Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[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...

[Czar Alexsandr]

Alexander was a very impressive man. His determination and will are amazing. The Siege of Tyre where he built the stone bridge is just amazing. The mountainus troops being employed as there were is new to me though. That would be like.. special forces of the Antiquity period. Now that is a very good tactical idea.

But if the question is who is the better tactician, and that's the way I interpret general, than I'd still have to say Hanibal did that job better. As for the charge that Hanibal wouldn't stand a chance against phalank.. well to my knowledge Hanibal engages infantry from the rear in all of his battles. This would be quite disconcerting for Alexander. And the Companion cavalry was very good but so was Hanibal's Numidian cavalry. Since Hanibal always uses tactical manuevers and flanking positions in battle Alexander's phalank and Companion cavalry are fighting in a unfamiliar situation to say the least. I'd say Hanibal's tactics would just put him an edge over Alexander, who very talented, has yet to shine with the tactical brilliance I've seen in Hanibal's stratigies.

[MilesGregarius]

Also I doubt that Hannibal would have any chance against Alexander's superior cavalry and the bristling points of phalanx...

I won't take sides in the Hannibal/Alexander debate (Six of one...) but by Hannibal's time, the phalanx was no longer cutting edge (it was in fact nearing obsolescence), so no doubt Hannibal (or any competent Roman or Carthaginian general) would have at least been tactically aware how to fight phalanx tactics. Also, Alexander's cavalry would no longer have posed the same qualitative advantage as it once did.

And if the argument is that Alexander is the superior general, stating that his troops were inherently invincible does little to make the case.

[hellenes]

I won't take sides in the Hannibal/Alexander debate (Six of one...) but by Hannibal's time, the phalanx was no longer cutting edge (it was in fact nearing obsolescence), so no doubt Hannibal (or any competent Roman or Carthaginian general) would have at least been tactically aware how to fight phalanx tactics. Also, Alexander's cavalry would no longer have posed the same qualitative advantage as it once did.

And if the argument is that Alexander is the superior general, stating that his troops were inherently invincible does little to make the case.

But its the combined arms approach...Alexander had thought alongside with his men for 17 years he knew them and they knew him...
Also dont underestimate the age of the general would a 25 years old Hannibal do better than Alexander? Is eriously doubt it...

[CaesarAugustus]

I really don't think the general's age should have anything to do with which one is better.

[Boyar Son]

I really don't think the general's age should have anything to do with which one is better.

I think it had to do with something.....

Alexander captured an island by building a causeway which the enemy attacked him while under construction!!!

He took a city hiiiggghh in the cliffs!!!

comon people....

[AggonyDuck]

But its the combined arms approach...Alexander had thought alongside with his men for 17 years he knew them and they knew him...
Also dont underestimate the age of the general would a 25 years old Hannibal do better than Alexander? Is eriously doubt it...

Mind you, both Hannibal and Alexander were very young generals. Hannibal at Cannae was 31-years old, while Alexander was 25 at the time of Gaugamela. Their relatively young age is really a testament to their natural great skill.

[hellenes]

Mind you, both Hannibal and Alexander were very young generals. Hannibal at Cannae was 31-years old, while Alexander was 25 at the time of Gaugamela. Their relatively young age is really a testament to their natural great skill.

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...

[Boyar Son]

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...

Yes I heard when Alexander returened he would launch campaigns to conquer Carthage.

[Sarmatian]

Alexander started the campaign at Granicus battle whilst he was 22...He took over his own country at the age of 20 for crying out loud!!!!
Thats why I consider (as did Hannibal himself) Alexander a genious of much higher standard than Hannibal. And IMO fortune was very good for both Rome and Carthage that Alexander died at 33 otherwise today nobody would even know what the latin Alphabet was...

Alexander inherited organized country and great generals. His army was of great quality and it's core was greek and he fought against inferior enemy.

Hannibal didn't have support from carthage, his army was was multilingual (sp?) and multicultural and he had roman army as his opponent. To unite men of different race, culture, religion, language etc... into an army is not a small feat.

To sum it up, Alexander was backed by a great nation. Hannibal was on his own.

[hellenes]

Alexander inherited organized country and great generals. His army was of great quality and it's core was greek and he fought against inferior enemy.

Hannibal didn't have support from carthage, his army was was multilingual (sp?) and multicultural and he had roman army as his opponent. To unite men of different race, culture, religion, language etc... into an army is not a small feat.

To sum it up, Alexander was backed by a great nation. Hannibal was on his own.

While I can see your point you shouldnt overlook these parameters:
- Makedonia wasnt as rich or strong as one may percieve AFTER Alexander's conquests, the phalanx was mainly made of farmers and sheepherders even more the back ranks were VERY lightly armored since Philippos didnt have the money to arm them all, the image of uber Spartan soldiers trained from the age of 7 is out of question as out of question is the image of uber hoplites armed from top to the toe in bronze...

- Also AFTER the event its very easy to diminish the strengh of the Persian Empire and army, this army hold the one of the greatest empires the planet has ever seen it conquered this land not just by luck...At Gaugamela the Persian had 250.000 troops (this is a number agreed upon by the majority of important academics and historians) and deadly chariots which Alexander's genious found a way to counter...as he countered the missile advantage of the Persians...Also Alexander countered the VERY capable and strong Persian cavalry (which by teh way teh Romans really lacked) AND the fact that he was to be outflanked and ecircled by the MUCH wider Persian front....

- Makedonia and the rest of Greece wasnt as united and merry as one may think AFTER the event...The moment the Athenians got a hint of his death they rebelled also as far as support from Greece, the Spartans didnt participate in the campaign and Antipatros didnt have troops to spare AND keep the rest of Greece at check

Thus I believe that one shouldnt merely be awed by the overblown strength and uberness of the Romans as the enemy and at the same time diminish and disregard the strength of the Persians...