Hannibal V. Alexander

[steve]

I was wondering i could get your thoughts on this. I am writting a paper on why i think Hannibal was a better General, on the main point that he had more self control . So anything opinions, facts or arguments would help out great. Thanks

[Kekvit Irae]

The Monastery is the best place for something like this question. They can help you where most in this current forum cant.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Hannibal was a great general, but unlike Alexander, he didn't know how to use his victories. Although, he was good at moving his army. After all, getting elephants over the alps!?

[Atreides]

Actueally there was a 2 hours broadcast of this on 'discovery channel'. Where two army officers used Alexanders/Hannibals style. Annimation was done with the enige of RTW.

It was great to see!

[steve]

Actually i disagree with 100% . Some say he didnt know how to use his victories because he didnt march on rome after the battles of Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. But how was he suppose to take Rome? he had no seige equipment, no seige engineer and he lacked complete manpower and would have been crushed. But i do think he used them wisely, he was able to break up Roman allies and use them as winter quarters and use the men as mercinaries. You cant Campaign at you own free will in Italy for 14 years if you dont know how to make use of victories.

[EvilNed]

^ I agree. Hannibal knew full and well how to use his victories. He managed to stay in Roman territory for 14 years, and had Carthage sent him an army (or if Macedons army would have made it there), then Rome would have been crushed.

There are those who say that Rome could have scraped up an army of hundreds of thousands of men to combatant Hannibal. For the battle of Cannae, they pulled out 80000 men... So I wonder, where are all the sources that Rome could have gotten ahold of 100000 men AFTER Cannae? And if they could, why didn't they? They shouldn't have attacked Hannibal with it, but kept it in reserve.

Hannibal had to few men. But had he recieved reinforcements, he could have, and would have, sacked Rome.

As for Hannibal being better than Alexander... No, I disagree. Yes, Hannibals techniques were brilliant. But most of the time they relied on his enemy just marching forward/advancing (At Cannae, the roman army marched forward, since they thought they were winning). Alexander manipulated his enemies army. At the battle of Gaugamela, he pulled their entire army to the side, opening up a hole in their army between him (and his companion cavalry) and Darius III.

Both were excellent commanders. But I say Alexander was just a tad bit better.

[Gregoshi]

steve, I posted a thread link to a discussion of this very issue in your other thread in the Monastery.

[BeeSting]

This is a tough one.... I cannot say if Hannibal is a better general. If to define a better general as a conqueror or tactician, I think Alexander was a better conqueror than Hannibal and Hannibal a better tactician than Alexander.

If Alexander won the battle at Cannae, he would have no doubt taken Rome shortly thereafter. But Hannibal would have no doubt beaten Alexander in a game of chess, at least. He is able to think that many moves ahead. The way he forces his opponent to a trap, is creative and highly calculative. And we do not read of such with Alexander. He's way of battle seems highly planned; if something didn't go right, then he was not able to make quick repairs as Alexander did. When the Elephants failed to do what they were purposed to do in Zama, he lost he's key winning component, because it was obvious that Hannibal's men were highly outclassed in both cavalry and infantry. We do not read about how he saved the day with some brilliant ad-hoc, spurt of the moment move. But could it be though that he found out about the recent arrival of Scipio's Numidian allies only at the pitch of battle? Or why would he have faced a superior foe? He should have known by then that Romans by that time were proficient in dealing with the Elephant onslaught. Or was he by this time too old; his wit and creativity dulled? It is certain by this time that he desired to end the war on favorable terms for Carthage--this would not have been an option for Alexander.

But put Alexander in Hannibal's shoes in Zama and Hannibal in Alexander's in the battle of Issus. It is nearly certain that Alexander would not have put himself in the Zama situation because the war would’ve been long over. In Zama, however, Alexander would have no doubt led the Numidian cavalry himself, which would have meant extra morale boost for his cavalry. And if the Carthaginian cavalry did not easily rout, then the battle might have turned in their favor, since we all know the kind of cavalry leader he was. What would he have done with the Elephants? Perhaps he would have used them against the enemy cavalry instead. They would have served less damaging to he’s own men there at least.

Since we know that Macedonian force, though largely outnumbered, were of much higher quality than the Persian’s, it may be better to replace Darius with Hannibal against Alexander, instead of Hannibal in Alexander's. So if Hannibal led the Persian army, I think Alexander might have lost the war in Issus: because 1) Hannibal would have figured out the usual Macedonian tactics by then; 2) he would therefore would have thought of a trap; 3) and he would have had some creatiive use for the first rate Persian mounts to a better effect.

But if to face the two on equal terms, I don't know…

I will end here since I have to go back to work.

[Craterus]

i don't know enough about Hannibal to make a fair comment.. They were both great generals and heroes..
Instead of Alexander vs. Hannibal in a battle
how about Alexander and Hannibal in a battle against the Romans and Persians.. now theres a combination!

[Colovion]

People like Alexander because he conquered many largely undisciplined masses of troops. His siege of Tyre was probably the most amazing thing he did, which was largely due to his chief engineer's mastery of the situations which were put forward on his plate each day. Alexander was undoubetly a master of strategy on some level - but he could not understand simple things like when to give up and turn back. Hannibal fought against drilled, trained, professional soldiers - Alexander's battles were mostly against swaths of unruly masses brought to the battle for show. Peasants. Rabble. Some of his battles had larger numbers of trained soldiers fighting him, but Hannibals - ALL of them were. Imagine if at Gaugemela the enemy general wouldn't have told the charge of cavalry that dove through the big gap in his lines to go after the supply carts - but to massacre the phalanx lines from behind; game over Alexander.

Oh well - they were both excellent commanders, and I've read Alexander's biography of his life and battles; it wasn't really that impressive in terms of militart battles, but what he did afterwards. He was leader and a ruler first and foremost - a General was only a gift he had which helped procure his rule over men.

[Craterus]

i have also read alexanders biography and i think he was a brilliant general ~:) ~:cool: ~D ~D ~D

[starkhorn]

I've read a book called the Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworth and it has a great story where Hannibal and Scipio met many years after Hannibal's defeat at Zama by Scipio.

"Legend has it that many years after Zama, Scipio and Hannibal actually met at the selucid court of Antiochus III where Hannibal had fled. Scipio asked Hannibal who were the greatest generals in history.

In reply, Hannibal listed Alexander, Pyrrhus and himself in that order.
When Scipio asked what he would have said if he had have won at Zama, Hannibal replied that he would have placed himself first....thus carefully flattering both himself and Scipio."

:)

Unsure if it's true but a nice story.....interesting though that he admitted Alexander and even Pyrrhus were greater than him.

Alexander's achievements in conquering most of the know world would rank him higher in my opinion than Hannibal....higher than anyone in history.

As for Hannibal not marching on Rome after cannae....sure I agree there were nightmare logistic problems for him to sort but maybe the Romans would have actually have talked with the Carthagian emissaries if the sight of Hannibal's army was within sight of the walls of Rome. After Canne, the romans simply refused to talk to Hannibal which was a total shock to the Carthagians as after all, after Cannae, there was no Roman army anymore.The panic from the citzens might have been enough to convince the senate to talk.......afterwards when Hannibal did move on Rome, it was too late, Rome had recovered from its panic.

It was always a source of great pride afterwards to the Romans that they never talked to Carthage after Cannae but would they have been so brave in the immediate days or weeks after Cannae if Hannibal was at the gates of Rome ?

A great what if from history..... :)

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Al Khalifah]

Hannibal was a brilliant general while he managed to hold the inniative in his campaigns. When he had momentum and was on a roll against the Romans, his successes simply bread further success. He was also the master of the defensive offence - making his opponents attack him, yet controlling the battle himself. Rome was a stalling point for Hannibal though and cost him the inniative. He failed to either capture the city or at least leave it impotent. It allowed the Romans to partly recover and the war of attrition they waged against Hannibal's massive supply lines meant that he became reactionary rather than pro-active. Eventually Scipio was able to force Hannibal to return to Africa by threatenning Carthage itself, where Scipio's careful study of Hannibal's tactics culminated in the victory at Zama.
Hannibal like so many military leaders in history was excellent when he was in control of the situation, but failed to regain control when events turned against him. His supply lines were too long and thin and were not adaquetly defended, which let the Romans wage a war of attrition against him, rather than face him in any more set piece battles. He is often seen as a logistical genius, but I personally think logistics were his great weakness. The elephants over the Alps story is true, but remember that the vast majority of the elephants died due to lack of food and the climate and that he didn't lead his men OVER the Alps, but rather navigated through them.

Alexander was fortunate enough to die young and so he never had his reputation as a general and a man soured by defeat or old age. I fimrly believe that if he had lived longer he would've cemented his control over much of his newly conquered Empire, but for a man so unwilling to delegate responsibilty to others to have maintained such a vast thin and expanse of land would be unlikely. He would've become reactionary and have had to spend his life dragging his army back and forth accross central Asia and Greece. I doubt he ever would've conquered India if he wanted to keep control over what was already his, though he probably would've conquered Arabia.
Alexander's real failure was to leave a dynasty behind to succeed him. This is a result of both his early death meaning his son was too young to immediately ascend and his unwillingness to name one of his companions as regent, except maybe Hephastion who died before Alexander. With such a vast empire up for grabs, anyone with sufficient power to raise an army soon divided his lands and a decade's hard work was thrown away. If he had lived long enough for his son to succeed him, there is no guarentee he would've been worthy of his father. Alexander was the product of a fine education in Greece and had fought in several campaigns before becoming king. His son might not had done. Henry V was a brilliant general and King of England who conquered France and had turned England from a European backwater into the most dominant force in Christendom. Henry VI threw all this away and by the end of his reign had lost all but Calais and parts of Aquitane in France and was forced into exile by disgruntled nobles.

In short, Hannibal lived long enough to see his achievements undone by a younger, superior general and student of his tactics like Pompey to Caesar. Alexander died in the height of his glory like Achillies.

[Colovion]

I hate this debate because it forgets that the Mongols. It forgets Ghengis Khan and Subatai particular; who were the greatest generals ever in the history of mankind... and that's not really something to be debated. They conquered more area, more people and more resources than anyone in history. Also - both Ghengis and Subatai never lost a battle. They fought battles as long as they were able, I believe Subatai went on campaign even into his 70's into south China against the Sung.

In any case, after reading Alexander's biography, I realized how ahead of his time in terms of creating a tolerant society under one rule, tolerant of all peoples and all religions. The Mongols were the same way, they were after conquest, and after they conquered - their kingdom was the most peaceful dominion ever created. It was said a virgin could walk from Persia to the shores of the Pacific with a sack of gold and not be harmed.

In the end, we know that all mentioned are great leaders of men, but it's very difficult to put them up against eachother seeing as their foes were very different.

In the end, both Hannibal and Alexander lost battles. Haha.

[Reverend Joe]

I hate this debate because it forgets that the Mongols. It forgets Ghengis Khan and Subatai particular; who were the greatest generals ever in the history of mankind... and that's not really something to be debated. They conquered more area, more people and more resources than anyone in history. Also - both Ghengis and Subatai never lost a battle. They fought battles as long as they were able, I believe Subatai went on campaign even into his 70's into south China against the Sung.

In any case, after reading Alexander's biography, I realized how ahead of his time in terms of creating a tolerant society under one rule, tolerant of all peoples and all religions. The Mongols were the same way, they were after conquest, and after they conquered - their kingdom was the most peaceful dominion ever created. It was said a virgin could walk from Persia to the shores of the Pacific with a sack of gold and not be harmed.

In the end, we know that all mentioned are great leaders of men, but it's very difficult to put them up against eachother seeing as their foes were very different.

In the end, both Hannibal and Alexander lost battles. Haha.

Let's imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if Hannibal commanded the Turko-mongolic armies... as far as Jenghis Khan got, I have a feeling that Hannibal could have gone further- hell, he could have created an empire stretching from Iberia to Japan!

What you are forgetting, dear sir, is that Hannibal had to work with what he got. I have no doubt that he would have rapidly adopted to and improved the famous tactics of the mongols. Alexander, on the other hand... well, you have a point with Alexander. He could have never equalled the achievements of the Mongols, even with the same army. I know that people seem to love and worship him, but consider this: Alexander never once had to work with an unruly, untrained army, whereas Hannibal achieved some of his greatest victories with men like this. Granted, he gave them some strict training first, but they never reached the fighting ability of the Maceonians or the Mongols. Like I said before, give Hannibal a mongol army, and he'll drive all the way to Japan.

[Wishazu]

[
In the end, both Hannibal and Alexander lost battles. Haha.[/QUOTE]

Which battle did alexander lose?

[BeeSting]

Let's imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if Hannibal commanded the Turko-mongolic armies... as far as Jenghis Khan got, I have a feeling that Hannibal could have gone further- hell, he could have created an empire stretching from Iberia to Japan!

He would have certainly won battles, but he wasn't a ruthless empire builder. So I doubt he would have gone further than Genghis Khan. Genghis would not have offered terms of peace to Rome after Cannae, he would have conquered it and massacre its population.

[EvilNed]

The elephants over the Alps story is true, but remember that the vast majority of the elephants died due to lack of food and the climate and that he didn't lead his men OVER the Alps, but rather navigated through them.

Not that many of the elephants died, mind you. A couple of them probably died crossing the alps, but none of them (not a single elephant) died while crossing the river Rhone. As a matter of fact, the elephants, the creature most unsuitable to the alps, were the ones that faired best. Horses, mercenaries etc. etc. were not so lucky.

The elephants died due to the winter in Italy, but this was after crossing the alps. Hannibals logistics had nothing to do with it.

I'm not an expert, but I was bored last Friday, and found a book about Hannibal were all this was mentioned. Yes! I finally get to back some shit up! ;)

As for the mongols: Djingis Khan and Subotai (especially the later) were indeed great generals. But it was not only their generalship that guaranteed their success: It was the mongols themselves. Remember, steppe people lived with their bows and horses. They trained with them from childhood. It was not like a chinese soldier, who'd practice swordsmanship now and then.

People always say that Djingis Khan and Subotai are great. I believe that people overrate them, and underrate the mongols.

[Titus Livius]

There are those who say that Rome could have scraped up an army of hundreds of thousands of men to combatant Hannibal. For the battle of Cannae, they pulled out 80000 men... So I wonder, where are all the sources that Rome could have gotten ahold of 100000 men AFTER Cannae? And if they could, why didn't they? They shouldn't have attacked Hannibal with it, but kept it in reserve.

The uniqueness of the Roman army during this period was that it had turned its citizen militia into a standing army that could hold its own against the professional armies of the world. It is estimated that Rome was able to call up as many as 700,000 men. But such a massive army would be unwieldy and logistics would prove to be a nightmare. Also, Hannibal had killed most of Rome's experience generals by this point, with the exception of the great Quintus Fabius Maximus, who was really the man responsible for keeping Hannibal from the gates. The core of Roman culture was its unwillingness to accept defeat in the face of incredible slaughter. They would simply come back again and again and again. This is how they became the greatest empire in history.

As for who was the better general, Alexander or Hannibal, I would have to say Alexander. Alexander was ALWAYS outnumbered and never lost a battle, for one thing, and for another he was able to push further east than any other Westerner before him. Many people overlook the brilliant diplomacy Alexander showed to the Persians, including placing a man who had fought against him as governor of a large city. Because they were so well treated Alexander was able to secure his flanks and rear, which in turn enabled him to push toward the Indus.

It should be noted, also, that the army of Hannibal was made up of large contingents of mercenaries. Carthage was a mercantile, maritime empire with precious few citizens (unlike Rome), and these were only liable to be called up when enemies approached Carthage herself. Carthage always had to rely heavily on mercenaries whenever it had to fight on land.

[Albino Gorilla]

The answer is pretty simple, Alexander was better because he won the war.

[Al Khalifah]

Surely Hannibal can't really be considered as the greatest general of all time because he was matched and deafeated by his own contemporary Scipio Africanus?

The Mongol Khans were excellent war leaders, but their conquests and empires were vastly linked to their lives. Whenever the Khan died nearly the entire army had to return home. This is why the Mongols never reached western Europe. Same as Alexander really, his empire was linked to his person and empires tied to personal powers are doomed to falter when their leader dies. Often a successor can emerge in such empires, but this can take time and the intermediary civil strife can put to waste much good work.

In short, many of the great generals discussed here failed to build lasting legacies because the greatness of their own kingdom was bound to their own mortality. In short, if you want to take all the glory of conquest and victory yourself, then the responsbility for its maintainance falls solely on your shoulders and if you cannot create a dynasty, all that will remain of your achievements will be legends and memmories.

The British Empire was able to remain so large for so long because by the time of its major expansion, military power was no longer in the hands of the King.

[Brutus]

Hannibal wasn't the leader of Carthage, mind you, so even if he had wun the war that wouldn't have meant he would have ruled a large empire.

About the Mongols, it seems to me highly unlikely that they would have been able to take western Europe if Ogadai Khan wouldn't have died. Europe's high density of cities (yes, back then already) as well as it's numerous rivers, islands and peninsulas would have made the manouvering Mongol armies needed pretty much impossible. If the Khan wouldn't have died by then, the Mongols would probably have remained a (admittedly, very serious) nuisance in eastern Europe.

[EvilNed]

I wonder if the mongols would manage to get past the turks... Hmm... A good battle, nonetheless!

[Browning]

They did - Timur in 1302.

[Al Khalifah]

After the Mongol defeat of the Hungarians, there were literally no mobilised armies against them before Paris or Rome. High density cities were of little concern to the Mongols, becuase they routinely destroyed or razed whatever they felt they would be unable to hold onto. Western Europe could not have mounted a united opposition to the Mongols as it was at war with itself. The English with the French and the Scots, Spain at war with itself and the Moors.

[Arrowhead]

What about Ceasar! ~:eek:

I think Vercingetorix was a incredible leader by almost disciplining his troops and almost beating Ceasar, who was a brilliant strategist and tactician.

All his great work was undone by the stupidity of his men.

[Longshanks]

Surely Hannibal can't really be considered as the greatest general of all time because he was matched and deafeated by his own contemporary Scipio Africanus?

Scipio had the superior army at Zama, and the defection of the Numidians all but sealed Carthage's fate. The other point I would make is that there never would have been a Zama if Hannibal wasn't hamstrung by politicians in Carthage. If Hannibal had been head of state like Alexander, Rome most likely loses the 2nd Punic War.

I personally think Hannibal was the greatest general in antiquity. Alexander was brilliant as well, but he commanded the world's best military machine at the time. His main enemy, the Persians, fielded little more than large peasant armies. Hannibal on the other hand commanded a motley force of mercenaries than was inferior to the legions commanded by Rome, and he defeated larger Roman armies repeatedly. In my opinion Hannibal's victories at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae have always been more impressive than any of Alexander's.

[Al Khalifah]

You can't just look at the battle of Zama itself as being Scipio's brilliance. A good general doesn't just go out and seek open battle and try to win. A good general manipulates the situation to force his opponent to make decisions which otherwise they wouldn't have to make. Look at Mao's early campaigns in China, he never offered open battles, only skirmishes, yet succesfully increased his power base while weakening his opponenets (perhaps he should be a candidate for greatest leader).

Scipio was brilliant because unlike the other Roman generals he didn't offer open set piece battles against Hannibal, but rather he attack his supply lines and Hannibal's resource centre allies in Spain. This forced Hannibal to become reactionary as he constantly had to try and reinforce his position while seeking an open battle. The attack on Africa was brilliant, because while Hannibal couldn't threaten the city of Rome due to the logistical difficulties of such a siege, Scipio was able to threaten the Carthaginian heartland itself. This meant Hannibal had to rush to Africa, meaning he couldn't consolidate his position there and that he wasn't in control of the situation.

From there look at what can follow: Rome had vastly more resources by this point to throw into the conflict than Carthage, so anything other than a decisive win for the Carthaginians where they capture or massacre the Roman army would pretty much mean the end of Hannibal's campaigns against Rome. Even a marginal victory or draw at Zama would probably have resulted in Carthage trying make peace with Rome on Rome's terms.
In short because of Scipio's excellent campaigning in the build up to Zama, winning the actual battle itself wasn't terribly important as long as sufficient casualties were inflicted on Hannibal's army. Scipio could always have retreated, regrouped and reassaulted. It's like Sun Tzu says, the good general has already won the battle before it begins. Scipio didn't fight battles, he fought wars.

[caesar44]

hanibaal smashed for 15 years the greatest power in the world (ever) but his city did not backed him , so he lost the war (not in zama but actually when he began the war in 218)
alexander conquered a persian empire in decline , his father philip could conquered persia the same way and even to establish a united empire for a long time
i raely dont think that the macedonoans could conquered a republican rome in the 4 and 3 centuries bce (phirhus tryed it and failed and he was a great general)
and you realy think that hanibaal coult not conquered persia ? the answer is simple - yes he could
..........
caesar was better then the 2 above , but this is another story
~:cheers: :book: ~:cheers:

[caesar44]

What about Ceasar! ~:eek:

I think Vercingetorix was a incredible leader by almost disciplining his troops and almost beating Ceasar, who was a brilliant strategist and tactician.

All his great work was undone by the stupidity of his men.

agree !!!!
yes , these are the names of the people who killed the greatest men in antiquity : marcus iuinius brutus , cassius longinus , brutus albinus ,
servilius casca , trebonius , tilius cimber and more
what was in their mind ? a yes to save the republic....................

[Longshanks]

Scipio was a brilliant general, and I hope my post wasn't mistaken as a criticism of his abilities. The point I was trying to make was that Hannibal never had the full support of his nation, and that ultimately doomed his Italian campaign. Contrast that with Alexander, who as head of state had access to all that his nation could throw against Persia. Had Hannibal been head of state like Alexander I doubt Rome would have escaped occupation.

[Craterus]

to put Ceaser, Scipio Africanus, Alexander, Hannibal in order of ability isn't weasy but at least it's established that all were great generals!