alexander the great, all that great??

[RickFGS]

The way Sarissa was used by Macedonian phalangites: (here shown in a russian model box ) and possible shield size (notice the usage of both hands while the shield remains straped to the arm):

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

That's an interesting thought. Since Hannibal's success was in Italy, it seems tempting to think he could have ended it there. But, if he was in Spain, he could have had better supplies and help from his brother's troops. On the negative side, though, it was what the Romans were expecting, so he loses the element of suprise.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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.

Indeed Napoleon always asked to be given lucky generals, not ones of greater ability

Alexander conducted in next to no time given how quickly people could march the invasion of a vast area and the defeat of a richer, vastly more numerous people and did it so completely that Greek power remained in place long after his demise.

Not for nothing successful conquerors wanted to emulate him for 1000s of years to come.

 

[neutrino]

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.

Phillip and Alexander were shrewd politicians as well. when they dominated Greece (which Phillip started, and Alexander accomplished), they kept the Greek states intact and integrated Greece and Macedonia. Alexander pretty much followed the same strategy throughout the rest of his conquests -- he defeated opposing forces, but mostly taking cities intact.

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.

i think Hannibal's weakness began to show once he got stalemated in the Italian Peninsula. though several of northern Roman provinces switched sides, the rest steadfastedly sided w/ the Roman Republic, which Hannibal was unable to divide. it would have required clever politics to unsettle the Republic, which he did not do as he hated Rome. i think lack of dominating Carthagenian navy would have limited Hannibal's conquests; by contrast, the Roman Empire ended up lasted for so long, thanks to its dominance over the Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Ferrum Rex]

alxander was not lucky. the combination of superior,better trained forces against ill-trained and equiped soldiers who were more prone to retreat(dont forget the deaths while retreating.). and lastly the macedonian army's use of substances similiar to methamphetiamines, helped with the speed(which also wore the persians)and with dealing with injurys and intensity on the battle field it self. all this coupled with alexanders intellingence and tatics,makes it all seem frightenily possible.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Alexander was not Great for this reason: By the end his troops lost hope in him. Alexander was becoming a persian rly... loving there way of live and detaching himself from the greek way. Probably screwed him over...

Hannibal's defeat lay in many things. Carthigian lack of Support... Roman Patriotism... Hannibal was a great general and even after defeat he had conquered the Romans fears forever.

 

[Dachs]

i think Hannibal's weakness began to show once he got stalemated in the Italian Peninsula. though several of northern Roman provinces switched sides, the rest steadfastedly sided w/ the Roman Republic, which Hannibal was unable to divide. it would have required clever politics to unsettle the Republic, which he did not do as he hated Rome. i think lack of dominating Carthagenian navy would have limited Hannibal's conquests; by contrast, the Roman Empire ended up lasted for so long, thanks to its dominance over the Mediterranean Sea.

Generally agree, except the southern cities (Tarentum mainly, but also an attempt by Capua) were on his side, not the northern ones, which would later hinder the advance of his brother Hasdrubal...

alxander was not lucky. the combination of superior,better trained forces against ill-trained and equiped soldiers who were more prone to retreat(dont forget the deaths while retreating.). and lastly the macedonian army's use of substances similiar to methamphetiamines, helped with the speed(which also wore the persians)and with dealing with injurys and intensity on the battle field it self. all this coupled with alexanders intellingence and tatics,makes it all seem frightenily possible.

While his tactical system and his innate military genius did play the greater role in his victories, Alex was probably the second luckiest general after Gaius Julius Caesar. At the Granicus he avoided decapitation by a hair when one of his bodyguards (Cleitus the Black) rode up and saved him. At Issus, if he hadn't been looking towards the left flank of his army, it would have been an Achaemenid victory with hideous consequences. Then, of course, there's the narrow avoidance of ambushes in the whole Sogdianan War episode...

Alexander was not Great for this reason: By the end his troops lost hope in him. Alexander was becoming a persian rly... loving there way of live and detaching himself from the greek way. Probably screwed him over.

Wait, let me get this straight. A man conquers the largest empire in the known world in a few years with vastly inferior numbers, marches to the ends of the earth, spreads Greek culture to India and all over the Middle East, and wins some of the most tactically decisive battles in history...and you decide that he wasn't "Great" because at the end of his life he began efforts at Persian cultural assimilation - one of the few things that kept Greek culture alive in the Middle East until the advent of Islam?

Huh?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Alexander was not Great for this reason: By the end his troops lost hope in him. Alexander was becoming a persian rly... loving there way of live and detaching himself from the greek way. Probably screwed him over...

Hannibal's defeat lay in many things. Carthigian lack of Support... Roman Patriotism... Hannibal was a great general and even after defeat he had conquered the Romans fears forever.

Nah, the Romans always feared the Celts.

 

[-0blivion-]

I swear some people here are basing Alexander the Great purely on what they have been told by Valerio Massimo Manfredi.

 

[Dachs]

Nah, the Romans always feared the Celts.

More the Germans than the Celts, actually. They had a consistently low opinion of the Gauls, mainly due to Telamon and the victories of Caesar. The fear from Brennus and the Allia ran out sometime after the First Punic War. On the other hand, the Germans were characterized as gigantic monsters from the dark, dank forests to the north. They did inflict the great defeat of Arausio on the Romans, after all, as well as the Teutoberg disaster.