Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[Tran]

Here's my opinion:

Alexander vs Hannibal? I was hoping the final round will be Alexander (the-always-undefeated army commander) versus Nelson (the-always-undefeated naval commander). Even though they fought on completely different places and terrain, but that's what I called INTERESTING! But the final round turned out to be different...

Alexander vs Hannibal? I think they both are brilliant and both are very capable military commanders. Hmm...I read that many people go and throw their support for their Hannibal because he was nobody becoming somebody with brilliant military leadership and strategy, as oppose to Alexander who is already somebody on top of the society. Well, that's true but here's what I think: Hannibal is from an empire who is already existed for more than 5 centuries, the Carthaginian Empire has existed since I believed 700 BC and based from Phoenician Kingdom far longer than that, basically he lives in an already well-established empire with significant territories and influences around Mediterranean. Compare to Alexander, he is from a relatively small kingdom of Macedonia with little-to-no influence and territories outside Greek. A small kingdom that's constantly being harassed and even came under attack from the big and mighty Persian Empire.

Hannibal fought the enemy of Carthage which is small (Rome) at the beginning which managed to grow larger, then beaten back by Hannibal for some times, only to grow larger again later and wipe Carthage out of existance. Hannibal failed to prevent this (and the empire collapsed).
Alexander on the other hand, with his small kingdom managed to subdued and or conquer its neighbouring territories and kingdoms, many are bigger and stronger, and driven back the mighty Persian Empire to its homeland, and even later annexed Egypt. Now that's what I called something! Alexander turned his small kingdom into a huge empire covering the know world at that time. Despite of his empire collapsed (Carthage collapsed too, remember?) after his death because he didn't choose a successor, he did tremendous jobs taking land after lands and put them into his empire, all started from his small kingdom inherited by his father.

Therefore, my vote goes to Alexander the Great

[Rodion Romanovich]

A nice tie

[Tran]

Well, you can never really compare two mighty generals who are destined to be written on the very page of history

[CaesarAugustus]

Well you're probably right about the elephants not having much effect, Czar Alexandr, since they never seemed to be a problem for Alexander in India.... Of course Hannibal would ideally choose territory that was to his advantage, not a flat, open plain.

They were both brilliant generals and leaders with many strengths and few weaknesses. I object to having a poll that basicallys says: "who is better, Hannibal or Alexander?" However, based on many above posts and my own opinion that Alexander had a bigger impact on the ancient world (Greek empires ruled most of the known world, Alexander idolized by Romans etc, wheras Carthage was destroyed and their culture did not survive, through no fault of Hannibal's, of course), my vote went to Megas Alexandros. I really think that there should be a Gah! option, though.

[Azi Tohak]

Ha! Dead even with my vote. 20 to 20!

I vote for Hannibal. A superior tactician I think, but misjudged his enemy strategically. Alexander knew exactly what he had to do... but a simple charge is hardly the most brilliant tactic I've ever heard of.

Azi

[Conradus]

Hmm, seems like my vote is decisive at the moment.

I choose Alexander, though I preferred Julius over him...

Alexander managed to conquer the known world, with only the backup of a small kingdom and warmongering city-states in Greece. He destroyed a mammoth of the ancient world, who was at the time, still the most powerfull empire of the Western till Middle-Eastern world.
Alexander was able to sometimes choose his battelground, but even at Gaugamela or Issus, where Darius had the upper grounds, superior numbers and other advantages at his side, Alexander triumphed. Hannibal chose his battleground carefully and though he at first destroyed a lot of Rome's military power, he failed when it really mattered. Rome, Zama. Arguably Alexander never lost a battle and when judging the better general, that counts a lot.

[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.

[Warluster]

As many have pointed out, ALexander fought against the elephants,whereas Hannibal used them.

Elephants mainly defeated the large force at Cannae.

I believe right before Cannae they mustered the largest levy they'd ever raised up until that time.

So what?
Eg. I could say I jsut jumped the longest I ever did, but what if i've never jumped before?

[AntiochusIII]

Elephants mainly defeated the large force at Cannae.

I thought he lost 'em all by that time...?

[Warluster]

*cough *cough*

Well...

Um...Hm....Now...ah...uh...

*cough *cough*

Well anyway, someone already said, they were just miltia the Romans!

[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...

[Marshal Murat]

Sorry that I'm adding to this discussion. Then again, Hannibal is a God of War.

Chariots were outdated weapons.
Darius was a spoiled idiot who didn't listen to some wise advice from a couple Greek mercs (neither did his satraps)
Alexander got a bunch of experianced generals (Parmenion) and a force created for the war in Persia.

If you beat up twenty idiots, are you special?

[hellenes]

Sorry that I'm adding to this discussion. Then again, Hannibal is a God of War.

Chariots were outdated weapons.
Darius was a spoiled idiot who didn't listen to some wise advice from a couple Greek mercs (neither did his satraps)
Alexander got a bunch of experianced generals (Parmenion) and a force created for the war in Persia.

If you beat up twenty idiots, are you special?

I think that overgeneralised misconceptions add nothing to a historical debate....
I would advise you to read up a bit more on Alexander's campaign I can assure you that youre going to be surprised...

[Marshal Murat]

I have read both sides.

I say that chariots are outdated weapons.
They are.

They were used at Kadesh to great effect. Mobile forces of warriors, swirling in the desert. Then came the peltast, javelin, spear, and organized combat. Kill the horses, the chariots are useless. By Darius' time, the weapons were at least a century old and outdated if not older.

Most of Alexanders generals were experianced.
Ptolemy
Parmenio
Probably three or four more.

His army, while as you say, probably farmers and shepherds, they were trained very nicely. They could stay in formation, rotate, fight, camp, and wear bronze helmets and greaves. His cavalry were heavy shock troops, professional soldiers.
The phalanx wasn't required to do much more than march forward or stay put, or besiege a city.

Roman armies were effective tools that could defeat a:
Phalanx (Dog's Head battle in Greek), Pydna, Battle of Magnesia (?)
Gauls/Germans/Samnites (Battle of Trifanum, Battle that was on Time Commanders, the one against the invading Gauls, where the 2 Roman armies crushed them)
Iberians (Scipio campaigns, later battles against the Spanish)

All 3 were present in Hannibal's Army. Hannibal's leadership and ability combined those 3 forces into 1 army. He then added some decent cavalry (light Numidians, medium Gauls and Iberians), slingers/archers.
Under his brother, they were defeated, both in Spain and Italy.

Darius was a coward. He didn't consider Alexander a threat (which he should have, given the invasion army prepared against him), didn't train his army to fight Alexander, his army were levies from Phoenician, Cilicia, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, Scythia, and some other satraps. They were farmers, sheepherders, given spears, a shield, and lined up. A multi-national force. Then he brings in the noble knights, who care more about their own glory than really being 1 of a team (kinda like some rampaging, pillaging Gauls under Brennus. Except the Gauls would hit the baggage train or kill the enemy general) The soldiers in Hannibal's army were shepherds (Iberians), farmers (Gauls), desert herders (Numidians).

The campaigns in Afghanistan are no doubt exaggerated, and while I can't think that they were easy, Alexander was fighting a disjointed, uncoordinated foe. Once he hit some serious trouble in India (professional army, elephants, cavalry), what happened? He won the battle through personal bravery, like two other battles, and it got the men so riled, they wanted to turn back, not because they wanted to go sheep-farming again, but because they were tired.

If you win battles by personal charges of your cavalry, you either
1.Die
2.Win

At Granicus River, Alexander was almost killed.
At Issus, he got across the river, and into the Persians, who fled after Darius took flight.

The personal bravado is a hit or miss strategy, something that Hannibal didn't chance because of that sort of thing happening. His death, the chance.

Hannibal fought across just as varied terrain as well. Mountains of the Apennines, fields of the Po Valley. Mountainous Alps in the Winter. Forests of Lake Trasminie.

My vote is for Hannibal.

[hellenes]

I have read both sides.

I say that chariots are outdated weapons.
They are.

They were used at Kadesh to great effect. Mobile forces of warriors, swirling in the desert. Then came the peltast, javelin, spear, and organized combat. Kill the horses, the chariots are useless. By Darius' time, the weapons were at least a century old and outdated if not older.

Most of Alexanders generals were experianced.
Ptolemy
Parmenio
Probably three or four more.

His army, while as you say, probably farmers and shepherds, they were trained very nicely. They could stay in formation, rotate, fight, camp, and wear bronze helmets and greaves. His cavalry were heavy shock troops, professional soldiers.
The phalanx wasn't required to do much more than march forward or stay put, or besiege a city.

Roman armies were effective tools that could defeat a:
Phalanx (Dog's Head battle in Greek), Pydna, Battle of Magnesia (?)
Gauls/Germans/Samnites (Battle of Trifanum, Battle that was on Time Commanders, the one against the invading Gauls, where the 2 Roman armies crushed them)
Iberians (Scipio campaigns, later battles against the Spanish)

All 3 were present in Hannibal's Army. Hannibal's leadership and ability combined those 3 forces into 1 army. He then added some decent cavalry (light Numidians, medium Gauls and Iberians), slingers/archers.
Under his brother, they were defeated, both in Spain and Italy.

Darius was a coward. He didn't consider Alexander a threat (which he should have, given the invasion army prepared against him), didn't train his army to fight Alexander, his army were levies from Phoenician, Cilicia, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, Scythia, and some other satraps. They were farmers, sheepherders, given spears, a shield, and lined up. A multi-national force. Then he brings in the noble knights, who care more about their own glory than really being 1 of a team (kinda like some rampaging, pillaging Gauls under Brennus. Except the Gauls would hit the baggage train or kill the enemy general) The soldiers in Hannibal's army were shepherds (Iberians), farmers (Gauls), desert herders (Numidians).

The campaigns in Afghanistan are no doubt exaggerated, and while I can't think that they were easy, Alexander was fighting a disjointed, uncoordinated foe. Once he hit some serious trouble in India (professional army, elephants, cavalry), what happened? He won the battle through personal bravery, like two other battles, and it got the men so riled, they wanted to turn back, not because they wanted to go sheep-farming again, but because they were tired.

If you win battles by personal charges of your cavalry, you either
1.Die
2.Win

At Granicus River, Alexander was almost killed.
At Issus, he got across the river, and into the Persians, who fled after Darius took flight.

The personal bravado is a hit or miss strategy, something that Hannibal didn't chance because of that sort of thing happening. His death, the chance.

Hannibal fought across just as varied terrain as well. Mountains of the Apennines, fields of the Po Valley. Mountainous Alps in the Winter. Forests of Lake Trasminie.

My vote is for Hannibal.

First as you would know only couple of the first two rows of the phalanx of Alexander wore armor of any significance...Makedonia didnt have the money to arm them all.

Second Alexander's cavalry was far from being professionals these were SAME nobility as the noble knights that you call the Persian cavalry...

Third the Roman armies that deafeated all these enemies where veterans that got through all the Punic wars AND where professional after Marius reforms not to mention the sorry state that the successors' phalanx was or their nonexistsing cavalry...

Fourth I didnt know that Hannibal had phalanx...However you should consider the fact that Hannibal's largest enemy army was 1/5 of what Alexander faced and I doubt that Hannibal would have gotten any luck out of facing the Persians espessially since he would have been in trouble facing teh superior Persian cavalry...

Fith undermining Alexander's campaign and tactics is a very easy way to discredit him...the same can be done with Hannibal since the IQ of his enemy Roman generals can be said that is counted on the fingers of one hand...If you have any sources to quote to support your view on Alexander's campaign in India or Afganistan please provide them...

PS: Would you want to continue after 13 years of constant warfare and campaign? Into a unknown land with jungles and deseases?

[Czar Alexsandr]

Hahaha! The debate goes on!

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can. But seriously is standing in a straight line and waiting for the enemy to break and run to get hit by the cavalry all that tactical? Alexander had employed Cavalry on his flanks to force a flanking attack but this generaly worked like a envelopment tactic. Hanibals battle of Cannae was a double envelopment, something that was unheard of at the time due to general's lack of leadership and soldier discipline in thosse days.

One thing I find very significant about this victory is it's deciveness in it's outcome. Look it up on wikipedia! It's was one of the most desisive victories of antiquity. And it belongs to Hanibal, not Alexander. 80% of the massive Roman force was destroyed. And, though they were a militia levy mostly, they were heavily armed and well equiped. The Romans wanted to recreat Trebia and they had tons of extra men to guarntee it'd work but as we all know... Rome get's hoorendusly defeated. Look at the statistics! It's mind boggling.

[Marshal Murat]

Third the Roman armies that defeated all these enemies where veterans that got through all the Punic wars AND where professional after Marius reforms not to mention the sorry state that the successors' phalanx was or their nonexistsing cavalry...

The battles against the enemy mentioned were all Pre-Marius. That's right, the triple line wins the day, with the hastati, principes, triarii, and velites.

The Diodachi were the generals after Alexander, and some of the first battles fought by them were the 'successors' phalanx, the veteran Hytaspes (my spelling is terrible).

First as you would know only couple of the first two rows of the phalanx of Alexander wore armor of any significance...Makedonia didnt have the money to arm them all.

Second Alexander's cavalry was far from being professionals these were SAME nobility as the noble knights that you call the Persian cavalry...

Hannibal didn't have the money to give even the first two rows armor and weaponry.

Alexander's Cavalry were more professional because they could go from square into wedge, they were all experianced and well trained, and they could crash into a Persian line and cut on through. If that isn't professional, I don't know what is.

Fourth I didnt know that Hannibal had phalanx...

Hannibal's African pikemen.

Fifth undermining Alexander's campaign and tactics is a very easy way to discredit him...the same can be done with Hannibal since the IQ of his enemy Roman generals can be said that is counted on the fingers of one hand...

I can hardly call Fabius an idiot.

It was 16 years for Hannibal as well.

I said Afghanistan wasn't easy, but like I said, the historians have a penchant for exaggeration.

[hellenes]

The battles against the enemy mentioned were all Pre-Marius. That's right, the triple line wins the day, with the hastati, principes, triarii, and velites.

The Diodachi were the generals after Alexander, and some of the first battles fought by them were the 'successors' phalanx, the veteran Hytaspes (my spelling is terrible).

By the time or these battles the veteran Hypaspists of Alexander were dead of old age...
The Diadochoi overestimated the importance of phalanx and neglected the cavalry arm so much that the Companions almost disspeared plus their phanx had very long spears was immobile and in a practically sorry state...

Hannibal didn't have the money to give even the first two rows armor and weaponry.

If they didnt have any weapons how did they fight? With bare hands?

Alexander's Cavalry were more professional because they could go from square into wedge, they were all experianced and well trained, and they could crash into a Persian line and cut on through. If that isn't professional, I don't know what is.

The point of proffesionalism isnt the quality of training or experience its just their maintainance and payment...
Nobles werent "professional" but had the best armor and weapons and horses due to their wealth and in Makedonian society which was heavily feudal these horsemen where practically landowning knights...
Its their use and leadrship of Alexander that made them in a significant force as Gaugamela clearly indicates...

Hannibal's African pikemen.

IIRC Carthaginians had abandoned phalanx quite time before the Punic wars...Since there isnt any mention of phalanx in Hannibal's battles as I recall...

I can hardly call Fabius an idiot.

It was an example of bias and exaggeration.

It was 16 years for Hannibal as well.

Did his men travel to India?

I said Afghanistan wasn't easy, but like I said, the historians have a penchant for exaggeration.

Same can be said for Hannibal...

[hellenes]

Hahaha! The debate goes on!

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can. But seriously is standing in a straight line and waiting for the enemy to break and run to get hit by the cavalry all that tactical? Alexander had employed Cavalry on his flanks to force a flanking attack but this generaly worked like a envelopment tactic. Hanibals battle of Cannae was a double envelopment, something that was unheard of at the time due to general's lack of leadership and soldier discipline in thosse days.

One thing I find very significant about this victory is it's deciveness in it's outcome. Look it up on wikipedia! It's was one of the most desisive victories of antiquity. And it belongs to Hanibal, not Alexander. 80% of the massive Roman force was destroyed. And, though they were a militia levy mostly, they were heavily armed and well equiped. The Romans wanted to recreat Trebia and they had tons of extra men to guarntee it'd work but as we all know... Rome get's hoorendusly defeated. Look at the statistics! It's mind boggling.

If 50.000 is massive what is 250.000 astronomical?
Wasnt Gaugamela massive? Or decisive?
The main advantage of Alexander was his determination and focus on the end goal which he achieved...as he achieved anything he undertook as opposed to Hannibal...
As for the Romans please Rome could arm "heavily" or well equip 50.000 just calculate the raw materials...We arent talking about Imperial industrial Rome that could pump out lorica hamatas...
And the pathetic cavalry of Romans combined with the uselessnes of its generals just invited itself to be encircled...

[AntiochusIII]

By the time or these battles the veteran Hypaspists of Alexander were dead of old age...

Actually, they had a pretty interesting carry after the Diadochi Wars began. Short, bloody, ended very badly, but interesting.

One of the big boys -- I can't remember whom, but I'm guessing it's Seleucus here, probably while he was fighting against the elder Antigonus -- bribed them to his side then proceeded to scatter them all over his territory as garrisons, essentially disbanding them. They were far too dangerous to keep around, having betrayed quite a few masters already and being a bunch of arrogant, greedy bastards; a result of being considered the (Hellenistic) world's finest fighting force for a little too long perhaps.

Prior to that act the original Hypaspists were actually a pretty decisive force in the Diadochi battlefields.

The Diadochoi overestimated the importance of phalanx and neglected the cavalry arm so much that the Companions almost disspeared plus their phanx had very long spears was immobile and in a practically sorry state...

Actually, I believe they were sort of forced to decrease their cavalry arm after a time. Their economies simply couldn't sustain large forces of heavy cavalry. The increasingly static and immobile phalanx is the result of the phalanx duels: you got longer spears and thicker lines, you win. The contest escalated and by the time the Romans came the phalanx was horribly static.

That and arming your peasant levy with spears is pretty cheap, so yeah.

[hellenes]

Actually, I believe they were sort of forced to decrease their cavalry arm after a time. Their economies simply couldn't sustain large forces of heavy cavalry. The increasingly static and immobile phalanx is the result of the phalanx duels: you got longer spears and thicker lines, you win. The contest escalated and by the time the Romans came the phalanx was horribly static.

That and arming your peasant levy with spears is pretty cheap, so yeah.

Well hanging gold on your troops as Antiochus did wasnt a sign of lack of funds...And I cant believe that the Ptolemies didnt have the cash or that Alexander was swimming in gold when he got 4-5000 Hetairoi cavalry...