Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[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.

[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.



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.