alexander the great, all that great??

[Vietcong]

hears my question to all of you..

thears no question as to wheather alexander was a great taction.
but my question is, his he realy all that great?? or just extreamly lucky?
allso, the persians altho formitable whear poorly trained and equiped, and the persian king wasnt realy all that good of a taction himself.

to me it seems more like alexander did know what he was dooing, but at other times was a major major MAJOR risk taker, and even seemed a liltle out of touch with reality. many of his great battles whear win or losse everything type... indeed if he was defeated at issus, or another great battle it whould have all been over for him... every thing.
so, to me its not just him knowing what hes doing, but allso just a lot, i mean ALOT of just damn good luck!!! pluss the crapy persian leadership.
he was nearly crushed so many times, yet snached victory from the jaws of deafet



and in the case of hanable, how did he losse to the romans!? he is a difrent kind of case.. the snached defeat from the jaws of victory kind..

 

[JonnyB]

Regarding Hannibal:
The first problem Hannibal had was the ability to resupply his army with fresh troops.

But what ultimately ended his attack on the Roman Empire was when Rome attacked and siezed Carthage. His army was then recalled to fight on the homefront.

 

[Tee Kay]

Re: Hannibal

Several problems:
- He believed in and at times (Zama) depended on elephants. Never place your hopes and dreams on animals with unpredictable temper.
- He depended too much on supply from Carthage, while many of the oligarchs back home doesn't give a #### about him. Capturing and holding Roman ports also proved more difficult than previously thought.
- He delayed in taking Rome after the battle of Cannae. After that sort of defeat he expected Rome would collapse internally and southern Itary would revolt against Roman rule and join him on a final assault on a weakened Rome. This, of course, did not happen. So Hannibal is forced to wait for supply which never came.

Re: Alexander
He was very lucky to attack the Persians when they were still recovering from internal dynastic strife and provincial revolts. His military successes were result of combination luck/Alexander's personal determination ambition /crappy organisation on part of the Persians. He's a risk taker, and it paid off until he was forced to turn back on the edge of India. He took a risk by crossing the desert back to Susa. This time he weren't so lucky: the ordeal decimated his army, and then he tried unsuccessfully to implement reforms which was to reconcile Macedonians and Persians. Had he not die in Babylon in 323 BC, he would've found it extremely difficult to manage his empire, let alone proceed on further conquests.

 

[FriendlyFire]

He took a risk by crossing the desert back to Susa. This time he weren't so lucky: the ordeal decimated his army.

Yes thou Alexander was a great tactical commander. The Greek army was to be supplied via the ocean going vessels. The means of supply and logistics in the past has shown careful planning.

This time though there was a strong storm which stopped hes supplys from comming in. At that point Alexanader made a mistake in attemping to move inland.

He was very lucky comming close to death several times. From intrigue (assasination) and hes own reckless courage on the battlefield. Even as ;ate as the Indian campaign alexander lead assualts in which finally he was greviously injured which prevented him from fighting ever again.

he would've found it extremely difficult to manage his empire, let alone proceed on further conquests.

Probably not. Hes legendy personality and hellentic culture was such a force. Probably would have lasted while he lived.
Reminds me of the story.

After hes death all hes generals and rulers came to honor him. But they could not stand in the presence of each other such was there distrust. As each would claim to be better then the other. Until it was suggested they meet as equals beneath Alexanders empty throne, hes armout and shield. Only then under the presence of Alexander did they meet. Such much have been to be in the court of Alexander the great when he was alive.

 

[Dachs]

Several problems:
- He believed in and at times (Zama) depended on elephants. Never place your hopes and dreams on animals with unpredictable temper.

At Zama, Hannibal was actually hampered by his lack of cavalry, which was actually the decisive arm at several battles: Ticinus, Trebia, and Cannae. After Massinissa switched sides, Hannibal didn't have much chance to win at Zama, but the fact that he came so close is merely a testament to his skill.

- He depended too much on supply from Carthage, while many of the oligarchs back home doesn't give a #### about him. Capturing and holding Roman ports also proved more difficult than previously thought.

He couldn't depend AT ALL on supply from Carthage. IIRC only two reinforcement parties reached him: that of his brother Mago in Liguria in the later war, and another after he took Tarentum. Supply from Africa would have been the only way for the Punic Army to win the war without, say, Philip V joining in the fight.

- He delayed in taking Rome after the battle of Cannae. After that sort of defeat he expected Rome would collapse internally and southern Itary would revolt against Roman rule and join him on a final assault on a weakened Rome. This, of course, did not happen. So Hannibal is forced to wait for supply which never came.

He didn't have a choice. Realistically, attacking Rome was virtually impossible with his resources anyway. It was said that Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not to use it; that's not entirely true. Had he the siege train or support from Carthage - the fact that they didn't come wasn't his but Hanno's fault anyway - he would undoubtedly have marched on Rome and taken the fortifications, which he knew he couldn't crack any other way.

On the subject of Hannibal: He was very tactically able (although he liked to do the same basic tactic of a cavalry envelopment too much) and strategically his only real match of the time was Scipio Africanus. He, unfortunately, had to pit a trading power that relied on mercenaries against a nation with about half a million possible soldiers, a superior basic tactical system, and generals that (generally) were not up to his caliber, but very, very close (like Nero, Marcellus, and Fabius for those almost as good, and Scipio for a general as good as he). Denigrating Hannibal just because he didn't win is silly and a bit pedantic.

Re: Alexander
He was very lucky to attack the Persians when they were still recovering from internal dynastic strife and provincial revolts. His military successes were result of combination luck/Alexander's personal determination ambition /crappy organisation on part of the Persians. He's a risk taker, and it paid off until he was forced to turn back on the edge of India. He took a risk by crossing the desert back to Susa. This time he weren't so lucky: the ordeal decimated his army, and then he tried unsuccessfully to implement reforms which was to reconcile Macedonians and Persians. Had he not die in Babylon in 323 BC, he would've found it extremely difficult to manage his empire, let alone proceed on further conquests.

Yes, of course he was a risk taker, but you seem to completely leave out his A) superior tactical instrument and B) brilliance in utilizing it and C) skill on the plane of grand strategy. Sure, the Persians had been going through internal unrest. They do that all of the time: in fact, almost every single time their Great King died (Darius I had to deal with it, and Artaxerxes II too. Those are just the most notable examples, of course). It didn't seem to affect Darius' ability to raise armies of 100,000+ troops - at Ipsus and Arbela both.

I'm really tired of everyone denigrating the Achaemenid Army. For their time, they were probably one of the better technical and tactical instruments. Cyrus used it to his benefit against the Lydians at Pteria and Thymbra, and Darius I was able to smash up the Egyptians pretty well. They just have the bad luck to be compared with the Greek hoplites, which were the best in the world. It's like those who compare WWII France to Nazi Germany: they weren't bad at all, but they weren't the best, and they ended up fighting the best. It should also be noted that many Greek mercenary hoplites served in Achaemenid armies, especially at Ipsus (although not so much at Arbela).

Darius III Codomannus wasn't a complete idiot, either. Everyone seems to forget that he was so intelligent as to maneuver onto Alexander's line of communications and supply before Ipsus to force him to fight; it was just his bad luck that Alexander - who, it should be noted, had only had to fight the Persian satraps before this, and fought rather foolhardily there at the Granicus, which possibly caused Darius to underrate his generalship - wanted a battle, and, being one step ahead, had used his line of communications to entice the Persians to battle in such a way that he could clear his rear areas without having a frontal distraction as well. At Arbela in two years, Darius - just like Hannibal! - tried for a cavalry double envelopment, but Alexander, realizing that the enemy's size prevented him from closing the net easily, went and charged for Darius in a lightning strike that decapitated the Persian command by forcing the King to flee, forcing the contracting Persian ring to come apart just as Parmenio was beginning to falter against Bessus' assault. Darius was no fool, but, like Archduke Charles or Leopold von Daun, he wasn't more than a competent general fighting a Great Captain of History, and that spelled his downfall.

Alexander may have been a bit delirious sometimes, relying on his luck a little too much, but every general needs luck, after all. His inability to push on to India was the result of the Argyraspides' unwillingness to keep going - probably caused by his concentration too much on what he could do as opposed to what they could do. His much-maligned decision do cross Baluchistan deserves to be just that: much-maligned. There were some pretty good reasons, though. It would be faster than going back north - the main reason he went back at all was because of his men, you know, and he didn't have the fleet capacity to carry all of his men, for example. I agree completely that he would have had problems administering his Empire as soon as it reached a state of peace - and even possibly before. The Lamian War, which started just as soon as he died, was brought on by news of his death; if he'd been on the other side of the world, the Greeks might as well have thought that he could do them just as much harm as if he were dead. His generals, those who would become the diadochi, would have been trying to get rid of each other, and there are some instances of that happening even before Alexander died. Alexander's death in Babylon would be comparable to that of Napoleon after Tilsit, if it happened.

 

[Vietcong]

agreed, im not saying i think alexander is a horid general. hes one of the top guys of all time, but hes probly not as good as what ppl put him up to be, and seemed to just be damn lucky alot of the time..

 

[Dachs]

Every good general was lucky. If you want someone who relied on luck a devil of a lot, look at Julius Caesar.

Alexander was bloody good, but a bit megalomaniacal.

 

[RickFGS]

Re: Hannibal

Several problems:
- He believed in and at times (Zama) depended on elephants. Never place your hopes and dreams on animals with unpredictable temper.
- He depended too much on supply from Carthage, while many of the oligarchs back home doesn't give a #### about him. Capturing and holding Roman ports also proved more difficult than previously thought.
- He delayed in taking Rome after the battle of Cannae. After that sort of defeat he expected Rome would collapse internally and southern Itary would revolt against Roman rule and join him on a final assault on a weakened Rome. This, of course, did not happen. So Hannibal is forced to wait for supply which never came.

1) In Carthage´s battle of Zama, Hannibal loses because Rome as 2 new allies, the city of Utica (just miles north of Carthage!) and Numidia, making Hannibal losing all is cavalry and Rome magically appearing with superior cavalry - the secreat weapon of Hannibal now on the pay for Rome, quite an interesting reverse of situations.

As for the battle itself Hannibal was superior in infantry but the battle is known to be loss because the Roman/Numidian Cavalry wasted all Carthages flanks and turned on the center back for the final blow.

2) Hannibal assumed Rome was political similar to the states he had ruled and growned up in, as you say oligarchies, or city states, where theres no pratical sense of nation. In fact you have just summed up the reason why Rome conquered all other people, they followed the supreme maximums "unity makes you stronger" and "divide to conquer". Greece had the same problem, only Macedon was an exception. The barbarian nations lived in tribes, therefore separated.

3) Hannibal was waiting for his brother´s replanishing army which he began preparations before even lefting Spain, although the army came to be slaughtered and brother killed on Northern Italy, some 40,000 men, just what Hannibal needed to strangle Rome.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Alexander was Lucky, but ancient peoples wouldn't have seen any contradiction between being great and being lucky. Being lucky was a good thing, since it meant that person was favored by the gods. Alexander made tremendous accomplishments through force of will alone.

As for Hannibal. He needed supplies from Carthage which didn't arrive (I think they made two attempts to resupply him, which were intercepted, but, for the most part, Carthage focused on trying to keep Spain and retake Sicily). Although southern Greek cities supported him, they didn't send him troops and only tied up his manpower trying to defend them from Rome. By contrast, no Latin city defected from Rome, so Rome's large supply of troops never dried up. His eventual defeat was when the Numidians switched sides, but he couldn't win because he couldn't overcome loyalty to Rome. Its possible that, had he marched immediately on Rome after Cannae, the city might have capitulated, but it seems unlikely (they would probably have issued their customary response that they wouldn't negotiate while he was on Italian soil). Rome thought differently than other opponents and nothing short of a direct assault on the walls of the city would have changed that (something that Hannibal never had the ability to do).

 

[shortguy]

Alexander was Lucky, but ancient peoples wouldn't have seen any contradiction between being great and being lucky. Being lucky was a good thing, since it meant that person was favored by the gods. Alexander made tremendous accomplishments through force of will alone.

Actually, in Greek writing there's a real danger of being too lucky, and thus drawing the ire and jealousy of the gods.

Consider this passage from Herodotus, a communique from Amasis King of Egypt to his ally and friend Polycrates, tyrant of Samos:

"So for myself and those I care for, I would wish some success and some failure in what happens and so to live life through with these variations rather than good happening in everything. For I have never yet heard in story of anyone whose good fortune was complete who did not end up in complete ruin" (3.40).

 

[Dachs]

Actually, in Greek writing there's a real danger of being too lucky, and thus drawing the ire and jealousy of the gods.

When one gets too lucky, he is susceptible to having hybris.

3) Hannibal was waiting for his brother´s replanishing army which he began preparations before even lefting Spain, although the army came to be slaughtered and brother killed on Northern Italy, some 40,000 men, just what Hannibal needed to strangle Rome.

Ah, yes, the good ol' Battle of the Metaurus. Last chance for anyone to destroy Rome...I wonder: if it had been Minucius instead of Gaius Nero in charge of the southern Army, how fast Rome would have fallen.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

hears my question to all of you..

thears no question as to wheather alexander was a great taction.
but my question is, his he realy all that great?? or just extreamly lucky?
allso, the persians altho formitable whear poorly trained and equiped, and the persian king wasnt realy all that good of a taction himself.

to me it seems more like alexander did know what he was dooing, but at other times was a major major MAJOR risk taker, and even seemed a liltle out of touch with reality. many of his great battles whear win or losse everything type... indeed if he was defeated at issus, or another great battle it whould have all been over for him... every thing.
so, to me its not just him knowing what hes doing, but allso just a lot, i mean ALOT of just damn good luck!!! pluss the crapy persian leadership.
he was nearly crushed so many times, yet snached victory from the jaws of deafet

I think that Alexander knew what he was doing but insisted on a flair for the dramatic. Alexander believed he had divine ancestry and was interested in making himself a legend both in his own time and for posterity. It also helped ensure morale and loyalty by his soldiers, as he lead from the front, rather than the rear. It is true that many of his battles were "all or nothing" affairs, but that's often what military strategy is about-- risks. Alexander had a goal in mind -- to conquer the Persian Empire -- and was determined to do so.

and in the case of hanable, how did he losse to the romans!? he is a difrent kind of case.. the snached defeat from the jaws of victory kind..

Hannibal was a great strategist and tactitian. The problem was that he didn't know what to do after victory. After Cannae, he could've laid seige to Rome, but chose to pillage Italy instead (which involved less risk), giving the Romans time to regroup. He also underestimated the loyalty of Rome's Italian allies, which were treated quite well and had little intention of going over to the other side. The Romans just did an end-around his army, knowing that they couldn't defeat him in the field. Also, Hannibal was betrayed by his own country for political reasons.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Hannibal was a stunning general. He held an army together through unimaginable hardship and fought a nation who was vastly superior in every field but wealth (which meant nothing to Hannibal, since most of the money was shipped elsewhere and thence to Rome as booty!).

He certainly wasn't a god, but he did the best that could possibly be expected of him against overwhelming odds. To even make it seem for an instant that Carthage could win was an achievement that no contemporary could equal. By the time Zama came around, a good chunk of his army was more refugee than soldier (the Bruttians), and Scipio had him completely overpowered in every area. The only mistake Hannibal made at Zama was to *not* do something completely spectacular. That's what he had to continuously do to survive, and when he was beaten in the end, it wasn't anything to do with poor generalship, but simply a demonstration of the fact that any level of generalship cannot on its own guarantee victory when the forces are so wildly disparate.

Had the other Carthaginian generals the same level of talent as say Hasdrubal or Marcellus, he probably would have won the war.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

hears my question to all of you..

thears no question as to wheather alexander was a great taction.
but my question is, his he realy all that great?? or just extreamly lucky?
allso, the persians altho formitable whear poorly trained and equiped, and the persian king wasnt realy all that good of a taction himself.

to me it seems more like alexander did know what he was dooing, but at other times was a major major MAJOR risk taker, and even seemed a liltle out of touch with reality. many of his great battles whear win or losse everything type... indeed if he was defeated at issus, or another great battle it whould have all been over for him... every thing.
so, to me its not just him knowing what hes doing, but allso just a lot, i mean ALOT of just damn good luck!!! pluss the crapy persian leadership.
he was nearly crushed so many times, yet snached victory from the jaws of deafet.

Alexander was great, in both the battlefield and in ruling his conquests. Yes, he relied on luck, but so does every army and conqueror. He had everything going for him, he inherited a strong and loyal army, and the Persians were not at their best. Alexander was lucky, yes, but he was good also. It was not luck that spread Hellenistic culture through the east, where it remained until the advent of Islam, it was his skill as an administartor and coloniser. It was not luck that made him deified after his death, but his great deeds. It was his skill and charisma that won battles and persuaded his army to go to the edge of the known world, not luck.

and in the case of hanable, how did he losse to the romans!? he is a difrent kind of case.. the snached defeat from the jaws of victory kind..

The problem was that he was fighting the Romans. The Romans were a bloody minded lot and kept fighting after losing battles that would have crippled other states of the time. Hannibal was good, but he was fighting an enemy that was like the energizer bunny. If the Romans lost 80k men, well, they would just raise another army, and go at it again. Hannibal also didn't get a whole lot of help from the Carthaginians, and never got really strong enough to take Rome itself.

 

[RickFGS]

As for Alexander, he had the most sofisticated army to the date. His father, Philip, had trained and fully equiped an army of "Phalangites" - syntagama formations of 250 men in width and 16 men deep using the revoltionary sassira, longer spear, allowing the fisrt 5 ranks to fight simultaneous instead of the greek "phalanx" traditonal 3 ranks.

The "phalangites" also had more range due to longer spears and more manueverabilty then regular phalanxes, the sassira when not engaging could be dismanteld into two parts while in motion and then reassembled to fight again.

The Sassira and syntagama 250 formations close ranks allowed for these long spears to actually deflect a great number of incoming arrows and other missile weapons much used by persians, minimizing the casualties.

Also, these troops were higly trained for years while the Persian army is knowed to be recruits with few military experience from all remote parts of the empire.

RTW reflects this perfectly, 1 Macedonian phalangite can just wipe out 5 or more enemy persian infantry or cavalry for that matter.

Joining in the Macedonian heavy cavalry Companion, Hypaspists and Thessalians, Alexander´s greatness on the field seems a bit understandable.....

 

[FriendlyFire]

Joining in the Macedonian heavy cavalry Companion, Hypaspists and Thessalians, Alexander´s greatness on the field seems a bit understandable.....

Also PERSIAN weakness after the 10,000 the persians made no concret attempts to modify there amries. They had nothing which could stand upto the greek heavy infantry.

There only changes was extra amour for there calvary and some of there royal troops. Instead they relied on Greek mercanries for there own Heavy infantry componets which was not a solution at all.

 

[shortguy]

That second illustration doesn't seem very good. For anything that long (4m or so, I think) you'd practically have to hold it with 2 hands, and their shields weren't Argive shields as seem to be shown. They were quite a bit smaller IIRC.

 

[Dachs]

That second illustration doesn't seem very good. For anything that long (4m or so, I think) you'd practically have to hold it with 2 hands, and their shields weren't Argive shields as seem to be shown. They were quite a bit smaller IIRC.

You're right, they did: but their shields hung around their necks to allow them to carry the sarissai with both hands. The shields definitely weren't the size of a hoplon, but they weren't too small either. Then again, the shields were largely useless except in a struggle with either another phalanx or a close-in unit of heavy infantry like a legion.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Regarding Hannibal:
The first problem Hannibal had was the ability to resupply his army with fresh troops.

But what ultimately ended his attack on the Roman Empire was when Rome attacked and siezed Carthage. His army was then recalled to fight on the homefront.

Compliments of Scipio Africanus and Masinissa (Numidian King, supplied a good host of cavalry to Scipio's army).

Here's a site with some decent info about the Macedonian Armies.
http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/Alexander.html

Great or not, you cannot deny the tactical masterpiece that is the Battle of Gaugamela.

 

[Murky]

Alexander accomplished more than most rulers of his time ever dreamed of doing. Officers still study his tactics today. So I would say yes, he does deserve a few books, films and documentaries to honor his achievements.

I think Hannibal's problems were primarily domestic support issues. His hatred of Rome was probably his undoing. He over-extended is forces into the heart of enemy terrority then was cut off from his supplies. Classic blunder if you ask me. He would've been better off conquering all of north africa and spain before going after the romans.