty. William the Conqueror could work cavalry so as to regroup them for repeated charges but he was unusually talented, but his cavalry were knights with a stake in the outcome. Once cavalry had been 'fired' at the enemy, commanders in the ancient world had great trouble getting them back for another shot. This would particularly apply to Rome where the cavalry were likely to be auxiliaries from some distant province and not Romans. The normal event saw cavalry charge through their enemy and then, in its rear, lay into the enemy's baggage train for booty. William the Conqueror could work cavalry so as to regroup them for repeated charges but he was unusually talented, but his cavalry were knights with a stake in the outcome.

]]> By: WongHoongHooi http://www.historynet.com/romes-craftiest-general-scipio-africanus.htm#comment-3322 WongHoongHooi Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:53:51 +0000 #comment-3322 There's something I can't figure after reading the article and another account of Zama: If Scipio went out of his way to cultivate the Numidians just to have superiority in cavalry for that flanking option on which so much depended, did he just leave it to chance that his cavalry would return on time ? Could he have instructed at least his roman cavalry commander that his job was to turn and flank after seeing the enemy horse off the field ? There's something I can't figure after reading the article and another account of Zama: If Scipio went out of his way to cultivate the Numidians just to have superiority in cavalry for that flanking option on which so much depended, did he just leave it to chance that his cavalry would return on time ? Could he have instructed at least his roman cavalry commander that his job was to turn and flank after seeing the enemy horse off the field ?

]]>