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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

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.



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.

[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?

[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?

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.

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.