View Full Version : Alexander the Great versus Hannibal
kataphraktoi
02-10-2004, 04:11
Who's the most beautiful, the greatest and the champion? WHo's the superfly, the most scientific, and athletic?
Who's gonna whup who?
I want to see rippling and visceral arguments, keep it clean boys. Buckets of water on the side. No cheating.
I'll wade into the shallow end of this pool, but from what I've read, Hannibal was more imaginative and made better use of his tools than Alexander. Perhaps due to Hannibal fighting better trained armies than Alexander was fighting.
I think they would both recognize that they are dealing with a supremely capable opponent. Alexander might see this as a challenge, but he was no fool and would not rush into it. Hannibal was less interested in satisfying his own feelings and would not enter such a battle willingly. Whoever is going to lose, they are surely going to give their opponent a hard time and the winner would very likely end up with an army which was a lot smaller than the one he started with.
So I don't think the battle would be fought. Both generals would ride up to each other, talk it over, shake hands and then go back home. End of story.
Ludens,
Interesting. Sounds like Scipio and Hannibal before Zama.
(Except they didn't go home right away but outside to play. To bad for him Mrs. Hannibal didn't open the porch door and yell "Hannibal Supper")
biguth dickuth
02-10-2004, 23:57
alexander was probably a better strategist, as hannibal was a bit "sloppy" and made a lot of mistakes. of course, the romans were a much more difficult opponent than the crumbling persian empire...
however, hannibal was a very good tactician but then again, so was alexander... and they both had very able soldiers...
so i really don't know for sure but i suppose it would lead to mutual extinction or to an agreement.
Easthaven
02-11-2004, 18:57
I think Hannibal was a brilliant strategist. Maybe failed in his grand strategy, he still succeeded in the level below grand strategy. He lasted for 17 years in Italy roaming as he willed because of his well calculated and innovative strategies.
Hannibal is the better tactician, I think. He was good at finding the weaknesses of the enemy and exploiting them. ANd if he couldn't find a weakness in them he would create one for them. His creativity would win him the day.
Red Peasant
02-11-2004, 19:50
Wouldn't like to say, both great. I have an intuition for Alexander, but he never fought anyone as good as the Romans, and he took too many personal risks.
Teutonic Knight
02-12-2004, 18:55
Hannibal, hands down..
Mega Dux Bob
02-13-2004, 17:44
I'd say Alexander; his' ego would not let him pass up the challange of "who'se the greatest ancient general?" and he would do everything he could to "fix" the battle before it happened.
Red Peasant
02-13-2004, 19:23
Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Feb. 13 2004,15:44)]I'd say Alexander; his' ego would not let him pass up the challange of "who'se the greatest ancient general?" and he would do everything he could to "fix" the battle before it happened.
Lol
Well, he had a strange way of fixing his battles then...
Big Alec: "I know, let's fight an enemy who outnumbers us several times over, and on ground he's prepared"
Parmenion: "*Groan*, not again. As you please, your Godness".
By contrast, Hannibal usually met the enemy on his own terms. That makes him a more astute general, but Alexander believed he was unbeatable so it didn't matter to him.
Red Peasant
02-13-2004, 19:34
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Feb. 12 2004,16:55)]Hannibal, hands down..
If true, that makes P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus the best of them all in antiquity.
All things being equal, my opinion is that is correct.
The Wizard
02-14-2004, 15:13
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Feb. 13 2004,18:23)]
Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Feb. 13 2004,15:44)]I'd say Alexander; his' ego would not let him pass up the challange of "who'se the greatest ancient general?" and he would do everything he could to "fix" the battle before it happened.
Lol
Well, he had a strange way of fixing his battles then...
Big Alec: "I know, let's fight an enemy who outnumbers us several times over, and on ground he's prepared"
Parmenion: "*Groan*, not again. As you please, your Godness".
By contrast, Hannibal usually met the enemy on his own terms. That makes him a more astute general, but Alexander believed he was unbeatable so it didn't matter to him.
ROTFL
Nicely put http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
~Wiz
Michiel de Ruyter
02-14-2004, 16:08
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Feb. 13 2004,18:34)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Feb. 12 2004,16:55)]Hannibal, hands down..
If true, that makes P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus the best of them all in antiquity.
All things being equal, my opinion is that is correct.
IMHO,
Scipio is not, even though he beat Hannibal, and in my not so humble opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Hannibal would trounce Alexander.
My guess is that Alexander would be dead within 30 to 40 minutes after starting the battle. Alexander always led the charge himself, and basically relied Parmenion to command the battle after Alexander had decided to charge.
Alexander got himself almost killed a number of times during his career. He saw his left flank and centre almost destroyed at Gaugamela (only the indiscipline of the Persian cavalry gave him the opprtunity to intervene).
My guess is that Hannibal would have used this to his advantage. And, added to that, Hannibal would not run as easily as Dareios did. And most notably, Hannibal excelled against agressive commanders.
Red Peasant
02-14-2004, 19:51
That's a valid argument, Michiel, no doubt about it, expanding on the main concerns I expressed about Alexander earlier.
However, I beg to differ about Scipio, but that's my personal opinion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
FoundationII
02-14-2004, 20:38
Greetings,
Hannibal would win, because:
1: He had a larger imagination
2: He made sure he always had superior cavalry before going into a battle so he could flank the others (Scipio had superior cav and that's why hannibal lost, Hannibal was forced to fight then by his superiors)
3: Hannibal had elephants, which wrecked great havoc among the armies of Alewander
4: The Macedonian phalanx was outdated at the time hannibal lived
Red Peasant
02-14-2004, 20:55
Quote[/b] (FoundationII @ Feb. 14 2004,18:38)]Greetings,
Hannibal would win, because:
1: He had a larger imagination
2: He made sure he always had superior cavalry before going into a battle so he could flank the others (Scipio had superior cav and that's why hannibal lost, Hannibal was forced to fight then by his superiors)
3: Hannibal had elephants, which wrecked great havoc among the armies of Alewander
4: The Macedonian phalanx was outdated at the time hannibal lived
1. How did you measure that?
2. Alexander had fantastic light, medium, and shock cavalry.
3. Alexander always adapted to the conditions, and he'd appraised elephants in action when fighting the on the Indus.
4. The Macedonian phalanx was emulated with great success by the Swiss and others in later eras. How was it outdated? It was at the height of its powers, morale, and confidence under Alexander, and he knew how to wield it like no other.
I think Michiel, in his post, has outlined Alexander's main deficiencies.
by lookin at kat's other thread on hannibal, it should be easy to see that the winner of the battle between alexander and hannibal would of course be heraclius. barring that choice, alexander would be the winner as he is a countryman of heraclius.
but of course the original question for this topic asks who is the most beautiful and as we all know alex was famous for being a 'pretty boy' and since i have never seen a one eyed contestant win a beauty pageant, i don't think hannibal can win this one.
hellenes
02-21-2004, 17:01
I voted the greatest GREEK GENERAL of all times AlexanderIII If anybody of the Hannibal fans knows who was the spartan XANTHIPPOS?
Hellenes
biguth dickuth
02-27-2004, 20:22
Quote[/b] ]but of course the original question for this topic asks who is the most beautiful and as we all know alex was famous for being a 'pretty boy' and since i have never seen a one eyed contestant win a beauty pageant, i don't think hannibal can win this one.
LOL
was hannibal really one-eyed? i didn't know that. so was philip, the father of alexander.
the funny thing is that after the defeat of the carthagenians, the exiled hannibal got to work as a general of antiochos III, the seleucid king who had several teeth broken by a rock in a battle.
they would have made a fine sight together http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
also, alexander had strabismus (one of his eyes deviated when looking forward) and i guess that spoiled his pretty face a bit.
hannibal lost an eye while his troops were camping by some marches in northern italy. i think it was around the time of the battle of lake trasmiene? his eye got infected and became useless.
The highly respected oracle at delphia called alexander "invinciple". He ever lost a battle. He was the greatest strategic mind of all time. He would destroy hannibal.
Michiel de Ruyter
03-10-2004, 22:12
Alexander never lost one battle ???
I know he had massive problems in what is now Afghanistan and southern Russia (Uzbekistan and the like). It took him forever to subdue this area, and IIRC he never got it under 100% control...
I have not read the accounts of his biographers, I must admit, but as far as I know, most if not all literary information we have, especially about that part of the campaign, comes form sources who were all firmly in the camp of Alexander. IIRC he had a group of officiual biographers in his train at that point in time...
Some of the minor setbacks he suffered might actually be (minor) defeats... He never lost a major battle, that is true...
IIRC Caesar did not depict Gergovia as a defeat either (I have never read that part if his De Bello Gallico for myself though (yet)), while it actually was...
I honestly doubt that either one would wipe the floor with the other, but if I had to put money on it, I would say Hannibal, due to Alexanders (over)agressiveness.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
04-03-2004, 18:24
Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ Mar. 10 2004,15:12)]I honestly doubt that either one would wipe the floor with the other, but if I had to put money on it, I would say Hannibal, due to Alexanders (over)agressiveness.
I agree. Two extremelly good tacticians.
But the giant, uncontrolable EGO of Alexander would be of great importance during battle. I really think it would get him killed. Besides, I agree that Hannibal was particulary good against agressive generals, like Varron, for instance. So, tactically, I would give Hannibal the advantage.
However, strategically there would be a slight advantage on Alexander's side. On the other hand, this too would be compensated by his monstruos EGO, impelling him to let Hannibal choose the field of battle at ease, due to him being the Living-GOD.
One last thing we can“t forget. The armies involved:
Alexander:
Pros:
-Macedonian Phalanx (I still think that these units would be hard to chew up by any Roman army - even Imperial Age ones - if well commanded and trained). Badly manouverable though.
-Companion Cavalry (the first visible strike Heavy cavalry the world had seen - I belive superior to anything Hannibal had).
Hannibal:
Pros:
-Celtiberian (Hispanic) Infantry (the inventors of the sword style the Romans would copy? - though and dependable)
-Carthaginian Heavy Cavalry (better than any the Romans had at the time, but IMHO no match for the Companions)
What do you think?
The Wizard
04-03-2004, 18:31
Lydian pikemen as well. And much greater mobility than Alexander III. Nubian cavalry would have been the death of the phalanx.
~Wiz
Aymar de Bois Mauri
04-03-2004, 18:34
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 03 2004,11:31)]Lydian pikemen as well.
You mean Lybian Heavy Infantry, right? The guys who are depicted in TC, as Triarii clones? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
The Wizard
04-03-2004, 18:50
Wargh, I meant Lybian pikemen indeed. They weren't triarii clones, they looked quite different from triarii, because they carried pikes and not spears.
Obviously I was thinking of Lydians. :P
~Wiz
Aymar de Bois Mauri
04-03-2004, 20:11
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 03 2004,11:50)]Wargh, I meant Lybian pikemen indeed. They weren't triarii clones, they looked quite different from triarii, because they carried pikes and not spears.
Obviously I was thinking of Lydians. :P
~Wiz
Well, Triarii carried very long spears. IMHO, in the videos (no Historical connection), those Lybians carried something silmilar to the Triarii, not something as long as the Sarissae. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Suppiluliumas
04-04-2004, 06:59
It is awfully dificult to compare a general to an emperor where grand strategy is concerned. Alexander was the master of his own destiny and had the resources of an empire behind him. Hannibal was only one, albiet the best, of Carthage's generals and therefore had nowhere near the strategic endependance enjoyed by Alexander. Hannibal was also forced to use mainly levy troops and mercenaries as opposed to Alexander's largely nationalized army. I would have to say that Hannibal was the better general considering the limited resources he had at his disposal, whereas Alexander managed to accomplish a great deal more with his impressive war machine and exhibited impressive political skills as well.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
04-04-2004, 15:00
Quote[/b] (Suppiluliumas @ April 03 2004,23:59)]It is awfully dificult to compare a general to an emperor where grand strategy is concerned. Alexander was the master of his own destiny and had the resources of an empire behind him. Hannibal was only one, albiet the best, of Carthage's generals and therefore had nowhere near the strategic endependance enjoyed by Alexander. Hannibal was also forced to use mainly levy troops and mercenaries as opposed to Alexander's largely nationalized army. I would have to say that Hannibal was the better general considering the limited resources he had at his disposal, whereas Alexander managed to accomplish a great deal more with his impressive war machine and exhibited impressive political skills as well.
Yes, you are correct. Good analysis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
VikingHorde
04-05-2004, 18:15
I put my money on Alexander the Great.
discovery1
04-13-2004, 02:44
Quote[/b] ]Alexander was the master of his own destiny and had the resources of an empire behind him
I would have to disagree with the claim that Alexander had great material resources. All he had, at last at first, was the meager resources of Macidonia, although I admit that I don't know how well he used the resouces he acquired before the final defeat of Persia.
Michiel de Ruyter
04-13-2004, 06:20
First of all,
Alexander had the resources of the whole of Greece behind him for his invasion, though he had to hammer it into him that they still belonged to Macedonia after his father died.
Alexander mad good use of resources of areas he conquered. That was part of the reason why, by the time he had reached India, the Macedonians and Greek soldiers revolted.
I do not dare to say it s correct, but IIRC by the time he reached India the Greek / Macedonian component of the army was reduced to 30-50% of the total.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.