Final Round Alexander vs. Hannibal Barca

[Lorenzo_H]

Hannibal was not a good leader of men, and he lost in the end. Alexander was a brilliant leader, and never lost.

[Marshal Murat]

Not a good leader of men?
Do have support for that statement?

[Sarmatian]

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...

Both of them were great generals. Probably the greatest in the antiquity.
But, to be fair, Alexander hat pretty much everything on his side except the numbers. He had better troops, higher morale, better commanders etc... When Phillip died, he had pretty much everything ready to start the invasion of Persia. Hannibal on the other hand, was forced to build army from scratch, while Carthage was burdened with tribute they had to pay to Rome.
Also, Alexander didn't face persians. He faced Darius. As soon as Darius fled, the persian army collapsed.

Hannibal didn't face any single general. He faced Rome. Not just the city, but the idea of Rome. Although I agree with you that quality of the roman troops weren't the same as in Caesar's or Augustus' time, it was still a very capable fighting machine.

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

[hellenes]

Both of them were great generals. Probably the greatest in the antiquity.
But, to be fair, Alexander hat pretty much everything on his side except the numbers. He had better troops, higher morale, better commanders etc... When Phillip died, he had pretty much everything ready to start the invasion of Persia. Hannibal on the other hand, was forced to build army from scratch, while Carthage was burdened with tribute they had to pay to Rome.
Also, Alexander didn't face persians. He faced Darius. As soon as Darius fled, the persian army collapsed.

Hannibal didn't face any single general. He faced Rome. Not just the city, but the idea of Rome. Although I agree with you that quality of the roman troops weren't the same as in Caesar's or Augustus' time, it was still a very capable fighting machine.

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

I dont know thats why Hannibal might be so popular for the modern fans of globalisation...
Anyway none cant deny the fact that the cavalry lacking Romans were practically begging to be encircled and slaughtered...their flanks were wide open invitation....
Whilst in Gaugamela the Persian front was much wider and they had string cavalry...Alexander's genious won the battle as with all of them...
I have no doubt that Alexander would steamroller the Romans with ease AND take Rome itself, I seriously doubt that Hannibal would have had any luck taking Tyre and Sogdana...

[Conradus]

Battle of Cannae was a master-piece and probably the most decisive battle of all times. Never before and after did romans suffer such a defeat. Had it been anyone else, they would have surrendered. Hannibal was leading a multicultural army against stronger and a better organized foe.

For me Hannibal is the greatest general of all times. Alexander did achieve more, much more exactly, but my vote goes to Hannibal for sheer guts and audacity to take Rome head on, for his strategic (crossing the Alps in winter - you had to be either Hannibal or crazy to try that) and tactical (Cannae) genius, and for his ability to unite people of different race, language, religion into an organized and effective army.

I can't find Cannae that decisive a battle. If it was, Rome would have passed from the pages of history, but now, a year later they were already invading foreign lands and marching armies freely through Italy. The fact that Rome lost at Cannae is mainly due to the incompetence of its generals there, not even the normal line-up, but huge blocks, wide open flanks, they were asking to be flanked and slaughtered. 15 years later, when Hannibal faced an equally capable general (Scipius) at Zama with a larger army, he lost.

Alexander was able to destroy a far larger army, with capable cavalery arm only a little lacking in leadership.

[Whacker]

I can't find Cannae that decisive a battle. If it was, Rome would have passed from the pages of history, but now, a year later they were already invading foreign lands and marching armies freely through Italy. The fact that Rome lost at Cannae is mainly due to the incompetence of its generals there, not even the normal line-up, but huge blocks, wide open flanks, they were asking to be flanked and slaughtered. 15 years later, when Hannibal faced an equally capable general (Scipius) at Zama with a larger army, he lost.

Alexander was able to destroy a far larger army, with capable cavalery arm only a little lacking in leadership.

Cannae was very decisive, as it broken Rome militarily for a period of time, and the subsequent rampage by Hannibal over Italy forced Rome itself to restructure it's economy. The fact that Hannibal was so successful against Rome (as a concept, as someone made the excellent point) by himself. I still completely disagree with people who hold the fact against Hannibal that he "lost", not because of his own incompetence but because his entire source of support and finance betrayed him. It he would have had that, I'm postive that eventually Rome itself would have fallen to him and his generalship. Further, Hannibal had to take the field at Zama with almost nothing in terms of real military usability. He had some elephants, which Scipio effectively countered, but the vast majority of his forces were not his battle veterans, most of them were simple levies or green troops that were scraped together for that specific battle. After reading about it, it's no wonder the Romans slaughtered them, in fact I'm really surprised Hannibal was able to maintain the battle as long as he did. The other point that I am not sure where people are getting this is they claim that the Punic Wars era Roman troops were no more than militia forces with some training. This isn't remotely true, the Roman military since well before that had evolved past the "militia" stage into a very well trained, disciplined, and equipped fighting force. Further there were more than a number of excellent generals that came out of Rome throughout it's heyday, of course there were the incompetent ones but by and large Rome produced decent to excellent generals. I have no doubts whatsoever that if the Greeks and Alexander had survived past his death and tried to invade the Italian peninsula, that they would have more than met their matches.

In reading about Alexander, again he strikes me as more of a charismatic leader than militarily skilled. As the maxim goes, when a king is present in an army, he should always lead, the fine point being that even though he was in charge he had extremely bright and talented advisors and generals to help him, and this is largely why I think he was so successful. This, coupled with the fact that the Persians never seemed to learn how to effectively counter the phalanx leads me to the conclusion that Alexander had a relatively easier time. It should also be mentioned that Alexander's army did some incredibly stupid things on more than one occasion, the battle that they fought in cappadocia (or thereabouts) where the Persians had excellent defensive lines behind a river, and the sheer luck that the won the day with doesn't help this argument.

Both men were legends of their time and truly some of the greatest the world has ever seen, but in terms of generalship and military skill I still say the award goes to Hannibal.

And Marshal, you do realize you are arguing with a greek about Alexander. That's like trying to argue with a Turk that Ataturk wasn't all he cracked up to be.

Cheers

[Marshal Murat]

Anyway none cant deny the fact that the cavalry lacking Romans were practically begging to be encircled and slaughtered...their flanks were wide open invitation....

Whilst in Gaugamela the Persian front was much wider and they had string
cavalry...Alexander's genious won the battle as with all of them...

Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus III against the Romans (Hannibal was there I think)

Antiochus had a long line. Very long line. No, really, the line was three times longer than the Roman line. However, he was defeated when the Romans hit his center, and the flank that could have hit the Romans on the flank, they were to far away to successfully do so.

It's to bad nationalism gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

[hellenes]

Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus III against the Romans (Hannibal was there I think)

Antiochus had a long line. Very long line. No, really, the line was three times longer than the Roman line. However, he was defeated when the Romans hit his center, and the flank that could have hit the Romans on the flank, they were to far away to successfully do so.

It's to bad nationalism gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

It's to bad personal agenda and opinion gets in the way of good facts.
No offense intended, but really, thats what happens.

See I can do this too...

[Marshal Murat]

Flame or not flame, that is the question....

For the sake of argument, lets not argue! Or, even better, I'll start a new thread!

Anyway, Alexander defeated Hannibal.
Now where is that shrug emoticon?

[hellenes]

Flame or not flame, that is the question....

For the sake of argument, lets not argue! Or, even better, I'll start a new thread!

Anyway, Alexander defeated Hannibal.
Now where is that shrug emoticon?

Anyway Im glad to see that there arent any hard feelings...
The outcome of this poll might be indicative of the fact that Alexander influenced far more lives than Hannibal and that has to amount to something.

[Kralizec]

Anyway Im glad to see that there arent any hard feelings...
The outcome of this poll might be indicative of the fact that Alexander influenced far more lives than Hannibal and that has to amount to something.

I think that's the only standard that can be reasonably called objective - there's no telling how many military geniuses there were that were better then Alex or Hannibal, but were forgotten or didn't get the chance to show it because they didn't have the recources or died by a twist of fate.

[Czar Alexsandr]

Anyone notice how Hanibal started off better and then started to losse his support?

Odd how history repeats itself

[Ossie The Great]

I think Alexander all the way.

Sad to see i was to late to vote i think we should start another contest but with diffrent historical people

[Boyar Son]

.... have no doubt that Alexander would steamroller the Romans with ease AND take Rome itself....

The Romans definitly werent powerful then

[Colovion]

The difficulty in comparing such great leaders of people is that it merely depends on those they lead, and lead against.

Hannibal very well may have ended up destroying the Romans. Having his messengers caught en route to his brother's camp in the north may have changed the course of history. Had both armies been able to meet up, the end of the war may have ended in a stark contrast to how events unfolded once the Romans knew his plans.

I'm of the mind that men are made by their own merit first, but foremost by the challenges they come against. Had Hannibal not been up against such power as the Romans he very well may have won. Imagine, if you will, a world where Hannibal's army had entered Rome and staked the Barcan Empire from Spain to Italy. Would Hannibal be seen still as such a remarkable figure? Think about it - if it wasn't for what Rome became, Hannibal's victories wouldn't be thought so spectacular today.

Alexander, in my mind, was more remarkable for his poise and ability to lead men towards eachother and unite tribes into an Empire. His personality to his men and to those he conquered developed even a new sense of culture in the regions. His conquests bound together the near-east to the West for the first time, establishing a conduit of trade for centuries to come from the Far East. In short, Alexander was an Empire builder, someone capable of working with his men to create something, not simply defeat an enemy.

It's been said many times that Hannibal didn't know how to use a victory. Alexander, on the other hand, didn't know how to stop looking for places where he could be victorious. One being an aggressive defender of his land from a growing threat, and the other being an aggressive conquerer.

Though I like Hannibal more for his distaste of the Roman's uncreative and languished, uninspired ways and battle tactics, I have to side with Alexander overall.

ps - Hannibal wins on Battles. Alexander wins on Wars.