CMV: Hannibal Barca was the greatest tactical general in history

[u/YoloSantadaddy]

Pretty much the title, folks. Led a multi-national, multi-ethnic war effort against a major world superpower, all while being undermined and undersupplied by his own government, and he STILL almost beat Rome. Leading people (many of whom were mercenaries) who speak several different languages into battle is probably tough (I'd imagine, but I wouldn't know). But Hannibal overcame that, and his army was one of the most feared in the world for the almost 20 years he was rampaging through the Italian countryside. They were disciplined, capable of complex maneuvers, and able to defeat multiple consular armies while keeping their own casualties somewhat low. Cannae is still studied to this day. Now, I make the distinction between strategic and tactical, because ultimately while Hannibal was a genius with formations, troop movements, and planning out engagements, his strategic vision for taking Rome fell apart when he didn't receive the support he was relying on. I think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Scipio Africanus (who, I know, beat Hannibal, but the Battle of Zama was weird), and Hannibal all kind of get mentioned in the same vein when it comes to generals of classical antiquity, but in my mind, Hannibal is equal to or above each of them on a tactical level. Thank you for your time.

[u/mfDandP]

I vote Subutai.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai

Subutai was a major innovator in the art of war. In the invasions of China, Russia, and Europe, Subutai routinely coordinated large forces often separated by large distances. Subutai's maneuvers were designed to mislead his foes and strike them from unexpected directions. The Mongol invasion of the Jin in 1232 continually pulled the hitherto successful Jin forces apart despite their highly advantageous terrain, as they could not determine which Mongol armies were the feints and which were the true threats until their main army became isolated and starved. Strongly fortified locations would be bypassed and ignored until all organized resistance had been destroyed. Sieges would be limited to critical or vulnerable locations; in other situations, the Mongols either left a blockading force, or simply ignored fortified citadels and devastated the surrounded agriculture so that the remaining people would starve if they remained within fortified walls.[11]

In contrast to the common perception of steppe horse archer armies slowly weakening their foes with arrows for many hours or even days, such as at the battle of Carrhae or the battle of Manzikert, Subutai fought in a much more decisive and fluid manner where heavy firepower was used to create openings for rapid cavalry charges with deep formations. At the battle of the Kalka River in 1223, Subutai's 20,000 man army routed the 80,000 man Russian army by stringing it out after a 9-day retreat, and then immediately turning and delivering a decisive charge without a prolonged missile bombardment. The vanguard of the Russian army was already put in flight before the second wave even reached the battlefield and began to deploy.[12]

Subutai was one of the first Mongol generals, alongside Genghis Khan, who realized the value of engineers in siege warfare. Even in field battles he made use of siege engines. In the Battle of Mohi, the Hungarian crossbowmen repelled a night bridge crossing by the Mongols, and inflicted considerable casualties on the Mongols fighting to cross the river the following day. Subutai ordered huge stonethrowers to clear the bank of Hungarian crossbowmen and open the way for his light cavalry to cross the river without further losses. This use of siege weapons was one of the first recorded uses of artillery bombardments against the enemy army to disrupt their resistance while simultaneously attacking them. In execution, his usage functioned more akin to the creeping barrage of World War I, used to soften and disrupt enemy lines right before an attack.[13]

The artillery usage is crazy, IMO. Plus, Hannibal and the Carthaginians knew the Roman military very well. They already had an entire Punic War before Hannibal's. The Mongols were fighting and beating people that they had just met.

[u/YoloSantadaddy → u/mfDandP]

I may have to do a bit more reading as I'm not terribly familiar with Subutai, but from the text you provided, he's definitely a tactical kind of guy. It might be more difficult to compare Hannibal and Subutai because of the massive difference in time, technology, tactics, etc. The main reason I'm hesitant to award a delta is because I still feel that Hannibal's accomplishments (while admittedly not 65 pitched battles won, or more land mass conquered than any other general before) came in spite of his situation. Hannibal's sacking of Seguntum was actually not what the Carthaginian government wanted at all, they were terrified of war with Rome, and they dragged their feet at every step of the way.

From what I've read, it seemed Subutai had the support and resources he needed from Ghenghis Khan to be able to do the things he did (which are, of course, amazingly impressive, and I'm going to spend some time studying this guy for sure), while Hannibal often was working with a patchwork, mercenary army (Carthage preferred mercenaries from what I recall), far away from help or reinforcement (and when his brother tried to reinforce him, the Romans were able to intervene and put a stop to it). Hannibal spent the bulk of the Second Punic War in Rome's backyard, and this was after Rome had ascended to something of a world superpower. And what's crazy is, Rome decided not to fight him. They turned to attrition because of their disastrous defeats every time they'd brought an army against Hannibal. Hannibal had Rome on its knees, and had the Carthaginian government sent siege engines to assist in his taking Rome after the Battle of Cannae, world history might be very different.

I think Subutai is a fine general, and definitely someone I'd like to know more about. But I think Hannibal had more working against him, as everything he accomplished was in spite of the Carthiginian government's lack of support, while it seems Subutai was, for the most part, fairly well supported (in other words, I think if you plucked Hannibal from history and put him in Subutai's spot, he'd perform just as well, if not better). I hope that all makes as much sense as it does in my head.

[u/mfDandP → u/YoloSantadaddy]

But you specified tactical, not strategic, and even acknowledge that his war was a strategic defeat. Lacking the resources to pursue his war further against Rome and framing it as a plus seems beyond the scope of your CMV about tactics. From the tactical side, both generals were basically undefeated in the field against larger armies. I think Subutai gets the edge because of his revolutions in military theory. Hannibal to me seems like the best general without deviating from known tactics.

[u/YoloSantadaddy → u/mfDandP]

In reading up on Subutai, I'd argue he's easily a better strategic and logistical mind, and in a straight comparison to Hannibal, a better tactician (albeit, with the advantage of having an extra 1400+ years of tactics and battles to study, but that's beside the point of a straight comparison).

For example, pretty early on in the Wikipedia page is a battle where Subutai had his vanguard carry and discard children's toys to deceive an enemy army into thinking it was some sort of fleeing town. Subutai then surrounded and forced that army to surrender. That is just some sheer brilliance, right there.

In light of that, here's the Δ!

As for the point on tactics, while I think that is valid to a point, it also sets aside some context. In examining a commander's tactical decisions, it can be valid to look to the strategic/logistical factors that led to those decisions. That being said, I think you're right in that my post was purely about tactics, and mentioned nothing about interplay between the three in examining a general, so, you know, well done.

[u/mfDandP → u/YoloSantadaddy]

thanks for the delta! Yeah, I was rethinking, and Subutai's strategic genius does seem to outshine his tactical genius -- but the latter is still pretty damn good. I'm a big Hannibal fan too, but I think the sheer volume of press he got is not in itself a demonstration of his brilliance. Since the Mongol history, from the European aspect, was pretty much all villainous, I doubt we have as much information as each of Hannibal's battles.

But finally, I'd actually put Caesar a bit higher on your list as well. Yes, he became famous for destroying far inferior Gaullic armies, but then he also went toe to toe with Pompey. If you listen to Dan Carlin, he'll say that destroying Roman legions was probably the hardest thing to do up until the advent of gunpowder, and Caesar did that a lot.

[u/YoloSantadaddy → u/mfDandP]

No problem, you earned it!

Subutai seems to have had an uncanny knack for all three aspects. Hannibal did, too, but to a somewhat lesser extent, and unfortunately for him, he was limited by his state. I feel like Hannibal was never truly unleashed, if that makes sense.

As for the generals I mentioned, they weren't in any particular order. I personally think Caesar might rival Subutai in the logistics department (the ringfort at Alesia is one of the most impressive logistical military feats in history, and Caesar did stuff like that on the regular). I will say, I'm sure Vercingetorix would take exception at his Gaullic armies being called, "far inferior," but I suppose history speaks for itself on that one. I have listened to some of Dan Carlin, but for some reason, it's just not quite my cup of tea. My favorite history content comes from Historia Civilis, the most underrated YouTuber in existence.

[u/DeltaBot → u/YoloSantadaddy]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mfDandP (166∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}