Why was Hannibal’s tactic at the Battle of Zama so sloppy compared to his previous ingenious victories and deceptions in Italy?
1- Freedom of ground. As long as he was warring in foreign soil far away from the
Carthaginian oligarchy, Hannibal was the master of the ground. He could decide
upon the terrain of the battlefield, the time of attack or defence, the disposition of
his and Rome's field troops, and the urgency of the march. At Zama, none of this
was applicable.
2- Cohesion of units. Hannibal had invaded Italy at the head of a disciplined host who were kept in quiescence by his ability and in order by his cruelty. At Zama, he commanded boys and militia, ill-used to the rigours of war and unreliable. His tactical arrangement- three separate lines with his few veterans at the back- was the best that could be done then.
3- The loss of Iberia. The Carthaginian defeats in Iberia had directly contributed to the permanent weakening of Carthaginian Elephantry and the nearly total loss of the Numidian cavalry arm. As such, Hannibal was severely constrained in the tactical choices open to him.
4- Hannibal had been on campaign against Rome for nearly 17 years- and as a result, the Romans- especially Scipio Africanus- were well-acquainted with Hannibal's military abilities and quirks. Indeed- the fall of Iberia had been precipitated to a great extent by Scipio managing to turn Hannibal's carefully crafted envelopment tactics upon the Carthaginians themselves.
All these aspects favoured a straight-on aggressive style of battle quite unlike Hannibal's usual modus operandi- which he did adopt to great success. Zama was nearly won by the Carthaginians, thanks to the dedicated Infantry push in the centre- but for the defeats on the wings.
2- Cohesion of units. Hannibal had invaded Italy at the head of a disciplined host who were kept in quiescence by his ability and in order by his cruelty. At Zama, he commanded boys and militia, ill-used to the rigours of war and unreliable. His tactical arrangement- three separate lines with his few veterans at the back- was the best that could be done then.
3- The loss of Iberia. The Carthaginian defeats in Iberia had directly contributed to the permanent weakening of Carthaginian Elephantry and the nearly total loss of the Numidian cavalry arm. As such, Hannibal was severely constrained in the tactical choices open to him.
4- Hannibal had been on campaign against Rome for nearly 17 years- and as a result, the Romans- especially Scipio Africanus- were well-acquainted with Hannibal's military abilities and quirks. Indeed- the fall of Iberia had been precipitated to a great extent by Scipio managing to turn Hannibal's carefully crafted envelopment tactics upon the Carthaginians themselves.
All these aspects favoured a straight-on aggressive style of battle quite unlike Hannibal's usual modus operandi- which he did adopt to great success. Zama was nearly won by the Carthaginians, thanks to the dedicated Infantry push in the centre- but for the defeats on the wings.
Comments
Post a Comment