Hannibal vs. Alexander

[ROCKHAMMER]

All of these VS. threads got my creative juices flowing.

If both of these Leaders, in the prime of their careers, were to face off against one another, who would prove the victor? The resources that both have available are the full resources of their respective kingdoms without any supply problems such as the ones which crippled Hannibal's war against Rome. The armies would be made up of the same troops that they commanded in real life.

Hannibal's Army at the Crossing of the Alps vs. Alexander's Army at the Crossing of the Granicus.

Consider the armies to be of equal size but made up of the troops that each commander had at his disposal during the period stated above.

Let the debate begin.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Sjakihata]

one question, do we speak of Hannibal's force before or after he crossed the Alps?

Before had more elephants and cav after he persuaded indigenous soldiers to join his cause against the romans as the romans oppressed them.

[ROCKHAMMER]

Before Crossing the Alps.

[Sjakihata]

Can someone post some resources concerning Alexander the Great and his favoured tactics.

I know some about Hannibal but almost nothing about Alex.

Thanks,

My impression is that Alexander would win, as he was expert at logistics, but then again that isnt taken into account in this "vs" so maybe Hannibal could nail him, im not sure.

[ROCKHAMMER]

Here are some sources.

1) http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ALEX.HTM

2) http://faq.macedonia.org/history/index.html

3) http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/


I hope these help with your research. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[The Wizard]

Hannibal comes very close, if not to the point of being equal, to Alexander in tactics. Both are excellent leaders of men, being both very inspiring and brave. Both are great tacticians, being able to pull off amazing moves. Hannibal is less impulsive than Alexander (Alexander went into the thick of it while Hannibal usually preferred to keep the overview of the battle).

Both are funny looking - Hannibal has one eye, and Alexander was a veritable midget, and probably didn't have the Apollonite looks that were attributed to him.

The armies they used are quite different, Alexander relying on a war-machine which relies completely on a well-oiled use of combined arms, Hannibal relying on a mix of light cavalry, light infantry, heavy infantry, and medium infantry, using these in different tactical mixes, while Alexander used the standard Macedonian set-up developed by his father, Philip.



~Wiz

[ah_dut]

According to Rosacrux pyrhhos was a better tactitian than hannibal. so I think alexander would win. but pyrhhos would win win vs alexander

[Sjakihata]

Pyrrhos did have some great victiories over the Romans especially at Herakleia and at Ausculum where he supposedly should have said: another victory of that kind and we are dead, because casualties were tremendously high.

Btw, I think he introduced the Romans to elephants

[SwordsMaster]

I´m going to say Hannibal is going to win.

Reasons:
1- Hannibal studied Alexanders tactics, so he was familiar with his methods.

2- Alexander fought psychologically almost as much as he fought physically. The deaths at Issus and Gaugamela are almost insignig¡ficant when compared to the whole persian army, and what happened is a generalized rout. Hannibal destroyed almost completely all the armies he faced, so I think he could be more devastating in that aspect, when Alexander would be more spectacular.

3- Alexander always looked for a "fair" battle. No ambushes but a set battle. Hannibal was more "creative" in that aspect as Trasimene battle proves.


Just my thoughts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

As stated previously in a similar thread a few pages down, in my not so humble opion Alexander would get trounced by Hannibal. Utterly defeated. And these are my reasons...

Hannibal was very good at analysing the opponents he faced, and their style of fighting. This resulted in the catastrophies of Trebbia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae. He excelled against agressive commanders. It is also how he fought his way through the Alps.

The only way the Romans were able to defeat him was by first destroying his reinforcements,and the source for them. Second, the Romans mobilized every single man they had, and recruited everyone they could from their allies. They had to. Another Cannae could (would ?) have cost them the war.

Scipio was only able to defeat Hannibal when almost all the advantages were in Roman favor. They had the Numidian cavalry, they had the initiative. Scipio had the better troops; Yes, he did deceive Hannibal, though Hannibal at that point had not too many options left. And still, Zama was very close thing, and if not for the timely return of the Numidian horse, could well have been a Carthaginian victory.


As for Alexander, he was very agressive, the type of commander Hannibal excelled against. He had let himself get trapped, and forced into the battle of Issos. He led from the front thereby relinquishing control of most of the army to Parmenio. He almost got himself killed numerous times. Even more, if he had faced a more determined commander, he could have easily lost both Issos and Gaugamela. In both cases, Xerxes most likely could have put reinforcements between him and Alexander, and blocked his assault., while his right wing was defeating the Greeks (at Issos it was slowly succeeding, at Gaugamela only Persian indisciplin saved the Greek left).

So, IMHO, Hannibal would have gotten Alexander through an ambush. Wether more Trebbia/Lake trasimene style or in the open like Cannae imho Alexander would be killed in the early stages of the fight. And that would mean game over.



Then as far as troops go, no match. Hannibal's cavalry was so superior, it would be a no contest.

[Rosacrux]

MdR, Hannibal's cavalry was so ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ) superior?

To what? to the "Best cavalry of the antiquity", as the hetairoi have been named repeatedly by a host of military historians? And you compare the light numidian and celtic cavalry of Hannibal with them? Sure, they were better than the Roman cavalry... but everybody and his mother was better than the Roman cavalry.

ah_dut

Actually, Hannibal himself made the comparison. IIRC he ranked Alex #1 and Pyrrhus #2.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Rosacrux,

what you are talking about is the Companion cavalry. They were indeed very good. But their function was that of shocktroop, and their number was (relatively) small. The other cavalry units were repeatedly driven back, or even broken up on the field of battle (Issos, Gaugamela) by their Persian counterparts

So, because of their lack of numbers, their advantage in quality could/would have been negated (IMHO), and even more, Hannibal probably would have set a trap for them most likely...

[The Wizard]

I don't call 3,500-4,500 hetairoi a small number when compared to their abilities (before the campaigns of eastern Persia and the Punjab).

It's quite tempting to call Alexander an 'aggressive' commander and compare him to the likes of Varro. But that would be a mistake.

Alexander wasn't aggressive - he knew when, where and how to take the initiative. Just like Hannibal.

It's very easy to look at Alexander's pitched battles and say that he went into battle with a vague plan and say that he left the rest up to Parmenion, but that's not true either.

He made up a well thought-out plan before each of his battles, taking into account his enemy's weaknesses, strengths, and characteristics, and then working out a way to use these to his advantage.

He often went into battle himself, but only at weak points of his enemy's line where he knew his charge would be decisive. After the shock of the impact had taken place, he would usually (before he killed him in Samarqand) leave the battle itself to Cleitus, the Hippiarch of the hetairoi, and then either direct the battle or support another part of the melee with another charge. He had better overview than most people think he did, and he gave very elaborate and explicit orders to his commanders about what they should do when event X took place. That's how the world's first refused flank came to being on the plain near Gaugamela.

And at Issos and especially Gaugamela, the allied cavalries (Thessalians, Thracians) were not broken up...

Instead, they set up a deceptively weak attack to draw away the huge masses of Persian heavy cavalry, dangerous as they were with their new armament. This happened on Alexander's right flank at Gaugamela, where he drew them off after they had ridden wildly to the right when Alexander was moving to the right with his entire army. They were trying to negate the flanking advantages Alexander's cavalry on the right were now getting. Knowing this, and having anticipated it, Alexander had set up his cavalry in the standard formation, but with a little, and eventually very important feature. This was a 'flap' on the wing of the Macedonian hetairoi, made up of Thracians and Thessalians, which drew off the Skythians and other Persian allied cavalry, along with the Persians themselves, luring them into a trap, where they were pounced upon by the rest of the cavalry on Alexander's right. So ended one of the biggest threats to Alexander's daring strategy at Gaugamela.

At Issos, the Thracians and Thessalians were on Alexander's left, and destroyed Persian cavalry when these crossed the river and tried to circle the left flank of the phalanx of the pezhetairoi. Again they did it by seemingly falling away, actually luring them into a trap with peltasts, other light infantry and the Thessalians and Thracians themselves.

It is important to realize what is fighting what. I suppose we are talking of Hannibal at the pinnacle of his might, in the time of the battles of Lake Trasimene, Trebia and Cannae. But which army of Alexander?

The 'crusading' army he used up until Gaugamela? The 'Imperial' army he used to fight Bessus and Spitamenes? Or the army he used when he invaded the Punjab, assaulted Pir-Sar, and fought at Hydaspes, an army where the pezhetairoi had abandoned their sarrisas and where there were there were very few Macedonians, and only 35,000 of the 50,000 were from the West?

We need to first know what kind of armies these two illustrious figures were using before the real debate can start.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[ah_dut]

Sorry rosacrux, but i've still got a point don't I Hannibal himslf rated Alex above himself did he not? Also hannibal was a few hundred years ahead of alex wasn't he? so it's like comparing the power of Trajan to hannibal, the technology and tactics were very differant. i can't tell, but i just think alex was a god of war and hannibal was very good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[The Wizard]

Punctuation would help your point in arguments like this...

Also, Hannibal did his thing a little over a century after Alexander. It is only then that the west-Mediterranean powers got up to the level of technology that the Hellenistic world had.



~Wiz

[Sjakihata]

well, since the Phoenicans originally had MAJOR contact with Hellas and actually possessed a great of tech, that's not the matter.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

For those that bring up the fact that Hannibal himself considered Alexander and Pyrrhos the greater general, the actual story goes a little further...

"After Hannibal had said that he was asked whom he would consider the greatest general ever have lived if he had won the war against Rome... and without hesitation he answered: Myself."

Now the sole question is wether the war between Hannibal and Rome was strategically winnable for Hannibal.

[The Wizard]

Exactly, but with a little complication:

he meant it as "Scipio, you are greater than I", in the typical subtle Punic way, for he did not defeat Rome, did he?



~Wiz

[ROCKHAMMER]

IMHO Hannibal would have easily been able to defeat Rome had he received the proper support from Carthage in the first place. The government of the city was more interested in economics and trade than the military conquest of Rome. They did not see the danger that Rome represented to them and therefore did not send Hannibal the support he nedded in gold or men. Had Hannibal received this support, history very well could have been very different. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[Rosacrux]

Well, Rochhammer, that is an interesting issue... brought a host of thoughts and ideas to my rather kinky mind... I am posting a relevant thread-poll, just wait and you can join there. Let's get alternative, folks

[Red Peasant]

Hannibal had his chance to crush Rome, and why he didn't, or wouldn't, has been one of history's controversies ever since. Even Roman children would argue this point in mock rhetorical debates. He had his political enemies at Carthage, but then again, so did Scipio at Rome, who severely limited the resources for his final campaign against Carthage. One could argue that he received even less in aid and resources than Hannibal.

For a short while Rome lay open to Hannibal, but his hesitancy cost him the chance to take the city. He gambled on Rome's allies deserting her, but most of them held firm, ultimately preferring Roman to Carthaginian dominance, possibly not liking the Punic dependence on Gallic allies. Then, Cunctator's policy of evasion and delay was masterly, blooding his new troops in hit and run skirmishes to build their morale and battle-readiness.

The Romans got tired of this at one point and attempted an open battle in which they were given a bloody nose, which vindicated Fabius' strategy. He gradually wore down and isolated Hannibal in the peninsular until his position was virtually untenable and his allies were deserting him.

I feel that Alexander would not have missed the opportunity to crush Rome if he had been in a similar position. He was a more capable strategist than Hannibal.

[ah_dut]

I think Alex was just more ruthless but agree with redpeasant

[nizar]

I can't wait for the movies to be released. Maybe we can see who wins at the box office http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

Maybe Hollywood will make them fight against each other http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[RisingSun]

Guys, Hannibal actually DID make the comparison himself. I believe he was talking to Scipio years after Zama. He said:

Scipio- "Who do you think is the greatest general of all time?"

Hannibal- "Since I could not beat you, Alexander of Macedon."

Scipio- "And if you had beaten me?"

Hannibal- "Then I would be the greatest general."

Obviously, he considered Alexander the better general. He would only have been better if he had won the Roman campaign, but he didn't- that's that.

The debate can probably stop here.

[The Wizard]

How so? He would have relished the chance to face Alexander in battle.

For instance, Hannibal could have quite easily routed Alexander's phalanx, an oppurtunity which was presented to the Persians at Issos, and at especially Gaugamela on a silver platter.

His infantry, excluding his Libyans, were much more mobile and much better on broken ground. They could have exploited the weakness of the Macedonian phalanx and caused huge slaughter.

Then he could have opted to fight the companions to a standstill, who would no longer have any troops to back up their charge.

The biggest danger to his forces would probably have been the shield bearers.

The interesting part of this debate will start now: the debating of tactical possibilities.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[RisingSun]

Well, there are also strategic possibilities. It's probably safe to say Alex was much better strategically than Hannibal, correct?

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I think not, to be honest. Both took a strategy that was the only viable option open to them. Alexander succeeded, partly because of the weaknesses of Dareios and the Persian empire; Hannibal came up just short, partly because of domestic politics, and partly because he faced a much more stubborn opponent.

Just my 2 cents...

[Red Peasant]

Well, Michiel, Hannibal made a strategic decision not to go for Rome immediately after Cannae, opting instead for another strategy. The excuses made for him are never convincing.

The decision would have been straightforward, in my opinion, to Alexander: cut off the head of the snake while it is defenceless.

Hannibal completely misjudged Roman determination and the fidelity of most of her Italian allies. A fatal misjudgement. Whereas, Alexander did what he had to do with the Persians, just as he did against all his enemies.

Hannibal did not do what was necessary. One can only judge them on what they actually did or did not do as far as we know, not in theoretical situations. Therefore, Hannibal falls short of Alexander in his formulation and execution of strategy.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Red Peasant,

how do you think Hannibal should have gotten Rome then?

A siege was one of the most dangerous things to undertake. He had not dissolved the Roman union; He did not have the siege equipment with him. Because he lacked Italian allies, he did not have a suficient supply of food.

Yes, he misjudged the fidelity of the Roman allies (though they had been in a civil war just years earlier). But still, I think the choices he made were the only ones left open to him.

[Red Peasant]

For a short space of time the Romans were in complete panic, their best armies in the peninsula thoroughly defeated, the remnants completely demoralised, several consulars already dead, and only one of the serving consuls alive but discredited.

Rome was already a big city by ancient standards, and she had only a few reliable troops on hand to man the long circuit of the Servian walls. The assault might not have needed a siege if Hannibal had acted with decisive celerity (Latin, celeritas, the hallmark of a great general in grasping a favourable moment, a 'window of opportunity' in modern idiom).

Hannibal failed to grasp the opportunity at hand. That it was a golden opportunity is evidenced by the incredulous reaction of the Romans, who were amazed at his dilatory attitude for centuries to come, they never stopped debating it.

[ah_dut]

true, true true, red peasant

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ June 29 2004,08:11)]For a short space of time the Romans were in complete panic, their best armies in the peninsula thoroughly defeated, the remnants completely demoralised, several consulars already dead, and only one of the serving consuls alive but discredited.

Rome was already a big city by ancient standards, and she had only a few reliable troops on hand to man the long circuit of the Servian walls. The assault might not have needed a siege if Hannibal had acted with decisive celerity (Latin, celeritas, the hallmark of a great general in grasping a favourable moment, a 'window of opportunity' in modern idiom).

Hannibal failed to grasp the opportunity at hand. That it was a golden opportunity is evidenced by the incredulous reaction of the Romans, who were amazed at his dilatory attitude for centuries to come, they never stopped debating it.
From what I remember Hannibal left Italy due to his bad supply situation. Rome probably would've held more than enough supplies for Hannibal, but then he would be trapped in Italy.

[Red Peasant]

Hi MB, what we are discussing is the situation in the immediate aftermath of Cannae (216 BC).

It was only many years later that Hannibal finally departed from Italy (203 BC), though by then Spain and Sicily had been lost and Scipio had defeated Syphax in North Africa.

[Red Peasant]

I would just like to add that I think Hannibal one the finest generals in history. That he managed to stay in Italy for so long is a testament to his tactical and strategic genius, but he missed the one realistic chance he had to take Rome and that was, ultimately, his downfall.

He let the golden chance for complete victory pass. He could at least have brought the Romans to an agreement on his terms even if he didn't completely crush the city. Maybe his intelligence on the city's defensive capabilities immediately after Cannae was faulty or misleading, but that, in the final reckoning, was his responsibilty as the commanding general of a campaign he instigated.

[ROCKHAMMER]

I agree with MdR N on the reasons why Hannibal was forced to do what he did concerning Rome. He acted based on the information he had and if he decided not to attack it was because he knew he didn't have the capabilities. He was finding it hard to recruit replacements by this time and was also trying to keep open his supply lines. All in all, I believe he made the right choice not to attack.

Alexander probably would have chosen to attack and he may have succeeded. He may also have died attacking the walls of Rome which were some of the best fortifications of their time. We will never know... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[The Wizard]

Carthage's fortification's were actually a lot more formidable than Rome's...



~Wiz

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ July 01 2004,00:31)]Carthage's fortification's were actually a lot more formidable than Rome's...



~Wiz
That is true. So were Antioch's and the ones of many cities in the East.

Rome's fortifications were good but not anything tremendous. The city was too large and the garrison at the time were not large and the troops demoralized.

Still, i'm not sure how easy the siege would be.
Belissarius held (the even larger at that time) city of Rome with 5,000 troops against the many times larger Ostrogoth force.

I reckon that Hannibal might not had been able to storm the city but he could at least had "persuaded" the Romans to accept a favourable for Carthage peace-treaty.
The sheer terror of knowing that his (so unexpectedly) victorious forces were marching against Rome could have made them accept such a deal, even perhaps without any more noses bleeding...

[Hurin_Rules]

Regarding siege craft, Alexander was a master of poliorcetics (siege warfare). His capture of Tyre after a scant 7 months was a brilliant application of combined arms. Alexander could have taken Rome.

Now, for the real issue: two consummate tacticians, Alexander and Hannibal. What an intriguing chess match it would have been. Hannibals elephants would have given the Macedonian army pause, although it did rather well against Porus' elephants on the borders of India. Alexander's phalanx would have to be guarded against a flanking maneuver by Hannibal's gallic or numidian cavalry, but Alexander would have known this, and deployed peltasts and other troops to guard the phalanx's flanks. The battle may well come down to a clash of cavalry. Here, I think, I'd have to give the edge to Alexander. He would have led them personally, and the companions were the elite of the elite. If Alexander's cavalry repulsed Hannibals, the battle would be over, as it was at Zama. So, I give the edge to Alex in a close-fought affair.

[lonewolf371]

I've always admired Alexander probably above all other generals that I've studied, and I'd probably have to agree with the fact that he would manage to route Hannabal in the end.

Although the size of both their armies varied often, I believe that probably the best way to compare the two would be by using the relative size of Alexander's army around the beginning of his conquest of Persia (20,000 or so) and Hannibal when he left Spain (I'm not sure about this, but I believe that it would also be around 20,000 to 25,000). Now in a straight infantry battle Hannibal would probably have won the fight, as the Macedonian phalanx while well trained and disciplined would have been slow moving, unlike the elite African infantry. But both of the generals used almost everything but infantry. In both of their most famous battles (Gaugamela and Cannae) the cavalry was the deciding point and the ultimate factor that led to the defeat of their enemies.

Hannibal would most likely wait for Alexander to fight him on unfavorable ground, however this was something Alexander rarely did, and during the battles that he did engage Darius in a position that favored Darius he would often think up something to even the odds. In a straight battle, Alexander would surely win, as this was exactly what the Macedonian army was designed for. The Hammer and Anvil is probably the most classic and efficient military strategy of all time, heck we even see ourselves using it while bashing other blokes up on M:TW. IMHO the Carthaginian army would not be able to win unless they surprised Alexander COMPLETELY, which would have been very unlikely.

[BOTP]

In my eyes, one has to rate these two generals by the opponents they faced. In creating simulations for the armies of Hannibal and Alexander you can use a baseline of gauging their respective effectiveness against similar enemies (like the Scythians and Parthians, Persians, and Romans, etc.). After gathering research on as large a number of engagements, you can you can create a statistical probability of their effectiveness (assigning a numeric value) and then compare them to each other. There are many other conditions that would have to be taken into consideration like terrain, location, size, season etc. that makes such comparisons quite difficult. So the best we have to go on is battle record v. opponents, innovations in war, and organization of arms and army. That will give us a credible background for comparison.

Now first, 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 had the resources of the entire Hellenized world behind him to draw from. Hannibal was only one, if not the best, of Carthage's generals and therefore, and has nowhere near the strategic ability enjoyed by Alexander. Furthermore, it can be said of both Hannibal and Alexander that either faced fierce enemies the other did not. When Alexander attacked Persia, the kingdom was far from its zenith. When Hannibal attacked Rome, she was a formidable military power. Another thing you have to consider is that Hannibal was use to being the underdog in battles, Alexander usually had the best army in the world when he went into battle, despite being outnumbered.

To put it simply, Alexander did not face the same difficulties as Hannibal. He is often credited for decimating armies superior in numbers, yet he fought against undisciplined and unreliable peasant levies, who were many in number, but not much of an army (it took 20 Persians to kill one Phalanx!). On the other hand, Alexander inherited the strongest army and nation at the time. Alexander’s companions were at the time the best heavy cavalry in the known world. In addition, the Macedonian phalanx was among the best infantry in the world and faced comparatively weak troops, vastly inferior in both tactics and equipment. Even the Greek-named 'Immortals', who made up the core of the Persian army, were no longer what they had been. What he was facing was ripe for slaughter, an army that was too scared of the imposing phalanx to do anything at all but flee. It is a testament of his abilities though that he made good use of it. Defeating armies 2-4 times is impressive but hardly unique especially against poor quality troops, there are many instances in history of such defeats, and even more.

Furthermore, the Persian kingdom was already in decline, and the leaders suffered big time from a divided and chaotic command (not that different from the German high command in WWII). Darius was an incompetent commander. His methods were senseless and his battle plans lacked imagination and personally he lacked the courage to see the battle through. Memnon was, in my opinion, the only good general that Alexander faced, but he was undermined by Darius and ultimately was unable to put his plans into action. Once Darius fell, Alexander swept across Asia practically unopposed. He was in the right place at the right time; Greece was at its height of military supremacy, Persia was in decline.

Hannibal on the other hand, won not only when outnumbered (like Alexander) but also against arguably better opposition, with greater odds against him, on many occasions using the greatest tactics that the world has ever known. No other distinguished general ever faced the opposition that confronted Hannibal. He went against the greatest military machine of his era. He had the worst possible make-up of an army in the ancient world, many different subjected and tribes that not only had different beliefs and nationalities, but different languages. They were vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped, and poorly supplied. Yet his personal charisma and sheer determination welded a force of a disparate people that was seemingly unstoppable.

Hannibal kept his army invincible and undefeated for over a decade in the heartland and middle of the most hostile and powerful country of the known world. He was able to wage war against Rome in Italy for 17 years, nearly half a generation, marching in hostile territory however he wised, with absolutely no resupply or reinforcements, and without any naval support, without losing one major battle. He managed to defeat the superbly drilled legions that were superior in both quantity and quality in terms of experience, equipment, and discipline. His tactics were by far the greatest ever. Every battle in Italy was a masterpiece. Cannae is by far the greatest tactical achievement that the world has ever seen. Nobody, not even Alexander displayed such a varied and perfect tactical record. Whether sending in his hidden arm at the Trebia, his unconcealing his whole army at Trasimene, or his swinging his African wings around at Cannae to create the envelopment. He was cunning and used deception and trickery to win many engagements which was very innovative at the time. How frustrated Rome felt after sending everything at this man and everytime getting utterly destroyed. IMHO

The only reason that Hannibal eventually lost was due not to any mistake on his part but on the mistakes of Carthage. She was far more concerned with trade and expansion, and sent aid to Sicily and Spain, and refused to help her greatest general, who was so close to victory. Together with Rome’s ability to replenish her losses, the great leadership she had, and the resources and manpower she spent, that finally caused Hannibal to succumb to her. It is true that Hannibal lost and Alexander remained undefeated. But I would say that any general, including Alexander and all the other greats, would have also lost, and probably with less results than Hannibal was able to achieve. Hannibal came up just short, because he faced a far more stubborn opponent, who wasn’t willing to give up easily (It must be noted that the Senate even refused negotiations days after Cannae!). IMHO the main difference between Alexander and Hannibal is that the Roman Empire, unlike the Persians, did not collapse under the massive defeats inflicted upon it.


Tactics

There’s one thing Hannibal understood as well as any one was tactics. Hannibal was very good at analyzing the opponents he faced, and their style of fighting, taking into account his enemy's weaknesses, strengths, and characteristics, and then working out a way to use these to his advantage. Out of the two armies, Hannibal's are arguably the poorest, but Hannibal's supreme ability as a master-tactician would ensure they cannot be dismissed. With that said, Hannibal could have quite easily routed Alexander's phalanx, an opportunity which was presented to the Persians at Issos, and at especially Gaugamela. In his youth Hannibal, along with his father, 'tamed' Africa and ventured Spain, so he would be familiar with the type of Armies that Alexander encountered. The Greeks had even given him his education, which led him to often imitate them, and set his men up in a similar fashion. This made him quite familiar with the Macedonian phalanx, in fact, he had studied Alexander’s tactics, and therefore, knew much of his methods.

It was the hammer (cavalry) and anvil (phalanx) that was the key to Greek warfare. The Phalanx was good at pushing the enemy backwards, and keeping him at bay. While the phalanx was expected to pin the enemy center, the heavy cavalry on one or both wings struck the enemy’s flanks, denying time to enemy to act against the phalanx. He then chased the enemy off the field while leaving his generals to deal with the all-important center. There appears to be no change in his doctrine. Other than the oblique Phalanx tactics which he rarely used, this seemed to have been his only stratagem. While effective against the Persians, it was far less overwhelming against similar armies, who fought under competent leaders.

When observing tactics, one also has to look at a general’s personality. Hannibal, unlike Alexander, exercised caution and self-control. His presence of mind is less impulsive than Alexander. He knew when to restrain himself in the heat of battle, and was able to defeat superior enemies repeatedly. Whereas Alexander, was very hot-headed, an absolute barking nutcase [IMHO], and reckless, the type of commander Hannibal often excelled against. In fact, historians have long identified his behavior as a personal flaw of his often shown in battle. Hannibal certainly would have used Alexander's aggressiveness and recklessness to his advantage, much like he had done towards Varro at Cannae. During Cannae, Hannibal knew that Varro was in charge, and could draw him into battle, thereby destroying his army. This is an strategic factor, but one that had a profound impact on tactics, because Alexander could allow themselves to be aggressive, even reckless, while Hannibal had to be very, very cautious.

A very likely possibility would be that Hannibal would lay a trap for Alexander, like he did to the Romans at Trebia, Lake Trasimene, or Cannae. Hannibal favored striking at the flanks and ambushes, using the strengths of his enemy to expose his weaknesses, and often using his Numidians to lure away and wear out the enemy cavalry. As the nature of the enemy changed he would change the balance of his tactics to compensate. Before the battle started, he would have devised a strategy to try and either trap or put the Macedonians at a disadvantage, and deprive Alexander of his Companion Cavalry, that more than once determined the tide of the battle. For one thing though, Hannibal wasn't remotely stupid enough to face them on open ground.

Greek tactics using phalanx had a lot of advantages, but only on plain terrain. After all, a pike is an unwieldy weapon, and in a constricted space it would be hard to use it to deadly effect. It were unsuitable for fighting on broken ground, and Alexander’s cavalry needed special battlefield conditions to be effective. Hannibal would use this at his advantage, I believe, avoiding Alexander in open ground. His infantry, (excluding his Libyans) were much more mobile and much better on broken ground. They fought across rough terrain, mountain ranges, across rivers and into self-made fortifications. They often possessed complete freedom of maneuver, as opposed to the road-bound Greeks. Whereas Alexander in contrast preferred to march along the main highways of his time, and rarely ventured far from them. This might have forced Alexander to fight Hannibal in broken ground, would put the odds against them. This type of terrain would’ve broken the Phalanxes cohesion, which is it's main strength. In this fashion, a phalanx could be routed easier, as it was much more vulnerable to flank attacks and gaps.

Then, when the time had come, he could have opted to fight the companions to a standstill. Alexander leading the cavalry would be a very tough force to contend with, but their function was that of shocktroop, and their numbers were relatively small. The other cavalry units were repeatedly driven back, or even broken up on the field of battle (i.e. Issos, Gaugamela) by their Persian counterparts. They would have to contend with the Iberian cataphracts (heavy armoured cavalry), and most importantly, the Numidian horsemen, Hannibal’s strongest weapon. They were regarded as some of the most prized horsemen in antiquity and even Dodge calls them "an exceptional body of men". These formidable horsemen fought exclusively as a mounted force, fast enough to lure the slower horse away from the fray and drive circles around them at the same time. The battle may well come down to a clash of cavalry for all we know.

So the outcome of a match between them would depend to a high degree on who has the initiative. In a defensive position with secured flanks or big amounts of cavalry I would say Alexander would win. The problem is that Alexander would never take the defensive. If Alexander only had a couple thousand troops, and was facing 500,000 he would have attacked. It was simply part of his nature. In reality, he probably should take the defensive against Hannibal, but that was a concept that was unknown to his mind. If Hannibal were a defender fighting a Alexander for a long time, he would most likely known the terrain and cleverly select a spot which would benefit his strong points (Numidian Cavalry) to overwhelm the enemy.

In the end however, I would have to say that Hannibal would win, for the main fact that his mind worked in such a way that would allow him to devise some brilliant tactic that would dumbfound Alexander, and place his Companions, the arm that won him the world, at a total disadvantage. It is impossible to say exactly what tactics Hannibal would have used, but it is very likely that this battle would be another masterpiece in the history books. Hannibal was very good at analyzing the opponents he faced, and their style of fighting, taking into account his enemy's weaknesses, strengths, and characteristics, and then working out a way to use these to his advantage. I think Hannibal would win a pitched battle due to his flexible tactical thinking, his Numidian cavalry, and his genius for ambush. His tactical genius would make him a real foe for Alexander, like no other.

[doc_bean]

Well, Michiel, Hannibal made a strategic decision not to go for Rome immediately after Cannae, opting instead for another strategy. The excuses made for him are never convincing.

The decision would have been straightforward, in my opinion, to Alexander: cut off the head of the snake while it is defenceless.


Even Alexander waited before moving inland until he controlled the entire Persian shore, he didn't want his rear attacked or his supply chains cut off. If Hannibal had taken Rome he would have suffered great losses, and after he had succeeded in taking the city (which was very likely) there wouldn't be enough supplies left to keep it, when he would have been surrounded by enemies.

Maybe it was a mistake and maybe he would have succeeded in destroying the Roman threat to carthage, but hindsight is 20/20.

[The Wizard]

That is true. So were Antioch's and the ones of many cities in the East.

Rome's fortifications were good but not anything tremendous. The city was too large and the garrison at the time were not large and the troops demoralized.

Still, i'm not sure how easy the siege would be.
Belissarius held (the even larger at that time) city of Rome with 5,000 troops against the many times larger Ostrogoth force.A slight correction on this. Rome at the time of Belisarius had been sacked multiple times by Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and more. It's population had significantly decreased over the years, and the walls were probably way oversized, forming nothing but a sign as to how large the city had once been.

I personally think Belisarius only had an easier time defending the city because he was facing Germanic foes; they were, after all, bad siegers. But Belisarius had a large amount of useless wall to cover, so that made it interesting again.

Rome's fortifications in the late 3rd century B.C. were of course far less impressive than those built later (Rome was sacked so easily by Alaric because those old walls from the 3rd century still stood as its only walls) and a lot easier to assault by a force such as Hannibal's. It remains a mystery why he didn't attack it.

Ah well, makes history more interesting, I guess... ~;)



~Wiz

[Spartakus]

*Draws breath* These arguments can go on forever, can't they? When you try to picture this scenario, so loosely rooted in reality, there is practically no end to all the aspects one could take into account.

As much as I admire BOTP's in-depth analysis, I think his efforts would be better spent elsewhere. He builds a veritable spear phalanx of arguments, and a convincing one at that, still it'll never be more than a small and selective excerpt from the endless list of factors one could add to this puzzle. I don't mean any disrespect, I have nothing but envy for BOTP's knowlegde on this subject, but you too must admit that answering this question is a bit like trying to grab air?

Neverthless, I guess the most exciting quests are the hopeless ones, so I'll throw in my two cents or whatever.

We have these two legendary generals, Hannibal and Alexander, which are to face off in a battle. Two remote giants, so distant we can't even see them for what they were, humans (or were they? :P). Now, instead of nitpicking all the tenous little details, I would rather apply the broad perspective, and the established facts.

Hannibal was the Carthaginian general who managed to lead an army into Roman territory, and stay there for 17 years causing trouble to the Romans, despite several difficulties (see BOTP's post on these.) He was later beaten by the Roman general Scipio Africanus. Then we have Alexander III, the Macedonian youth who inhereted his fathers warmachine, conquered most of the known world (or shaped it), failing at last in India, and later died of causes shrouded in mystery.

I would place my bets on Alexander, to me it seems he just has something Hannibal lacks. While Hannibal was a great general, Alexander was a great man. Where Hannibal failed, Alexander succeeded in tenfold. One can argue a thousand times back and forth on why it happened this way, it won't change anything, the winner remains victorious. For isn't this a criteria as reasonable as any, measuring their degree of success? "Sounds simplistic", one could say, "take circumstances into account". Well, it's obvious who made the best of these. And as much as one can admire Cannae, one could say Hannibal's campaign was too risky, no? Clearly, he wasn't -that- good at analyzing his enemy. Alexander's campaign was also risky, even more than Hannibal's I would say, but still he succeeded.

Today, Alexander is mentioned in the Quran, while Hannibal is a side note in the history books. "Carthaginian general" it says, ever heard of the "Macedonian general"? ;)

[BOTP]

I would place my bets on Alexander, to me it seems he just has something Hannibal lacks. While Hannibal was a great general, Alexander was a great man. Where Hannibal failed, Alexander succeeded in tenfold. One can argue a thousand times back and forth on why it happened this way, it won't change anything, the winner remains victorious. For isn't this a criteria as reasonable as any, measuring their degree of success? "Sounds simplistic", one could say, "take circumstances into account". Well, it's obvious who made the best of these. And as much as one can admire Cannae, one could say Hannibal's campaign was too risky, no? Clearly, he wasn't -that- good at analyzing his enemy. Alexander's campaign was also risky, even more than Hannibal's I would say, but still he succeeded.

There is a great quote from T.A. Dodge that I have used before, and fits in perfectly here:

Winning is not the mark of greatness.

I'm sorry, I just had to say this again but you have to consider to consider the circumstances. You cannot judge a general by by whether he won or lost. Especially in Ancient warfare, where there were so many factors that a general had no control of. You have to look at what their country did to support them. If they had all possible support and still lost, that may be a grounds of determining whether or not he was a strong or weak general. When he had no support and still lasted for so long an amount of time, he has to be judged strong, despite the final outcome of the war. Therefore, you cannot look at the outcome of a war or battle and tell who is a better general. You have to look at all the pieces that make up the defeat, such as troop type and number involved in the battle. Once you have all the facts, then you decide who is better.

It is my opinion on the matter at hand is that Hannibal didn't lose to Scipio; Carthage did. Had he been a king such as Alexander and the ruling class of Carthage could not interfere with him, he would have dictated terms to Rome soon after Cannae. The problem that he had though was the he had many political enemies who were able to talk the Carthaginian Senate into sending her troops to Spain and Sicily, which was a waste of troops. Had they all been sent to Hannibal, he would have had enough troops to march on Rome with hopes of victory.

Sun tzu best said it

"And so it is certain that a small country cannot contend with a great,that few cannot contend with many, and that the weak cannot contend with the strong"

Hannibal was expected to do the impossible and he came close to doing it. A man, with a lack of support from his weak country, took on a Ancient Superpower. Nobody could have won in Hannibal's position, not Alexander, not Caesar, and definetly not Scipio. He was fighting the greatest army of all time, while recieving no aid from Carthage. The fact that he survived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place him first on any list of great generals.

[Spartakus]

I'm sorry, I just had to say this again but you have to consider to consider the circumstances. You cannot judge a general by by whether he won or lost. Especially in Ancient warfare, where there were so many factors that a general had no control of.

Yes, I totally agree, the circumstances are crucial. However, they are also perplexingly many, and I would say we know too little for certain to make a verdict on this matter by adding up all these different factors we think were like this or like that. Though one thing remains certain: Hannibal should never have crossed the Mediterranean.



Hannibal was expected to do the impossible and he came close to doing it. A man, with a lack of support from his weak country, took on a Ancient Superpower. Nobody could have won in Hannibal's position, not Alexander, not Caesar, and definetly not Scipio. He was fighting the greatest army of all time, while recieving no aid from Carthage. The fact that he survived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place him first on any list of great generals.

Your argument is compelling. Hannibal managing to stay alive in spite of being up against the Roman army is truly impressive, and probably places him among the top ten generals of all time. Yet what you say is also to his detriment. I just can't bring myself to hold in higher regard a man who started something impossible and failed, than a man who actually pulled through. Conquering the known world can by no means have been a walkover, and certainly goes under "near impossible" in my book. I admit I have to read up a little on the armies Alexander faced, but I doubt my verdict will change.

Must say no man deserves being measured up against Alexander, he looms too high in the distance. :bow:

[BOTP]

Yet what you say is also to his detriment. I just can't bring myself to hold in higher regard a man who started something impossible and failed, than a man who actually pulled through:

Greatness is circumstancial. That is the only way to decide who is greater than who. If you only look at victory or defeat, then you could say that U.S. Grant is the equal of Alexander of Caesar. I don't think that there is anybody in their right mind that would make that arguement. Every general that lost, such as Hannibal or Napolean, would be equally as bad as Montgomery or Custer.Should Napoleon be judged solely by Waterloo? What about Rommel at El Alamein, or Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg? There are too many factors besides victory and failure that make up the greatness of a general.

[Spartakus]

There are too many factors besides victory and failure that make up the greatness of a general.

Yes, I agree completely. Being a great general is not the same as winning battles, and losing a battle doesn't mean you're a lousy one either. We both agree, then, that this is not what it's about. Winning/losing battles are not the deciding factor.

You must also agree with me, at least to some degree, that a good general doesn't fight a war he can't win? You mentioned Napoleon, Custer and Rommel, and IMHO all these guys did just this. What was Napoleon's overall battle plan, "conquer the whole thing!"? And Rommel, he fought for Hitler, who took on practically the whole world...at once. Lastly Custer, and his famed madman-charge at the Indians. All of them so-called military geniuses (perhaps with the exception of Custer), who failed due to their own incompetent judgement. Napoleon could have done great things with his army, but he had to have the lion's share. A great general must be able to set some limits, to have a basic understanding of what can be done and not. Did Napoleon really think he could take them all down? He wasn't right in the head so maybe. This is certainly true for Custer as well. Did Hannibal believe he could take down the Roman army on their own turf? I wonder if he even thought so himself.

Then there's Alexander, whose visions seem just as crazy as these other maniac's. However, he managed to go through with it, do the impossible, which both Hannibal, Custer, Napoleon and the whole lot failed at. I guess now you'll want to say we're back where you started: "There are too many factors besides victory and failure that make up the greatness of a general." But this is not about a single genius victory like Cannae or a single defeat like Waterloo. Alexander won not only the battles, but also the war.

You might still want to critizise my emphasis on his victory, and say that "greatness is circumstancial." But how circumstancial? If we play this card too much it will leave us with very little to work with when evaluating a general. Hannibal fought a hopeless battle with some success, which is impressive, but a smart general withdraws from hopeless battles and returns at a better occasion or not at all. A brave general on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Though I would say Alexander bests Hannibal in display of courage as well.

Perhaps we should change our criteria.

[BOTP]

Understood, we just have different criteria on how we judge these generals. If I were to rebut your comments, I would pratically be repeating what Ive already said. But keep in mind, its not if you lose or win its how you lose or win. But do you have other reasons besides who won and didn't that makes you so sure that Alexander would be Hannibal?

[Red Harvest]

Interesting discussion...I'm not sure who would have won (that's my escape route, clearly marked) but I tend to lean towards the idea of Hannibal winning by using Alexander's own aggressiveness against him. It very well might have proven decisive. With commanders of such high caliber, some small random factor might very well have been decisive.

Too much is being made of Hannibal being defeated by Scipio. Scipio had a long time to learn Hannibal's strengths and weaknesses. Scipio learned how to counter Hannibal's Carthaginian system in the field, before facing Hannibal himself. He then arranged a "stacked deck" battle that Hannibal had no choice but to fight...and without the elements that made his system work. Still it was a close run affair. Scipio was brilliant in his own right, but he learned from one of the best who ever lived. I see many parallels to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo...again by someone (Wellington) who had ample opportunity to train in Spain to face the military master of the time. There is little doubt in my mind that had Scipio and Hannibal's roles been reversed at Zama, Scipio would have lost. Ditto for the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

[Spartakus]

Understood, we just have different criteria on how we judge these generals. If I were to rebut your comments, I would pratically be repeating what Ive already said. But keep in mind, its not if you lose or win its how you lose or win. But do you have other reasons besides who won and didn't that makes you so sure that Alexander would be Hannibal?

Yes, I don't disregard the circumstances, of course not. But even so, I'm with Alexander.

On a side note, I just read something funny at history site. Quote goes: "Fabius, Quintus Maximus. (c.160-203 BC.). Roman statesman and General in the second Punic war. Known as Cunctalor, 'the Delayer' because of his cautious tactics against the invading Visigoth army under Hannibal."

Now this had me completely unawares, Hannibal led the Visigoths? :laugh4:

Link: http://www.amfibi.com/se?cs=utf-8&q=Famous+Names&ch=http:%2F%2Fwww.kingsnicknames.co.uk%2F&fm=off

[Gregoshi]

Spartakus, that shows you just how good a general Hannibal was. ~;)

[Pooma]

It is an interesting point though. A seige was immensely expensive risk for the attacker to take; not the only reason for a defending city to have spent years building massive walls, but at least an important reason to do so.

One might argue that Hannibal could have beseiged Rome early in his campaign, either immediately after Cannae or within a year or so. But if we are going with 'what if'; I don't think that if you asked 100 Hannibals in that position how they would proceed more than 2 would say 'attack Rome'. Hannibal was what I like to think of as "deeply sneaky" and I just don't get the feel that he would ever go for the siege. I agree that there are lots of reasons to do it, for one the idea that if the eternal city (I exagerate, I doubt it was called that then) was under seige a lot of the Italian client states would hesitate to ride to Rome's defense:

Radical simplification:

Random Courtier: Hey, King Philip of Macedon! All of Hannibals elephants are dead!

King Philip of Macedon: Well that was a bit disrespectful, but yay! go Romans.

RC: But that wily young Hannibal nevertheless defeated the Romans, the talentless Roman consul ran and lives. Paullus, the talented consul is dead, 3/4 of their army 'went casualty'.

KPoM: Oh how I hate that phrase 'went casualty' but nevertheless: "Yay! Go Carthage, it's yer Birthday, etc". I have an idea, let's declare war on Rome.

(Hypothetically) RC: And now Hannibal has Rome under seige. Scipio has declared undying loyalty to Rome but others like Mettallus (Spelling, sound's like he should be a band with scarey hairy Swedish men with spelling like that!) have abandoned the republic.

KPoM: Then let us actually do something significant with our declaration of war. We shall gather up what forces we may from the rebellious Samnites, the cities in the south that are considering rebellion and do what we can about the Greek influenced Roman cities being curiously loyal.

There really would be a chance to cut of the snakes head. This might also be a chance for others to try and take what they can in the vacuum. I feel that Hannibal had a definate preference for defeating a semi-intact Rome. He wanted to produce a functioning client state rather than a dissolved empire, which he was ill equipped to maintain. I doubt that a seige and sacking was the end to the he needed; that's the end of Hannibal: The Movie, not Punic: the war.

[Pooma]

Yes, I don't disregard the circumstances, of course not. But even so, I'm with Alexander.

On a side note, I just read something funny at history site. Quote goes: "Fabius, Quintus Maximus. (c.160-203 BC.). Roman statesman and General in the second Punic war. Known as Cunctalor, 'the Delayer' because of his cautious tactics against the invading Visigoth army under Hannibal."

Now this had me completely unawares, Hannibal led the Visigoths? :laugh4:

Link: http://www.amfibi.com/se?cs=utf-8&q=Famous+Names&ch=http:%2F%2Fwww.kingsnicknames.co.uk%2F&fm=off


Someone has been reading Ash by Mary Gentle again!

Mind you, that's no crime, everyone should be reading Ash, it's tops; though more of a Medieval: TW than an R:TW book.

[Longshanks]

You must also agree with me, at least to some degree, that a good general doesn't fight a war he can't win?

Did Hannibal have any other option besides war with Rome? We can't fault the man for dealing with the political realities of his time. The situation in the Mediterrenean was such that there was only room for either Roman or Cathaginian dominance, and if Carthage lost it meant her destruction. A pre-emptive strike into Italy was the only viable option as I see it.

[conon394]

Longshanks


But there was not particular reason for Hannibal to start the war in the year he did. He had already missed the chance to take advantage of the fighting between Rome and the Celts in Northern Italy, and his late start in leaving Spain meant he was forced to cross the alps in less than ideal conditions. Another year was hardly likely to change the balance of power between Rome and Carthage.

[Longshanks]

Longshanks


But there was not particular reason for Hannibal to start the war in the year he did. He had already missed the chance to take advantage of the fighting between Rome and the Celts in Northern Italy, and his late start in leaving Spain meant he was forced to cross the alps in less than ideal conditions. Another year was hardly likely to change the balance of power between Rome and Carthage.

Waiting another year would have put Hannibal on the defensive in Spain. Once Saguntum had fallen to Hannibal the Romans wouldn't have sat back and waited for him to cross the Alps. It should also be noted that Saguntum had been recognized to be well within Carthage's sphere of influence by both Empires in 226 B.C. Rome's interference with Saguntum could be seen as a violation of that agreement, and a challenge to Carthaginian dominance in Spain.

[conon394]

Not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that more broadly that the war was one of Hannibal’s choosing (i.e. the choice of attacking Saguntum). Once he launched the war why dither at Saguntum or in northern Iberia? His overriding goal should have been to get his veteran army over the alps before the winter.

I don't think you can say that Segentum was in a Carthaginian sphere of influence that the Romans recognized. The Ebro undertaking had been one way on the part of the Hasdrubal, Rome had not offered a reciprocal recognition of Carthaginian claims south of the Ebro.