Round 1: Hannibal vs. Gustavus Adolphus

[Marshal Murat]

Which of these two generals will continue?

Please vote now.

[CountArach]

Hannibal. One of the few men to give Rome a run for their moeny. As a general tactically he was brilliant, however strategically he left much to be desired.

[Tran]

Again, I agreed with CountArach. Had his brother not lost the last battle at Italy, Hannibal will be like Caesar...just 200 years faster

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Both were excellent commanders.

I opt for Adlophus because he not only excelled as a warrior and commander in his era (which Hannibal certainly did) -- he changed the way warfare was fought and put all of Europe on a path that led it to virtual domination of the world for more than a century.

[Lord Winter]

I'm a fan of old gustav but hannibal deserves a good spot to. I think thou I have to agree with Seamus here. Hanibal was good but he didn't really change warfare as we know it now. While on the other hand Adolfus was also good, you can argue that unlike hannibal who lost the emprire, Adolfus forged sweden into one. An empire that controled almost all of northern erurope.

Then their is also Gutvauses refroms. At a point were most commanders were focusing on the lumbering Phalanx like, Tercio, he instead opted for the modern tactics of Manuouver, displine and firepower. He forged the first truly perfessional standing army, and defeated one of the greatest europen powers (haspburg). For who had the bigger impact and overall better Gutavus Adolfus closely beats Hannibal.

[Marquis of Roland]

Hannibal. One of the few men to give Rome a run for their moeny. As a general tactically he was brilliant, however strategically he left much to be desired.

I wouldn't say Hannibal was so bad strategically. The Romans didn't expect him to march through the Alps and he did, surprising them. Surprised Romans yet again by crossing the Arnus Marsh to place his army strategically between Rome and the Roman armies sent to block him, forcing the Romans into an ambush at lake Trasimene.

Politically he couldn't get enough Italian city-states to side with him against Rome, and he couldn't get reinforcments from back home (all politics), so I think its safe to say that rather than strategically poor, this man was moreso deficient in the political area.

Though Hannibal wasn't the first to emphasize the importance of the cavalry arm, he was using these tactics in a region primarily dominated by heavy infantry, so while he didn't invent a new style of warfare as Adolphus did, the result of the enemy being beaten by tactics unfamiliar to them remain the same.

[Watchman]

IMHO in terms of pure generalship Hannibal pwns totally. Gustavus was more of an organizer, reformer and statesman than a manifestly brilliant warlord - which is really rather desirable in a head of state when you think about it - but Hannibal was repeatedly able to produce stellar victories against as-such superior forces through sheer generalship.

Put this way: Hannibal could afford to go pick fights with numerical inferiority and still expect to win. Gustavus couldn't, even if the Swedes did end up winning Breitenfeld against numerical superiority after the... whowasitnow... Saxon army pretty much routed on first contact with the Imperials.

As for ole Gustav's reforms, they're regularly exaggerated and/or misunderstood. Just for one example he very much did not establish "the first professional army" or somesuch - the TYW was primarily fought with mercenaries, who are per definition professional soldiers to begin with. What he did was put the ball rolling towards national armies drafted from the populace of the state, who while rarely of the fighting calibre of mercenaries (whom the Swedish themselves were to long prefer for actual field armies) were by far cheaper and thus a cost-effective alternative for garrison and occupation duty. I've read the first state to get a true national army on a decent footing was Brandenburg (later better known as Prussia), whose regiments apparently caused a fair bit of envy in Carolus X when he saw them.

[CBR]

Although the comparison of two generals from two very different eras makes it difficult I would say Hannibal. I admit I dont know enough of Gustav Adolf but from the battles I do know a bit of, I dont see him in the same league as Hannibal.

He was an agressive and courageous general and a good reformer and organiser though.

To claim that Hannibal wasnt a good strategist is a pretty dubious claim. Afterall we are talking about the man who surprised the Romans by crossing the Alps, and managed to outwit Roman armies for more than a decade even though he was outnumbered. Just because he couldnt make the Roman allies rebel and win the war doesnt make him a bad general or leader in any way. He just didnt have resources to win it.


CBR

[AntiochusIII]

How do you think Hannibal stayed alive in Italy for more than a whole freaking decade? Obviously he didn't just win battles after battles after battles -- even that would eventually come to an end as the tactical genius had been pushed into a strategic blackhole. He must've been quite a fine strategist to be able to maneuver his armies so boldly around the many Roman legions in Italy for so long.

He also sort of proved that he had at least reasonable, if not in fact quite good (or perhaps even superb, though we'd never know) grasp on matters of government during his relatively short leadership in Carthage.

But anyway, Gustavus Adolphus was a very significant figure nonetheless, as his Swedish army single-handedly turned a string of Imperial victories in the Thirty Years' War into a massive rout. Had he lived longer the war might have been shorter. His death allowed the Swedish to be contained and even driven back until the French intervention. His organization of the state also helped in laying the foundation of Swedish domination in its locale/importance in European affairs.

The Gustavian tactics were essentially the adapted products of the great Dutch general Maurice of Nassau earlier, but it was he who really made it felt all across Europe.

[KrooK]

Gustav was bad general. He was winning in Poland because Poles very weakened by previous wars with Russia and Turkey. Later he lost some battles with Poland and finally Sweden gave back every port they took.

[Gurkhal]

Did however Sweden give back all of the territories under Gustav's reign? If not, then I do not belive he can be held responsible for what happened. Not to mention that he also came to the throne at a time when Sweden was locked in a three seperate wars at the same time, against Denmark, Russia and Poland. And still manage to get out on-top of both Poland and Russia, even if the peace with Denmark was hard bouught. But without, to my knowledge, landlosses. Also, Gustav change the entire course of the Thirty Year's war and broke almost teen years (if I've got the infomation right) of unbroken Hapsburg (sp?) victories. Not that bad in my eyes.

Anyway, I can't say that I think any of them were really better than the other. There were to much time between them and they fought with to different circumstances to be able to say if anyone of them would've been better than the other.

[Kagemusha]

Gustav Adolphus. I dont understand why Poles see him always as an bad general.Wasnt he facing the best cavalry in the world of the time in Poland and still could take land from them. While the Hussars were mostly undefeatable in the 17th century.
I think his deeds in Germany show much better how good General he was. He also chanced the army composition and military laws of Sweden the way that rest of Europe adapted later.
By turning armies into armies and not just pillaging and plundering war parties.
Hannibal was the best tactician of his time. But im afraid that he was not the best strategist at all. I think it would have been intresting poll to put Hannibal and Rommel against eachother on one of these polls.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Gustav Adolphus was quite decent in most fields, but not outstanding in any single field. In both diplomacy, strategy, tactics, and politics he made some impressive moves, plenty of decent moves, but also some quite bad moves.

Hannibal is in a way the exact opposite - an overly eager and not very good strategist, a rather poor diplomat and politician, but an excellent an absolutely unmatched sense of tactics.

I voted Hannibal, just because his tale is so extremely fascinating - possibly because time has allowed it to change more drastically than the tale of modern generals.

[Innocentius]

Gustav was bad general. He was winning in Poland because Poles very weakened by previous wars with Russia and Turkey. Later he lost some battles with Poland and finally Sweden gave back every port they took.

A bit biased? The Swedish gave back all the ports taken in Poland as it was part of the deal. Sweden would own town/city X and extract taxes and - more importantly - duties therefrom for Y amount of years.

Gustavus has my vote at least. Although Mauritz of Oranien was the one who really developed the tactics used by Gustav.

[KrooK]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I must tell that Gustavus was very good commander but Hannibal was simply better.

[Stig]

Gustavus Adolphus? (ie. Hannibal wins with ease)


And why isn't he jsut called Gustav Adolf. What is he? Some wannabe Roman?

[Innocentius]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

If you suggest that the entire Polish army at the time consisited of 30.000 men then OK, but I find it hard to believe that a country - robbed of its most profitable ports and after years and years of fighting - could muster 30.000 men solely for the purpose of scaring the Swedish off.
The Swedish were already severly weakened by the defeat at Nördlingen and were eager not to get involved in a second war.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I don't know what propagand-istic history is being taught in Poland, but that sure is biased. Gustavos Adolphus was a hero and nothing less!
No but seriously, I would be careful to use any records of the "opposite" king doing this and that, most of that is historic propaganda. For what I know about Trzciana, Gustav attempted a counter-attack but was beaten back.

[Incongruous]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I must tell that Gustavus was very good commander but Hannibal was simply better.

Umm, Gistavus was probably one of the bravest leaders in History. However, it is usually wiser for a King to withdraw than be captured, such an event would be disastrous for his nation.

[ShadesWolf]

For me Hannibal

He was one of the few greats.....

[KrooK]

As I told before between casefire and peace Poland finished war with Turkey and made heavy preparations to war. And these 30.000 wasn't all army. It was biggest part of army who was trained to fight with Sweden.
FInally they weren't used against Sweden because of peace. Soon after peace with Sweden that army marched on Russia and forced that country to peace.

Same time Poles had big units on Turkish border to fight with Tatars.

You can't compare Poland from 1620-1640 with Poland from 1648-1665. Wars 1620-1640 didn't weakened country. They were all on borders and despite engaging big military units, they weren't dangerous for country itself.
Wars from 1648-1665 were disaster for who country. For first time from 300 years our independence was endangered.

But 1620-1640 were simply ..... wars. I think we could count them to 30years war. Poland and Turkey oficially didn't take part but Poland was ally of catholics and Turkey was for protestans. Turkish and Swedish attacks were prepared not to allow Poland on taking part into 30 years war.

Anyway Gustav was brave man. But that day at Trzcianna he simply ran.
As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen. Hannibal was simply better commander for me. I have read roman relations about Hannibal. They agreed that Hannibal was really good opponent.

[Innocentius]

As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen.

Proof? The precense of about a thousand shards of the "true" Cross spread across all Europe and some bones supposedly belonging to Jesus prooves their existance I guess?
It's pretty easy to find a fancy belt and then claim it was taken from the king. I'd like to see some more believable proof that doesn't sound like a myth.

[The_Doctor]

And why isn't he jsut called Gustav Adolf. What is he? Some wannabe Roman?

I believe it was the catholics who added the "us"es to the end of his names.