re: Octavius (Augustus) Caesar: Cruel sniveling coward or great Roman (or both)?

quote:

---

I will say, Scipio's strategy was funnier. I've always wondered what would have happened if Hannibal had continued his siege and conquest of Rome, allowing the two armies to basically just take over each other's home capital.

---

At that point in his campaign (by the time Scipio was on Carthaginian homeland), Hannibal would have been routed had he tried to take Rome. Rome had re-built its legions, had (IIRC) three separate armies tracing him around Italy, and a formidable defense of Rome itself. As great as he was, Hannibal didn't have the resources or manpower by 205 BC to do that.

If he was ever going to take Rome itself, it would have been right after Cannae, and even then, it would have been a tremendous gamble. That's one of the greatest "what ifs" of history in my opinion. The entire path of Western civilization might have turned out very differently had that happened.

Scipio's genius was in turning Hannibal's strengths against him. He understood how to beat Hannibal better than anyone because in many respects, he was exactly like Hannibal. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they met before Zama.

Also interesting is that two of the greatest warriors that ever lived both died in self-imposed/state-encouraged exile, bitter as hell at their home countries.

Edit to add: I always claim Scipio as the greatest because the stakes were so much higher than for Caesar (as previously mentioned). Rome would have still existed as a great state had Caesar never existed (though, to be fair, probably quite different). The same probably cannot be said for Scipio. He fought in Rome's equivalent of WWII and faced a truly powerful, existential threat that came damn close to annihilating the Roman Empire. Performing under that pressure is entirely different ballgame IMO.