Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[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.