Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[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!'

[hellenes]

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.

Hannibal's army was seriously incapable of sieging strong fortified positions...Alexander had taken the Sogdiana and Tyre teh first one being a VERY steep rock and he used the soldiers that were from mountainus areas of Greece to clinb on the rock the Persians where surprised and the city was taken...
In Tyre he built a damp to connect the city and was succesful...
Also I doubt that Hannibal would have any chance against Alexander's superior cavalry and the bristling points of phalanx...