Did you read The Art of What Work?
The thesis is that you have to have an initial insight, a coup d’oeil that launch you in a direction: the big picture. Then you deduce your strategy along the way, depending what works and what doesn’t.
You can’t read a map while running. You can’t read a map without have run a little and now where you want to go, and which way you’re able to take.

“Tina,” hmm? Elizabeth Gilbert perhaps?

For example, Tina loses her job as a journalist. She pitches an idea for her book to her former editor: I will live in three different places in the world (after my job loss) and report how different they are. No duh…

Then, she puts that cheap cart before her horse, gets her book deal, and goes off and writes.

And we buy this stuff.

Regular readers to this blog will understand my views about authenticity.

A. Hannibal dropped the ball – Somehow, Hannibal did not plan for the Cannae contingency or was hesitant to push forwards on the heels of his success. Somewhat like the Syrian army stopping at the Sea of Galilee in the Yom Kippur war since they never believed they would get so far and did not know what to do. Personally, I don’t buy it. Hannibal had his whole life to plan plus, he was one of the best improvisers ever (as in the Rhone river)

B. Hannibal didn’t want to conquer Rome – this theory states Hannibal just to humble Rome into a reasonable peace. Err…. So that whole swearing to his dad was just for laughs? Next theory please.

C. My favorite: Hannibal knew he could simply could not take Rome. His army had Zero siege weapons. His army was built for speed not taking fortified cities (Saguntum doesn’t really count) . He had never taken a major city, and to the best of my knowledge, the Carthaginians as a people had no such tradition. He had not received any reinforcements from Carthage and knew he could not maintain or feed his army for the months and years it would take if parked outside Rome.

As for Zamma, I tend to buy into the “Hannibal was never defeated with his Numidian Cavalry” theory. They were the key element in all 3 major Italian victories.

And I do sympathize with your point, that–in the arts, especially–sheer rebelliousness is the perfect prerequisite. But then it helps to have, if not a “Strategy”, a vision. Ie: picasso: He knew exactly what he set out to do before he began a painting. He already had it in his mind, fully formed.

You are certainly right about Hannibal NOT being an Alice.

Do you think, as Livy seems to have thought, that Maharbal was right when, after Cannae, he told H to march on Rome right away and, when rebuffed, said to H: “You know, Hannibal, how to win battles, but you do not know how to use your victories”?

Incidentally, if you love Hannibal’s stratgegy, do you love Scipio’s even more? If you think about his response, he did the exact opposite sweep to Hannibal’s, copying all his successes but avoiding his mistakes: Ie, he took Iberia’s capital when he conquered Spain, then marched on Carthage after Zama.

A. Hannibal had a clear strategy and did not go in to Italy “Alice in Wonderland style”
B. Hannibal’s strategy was the best possible given his inability to attack Rome by sea
C. Hannibal’s strategy worked to a large extent. Given any support from Carthage, which he desperately needed e.g. siege weapons, reinforcements etc, he could have sacked Rome after Cannae.
D. Given any other Roman leader other the “Fabius the coward” he most likely would have likely dealt one more back breaking blow to the Romans.

Alas, things didn’t work out that way and the tide turned against Hannibal. I would say one more thing for his STRATEGIC genius. Once defeated in Zamma (a battle he did not want to fight and new he is likely to lose), Hannibal was the first to force the need for total surrender saving Carthage from the fate suffered after the 3rd Punic War. He was also instrumental in re-building their economy to even greater heights after the war, understanding that Carthage can do better as an economic empire.

To summarize this all to long reply:

Hannibal report card:
Strategy: A
Tactics: A+

What can I say, I am a fan (:

Everything you say is correct except your implication that Hannibal can therefore be said to have had a “good” strategy.

Yes, his strategy was to separate Rome from “the Italians”, thus leaving it isolated as the small provincial power it once was.

And now: That strategy SUCCEEDED. Hannibal did persuade, through his victories, the Gauls in the North, the Capuans and the other cities of Campania to come to his side. Then, through ruses, he even got the Greek cities of the very south (Tarentum, until Fabius took it back) to be on his side.

What this tells you is that his strategy was defective. If he met his immediate objective (isolating Rome from Italy) but this objective did not lead to his ultimate goal (defeat of Rome) then that means that he confused tactics with strategy.

To speak in the vocabulary of Clausewitz: Hannibal mistook Rome’s “center of gravity” and this led him to wrong strategy. Sort of like Napoleon who thought that you could invade Russia and take Moscow and Russia would have to surrender (the opposite mistake, if you think about it, since Hannibal did not try to take Rome itself.)

Long-winded. Sorry. Love the debate. Keep pushing me….

Many claim, his goal was not to destroy Rome but to “turn the clock back” and reduce it to the provincial power it had been a hundred year prior to his time.

Hannibal was ultimately done in by the Fabian tactic of avoiding direct confrontation and attacking instead Hannibal’s new found allies forcing him to go on the defense.

If anything, Hannibal was defeated by a leader who acknowledged he could not match tactics with Hannibal but could defeat him strategically.