What Can an Ancient General Teach Us About Modern Leadership?

KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON ^ | Jan 18, 2018

[RedStateRocker]

Thanks! Most interesting.

[blueunicorn6]

“He has this bulge at the first part of the battle.

That’s why they called it The Pubic Wars.

[Tax-chick]

Accounting comes first, thousands of years of people scratching in ledgers.

"The earliest written records" have been pushed back in time since I was a college student in the 80s ... but they're still public-works accounting records.

Narrative can be "live" in a highly successful society, but inventory has to be concrete.

[Paladin2]

"inventory has to be concrete."

Does PRyno know this?

[sphinx]

The Roman army of the Second Punic War was still a citizen militia. Hannibal's troops were largely mercenaries, and therefore professional. Edge to Hannibal. The Roman army would become professionalized over the next century, but it's important not to project the legions of the late Republic and the heyday of the Empire back into the earlier period.

The real Roman genius lay in their ability to transform defeated neighbors into allies and eventually citizens. And of course, the Romans simply refused to accept defeat. No matter how many of them you killed, they just organized new legions and came at you again.

[Tax-chick]

Probably not.

[Rebelbase]

Heh.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Any fool can win a battle (especially in ancient times) with more money (just like Hannibal).

Once he was cut off by his own gov’t that spelled the end for him.

Cortez conquered an entire empire with less than 400 soldiers. Not politically correct to talk about an Indian killer though these days.

[Bladerunner]

A Pyrrhic victory indeed.

[antidisestablishment]

You Romans never liked Hannibal. Everyone knows it was the corrupt government that led to Hannibal’s demise and the destruction of Carthage. Many people today see the US as the modern Roman Empire, perhaps Carthage is more apt an analogy given the state of our government and its Machiavellian, treasonous intrigues against our national interest.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks nickcarraway. *

Patrick N. Hunt: He's really an enigma because here's a guy who wins almost every battle, except the last one. Here’s a guy who is enormously capable of wonderful tactics that totally strike fear into the heart of his enemy, but he doesn’t win the war. All history, in my whole purview, is economic history. The bottom line is ultimately history. Hannibal was successful until his silver ran out -- the Spanish silver from the Spanish silver mines. Once the Romans took those silver mines and stopped that flow of his supply chain, Hannibal's military intelligence dried up. He could no longer find out and exploit the weaknesses of his enemies because he didn't have enough dirt on them.

[Pelham]

Arminius said “bring it”.

[SunkenCiv]

And the Romans did, and beat his ass; the turncoat fled deep into the barbarian territory with a price on his head. Eventually his killers — likely members of his own family — collected. IOW, this author could be right about how all history is economic history.

[nickcarraway]

Did we have writing back in the ‘80s? I can’t remember.

[Tax-chick]

Pens and pencils. Manual typewriters.

[Pelham]

“And the Romans did, and beat his ass;”

But not without Arminius first inflicting one of the worst defeats in Roman military history. As well as halting any Roman ideas of ruling Germany east of the Rhine.

[metesky]

Cortez also had over 100,000 Indian allies join him. The Aztecs were hated by everyone but themselves.

[Little Ray]

Actually, the Aztecs were so despised by their neighbors, that he was able to raise an army from those neighbors.
Cortez only had 400 conquistadors but he had thousands of Indian allies...

[SunkenCiv]

And it didn't do that either. About ten years ago, a Roman cemetery was discovered in Copenhagen, Denmark.