By Mark C. Lamela, Senior Change Consultant
Editor's note: If not familiar with Hannibal and the Second Punic War, context and deeper understanding of Hannibal and his innovations are provided in the previous entry, Hannibal kicked butt.
A relatively new branch of management science—change management—emerged after quantitative study of the American Global Corporate landscape during the mid 1990s, led by management gurus such as Harvard Professor John Kotter, among others.
 |
| Hannibal leads a battle from atop a war elephant. |
But the seeds of change leadership were actually sewn long before Kotter’s work, the Digital Age, or the Global Service Economy, or even the Industrial Revolution. Specifically, change leadership dates back to the Second Punic War (218-202 BCE) between Carthage and Rome. It was a time when the legendary and visionary Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca (247-182 BCE) emerged. Not only would he demonstrate military innovation, Hannibal went on to a successful career as Chief Magistrate of Carthage, and he introduced many change leadership methods that business leaders are well advised to evaluate and embrace today.
Hannibal is revered as one of the greatest military strategists of all time—the father of strategy—who is still studied and whose methods are used today. His innovation and cunning tactics earned him many battlefield successes; thus laying the foundation for guiding principals in change leadership and management.
Modern change leaders must understand that their transformational change initiative(s) are not unlike the daunting tasks Hannibal faced—whether as a military general, or later as principal leader (Suffete) of the Carthage government. By warping back in time to the Second Punic War, we come to realize that like any change leader, Hannibal was challenging a formidable and oppressive enemy in Rome, an opponent controlling significant portions of the Mediterranean world, and well entrenched in and representative of the status quo. Rome liked how things were just prior to the Second Punic War, and in no way welcomed change.
Enter Hannibal Barca.
In ancient Spain, then known as Iberia, Hannibal begins his famous march, in parallel with his rise to lead as a military commander. It should be noted that Hannibal’s army originally served his father, Hamilcar, who died in battle. Due to Carthage’s population and Roman restrictions from the First Punic War, a homegrown citizens army was unsupportable. So these were primarily mercenaries—tribesmen from across Northern Africa and parts of Iberia. And on Hamilcar’s death, they looked to Hannibal, who strongly resembled his father, but was confident in his own right, since he’d fought along with the army as a young man. Indeed, the army actually elected Hannibal to be their general—and he was just 26 years old. Imagine a project team selecting their Change Champion from within their own ranks and at so young an age.
No other military leaders were seriously considered. The Carthaginian troops chose the only person whom they thought best to inspire them to fight, sometimes against all odds, to defeat their sworn enemy, who was violating treaties and agreements—intentionally. The Carthaginian government affirmed Hannibal’s selection by his soldiers; partly due to the confidence in the army’s choice, and partly to defy Rome. Hannibal himself really didn’t need Carthage’s affirmation, or cared if he had it, but change leaders benefit strongly from the power of endorsements by Executive Sponsors. To Hannibal’s leadership skills and vision for victory, support of Carthage strengthened the change leadership “spine”.
The renewed fight with Rome was ignited by Rome’s treaty violation over the city of Seguntum. The details are moot, but suffice it to say Rome intentionally taunted Hannibal, and Hannibal willingly, knowingly took the bait. Ultimately, his strategy was to take the fight to Rome, but without a navy—again, prohibited by terms of surrender ending the First Punic War—Hannibal’s position in Iberia left him one option; the one that nobody in their right mind would attempt.
 |
| Hannibal's route to Rome and ultimate retreat. |
Speed was important, and Hannibal led his army on a bold, and for the time, lightening quick march across the Pyrenees Mountains. Change experts well understand that speed is a critical factor in securing adoption. Hannibal didn’t give his men time to ponder. They marched, and continued marching on to the Alps. Rome, nor anyone else, considered it plausible to push an army over the Alps. The mountain range was considered an impenetrable wall, except for a few passes that allowed small groups or less—but certainly not an army of 50,000 men, along with 37 elephants.
After scaling the obstacles of the Pyrenees Mountains, Hannibal and his forces were in Gaul. Much of this section of modern day France was controlled by the Rome, and as such, a territory that often paid tribute. The Gauls could have been resistors, and challenged or disrupted Hannibal forces and his plan to march on Northern Italy—actually, there were small pockets of Gauls who attacked Hannibal in the Alps. But he presented himself as their liberator. As he would to the several city-states he encountered on the Italian peninsula. Gauls disliked Hannibal, too, but they disliked Rome more, and were quite disgruntled with being subjected to Roman rule. Many allied with Hannibal, becoming his agents of change, and were only too happy to march against Rome. Crossing the Alps cost Hannibal almost 30,000 men. Replenishing his forces with thousands of wild-eyed Gauls was more than welcome.
Penetrating the Alps and turning subjects into allies were only a few of the innovative ideas Hannibal undertook that changed the nature of military strategy to achieve success (as change leaders must do to win their corporate transformations). Another was incorporating African elephants into battlefield tactics. Although most of the animals were lost to the freezing temperatures during the Alpine passage, a few survived—just enough to give Roman soldiers an additional surprise with their appearance and effective deployment on the battlefield. These massive beasts horrified the Roman army and scattered their cavalry, giving Hannibal the psychological advantage.
Still, it was his emerging from the Alps that really unsettled the Romans. That feat remains one most storied in history. Hannibal’s unique leadership style beckoned his troops to go beyond ‘normal’ limits and known boundaries. Combined with blending his forces with Gauls not only improved his ability to cross the Alps, it helped replace lost troops, although it must be noted that some Gaul tribes attacked Hannibal during his crossing. But Hannibal’s leadership prevailed. There is an account by the ancient historian, Livy, which recounts an awful day amidst deep snow. He writes:
Hannibal saw in all faces an expression of listlessness and despondency. He rode on in front to a height from which there was a wide and extensive view, and halting his men, he pointed out to them the land of Italy and the rich valley of the Po lying at the foot of the Alps. "You are now," he said, "crossing the barriers not only of Italy, but of Rome itself. Henceforth all will be smooth and easy for you; in one or, at the most, two battles, you will be masters of the capital and stronghold of Italy." Then the army resumed its advance with no annoyance from the [Gauls] beyond occasional attempts at plunder.
And once Hannibal’s troops successfully negotiated wintery mountains, they arrived in what we know today as Northern Italy. Here they were able to initiate and win several battles in the Republic’s own “backyard”, including a cavalry engagement at the river Ticino, east of Turin, as well as at the river Trebbia, west of modern Piacenza, and Etruria (modern day Tuscany). Similarly, change leadership requires disrupting the status quo with successive wins, often choosing “low hanging fruit” to demonstrate early success and a way of building momentum, thereby minimizing resistors and detractors. These quick victories, as well as more dramatic ones, such as at Lake Trasimine and Canae, demonstrated ability, skill, progress, and commitment.
From the Carthaginian perspective, and with respect to Hannibal’s objectives, he well understood that inspiring people under stressful situations meant working with them, shoulder to shoulder, and not ‘hiding’ or insulating himself from his men, or from the environments and situations they endured. Many historians and scholars consider Hannibal one of the most unselfish of all ancient generals. His unique leadership style for his time both inspired and emboldened his mercenary troops. Unlike his Roman counterparts, Hannibal slept and ate along side his men. He fought with them, as opposed to remaining in a safe place to observe the action. He even lost an eye during a battle against Roman troops.
During the Battle of Canae, where Rome pitted 90,000 soldiers against Hannibal’s mere 25 or 30,000-man army, the Carthaginian general positioned himself in the center with his mercenaries. Yes, virtually the whole army was mercenary, but these men were more so, and considered the least reliable of Hannibal’s forces. His presence gave them strength to not break as Rome advanced. Indeed, he kept them calm during a slight and planned retreat, drawing in the Romans as his Numidian cavalry surrounded the enemy. Before the Romans knew it, they were packed into a tight circle as the Carthaginian army closed in, slaughtering tens of thousands, and handing Rome the worst defeat ever recorded in its history.
The victory at Canae remains the stuff of scholarly study at major military institutes.
Despite these victories, Hannibal wisely sought a diplomatic solution, hoping for peaceful resolution with Rome and its allies, the most significant contingent of change resistors. He didn’t want to wipe out Rome, only convert it (by force if necessary) into a neutral, or non-confrontational co-existence, which is an essential component of change management. But with Rome being Rome, that was not to be. They had a saying, “the victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so.” That is entrenchment. Then again, no one told Hannibal.
When the Carthaginian army established Capua as its capital in Italy, something never before done by an invading army on Roman soil, many Roman allies switched sides, joining the then 32-year old general in his newly forged Italian stronghold—again, converting resistors to supporters for his cause and as change agents. The capture of Capua was poignantly illustrated with Hannibal boldly riding into town, atop the last his surviving elephant. Change professionals know the importance of using internal marketing communications to influence the minds and hearts of those effected by change. In ancient times, with the absence of the printing press and email blasts, this display proved to be incredibly impactful, generating powerful word of mouth story telling.
Ultimately, two decades of turmoil led the Roman senate to finally commit the necessary resources and radical military leadership to go on the offensive against Carthage and its allies, starting in Iberia. In actuality, Rome adopted some of the techniques Hannibal used. Iberia was Carthage’s source for silver and losing it and the tribute-paying territories weakened Carthage. A young general named Scipio then landed on the shores of Carthage with a substantial army. The Carthaginian government recalled Hannibal from Italy in order to protect Carthage itself against the Roman threat moving towards them.
It is noteworthy that this was the same government that failed Hannibal, and his repeated requests for more funding and troops during the Italian campaign, to secure and keep his hard fought gains. This point goes to the reason why in change that sustainability is the final critical phase, to stymie backsliding, and sustain and ingrain changes’ forward momentum. Carthage did not succeed in this, and suffered horrific consequences.
 |
| Hannibal and Scipio meet at Zama. |
Hannibal and Scipio, along with their forces, met in 202 BCE at the Battle of Zama. Using Hannibal’s own unique military tactics, learned so well by his adversary, Scipio defeated Hannibal, and thus ended the Second Punic War. In spite of that ultimate defeat, so remarkable was Hannibal’s military strategic thinking, that the Romans studied it and adopted it into their own ‘tour de force’. Even beyond the Battle of Zama, Roman legions continued to consistently use Hannibal’s innovative tactics, winning more battles in conquest of the known world.
Following his loss at Zama, Hannibal rose to Chief Magistrate of Carthage and continued to innovate as a governmental leader, performing as well as he did as a general. And again, that would bring Rome down upon him, and Carthage, which was wiped from the map during the Third Punic War.
Hannibal challenged the oppressive Roman status quo, and after his death, no on else seriously challenged Rome and its sphere of influence for almost six centuries. Nevertheless, Hannibal’s name remained in the stories told by Roman heralds, he was portrayed during spectacles in arenas, and mentioned significantly in Rome’s history texts. Hannibal’s name was spoken carefully—both with respect and fear.
Clearly, many of Hannibal’s change tactics & innovations lay the groundwork for the mid 90’s change principals outlined by John Kotter, among others.
_______
About Mark Lamela: Mr Lamela is certified in Change Management, Project & Program Management & Business Process Improvement, a former vice president at Ernst & Young LLC, and an International Management Consultant with global business experience. He has authored numerous professional articles and blogs, and is a published author. Learn more about Mr. Lamela on the
Knights of the Roundtable page. And he can be contacted here:
lamelamark@gmail.com
Follow on Instagram
