Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[Marshal Murat]

Two great Ancient Generals.

Please Vote

7 days of debate.
Feedback on this asked for.

[Boyar Son]

Cool 1st vote=100% Alexander!

They were both outnumbered, but Alexander still manged to defeat the enemy.

Also there will be a 100% chance some qoutes me and criticizes me.

[Czar Alexsandr]

Hanibal Barca.

Quite possibly the best general that has ever lived. Hanibal Barca's tactics were superb. Cannae is one of the most decisive battles in history I think. Well.. statistically anyways. Poor Hanibal wasn't given the appropriate follow through Carthage could have given him that would have probably made this battle a turning point in westren civilization.

But to me there's no comparison. Hanibal's an oridinary guy who doesn't go delusional and claim to be a god, or risk his life in risky and pointlessly stupid ways. (Alexander in India in case you want to check this.) And his tactics, are at least in my opinion, are far more astonishing than anything Alexander the rich boy did. What's not to love? A rough and tough General with no national support, who wins every battle though losing the war, and fights rome till he gets surrouned by an army in Turkey that followed him just to kill him. This guy's life would make a good movie.

[Kagemusha]

Where is the gah option?One who couldnt win a war and another who fought against inferior troops in all of his campaigns.Guess im just bitter that it will always turn like this.:shame:

[Conqueror]

Hannibal. Had he actually been a monarch ruling over the Carthaginian state (like Alexander was of Makedonia) then he would have defeated the Romans.

[Gurkhal]

I think it would be a very tight fight, but I do belive that Alexander would win out in the end, even if not largly. While Hannibal was a fine general I do belive that Alexander would've had an edge on him. Even if small.

[Whacker]

I'd say it's close as well, but had to go with Hannibal.

The reason I say that is because it would seem from reading that Alexander's strengths were mainly his "charisma" and ability to rule and influence others, and much of his prowess seemed to also derive from his supremely talented generals would later become the Diaodochi (sp?).

Hannibal on the other hand was a one man show, as I understand it. It's a testament that he managed to keep the romans on their toes, defeat them time and again, but was ultimately undone by the weakness of the Carthaginian state as opposed to his own abilities. Also as I read it, Zama was as much a direct result of Scipio's brilliance (in learning from and how to counter Hannibal's tactics directly) as Hannibal having a large group of fresh/green/inexperienced troops, as most of his veterans had been lost in his Italian campaign.

Both were brilliant in their own ways, but in terms of generalship, I'd say Hannibal has the edge. Plus his name just sounds cooler, the lame Hannibal Lector nonwithstanding.

:balloon2:

[Marshal Murat]

There is no gah option.
Choose one or the other.

Six Days left.

[AntiochusIII]

the lame Hannibal Lector nonwithstanding.I desperately despise that lame crap. Especially my prominent dislike of supposedly indefatigable characters with a distinctly lack of human morality that are still worshiped as "cool." That and he blasphemes the great name of Hannibal. When I say Hannibal I mean the great Carthaginian general, not the pop culture product serial killer, dammit!

[/rant]

This guy's life would make a good movie.Not with Vin Diesel, no. :smash:

As for the vote: I can't vote. I haven't been there with either and couldn't really appreciate their true genius, especially compare to more modern generals...these two leave very few contemporary sources of their historic selves and what contemporary sources are available tend to be highly biased. That means I can't really go look at the Italian campaign and truly understands how Hannibal moves his army around and what he is doing or observe Alexander on whether he really is worthy of the Great King title or not.

[Innocentius]

I've said before and I'll say it again: antiquity is overrated (and its generals and other military commanders in particular). Hannibal got my vote though, it was bad vs. worse, so bad won:wall:

[Boyar Son]

Alaxander defeated elephants!

Hannibal defeated a Roman army.

[Boyar Son]

Alaxander defeated elephants!

Hannibal used them.

[IrishArmenian]

Hannibal!

[Martok]

I voted Alexander.

Even granting that Hannibal may have faced a slightly tougher time than his counterpart, the fact remains that Alexander largely succeeded in his goal, whereas Barca did not. When you add in the fact that Darius and the Persians enjoyed such an enormous advantage in resources over the Macedonians (money, men, material, etc.) -- and that Alexander still triumphed -- that's simply amazing.

I don't think it matters that much that he faced inferior forces (a point I contend, by the way). The odds were still so overwhelmingly against him -- even more so than the odds faced by Hannibal -- that for me, it simply isn't much of a contest. Regardless of what excuses one makes for Hannibal, he still lost in the end. Alexander, on the other hand, never lost a major engagement.

[Slug For A Butt]

I voted Alexander.

Even granting that Hannibal may have faced a slightly tougher time than his counterpart, the fact remains that Alexander largely succeeded in his goal, whereas Barca did not. When you add in the fact that Darius and the Persians enjoyed such an enormous advantage in resources over the Macedonians (money, men, material, etc.) -- and that Alexander still triumphed -- that's simply amazing.

I don't think it matters that much that he faced inferior forces (a point I contend, by the way). The odds were still so overwhelmingly against him -- even more so than the odds faced by Hannibal -- that for me, it simply isn't much of a contest. Regardless of what excuses one makes for Hannibal, he still lost in the end. Alexander, on the other hand, never lost a major engagement.

Alexander succeeded with his aggressive foreign policy against a foe that was pretty much tailor made for him. Lighter infantry in the centre and inferior heavy cavalry on the flanks, and an obvious naivety about how to fight Greek armies. There is no doubting that Alexander was an excellent General, but I would doubt him against a battlefield guerilla tactician like Hannibal.
I would also suggest that Hannibal faced more overwhelming odds than Alexander. He wasn't facing lightly armoured "part time" type soldiers, he was facing a well disciplined, well ordered and experienced fighting machine that outnumbered him greatly and went on to subjugate most of the known world.
It should also be remembered that the bulk of Hannibals army was disparate mercenaries as Carthage didn't have much of an army herself. But he still managed to humble the Romans whenever he met them.
You also say that "Regardless of what excuses one makes for Hannibal, he still lost in the end"... how is this? He was politically set up to be beaten, are we talking about a General or a politician here?
My vote goes for Hannibal, although I think Alexander and Caesar are worthy of being mentioned in the same breath.

[Slug For A Butt]

I've said before and I'll say it again: antiquity is overrated (and its generals and other military commanders in particular). Hannibal got my vote though, it was bad vs. worse, so bad won:wall:
I have to take issue with this.
Are modern day Generals better because they have more time to make decisions while sat in their bunkers a million miles from the action?
Are modern day Generals better because they can play a strategic game that involves no risk to their own soldiers because they have longer range missiles and strategic long range bombers?
Are modern day Generals just armchair Generals that would not dare to step into the shoes of Generals of antiquity such as Alexander, Aëtius and Caesar? Let alone make instant, self life threatening battle winning decisions like them?
I see Generals of antiquity as real Generals and modern day Generals as Politician-Generals.

[Czar Alexsandr]

Exactally. Hanibal Barca was fighting Rome. Profesional soldiers backed by the most powerful economy of it's day. Alexander's enemies weren't as united and as dedicated to defeating him. Rome concentrated all the power they could muster on Hanibal on occasion. I believe right before Cannae they mustered the largest levy they'd ever raised up until that time.

Admitedly Alexander did conquer a lot of land and Hanibal didn't. But Alexander had the entire power of the nation he was the head of behind him. Hanibal was reluctantly given whatever he was given and never got what he asked from his nation. Now.. I know it's a what if, but what if Hanibal didn't have to ask anything of anybody? I'f he was the unqestioned leader of his people? I don't think it's a huge stretch to say he'd at least have accomplished more than he did. In fact I believe he could have beat Rome. If he did this he would then have the largest treasury in the known world. Having the power and the will to conquer.. he very well could have carved out one of the huge empires we admire.

[Whacker]

Even granting that Hannibal may have faced a slightly tougher time than his counterpart, the fact remains that Alexander largely succeeded in his goal, whereas Barca did not.

IMO, I think this is completely unfair and shouldn't really be used to judge their tactical and strategic prowess. The reason was Alexander was a monarch who could and did keep his nation and underlings in check (for the most part) to accomplish his goals. Hannibal on the other hand was not the head of state of Carthage, and was consistently hamstrung by them when he needed their support the most. Also, Hannibal arguably "succeeded" in his goal which was to hamstring/defeat Rome, there's a reason why he had free reign in Italy for quite a few years. Rome itself wasn't defeated obviously, and was obviously able to recover and even launch a counterattack which in of itself is a true testament to Rome's will and strength, which in my view makes Hannibal's victories all that much greater.


When you add in the fact that Darius and the Persians enjoyed such an enormous advantage in resources over the Macedonians (money, men, material, etc.) -- and that Alexander still triumphed -- that's simply amazing.

Hannibal also arguably was facing a superior foe due to the frequently furtive and insubstantial support he had (or didn't have) from Carthage itself.


I don't think it matters that much that he faced inferior forces (a point I contend, by the way). The odds were still so overwhelmingly against him -- even more so than the odds faced by Hannibal -- that for me, it simply isn't much of a contest.

"In war, numbers alone confer no advantage." - Sun Tzu.

This coupled with the fact that the Persians never seemed to learn a very good lesson against the moving front of a phalanx would lead me to agree with you about inferiority, in terms of learning from one's mistakes. This, the unbeatable-from-the-front phalanx, combined with superior use of cavalry against an ill-prepared foe is what gave him victory time and time again. It should also be mentioned that Alexander was able to bolster his forces with varying degrees of significance after each nation was defeated. Thus, instead of being constantly depleted (which he was), he was able to replenish his ranks at periodic intervals. Hannibal had no such luxury that I am aware of.


Regardless of what excuses one makes for Hannibal, he still lost in the end. Alexander, on the other hand, never lost a major engagement.

I still say this is unfair, for the above reasoning.

:balloon2:

Edit - One point I will concede for Alexander. He had to face legions of stinky camels, the smell would have undoubtedly made his job that much harder. :hide: :grin:

[Innocentius]

I have to take issue with this.
Are modern day Generals better because they have more time to make decisions while sat in their bunkers a million miles from the action?
Are modern day Generals better because they can play a strategic game that involves no risk to their own soldiers because they have longer range missiles and strategic long range bombers?
Are modern day Generals just armchair Generals that would not dare to step into the shoes of Generals of antiquity such as Alexander, Aëtius and Caesar? Let alone make instant, self life threatening battle winning decisions like them?
I see Generals of antiquity as real Generals and modern day Generals as Politician-Generals.

Well, I never said anything about modern day generals. In fact the only historical period I find less interesting than antiquity must be the 20th century. I don't know why, but I've just never been fashinated by half-naked men wielding two foot swords made out of bronze running around in their sandals in a largely uninhabitated world only to be remembered as the greatest commanders of all time. What I particulary dislike is the fact the numbers in antique battles are always exaggerated.
No, I don't know. I just have some kind of general disliking for anything that took place before the invention of chainmail (before that all warriors looked basically silly).

[Incongruous]

Before the invention of chainmail? A joke?
You know that people were wearing chainmail by the time of the Punic wars?
Again, was that a joke?:inquisitive:

[nokhor]

in terms of personality, hannibal seems to me to have been a more humane person than alexander, he did less of the 'slaughter the entire city after taken it by force' thing than either his enemies or alexander. both were loved by their men, but hannibal's side was losing for most of his war and his men still stuck by him. alexander's core of his army was always macedonian, whereas the carthahagnian part of hannibal's army was miniscule. his truly was a multinational army and he kept them all united.

in terms of strategy, both were for attacking the enemy on their home turf, and for detaching the periphery before going for the enemy's capital so i think that's a wash.

as for tactics hannibal created one of the most emulated tactics ever, when with a smaller force he surrounded and annihilated a larger force. alexander would usually charge for the enemy center and once he broke that, the rest of the opposing force would flee. so in terms of generalizations, hannibal was of the sun tzu school and alexander was a clausewitzian. i would vote for alexander purely for the variety of different enemies he defeated.

they both besieged fortified cities, hannibal had a mixed success rate, alexander was almost universally successful as a besieger. they both fought in mountains with success. they both fought on flat terrain with success. but alexander also did several forced river crossing battles. hannibal fought against tribes in iberia and gaul, and against roman heavy infantry. alexander fought sucessfully against tribes in the balkans, against city state phalanxes, against persian levies, against indian levies, against elephants, against scythed chariots, and against steppe cavalry and varied his tactics against each. we don't know how hannibal would done against those specialized units or in the topography that alexander got to but hannibal didn't. i tend to think that hannibal would have done as well but who can say. so for me, alexander wins out between the two primarily because of the variety of enemies he won and geography of the places he beat them in.

but as for personal preference, i'm gonna go along what AntiochusIII said. as for me, i much prefer my modern conveniences like indoor plumbing.

[Innocentius]

Before the invention of chainmail? A joke?
You know that people were wearing chainmail by the time of the Punic wars?
Again, was that a joke?:inquisitive:

I'm well aware that the Roman legions at least used chainmal extensively, but it wasn't intended as a joke, no. Isn't the Roman period late antiquity?

[KARTLOS]

alexander, the guy consistently over-achieved, successfully besting a wide range of opponents.

hannibal is a classic example of winning the battle(s) but not the war. Undoubtebly he was a tactical genius. However there must be some doubts - it is possible to wonder whether he couldnt could have done better in the circumstances - the question would not really be apropriate for alexander.

[hellenes]

Hannibal was a great tactitian but wasnt that good strategos (general in greek)...
I bet that If Alexander's army invaded Italy at that time he would simply steamroller the Romans AND most importantly TAKE Rome...
The Iberian mercenaries of Hannibal refused to work at siege digs thats why he lacked an important part of warfare: SIEGE...
Alexander took Tyrus, Sogdana and alot of more places...Thats why hes superior...

[AntiochusIII]

Hannibal was a great tactitian but wasnt that good strategos (general in greek)...
I bet that If Alexander's army invaded Italy at that time he would simply steamroller the Romans AND most importantly TAKE Rome...
The Iberian mercenaries of Hannibal refused to work at siege digs thats why he lacked an important part of warfare: SIEGE...
Alexander took Tyrus, Sogdana and alot of more places...Thats why hes superior...Capua and Tarentum, two of the most important cities in Italy, fell to Hannibal at their respective times. His diplomacy was superior enough to bypass costly, bogged-down sieges. One must consider that he was a one man show in hostile territory: a steady siege is out of the question, the enemy will not hesitate to throw everything they ever have at him and he would have to fight a losing war of attrition without his most crucial advantage, maneuverability.

And I'm not sure what's the deal with the "Hannibal's a terrible strategist" thing, but large scale maneuvering I certainly count as part of strategy and not battlefield tactics...he continuously evaded and crushed Roman legions for more than a decade!

In fact, I believe I've read somewhere that the "betrayal" of Capua temporarily damaged Rome's economy so great that the Romans, "for the first time," had to develop a decent "economy" in their home city to continue providing for the war effort instead of relying on their Italian allies forever.

Mind you, I still think he was sort of really really reckless in his youth. One must remember that it was the youthful Barcid general that crossed the Ebro in the first place; though it was Rome who declared the war "to save their ally," the first provocation was clearly his. And his legendary march into Italy cost a helluva lot to the point that the massive 100,000 man army he gathered (supposedly) came down from the Alps with only 20,000+ among them.

[RabidGibbon]

An overly simplistic comparison perhaps but,

How many Hellenistic Armies were defeated by Persian Armies?

When Greeks fight Persians the Persians tend to come off rather the worst. Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon & Plataea as well as the victories of the Delian leauge after 479.

How Many Roman Armies were defeated by Carthiginian Armies?

Roman Armies beat Carthiginian Armies in Spain, Africa and Sicily - The Greeks in Sicily beat the tar out of the invading Carthaginians, Agathocles of Syracuse counter invaded Carthage whilst syracuse was under siege - The Carthaginians seem to have been very good at economics and not so hot at war.

Hannibal seems to have raised an army that reversed that trend, beating the Romans time after time. Roman armies were only beaten by Carthage when Hannibal was in charge, whereas Persian armies were just cannon fodder for Hellenic types.

However its worth pointing out that the Roman Armies Hannibal faced were NOT the professional legions of later years. They were essentially millita forces who had a little training and were rapidly recruited and thrown into the meat grinder. The Only tactic that a Roman Leader of this era had was to advance and rely on his heavy infantry breaking the centre, it seems that Hannibal figured this out and exploited it remorslesly, I cant imagine that Alexander wouldn't have made the same calculation.

So in conclusion I'm saying

'Gosh, they were both very clever Generals!'

[MilesGregarius]

An overly simplistic comparison perhaps but,

How many Hellenistic Armies were defeated by Persian Armies?

When Greeks fight Persians the Persians tend to come off rather the worst. Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon & Plataea as well as the victories of the Delian leauge after 479.

How Many Roman Armies were defeated by Carthiginian Armies?

Roman Armies beat Carthiginian Armies in Spain, Africa and Sicily - The Greeks in Sicily beat the tar out of the invading Carthaginians, Agathocles of Syracuse counter invaded Carthage whilst syracuse was under siege - The Carthaginians seem to have been very good at economics and not so hot at war.

Hannibal seems to have raised an army that reversed that trend, beating the Romans time after time. Roman armies were only beaten by Carthage when Hannibal was in charge, whereas Persian armies were just cannon fodder for Hellenic types.

However its worth pointing out that the Roman Armies Hannibal faced were NOT the professional legions of later years. They were essentially millita forces who had a little training and were rapidly recruited and thrown into the meat grinder. The Only tactic that a Roman Leader of this era had was to advance and rely on his heavy infantry breaking the centre, it seems that Hannibal figured this out and exploited it remorslesly, I cant imagine that Alexander wouldn't have made the same calculation.

So in conclusion I'm saying

'Gosh, they were both very clever Generals!'

Yup, coin toss.

[Lord Winter]

I have to take issue with this.
Are modern day Generals better because they have more time to make decisions while sat in their bunkers a million miles from the action?
Are modern day Generals better because they can play a strategic game that involves no risk to their own soldiers because they have longer range missiles and strategic long range bombers?
Are modern day Generals just armchair Generals that would not dare to step into the shoes of Generals of antiquity such as Alexander, Aëtius and Caesar? Let alone make instant, self life threatening battle winning decisions like them?
I see Generals of antiquity as real Generals and modern day Generals as Politician-Generals.

Okay, I'll bite
First of all I would like to say just because you can fight and kill in a battle dosn't make you a great general. They are two completly different sets of skill.
The modern day battlefield is vastly different from that of the Anquity. In fact it is much more dangourous. Causilty rates are much higher and the pace is faster. Even when out of derict "combat" their is the chance of a artillary shell, missle ect hiting thier HQ and possiably killing them. The battle field in modern times has not been made smaller because of tanks, radio and ect but larger. Of course this is not to say that they have an much eaiser time then the average gurnt.

Lastly I think your sterotyping anquity generals as they only ones who led from the front. If you look their are scores of other examples: Patton, Rommel, gardiun you could go on all day if needed.

Both Alexander and Hannibal were great generals but I think people are to quick to declare them the best.

[Tamur]

How did we end up with the two generals least likely to stop for tea? Nelson still gets my vote.

[Czar Alexsandr]

I think we can all agree that while Alexander got everything he wanted Hanibal was lucky to get a postcard from the head of Carthage. :laugh4:

So.. I think an interesting question is who would win if Hanibal and Alexander were given equal or nearly equal armies and fought each other on a level plain with clear weather.

It's interesting isn't it. Hanibal has his elite African troops, Elephants, and the Numidian cavalry against Alexander's Phalank and his famous Companion cavalry. It would be a very interesting battle!

Now... my prediction is that Hanibal would use a Cannae type envelopment. (almost every battle was an envelopment or flanking from the right or left flank.) This would bassicaly end up with Hanibal's common soldiers fighting the phalank while the african (his elite core of Carthaginians.) fighting the right flank while the Numidian's engaged the phalank from the rear while also fighting the companion cavalry. The end result as I see it is one very tired but victorious Carthaginin army. And... I never even thought about the elephants! He'd probably unleash thosse first but I doubt they'd be very tactically important. His cavalry and infantry tactics would likely be more decisive. Of course this is just my pro-hanibal prediction! Feel free to debate it or offer your support.

[Tran]

Here's my opinion:

Alexander vs Hannibal? I was hoping the final round will be Alexander (the-always-undefeated army commander) versus Nelson (the-always-undefeated naval commander). Even though they fought on completely different places and terrain, but that's what I called INTERESTING! But the final round turned out to be different...

Alexander vs Hannibal? I think they both are brilliant and both are very capable military commanders. Hmm...I read that many people go and throw their support for their Hannibal because he was nobody becoming somebody with brilliant military leadership and strategy, as oppose to Alexander who is already somebody on top of the society. Well, that's true but here's what I think: Hannibal is from an empire who is already existed for more than 5 centuries, the Carthaginian Empire has existed since I believed 700 BC and based from Phoenician Kingdom far longer than that, basically he lives in an already well-established empire with significant territories and influences around Mediterranean. Compare to Alexander, he is from a relatively small kingdom of Macedonia with little-to-no influence and territories outside Greek. A small kingdom that's constantly being harassed and even came under attack from the big and mighty Persian Empire.

Hannibal fought the enemy of Carthage which is small (Rome) at the beginning which managed to grow larger, then beaten back by Hannibal for some times, only to grow larger again later and wipe Carthage out of existance. Hannibal failed to prevent this (and the empire collapsed).
Alexander on the other hand, with his small kingdom managed to subdued and or conquer its neighbouring territories and kingdoms, many are bigger and stronger, and driven back the mighty Persian Empire to its homeland, and even later annexed Egypt. Now that's what I called something! Alexander turned his small kingdom into a huge empire covering the know world at that time. Despite of his empire collapsed (Carthage collapsed too, remember?) after his death because he didn't choose a successor, he did tremendous jobs taking land after lands and put them into his empire, all started from his small kingdom inherited by his father.

Therefore, my vote goes to Alexander the Great

[Rodion Romanovich]

A nice tie ~:)

[Tran]

Well, you can never really compare two mighty generals who are destined to be written on the very page of history :grin:

[CaesarAugustus]

Well you're probably right about the elephants not having much effect, Czar Alexandr, since they never seemed to be a problem for Alexander in India.... Of course Hannibal would ideally choose territory that was to his advantage, not a flat, open plain.

They were both brilliant generals and leaders with many strengths and few weaknesses. I object to having a poll that basicallys says: "who is better, Hannibal or Alexander?" However, based on many above posts and my own opinion that Alexander had a bigger impact on the ancient world (Greek empires ruled most of the known world, Alexander idolized by Romans etc, wheras Carthage was destroyed and their culture did not survive, through no fault of Hannibal's, of course), my vote went to Megas Alexandros. I really think that there should be a Gah! option, though.

[Azi Tohak]

Ha! Dead even with my vote. 20 to 20!

I vote for Hannibal. A superior tactician I think, but misjudged his enemy strategically. Alexander knew exactly what he had to do... but a simple charge is hardly the most brilliant tactic I've ever heard of.

Azi

[Conradus]

Hmm, seems like my vote is decisive at the moment.

I choose Alexander, though I preferred Julius over him...

Alexander managed to conquer the known world, with only the backup of a small kingdom and warmongering city-states in Greece. He destroyed a mammoth of the ancient world, who was at the time, still the most powerfull empire of the Western till Middle-Eastern world.
Alexander was able to sometimes choose his battelground, but even at Gaugamela or Issus, where Darius had the upper grounds, superior numbers and other advantages at his side, Alexander triumphed. Hannibal chose his battleground carefully and though he at first destroyed a lot of Rome's military power, he failed when it really mattered. Rome, Zama. Arguably Alexander never lost a battle and when judging the better general, that counts a lot.

[hellenes]

Capua and Tarentum, two of the most important cities in Italy, fell to Hannibal at their respective times. His diplomacy was superior enough to bypass costly, bogged-down sieges. One must consider that he was a one man show in hostile territory: a steady siege is out of the question, the enemy will not hesitate to throw everything they ever have at him and he would have to fight a losing war of attrition without his most crucial advantage, maneuverability.

And I'm not sure what's the deal with the "Hannibal's a terrible strategist" thing, but large scale maneuvering I certainly count as part of strategy and not battlefield tactics...he continuously evaded and crushed Roman legions for more than a decade!

In fact, I believe I've read somewhere that the "betrayal" of Capua temporarily damaged Rome's economy so great that the Romans, "for the first time," had to develop a decent "economy" in their home city to continue providing for the war effort instead of relying on their Italian allies forever.

Mind you, I still think he was sort of really really reckless in his youth. One must remember that it was the youthful Barcid general that crossed the Ebro in the first place; though it was Rome who declared the war "to save their ally," the first provocation was clearly his. And his legendary march into Italy cost a helluva lot to the point that the massive 100,000 man army he gathered (supposedly) came down from the Alps with only 20,000+ among them.

Hannibal's army was seriously incapable of sieging strong fortified positions...Alexander had taken the Sogdiana and Tyre teh first one being a VERY steep rock and he used the soldiers that were from mountainus areas of Greece to clinb on the rock the Persians where surprised and the city was taken...
In Tyre he built a damp to connect the city and was succesful...
Also I doubt that Hannibal would have any chance against Alexander's superior cavalry and the bristling points of phalanx...

[Czar Alexsandr]

Alexander was a very impressive man. His determination and will are amazing. The Siege of Tyre where he built the stone bridge is just amazing. The mountainus troops being employed as there were is new to me though. That would be like.. special forces of the Antiquity period. Now that is a very good tactical idea.

But if the question is who is the better tactician, and that's the way I interpret general, than I'd still have to say Hanibal did that job better. As for the charge that Hanibal wouldn't stand a chance against phalank.. well to my knowledge Hanibal engages infantry from the rear in all of his battles. This would be quite disconcerting for Alexander. And the Companion cavalry was very good but so was Hanibal's Numidian cavalry. Since Hanibal always uses tactical manuevers and flanking positions in battle Alexander's phalank and Companion cavalry are fighting in a unfamiliar situation to say the least. I'd say Hanibal's tactics would just put him an edge over Alexander, who very talented, has yet to shine with the tactical brilliance I've seen in Hanibal's stratigies.

[Warluster]

As many have pointed out, ALexander fought against the elephants,whereas Hannibal used them.

Elephants mainly defeated the large force at Cannae.


I believe right before Cannae they mustered the largest levy they'd ever raised up until that time.

So what?
Eg. I could say I jsut jumped the longest I ever did, but what if i've never jumped before?

[AntiochusIII]

Elephants mainly defeated the large force at Cannae.I thought he lost 'em all by that time...?

[Warluster]

~:doh: :fortune: *cough *cough*

Well...

Um...Hm....Now...ah...uh...

*cough *cough*

Well anyway, someone already said, they were just miltia the Romans!

[MilesGregarius]

Also I doubt that Hannibal would have any chance against Alexander's superior cavalry and the bristling points of phalanx...

I won't take sides in the Hannibal/Alexander debate (Six of one...) but by Hannibal's time, the phalanx was no longer cutting edge (it was in fact nearing obsolescence), so no doubt Hannibal (or any competent Roman or Carthaginian general) would have at least been tactically aware how to fight phalanx tactics. Also, Alexander's cavalry would no longer have posed the same qualitative advantage as it once did.

And if the argument is that Alexander is the superior general, stating that his troops were inherently invincible does little to make the case.

[hellenes]

I won't take sides in the Hannibal/Alexander debate (Six of one...) but by Hannibal's time, the phalanx was no longer cutting edge (it was in fact nearing obsolescence), so no doubt Hannibal (or any competent Roman or Carthaginian general) would have at least been tactically aware how to fight phalanx tactics. Also, Alexander's cavalry would no longer have posed the same qualitative advantage as it once did.

And if the argument is that Alexander is the superior general, stating that his troops were inherently invincible does little to make the case.

But its the combined arms approach...Alexander had thought alongside with his men for 17 years he knew them and they knew him...
Also dont underestimate the age of the general would a 25 years old Hannibal do better than Alexander? Is eriously doubt it...

[CaesarAugustus]

I really don't think the general's age should have anything to do with which one is better.

[Boyar Son]

I really don't think the general's age should have anything to do with which one is better.

I think it had to do with something.....

Alexander captured an island by building a causeway which the enemy attacked him while under construction!!!

He took a city hiiiggghh in the cliffs!!!

comon people....

[AggonyDuck]

But its the combined arms approach...Alexander had thought alongside with his men for 17 years he knew them and they knew him...
Also dont underestimate the age of the general would a 25 years old Hannibal do better than Alexander? Is eriously doubt it...

Mind you, both Hannibal and Alexander were very young generals. Hannibal at Cannae was 31-years old, while Alexander was 25 at the time of Gaugamela. Their relatively young age is really a testament to their natural great skill.

[hellenes]

Mind you, both Hannibal and Alexander were very young generals. Hannibal at Cannae was 31-years old, while Alexander was 25 at the time of Gaugamela. Their relatively young age is really a testament to their natural great skill.

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...

[Boyar Son]

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...


Yes I heard when Alexander returened he would launch campaigns to conquer Carthage.

[Sarmatian]

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...

Alexander inherited organized country and great generals. His army was of great quality and it's core was greek and he fought against inferior enemy.

Hannibal didn't have support from carthage, his army was was multilingual (sp?) and multicultural and he had roman army as his opponent. To unite men of different race, culture, religion, language etc... into an army is not a small feat.

To sum it up, Alexander was backed by a great nation. Hannibal was on his own.

[hellenes]

Alexander inherited organized country and great generals. His army was of great quality and it's core was greek and he fought against inferior enemy.

Hannibal didn't have support from carthage, his army was was multilingual (sp?) and multicultural and he had roman army as his opponent. To unite men of different race, culture, religion, language etc... into an army is not a small feat.

To sum it up, Alexander was backed by a great nation. Hannibal was on his own.

While I can see your point you shouldnt overlook these parameters:
- Makedonia wasnt as rich or strong as one may percieve AFTER Alexander's conquests, the phalanx was mainly made of farmers and sheepherders even more the back ranks were VERY lightly armored since Philippos didnt have the money to arm them all, the image of uber Spartan soldiers trained from the age of 7 is out of question as out of question is the image of uber hoplites armed from top to the toe in bronze...

- Also AFTER the event its very easy to diminish the strengh of the Persian Empire and army, this army hold the one of the greatest empires the planet has ever seen it conquered this land not just by luck...At Gaugamela the Persian had 250.000 troops (this is a number agreed upon by the majority of important academics and historians) and deadly chariots which Alexander's genious found a way to counter...as he countered the missile advantage of the Persians...Also Alexander countered the VERY capable and strong Persian cavalry (which by teh way teh Romans really lacked) AND the fact that he was to be outflanked and ecircled by the MUCH wider Persian front....

- Makedonia and the rest of Greece wasnt as united and merry as one may think AFTER the event...The moment the Athenians got a hint of his death they rebelled also as far as support from Greece, the Spartans didnt participate in the campaign and Antipatros didnt have troops to spare AND keep the rest of Greece at check

Thus I believe that one shouldnt merely be awed by the overblown strength and uberness of the Romans as the enemy and at the same time diminish and disregard the strength of the Persians...

[Marshal Murat]

Sorry that I'm adding to this discussion. Then again, Hannibal is a God of War.

Chariots were outdated weapons.
Darius was a spoiled idiot who didn't listen to some wise advice from a couple Greek mercs (neither did his satraps)
Alexander got a bunch of experianced generals (Parmenion) and a force created for the war in Persia.

If you beat up twenty idiots, are you special?

[hellenes]

Sorry that I'm adding to this discussion. Then again, Hannibal is a God of War.

Chariots were outdated weapons.
Darius was a spoiled idiot who didn't listen to some wise advice from a couple Greek mercs (neither did his satraps)
Alexander got a bunch of experianced generals (Parmenion) and a force created for the war in Persia.

If you beat up twenty idiots, are you special?

I think that overgeneralised misconceptions add nothing to a historical debate....
I would advise you to read up a bit more on Alexander's campaign I can assure you that youre going to be surprised...

[Marshal Murat]

I have read both sides.

I say that chariots are outdated weapons.
They are.

They were used at Kadesh to great effect. Mobile forces of warriors, swirling in the desert. Then came the peltast, javelin, spear, and organized combat. Kill the horses, the chariots are useless. By Darius' time, the weapons were at least a century old and outdated if not older.

Most of Alexanders generals were experianced.
Ptolemy
Parmenio
Probably three or four more.

His army, while as you say, probably farmers and shepherds, they were trained very nicely. They could stay in formation, rotate, fight, camp, and wear bronze helmets and greaves. His cavalry were heavy shock troops, professional soldiers.
The phalanx wasn't required to do much more than march forward or stay put, or besiege a city.

Roman armies were effective tools that could defeat a:
Phalanx (Dog's Head battle in Greek), Pydna, Battle of Magnesia (?)
Gauls/Germans/Samnites (Battle of Trifanum, Battle that was on Time Commanders, the one against the invading Gauls, where the 2 Roman armies crushed them)
Iberians (Scipio campaigns, later battles against the Spanish)

All 3 were present in Hannibal's Army. Hannibal's leadership and ability combined those 3 forces into 1 army. He then added some decent cavalry (light Numidians, medium Gauls and Iberians), slingers/archers.
Under his brother, they were defeated, both in Spain and Italy.

Darius was a coward. He didn't consider Alexander a threat (which he should have, given the invasion army prepared against him), didn't train his army to fight Alexander, his army were levies from Phoenician, Cilicia, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, Scythia, and some other satraps. They were farmers, sheepherders, given spears, a shield, and lined up. A multi-national force. Then he brings in the noble knights, who care more about their own glory than really being 1 of a team (kinda like some rampaging, pillaging Gauls under Brennus. Except the Gauls would hit the baggage train or kill the enemy general) The soldiers in Hannibal's army were shepherds (Iberians), farmers (Gauls), desert herders (Numidians).

The campaigns in Afghanistan are no doubt exaggerated, and while I can't think that they were easy, Alexander was fighting a disjointed, uncoordinated foe. Once he hit some serious trouble in India (professional army, elephants, cavalry), what happened? He won the battle through personal bravery, like two other battles, and it got the men so riled, they wanted to turn back, not because they wanted to go sheep-farming again, but because they were tired.

If you win battles by personal charges of your cavalry, you either
1.Die
2.Win

At Granicus River, Alexander was almost killed.
At Issus, he got across the river, and into the Persians, who fled after Darius took flight.

The personal bravado is a hit or miss strategy, something that Hannibal didn't chance because of that sort of thing happening. His death, the chance.

Hannibal fought across just as varied terrain as well. Mountains of the Apennines, fields of the Po Valley. Mountainous Alps in the Winter. Forests of Lake Trasminie.

My vote is for Hannibal.

[hellenes]

I have read both sides.

I say that chariots are outdated weapons.
They are.

They were used at Kadesh to great effect. Mobile forces of warriors, swirling in the desert. Then came the peltast, javelin, spear, and organized combat. Kill the horses, the chariots are useless. By Darius' time, the weapons were at least a century old and outdated if not older.

Most of Alexanders generals were experianced.
Ptolemy
Parmenio
Probably three or four more.

His army, while as you say, probably farmers and shepherds, they were trained very nicely. They could stay in formation, rotate, fight, camp, and wear bronze helmets and greaves. His cavalry were heavy shock troops, professional soldiers.
The phalanx wasn't required to do much more than march forward or stay put, or besiege a city.

Roman armies were effective tools that could defeat a:
Phalanx (Dog's Head battle in Greek), Pydna, Battle of Magnesia (?)
Gauls/Germans/Samnites (Battle of Trifanum, Battle that was on Time Commanders, the one against the invading Gauls, where the 2 Roman armies crushed them)
Iberians (Scipio campaigns, later battles against the Spanish)

All 3 were present in Hannibal's Army. Hannibal's leadership and ability combined those 3 forces into 1 army. He then added some decent cavalry (light Numidians, medium Gauls and Iberians), slingers/archers.
Under his brother, they were defeated, both in Spain and Italy.

Darius was a coward. He didn't consider Alexander a threat (which he should have, given the invasion army prepared against him), didn't train his army to fight Alexander, his army were levies from Phoenician, Cilicia, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, Scythia, and some other satraps. They were farmers, sheepherders, given spears, a shield, and lined up. A multi-national force. Then he brings in the noble knights, who care more about their own glory than really being 1 of a team (kinda like some rampaging, pillaging Gauls under Brennus. Except the Gauls would hit the baggage train or kill the enemy general) The soldiers in Hannibal's army were shepherds (Iberians), farmers (Gauls), desert herders (Numidians).

The campaigns in Afghanistan are no doubt exaggerated, and while I can't think that they were easy, Alexander was fighting a disjointed, uncoordinated foe. Once he hit some serious trouble in India (professional army, elephants, cavalry), what happened? He won the battle through personal bravery, like two other battles, and it got the men so riled, they wanted to turn back, not because they wanted to go sheep-farming again, but because they were tired.

If you win battles by personal charges of your cavalry, you either
1.Die
2.Win

At Granicus River, Alexander was almost killed.
At Issus, he got across the river, and into the Persians, who fled after Darius took flight.

The personal bravado is a hit or miss strategy, something that Hannibal didn't chance because of that sort of thing happening. His death, the chance.

Hannibal fought across just as varied terrain as well. Mountains of the Apennines, fields of the Po Valley. Mountainous Alps in the Winter. Forests of Lake Trasminie.

My vote is for Hannibal.



First as you would know only couple of the first two rows of the phalanx of Alexander wore armor of any significance...Makedonia didnt have the money to arm them all.

Second Alexander's cavalry was far from being professionals these were SAME nobility as the noble knights that you call the Persian cavalry...

Third the Roman armies that deafeated all these enemies where veterans that got through all the Punic wars AND where professional after Marius reforms not to mention the sorry state that the successors' phalanx was or their nonexistsing cavalry...

Fourth I didnt know that Hannibal had phalanx...However you should consider the fact that Hannibal's largest enemy army was 1/5 of what Alexander faced and I doubt that Hannibal would have gotten any luck out of facing the Persians espessially since he would have been in trouble facing teh superior Persian cavalry...

Fith undermining Alexander's campaign and tactics is a very easy way to discredit him...the same can be done with Hannibal since the IQ of his enemy Roman generals can be said that is counted on the fingers of one hand...If you have any sources to quote to support your view on Alexander's campaign in India or Afganistan please provide them...

PS: Would you want to continue after 13 years of constant warfare and campaign? Into a unknown land with jungles and deseases?

[Czar Alexsandr]

Hahaha! The debate goes on!

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can. But seriously is standing in a straight line and waiting for the enemy to break and run to get hit by the cavalry all that tactical? Alexander had employed Cavalry on his flanks to force a flanking attack but this generaly worked like a envelopment tactic. Hanibals battle of Cannae was a double envelopment, something that was unheard of at the time due to general's lack of leadership and soldier discipline in thosse days.

One thing I find very significant about this victory is it's deciveness in it's outcome. Look it up on wikipedia! It's was one of the most desisive victories of antiquity. And it belongs to Hanibal, not Alexander. 80% of the massive Roman force was destroyed. And, though they were a militia levy mostly, they were heavily armed and well equiped. The Romans wanted to recreat Trebia and they had tons of extra men to guarntee it'd work but as we all know... Rome get's hoorendusly defeated. Look at the statistics! It's mind boggling.

[Marshal Murat]

Third the Roman armies that defeated all these enemies where veterans that got through all the Punic wars AND where professional after Marius reforms not to mention the sorry state that the successors' phalanx was or their nonexistsing cavalry...

The battles against the enemy mentioned were all Pre-Marius. That's right, the triple line wins the day, with the hastati, principes, triarii, and velites.

The Diodachi were the generals after Alexander, and some of the first battles fought by them were the 'successors' phalanx, the veteran Hytaspes (my spelling is terrible).


First as you would know only couple of the first two rows of the phalanx of Alexander wore armor of any significance...Makedonia didnt have the money to arm them all.

Second Alexander's cavalry was far from being professionals these were SAME nobility as the noble knights that you call the Persian cavalry...

Hannibal didn't have the money to give even the first two rows armor and weaponry.

Alexander's Cavalry were more professional because they could go from square into wedge, they were all experianced and well trained, and they could crash into a Persian line and cut on through. If that isn't professional, I don't know what is.


Fourth I didnt know that Hannibal had phalanx...

Hannibal's African pikemen.


Fifth undermining Alexander's campaign and tactics is a very easy way to discredit him...the same can be done with Hannibal since the IQ of his enemy Roman generals can be said that is counted on the fingers of one hand...

I can hardly call Fabius an idiot.

It was 16 years for Hannibal as well.

I said Afghanistan wasn't easy, but like I said, the historians have a penchant for exaggeration.

[hellenes]

The battles against the enemy mentioned were all Pre-Marius. That's right, the triple line wins the day, with the hastati, principes, triarii, and velites.

The Diodachi were the generals after Alexander, and some of the first battles fought by them were the 'successors' phalanx, the veteran Hytaspes (my spelling is terrible).

By the time or these battles the veteran Hypaspists of Alexander were dead of old age...
The Diadochoi overestimated the importance of phalanx and neglected the cavalry arm so much that the Companions almost disspeared plus their phanx had very long spears was immobile and in a practically sorry state...




Hannibal didn't have the money to give even the first two rows armor and weaponry.

If they didnt have any weapons how did they fight?:dizzy2: With bare hands?




Alexander's Cavalry were more professional because they could go from square into wedge, they were all experianced and well trained, and they could crash into a Persian line and cut on through. If that isn't professional, I don't know what is.

The point of proffesionalism isnt the quality of training or experience its just their maintainance and payment...
Nobles werent "professional" but had the best armor and weapons and horses due to their wealth and in Makedonian society which was heavily feudal these horsemen where practically landowning knights...
Its their use and leadrship of Alexander that made them in a significant force as Gaugamela clearly indicates...






Hannibal's African pikemen.

IIRC Carthaginians had abandoned phalanx quite time before the Punic wars...Since there isnt any mention of phalanx in Hannibal's battles as I recall...




I can hardly call Fabius an idiot.

It was an example of bias and exaggeration.



It was 16 years for Hannibal as well.

Did his men travel to India?



I said Afghanistan wasn't easy, but like I said, the historians have a penchant for exaggeration.

Same can be said for Hannibal...

[hellenes]

Hahaha! The debate goes on!

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can. But seriously is standing in a straight line and waiting for the enemy to break and run to get hit by the cavalry all that tactical? Alexander had employed Cavalry on his flanks to force a flanking attack but this generaly worked like a envelopment tactic. Hanibals battle of Cannae was a double envelopment, something that was unheard of at the time due to general's lack of leadership and soldier discipline in thosse days.

One thing I find very significant about this victory is it's deciveness in it's outcome. Look it up on wikipedia! It's was one of the most desisive victories of antiquity. And it belongs to Hanibal, not Alexander. 80% of the massive Roman force was destroyed. And, though they were a militia levy mostly, they were heavily armed and well equiped. The Romans wanted to recreat Trebia and they had tons of extra men to guarntee it'd work but as we all know... Rome get's hoorendusly defeated. Look at the statistics! It's mind boggling.

If 50.000 is massive what is 250.000 astronomical?
Wasnt Gaugamela massive? Or decisive?
The main advantage of Alexander was his determination and focus on the end goal which he achieved...as he achieved anything he undertook as opposed to Hannibal...
As for the Romans please Rome could arm "heavily" or well equip 50.000 just calculate the raw materials...We arent talking about Imperial industrial Rome that could pump out lorica hamatas...
And the pathetic cavalry of Romans combined with the uselessnes of its generals just invited itself to be encircled...

[AntiochusIII]

By the time or these battles the veteran Hypaspists of Alexander were dead of old age...Actually, they had a pretty interesting carry after the Diadochi Wars began. Short, bloody, ended very badly, but interesting.

One of the big boys -- I can't remember whom, but I'm guessing it's Seleucus here, probably while he was fighting against the elder Antigonus -- bribed them to his side then proceeded to scatter them all over his territory as garrisons, essentially disbanding them. They were far too dangerous to keep around, having betrayed quite a few masters already and being a bunch of arrogant, greedy bastards; a result of being considered the (Hellenistic) world's finest fighting force for a little too long perhaps.

Prior to that act the original Hypaspists were actually a pretty decisive force in the Diadochi battlefields.

The Diadochoi overestimated the importance of phalanx and neglected the cavalry arm so much that the Companions almost disspeared plus their phanx had very long spears was immobile and in a practically sorry state...Actually, I believe they were sort of forced to decrease their cavalry arm after a time. Their economies simply couldn't sustain large forces of heavy cavalry. The increasingly static and immobile phalanx is the result of the phalanx duels: you got longer spears and thicker lines, you win. The contest escalated and by the time the Romans came the phalanx was horribly static.

That and arming your peasant levy with spears is pretty cheap, so yeah.

[hellenes]

Actually, I believe they were sort of forced to decrease their cavalry arm after a time. Their economies simply couldn't sustain large forces of heavy cavalry. The increasingly static and immobile phalanx is the result of the phalanx duels: you got longer spears and thicker lines, you win. The contest escalated and by the time the Romans came the phalanx was horribly static.

That and arming your peasant levy with spears is pretty cheap, so yeah.

Well hanging gold on your troops as Antiochus did wasnt a sign of lack of funds...And I cant believe that the Ptolemies didnt have the cash or that Alexander was swimming in gold when he got 4-5000 Hetairoi cavalry...

[Lorenzo_H]

Hannibal was not a good leader of men, and he lost in the end. Alexander was a brilliant leader, and never lost.

[Marshal Murat]

Not a good leader of men?
Do have support for that statement?

[Sarmatian]

While I can see your point you shouldnt overlook these parameters:
- Makedonia wasnt as rich or strong as one may percieve AFTER Alexander's conquests, the phalanx was mainly made of farmers and sheepherders even more the back ranks were VERY lightly armored since Philippos didnt have the money to arm them all, the image of uber Spartan soldiers trained from the age of 7 is out of question as out of question is the image of uber hoplites armed from top to the toe in bronze...

- Also AFTER the event its very easy to diminish the strengh of the Persian Empire and army, this army hold the one of the greatest empires the planet has ever seen it conquered this land not just by luck...At Gaugamela the Persian had 250.000 troops (this is a number agreed upon by the majority of important academics and historians) and deadly chariots which Alexander's genious found a way to counter...as he countered the missile advantage of the Persians...Also Alexander countered the VERY capable and strong Persian cavalry (which by teh way teh Romans really lacked) AND the fact that he was to be outflanked and ecircled by the MUCH wider Persian front....

- Makedonia and the rest of Greece wasnt as united and merry as one may think AFTER the event...The moment the Athenians got a hint of his death they rebelled also as far as support from Greece, the Spartans didnt participate in the campaign and Antipatros didnt have troops to spare AND keep the rest of Greece at check

Thus I believe that one shouldnt merely be awed by the overblown strength and uberness of the Romans as the enemy and at the same time diminish and disregard the strength of the Persians...

Both of them were great generals. Probably the greatest in the antiquity.
But, to be fair, Alexander hat pretty much everything on his side except the numbers. He had better troops, higher morale, better commanders etc... When Phillip died, he had pretty much everything ready to start the invasion of Persia. Hannibal on the other hand, was forced to build army from scratch, while Carthage was burdened with tribute they had to pay to Rome.
Also, Alexander didn't face persians. He faced Darius. As soon as Darius fled, the persian army collapsed.

Hannibal didn't face any single general. He faced Rome. Not just the city, but the idea of Rome. Although I agree with you that quality of the roman troops weren't the same as in Caesar's or Augustus' time, it was still a very capable fighting machine.

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

[hellenes]

Both of them were great generals. Probably the greatest in the antiquity.
But, to be fair, Alexander hat pretty much everything on his side except the numbers. He had better troops, higher morale, better commanders etc... When Phillip died, he had pretty much everything ready to start the invasion of Persia. Hannibal on the other hand, was forced to build army from scratch, while Carthage was burdened with tribute they had to pay to Rome.
Also, Alexander didn't face persians. He faced Darius. As soon as Darius fled, the persian army collapsed.

Hannibal didn't face any single general. He faced Rome. Not just the city, but the idea of Rome. Although I agree with you that quality of the roman troops weren't the same as in Caesar's or Augustus' time, it was still a very capable fighting machine.

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

I dont know thats why Hannibal might be so popular for the modern fans of globalisation... :laugh4:
Anyway none cant deny the fact that the cavalry lacking Romans were practically begging to be encircled and slaughtered...their flanks were wide open invitation....
Whilst in Gaugamela the Persian front was much wider and they had string cavalry...Alexander's genious won the battle as with all of them...
I have no doubt that Alexander would steamroller the Romans with ease AND take Rome itself, I seriously doubt that Hannibal would have had any luck taking Tyre and Sogdana...

[Conradus]

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

I can't find Cannae that decisive a battle. If it was, Rome would have passed from the pages of history, but now, a year later they were already invading foreign lands and marching armies freely through Italy. The fact that Rome lost at Cannae is mainly due to the incompetence of its generals there, not even the normal line-up, but huge blocks, wide open flanks, they were asking to be flanked and slaughtered. 15 years later, when Hannibal faced an equally capable general (Scipius) at Zama with a larger army, he lost.

Alexander was able to destroy a far larger army, with capable cavalery arm only a little lacking in leadership.

[Whacker]

I can't find Cannae that decisive a battle. If it was, Rome would have passed from the pages of history, but now, a year later they were already invading foreign lands and marching armies freely through Italy. The fact that Rome lost at Cannae is mainly due to the incompetence of its generals there, not even the normal line-up, but huge blocks, wide open flanks, they were asking to be flanked and slaughtered. 15 years later, when Hannibal faced an equally capable general (Scipius) at Zama with a larger army, he lost.

Alexander was able to destroy a far larger army, with capable cavalery arm only a little lacking in leadership.

Cannae was very decisive, as it broken Rome militarily for a period of time, and the subsequent rampage by Hannibal over Italy forced Rome itself to restructure it's economy. The fact that Hannibal was so successful against Rome (as a concept, as someone made the excellent point) by himself. I still completely disagree with people who hold the fact against Hannibal that he "lost", not because of his own incompetence but because his entire source of support and finance betrayed him. It he would have had that, I'm postive that eventually Rome itself would have fallen to him and his generalship. Further, Hannibal had to take the field at Zama with almost nothing in terms of real military usability. He had some elephants, which Scipio effectively countered, but the vast majority of his forces were not his battle veterans, most of them were simple levies or green troops that were scraped together for that specific battle. After reading about it, it's no wonder the Romans slaughtered them, in fact I'm really surprised Hannibal was able to maintain the battle as long as he did. The other point that I am not sure where people are getting this is they claim that the Punic Wars era Roman troops were no more than militia forces with some training. This isn't remotely true, the Roman military since well before that had evolved past the "militia" stage into a very well trained, disciplined, and equipped fighting force. Further there were more than a number of excellent generals that came out of Rome throughout it's heyday, of course there were the incompetent ones but by and large Rome produced decent to excellent generals. I have no doubts whatsoever that if the Greeks and Alexander had survived past his death and tried to invade the Italian peninsula, that they would have more than met their matches.

In reading about Alexander, again he strikes me as more of a charismatic leader than militarily skilled. As the maxim goes, when a king is present in an army, he should always lead, the fine point being that even though he was in charge he had extremely bright and talented advisors and generals to help him, and this is largely why I think he was so successful. This, coupled with the fact that the Persians never seemed to learn how to effectively counter the phalanx leads me to the conclusion that Alexander had a relatively easier time. It should also be mentioned that Alexander's army did some incredibly stupid things on more than one occasion, the battle that they fought in cappadocia (or thereabouts) where the Persians had excellent defensive lines behind a river, and the sheer luck that the won the day with doesn't help this argument.

Both men were legends of their time and truly some of the greatest the world has ever seen, but in terms of generalship and military skill I still say the award goes to Hannibal.

And Marshal, you do realize you are arguing with a greek about Alexander. That's like trying to argue with a Turk that Ataturk wasn't all he cracked up to be. :laugh4:

Cheers

:balloon2:

[Marshal Murat]

Anyway none cant deny the fact that the cavalry lacking Romans were practically begging to be encircled and slaughtered...their flanks were wide open invitation....

Whilst in Gaugamela the Persian front was much wider and they had string
cavalry...Alexander's genious won the battle as with all of them...


Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus III against the Romans (Hannibal was there I think)

Antiochus had a long line. Very long line. No, really, the line was three times longer than the Roman line. However, he was defeated when the Romans hit his center, and the flank that could have hit the Romans on the flank, they were to far away to successfully do so.

It's to bad nationalism gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

[hellenes]

Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus III against the Romans (Hannibal was there I think)

Antiochus had a long line. Very long line. No, really, the line was three times longer than the Roman line. However, he was defeated when the Romans hit his center, and the flank that could have hit the Romans on the flank, they were to far away to successfully do so.

It's to bad nationalism gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

It's to bad personal agenda and opinion gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

See I can do this too...

[Marshal Murat]

Flame or not flame, that is the question....

For the sake of argument, lets not argue! Or, even better, I'll start a new thread!

Anyway, Alexander defeated Hannibal.
Now where is that shrug emoticon?

[hellenes]

Flame or not flame, that is the question....

For the sake of argument, lets not argue! Or, even better, I'll start a new thread!

Anyway, Alexander defeated Hannibal.
Now where is that shrug emoticon?

Anyway Im glad to see that there arent any hard feelings... ~D
The outcome of this poll might be indicative of the fact that Alexander influenced far more lives than Hannibal and that has to amount to something.

[Kralizec]

Anyway Im glad to see that there arent any hard feelings... ~D
The outcome of this poll might be indicative of the fact that Alexander influenced far more lives than Hannibal and that has to amount to something.

I think that's the only standard that can be reasonably called objective - there's no telling how many military geniuses there were that were better then Alex or Hannibal, but were forgotten or didn't get the chance to show it because they didn't have the recources or died by a twist of fate.

[Czar Alexsandr]

Anyone notice how Hanibal started off better and then started to losse his support? :laugh4:

Odd how history repeats itself

[Ossie The Great]

I think Alexander all the way.

Sad to see i was to late to vote i think we should start another contest but with diffrent historical people

[Boyar Son]

.... have no doubt that Alexander would steamroller the Romans with ease AND take Rome itself....

The Romans definitly werent powerful then

[Colovion]

The difficulty in comparing such great leaders of people is that it merely depends on those they lead, and lead against.

Hannibal very well may have ended up destroying the Romans. Having his messengers caught en route to his brother's camp in the north may have changed the course of history. Had both armies been able to meet up, the end of the war may have ended in a stark contrast to how events unfolded once the Romans knew his plans.

I'm of the mind that men are made by their own merit first, but foremost by the challenges they come against. Had Hannibal not been up against such power as the Romans he very well may have won. Imagine, if you will, a world where Hannibal's army had entered Rome and staked the Barcan Empire from Spain to Italy. Would Hannibal be seen still as such a remarkable figure? Think about it - if it wasn't for what Rome became, Hannibal's victories wouldn't be thought so spectacular today.

Alexander, in my mind, was more remarkable for his poise and ability to lead men towards eachother and unite tribes into an Empire. His personality to his men and to those he conquered developed even a new sense of culture in the regions. His conquests bound together the near-east to the West for the first time, establishing a conduit of trade for centuries to come from the Far East. In short, Alexander was an Empire builder, someone capable of working with his men to create something, not simply defeat an enemy.

It's been said many times that Hannibal didn't know how to use a victory. Alexander, on the other hand, didn't know how to stop looking for places where he could be victorious. One being an aggressive defender of his land from a growing threat, and the other being an aggressive conquerer.

Though I like Hannibal more for his distaste of the Roman's uncreative and languished, uninspired ways and battle tactics, I have to side with Alexander overall.

ps - Hannibal wins on Battles. Alexander wins on Wars.