Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 24717677, member: 128351&quot;]Is this late 18th c. statue of Fabius &quot;cunctator&quot; appropriate? The dictator is represented as a very young man, a teenager, but Q. Fabius Maximus was proclaimed dictator in BC 217, aged 58. It is Scipio Africanus who was made a proconsul in BC 211 at the age of 24 - which was exceptional because he was legally too young.</p><p><br /></p><p>In 217 Q. Fabius Maximus was a skilled politician who had been consul twice (in 233 and 228) and even censor in 230. In 218 Hannibal had invaded North Italy and defeated two Roman armies in Ticinus and at the Trebia. The following year in 217 the Romans had attempted to fight back with a more powerful army but had been annihilated at the Lake Trasimene battle, suffering large casualties including one consul killed. It was a disaster, the very city of Rome was now vulnerable. This is why Fabius was proclaimed dictator.</p><p>He gathered new Roman forces but refused to fight any battle against Hannibal, harassing the invader while avoiding direct confrontation. He became very unpopular for this, most of the Romans being convinced they could easily win this time. But Fabius&#039; strategy worked : Hannibal could not attack Rome, being constantly threatened on his rear by a powerful army he was unable to annihilate. </p><p>When Fabius&#039; six months dictatorship was over, new consuls were elected and Rome drafted the most formidable army of citizens and allies in all her history. This Roman army now had the advantage of numbers, and in 216 marched against Hannibal at Cannae. It resulted in the worst military disaster in all Roman history... </p><p>After this, Fabius became popular, everybody acknowledging he had been right from the beginning. He was soon elected consul for a third time in 215, and re-elected in 214, which was exceptional (Fabius, the Roman Roosevelt). He was even elected consul again in 209... </p><p><br /></p><p>I did not know that George Washington in the late 18th c. had been called &quot;Fabian&quot; for his strategy. For me, the most Fabian of all modern military commanders was the Russian general Mikhail Kutuzov during the Napoleonic wars. This is at least how Tolstoi depicts him in <i>War and Peace</i>. In 1805 at Austerlitz the Russian tsar and the emperor of Austria were convinced they would easily defeat the French but Kutuzov did not believe it, saying that the Austro-Russian troops, even if already outnumbering the French, should rather draw back and wait for reinforcements. His objections were wiped off by the young tsar, who ordered him to attack. The result was a total disaster and the Russians held Kutuzov responsible for it (in Russia the tsar is always right and cannot make an error, even if it&#039;s obvious he did). In 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia, Kutuzov was pardoned and given the commandment of the Russian army. The Russian forces were initially defeated, and after Borodino (claimed to be a victory by the Russians, but Kutuzov knew it was actually a defeat) Kutuzov refused to confront the French in battle any more and even refused to defend Moskow, waiting until the French would be exhausted and unable to stay in Russia. This Fabian strategy was very unpopular in Russia... but it worked beyond all expectations, for Napoleon eventually had to withdraw in the worst conditions, suffering enormous casualties which would eventually result in the fall of his empire two years later. </p><p><br /></p><p>Fabius <i>&quot;cunctator&quot;</i> is not a young man, not a Scipio, an Alexander or a Bonaparte. He was an old skilled commander, like Mikhail Kutuzov (aged 66 in 1812)![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in