Round 1: Hannibal vs. Gustavus Adolphus

[Watchman]

IMHO in terms of pure generalship Hannibal pwns totally. Gustavus was more of an organizer, reformer and statesman than a manifestly brilliant warlord - which is really rather desirable in a head of state when you think about it - but Hannibal was repeatedly able to produce stellar victories against as-such superior forces through sheer generalship.

Put this way: Hannibal could afford to go pick fights with numerical inferiority and still expect to win. Gustavus couldn't, even if the Swedes did end up winning Breitenfeld against numerical superiority after the... whowasitnow... Saxon army pretty much routed on first contact with the Imperials.

As for ole Gustav's reforms, they're regularly exaggerated and/or misunderstood. Just for one example he very much did not establish "the first professional army" or somesuch - the TYW was primarily fought with mercenaries, who are per definition professional soldiers to begin with. What he did was put the ball rolling towards national armies drafted from the populace of the state, who while rarely of the fighting calibre of mercenaries (whom the Swedish themselves were to long prefer for actual field armies) were by far cheaper and thus a cost-effective alternative for garrison and occupation duty. I've read the first state to get a true national army on a decent footing was Brandenburg (later better known as Prussia), whose regiments apparently caused a fair bit of envy in Carolus X when he saw them.

[CBR]

Although the comparison of two generals from two very different eras makes it difficult I would say Hannibal. I admit I dont know enough of Gustav Adolf but from the battles I do know a bit of, I dont see him in the same league as Hannibal.

He was an agressive and courageous general and a good reformer and organiser though.

To claim that Hannibal wasnt a good strategist is a pretty dubious claim. Afterall we are talking about the man who surprised the Romans by crossing the Alps, and managed to outwit Roman armies for more than a decade even though he was outnumbered. Just because he couldnt make the Roman allies rebel and win the war doesnt make him a bad general or leader in any way. He just didnt have resources to win it.


CBR

[AntiochusIII]

How do you think Hannibal stayed alive in Italy for more than a whole freaking decade? Obviously he didn't just win battles after battles after battles -- even that would eventually come to an end as the tactical genius had been pushed into a strategic blackhole. He must've been quite a fine strategist to be able to maneuver his armies so boldly around the many Roman legions in Italy for so long.

He also sort of proved that he had at least reasonable, if not in fact quite good (or perhaps even superb, though we'd never know) grasp on matters of government during his relatively short leadership in Carthage.

But anyway, Gustavus Adolphus was a very significant figure nonetheless, as his Swedish army single-handedly turned a string of Imperial victories in the Thirty Years' War into a massive rout. Had he lived longer the war might have been shorter. His death allowed the Swedish to be contained and even driven back until the French intervention. His organization of the state also helped in laying the foundation of Swedish domination in its locale/importance in European affairs.

The Gustavian tactics were essentially the adapted products of the great Dutch general Maurice of Nassau earlier, but it was he who really made it felt all across Europe.

[Slug For A Butt]

Hannibal kept the Romans on their toes for about 15 years. His only weakness that I can see was his failure to seize the advantage that he could create on the battlefield. He spent most of his time wandering around Italy while the Romans either reorganised or avoided him. Maybe he should have sacked Rome and ended the war there and then. I always think of Hannibal as a guy that can make it happen on the field but can't make an off the battlefield decision to save his life. Like has already been mentioned, he could so easily have been Caesar 200yrs before his time.
And the worst thing is that he got beaten politically. I'm thinking thats the only way he could be beaten, which is the way the Romans saw it too I guess...

[Watchman]

To be fair, once the Romans realized they weren't going to be able to whup the Big H they took to containing him in Italy while piling the pressure against the Carthies elsewhere, so they wouldn't be able to spare much reinforcements and support for him.

[cegorach]

Hannibal for sure. He was an excellent commander.


Gustavus was good, sometimes very good, but as a general not comparable with Hannibal.

Gustavus as a general was cautious and able to use the element of suprise when necessary.
He was much better ruler, reformer and so on than pure military commander.

The fact that he won at Breitenfield and Lech river later shows the effect of NEW tactics he employed which were effective for a time, but not without certain flaws.

Overall the man is credited with FAR TOO many achievements, perhaps because people forget other great generals of that time.

His tactic were more than enough to deal with conservative Tilly, but not enough at Lutzen where he died.



@Kagemusha

Gustav Adolphus. I dont understand why Poles see him always as an bad general.Wasnt he facing the best cavalry in the world of the time in Poland and still could take land from them. While the Hussars were mostly undefeatable in the 17th century.

Only some misinformed do, but on the other hand he was not so good some like to claim - based solely on the battles he fought during the TYW.

The war in Royal Prussia is complicated topic and if you research it in details you will see that Gustavus avoided battles where cavalry could be used well, entrenched when he could and attacked in Tartar-like manner i.e. using suprise if possible and retreating when it failed ( Trzciana).

Overall he won the war because Poland found it hard to recruit enough infantry to break the deadlock because of problems with taxation at that time.
However the victory was paid dearly and never managed to take the main target of the invasion i.e. Danzig.


@Innocentius

If you suggest that the entire Polish army at the time consisited of 30.000 men then OK, but I find it hard to believe that a country - robbed of its most profitable ports and after years and years of fighting - could muster 30.000 men solely for the purpose of scaring the Swedish off.
The Swedish were already severly weakened by the defeat at Nördlingen and were eager not to get involved in a second war.

Actually not 30 000, but 80 000, though 'only' 30 000 were prepared for this war.
The 80 000 includes a number of Zaporozhian Cossacks too and forces which will have to be left in Ukraine (against Tatar raids), but the number indeed was THAT high.

Besides.

1. Poland wasn't 'robbed' of its ports - only ONE which was Elbig. Danzig paid ta part from its custom taxation, but it wasn't affecting the whole state you probably think you do.
2. The war with Sweden ( 1626-29) was lost due to problems with internal politics ( the cursed Sigismund III and his bloody ideas...) and taxation which were well dealt with during the reforms of Wladyslaw IV and Stanislaw Koniecpolski.
3. Poland was at that time at the peak of its power winning TWO wars at the SAME time against Russia and the Ottomans in 1633 and the quality of its army was clearly the best in the years between 1633 and 1648.
4. You are right with the last part, though - Sweden wasn't interested, but earlier Gustavus WAS PLANNING united attack against the Commonwealth from Silesia ( Swedes and protestant allies), Russia and the Ottoman Empire (if possible) or Transylvania mainly to occupy the full attention of the Republic which was rightly or wrongly seen as Habsburg ally.
5. In fact the war was seen more like a embarrassing defeat from the hands of 'a vietnam' i.e. enemy inferior in almost all areas and it was more a problem of damaged pride than real, material losses.

I don't know what propagand-istic history is being taught in Poland, but that sure is biased. Gustavos Adolphus was a hero and nothing less!
No but seriously, I would be careful to use any records of the "opposite" king doing this and that, most of that is historic propaganda. For what I know about Trzciana, Gustav attempted a counter-attack but was beaten back.

It is biased to an extent as everywhere ( I recall learning that in Sweden it is said Poles were 'massacred' at Warsaw in 1656 which is not true at all), but the fact that GA is often overrated remains. Jeez some believe he invented everything and before that people were clubbing each other with stone maces to death in a disorderly manner.

As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen.

Proof? The precense of about a thousand shards of the "true" Cross spread across all Europe and some bones supposedly belonging to Jesus prooves their existance I guess?
It's pretty easy to find a fancy belt and then claim it was taken from the king. I'd like to see some more believable proof that doesn't sound like a myth.

It is confirmed by several records from that time.
During the war in Prussia he was almost captured or died several times.
At Trzciana most likely twice - once was in a hussar's hands, but his plain (for a king certainly) clothes and relief action of his cavalry saved him.

Nonethelss there is little to deny here, though Krook's gung-ho attitude doesn't help here.

If you want to read (still debatable), but excellent description of the conflict check this

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75044

Spartan has the knowledge you might want to acquire.


@Krook

Please don't...

[Watchman]

His tactic were more than enough to deal with conservative Tilly, but not enough at Lutzen where he died.

Well, he died mainly out of sheer bad luck (ie. stumbling into a squadron of Imperial cuirassieurs in the dust and smoke with just his small personal entourage) and the fact Kings and senior officers were still expected to hang around the frontline where they were naturally exposed to a fair amount of risk.

As for his tactical reforms, there was a wee bit of a problem with them - they basically consisted of using existing, tried-and-true forces in an innovative and more efficient fashion. An advantage of technique in other words, and since the Imperials used the selfsame types of troops it didn not take them long to simply copy-paste the ideas and restore baseline tactical parity. Breitenfeld was still a battle between "old" and "new" tactical techniques; by Lützen it was two "new" style armies duking it out.

Overall he won the war because Poland found it hard to recruit enough infantry to break the deadlock because of problems with taxation at that time.

What, you mean the state of Poland was at some point actually able to fix those problems given the ability of the feudal landholders to flatly torpedo any and all laws they didn't like - and their intense dislike of any and all measures that even looked like they'd strenghten the King in relation to themselves nevermind now at their expense...?

I recall learning that in Sweden it is said Poles were 'massacred' at Warsaw in 1656 which is not true at all

If you mean the famous three-day battle, well, it was pretty much a total rout wasn't it ? And the fact they had to flee over bridges meant the Swedes were somewhat unusually able to actually catch a fair few of the Poles, which would certainly have made it a rather bloodier defeat than the usual dispersals of Polish armies in the field...

'Course, I've also heard people who really should know better to honestly think the main tactic of Polish cavalry in WW2 against German panzers was a lance charge (), so you may be on to something here.