Originally Posted by 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I say that chariots are outdated weapons.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 By Darius' time, the weapons were at least a century old and outdated if not older.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.
