hanibal vs alexander

[Black_Pegasus]

me and my friend are debating who was the better militaristic leader in real life...i say hanibal...he says alexander...who do u think?

 

[kaze88]

Alexander, hands down.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Alexander, hands down.

i would like ppl to explain themselves...i personally believe that hannibal had more military genius than alexander...

 

[CCRunner]

Alexander, no contest.
Hannibal lost. Alexander conquered the entire known world.
To me that pretty much sums it up.

In civ though, I think Hannibal is better at war.

 

[pat4]

It can't be Hannibal he was to "human". He had Rome at his mercy and he could have burnt it to the ground but he made a concious decision not to. In his last battle outside Carthage he faced Scippio. Hannibal used the same tactics he used every other battle and Scippio was able to counter him easily. Than Scippio did not make Hannibals mistake and he ran Carthage into the ground. The rest is history, Rome becomes the dominant power of the Western Mediteranian and eventually europe.

I don't know much about Alexander apart from him capturing the World according to Greece. He did it all at a very young age, he died in his mid thirties so he must have been pretty good.

 

[Acal]

A lot of the conflicts that Alexander's army were involved in can be based just on pure luck, they smashed the Persian armies and some of those victories were just plain simple luck. But they did have determination, building that causeway to attack the island city of Tyre.

Egypt and India though you can hardly call them conquests, Alexander was turned back after India and the Egyptians just gave themselves to him, more then likely because Egypt was just a vassal of Persia.

On the other hand with Carthage, There were two defining moments of the battle that the Romans changed their fortunes, intercepting the re-inforcements that Hannibal's brother was sending and the battle of Zama. I belive that their very near brush with destruction forced the Romans to expand their borders to protect their center up until the Second Punic War the Roman Empire was confined to Italy.

Hannibal's actions in Northern Italy really scared the crap out of the Senate they are very lucky that they had such a brilliant general on hand who knew how to analyse the situation. If they didn't have Scipio, Rome would have fallen to Carthage and would have become a vassal of their nation.

If it had been Hannibal's father who had been in charge of the armies of the Second War, Rome certainly would have been cinders and I belive they would have made sure the city stayed that way. That I belive is the only flaw Hannibal had while fighting the Romans he was too lenient.

I belive that Hannibal was the better commander, I don't think that Hannibal was much older then Alexander when he lead the invasion of Italy.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

A lot of the conflicts that Alexander's army were involved in can be based just on pure luck, they smashed the Persian armies and some of those victories were just plain simple luck. But they did have determination, building that causeway to attack the island city of Tyre.

Egypt and India though you can hardly call them conquests, Alexander was turned back after India and the Egyptians just gave themselves to him, more then likely because Egypt was just a vassal of Persia.

On the other hand with Carthage, There were two defining moments of the battle that the Romans changed their fortunes, intercepting the re-inforcements that Hannibal's brother was sending and the battle of Zama. I belive that their very near brush with destruction forced the Romans to expand their borders to protect their center up until the Second Punic War the Roman Empire was confined to Italy.

Hannibal's actions in Northern Italy really scared the crap out of the Senate they are very lucky that they had such a brilliant general on hand who knew how to analyse the situation. If they didn't have Scipio, Rome would have fallen to Carthage and would have become a vassal of their nation.

If it had been Hannibal's father who had been in charge of the armies of the Second War, Rome certainly would have been cinders and I belive they would have made sure the city stayed that way. That I belive is the only flaw Hannibal had while fighting the Romans he was too lenient.

I belive that Hannibal was the better commander, I don't think that Hannibal was much older then Alexander when he lead the invasion of Italy.

thank you...someone that agrees...haha...

 

[Vonreuter]

i would like ppl to explain themselves...i personally believe that hannibal had more military genius than alexander...

This is hilarious. Where's your explanation? Please practice what you preach, my friend.

A lot of the conflicts that Alexander's army were involved in can be based just on pure luck, they smashed the Persian armies and some of those victories were just plain simple luck. But they did have determination, building that causeway to attack the island city of Tyre.

Of course you can say that because the Persians had the numbers they should've won, but battles are not won by numbers. Yes, Alexander took a lot of risks, but he did so because he had no option to play it safe.

In the Battle of Issus, Alexander's force numbered less than 1/3 of the Persian horde and had to do a river crossing, which is not an easy feat even with opposite, 3/1 odds! In the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander's force was outnumbered yet again by a Persian army double the size of Alexander's.

Alexander's keys to victory? A trained force that he could trust to hold on despite the odds and the taking of risks. Alexander risked both his own life and the lives of his Companion Cavalry to strike fear into the very heart of the enemy army - its leader. By charging straight into the middle of the fray, he managed to break the enemy army's morale from its stem time and time again. After Darius retreated, his army collapsed in short order.

Morally speaking it was a game of dare. By leading his Companion Cavalry himself, Alexander proved that he was there to fight and risk his own life, which was a great way to boost the morale of his own army and to intimidate Darius. Indeed, by retreating in front of Alexander's charge, Darius showed that he was NOT there to fight himself, which was a devastating blow to the Persian army's morale. When the pack leader flees, the rest of the jackals whimper and run.

So, was Alexander lucky? Yes, he risked everything. Did he deserve to be lucky? Certainly!

Was it fools' luck? No. Alexander's cavalry charge worked many times, so it was a risky tactic, like Ancient Greek Blitzkrieg, not some foolish fortune of war.

Alexander took calculated risks and won. He was a good gambler so to speak, but against Persia, the mightiest kingdom in the known world at the time, there was no other option. NOT taking risks would've meant certain defeat against the immense armies of the Persian superpower (which neither Macedonia nor Greece were not at the time).

 

[pat4]

I still have to give it to Alexander because while he was alive his kingdom never fell. I know he died young but he was able to keep control of his huge empire while he was alive. Hannibal of course was a general not a king/leader. He didn't deal with other issues of running an empire. But I suppose that has nothing to do with the question of military leadership.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Hannibal was hands down better, he won battles Alexander never could.

 

[pat4]

But Hannibal was repetetive. Scippio knew he would use the elephant charge and he developed a tactic to counter it. You can not be a master-general if you loose because you didn't waver your tactics, I know it had never really failed before but there was always the chance it would and he didn't have a plan B. Possibly he was too arogant and failed to see Scippio as a worthy advesary. I don't know but he lost badly.

 

[Wenla]

IMHO:

Alexander = leader
Hannibal = general

Wenla

 

[troytheface]

I remember an old book i read in me youth entilted "War through the Ages" and the author talked about Alexander and Hannible is regard to tactics. It was the author's contention that Alexander utilized a modern approach- penetration and disruption of the enemy's center, while Hannible employed Ambush (less modern i assume -Cannae was deemed a pyschological ambush)

He also stated that Hannible's tactics led to annihilation of the enemy whereas Alexander drove the enemy from the field. (The author also suggested that Alexander's army was so good that some military analysts speculate it could have beaten early gunpowder armies!)
My take...Alexander inherited the best army of the time from his father.
Hannible threw together a collection of different mercenaries and peoples and created his own army. Alexander beat the Persian army in the field and then walked into Persopolis (sp) whereas Hannible beat the Roman army in the field and for whatever reason (they vary- the idea that he did not know how to set about laying a siege is questioned) he was trying to get allies in southern italy- this is a different task then Alexander's.
My vote- Hannible- Alexander faced no Rome.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

But Hannibal was repetetive. Scippio knew he would use the elephant charge and he developed a tactic to counter it. You can not be a master-general if you loose because you didn't waver your tactics, I know it had never really failed before but there was always the chance it would and he didn't have a plan B. Possibly he was too arogant and failed to see Scippio as a worthy adversary. I don't know but he lost badly.

Alexander never faced opponents comparable to Scippio and the Romans. The Persians had ragtag excuses of armies and abysmal leadership. True, they had numbers...but so did the Romans on Hannibal.

 

[raigainousa]

A lot of the conflicts that Alexander's army were involved in can be based just on pure luck, they smashed the Persian armies and some of those victories were just plain simple luck. But they did have determination, building that causeway to attack the island city of Tyre.

It's not just pure luck, Alexander used his military genius in smashing the Persians at Gaugamela. With just one battle, Alexander won over Persians and conquered their country.

Egypt and India though you can hardly call them conquests, Alexander was turned back after India and the Egyptians just gave themselves to him, more then likely because Egypt was just a vassal of Persia.

On the other hand with Carthage, There were two defining moments of the battle that the Romans changed their fortunes, intercepting the re-inforcements that Hannibal's brother was sending and the battle of Zama. I belive that their very near brush with destruction forced the Romans to expand their borders to protect their center up until the Second Punic War the Roman Empire was confined to Italy.

Hannibal's actions in Northern Italy really scared the crap out of the Senate they are very lucky that they had such a brilliant general on hand who knew how to analyse the situation. If they didn't have Scipio, Rome would have fallen to Carthage and would have become a vassal of their nation.

If it had been Hannibal's father who had been in charge of the armies of the Second War, Rome certainly would have been cinders and I belive they would have made sure the city stayed that way. That I belive is the only flaw Hannibal had while fighting the Romans he was too lenient.

I belive that Hannibal was the better commander, I don't think that Hannibal was much older then Alexander when he lead the invasion of Italy.

He won the battles of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, but he cannot force Senate into his terms of peace, and he was forced to retreat when Roman counter-invaded North Africa.

My Vote: Alexander. Hannibal conquered no land.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

It's not just pure luck, Alexander used his military genius in smashing the Persians at Gaugamela. With just one battle, Alexander won over Persians and conquered their country.



He won the battles of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, but he cannot force Senate into his terms of peace, and he was forced to retreat when Roman counter-invaded North Africa.

My Vote: Alexander. Hannibal conquered no land.

but u forget that Romans were gods compared to Persians in terms of their power...

 

[CCRunner]

Alexander never faced opponents comparable to Scippio and the Romans. The Persians had ragtag excuses of armies and abysmal leadership. True, they had numbers...but so did the Romans on Hannibal.

That's a good point. I change my vote to Hannibal.

 

[alvinthegreat]

If you want an unrealistic military simulation, buy Rome: Total War and play the historical battles of Trebia and Transmine (which I assume is a close representation of the actual battle deployments), then compare them to the battles in the Alexander expansion pack, and you'll clearly see that Hannibal clearly had to deal with tougher military situations. It's a great game btw.

Sure, Alexander was brilliant at Gaugamela and Isis, yet...He was facing low-morale, undisciplined troops with the all powerful Greek phalanx. Remember, Greek Hoplites were still the most overpowered military units during this era (with the possible exception of war elephants). With his shock companion cavalry, Alexander easily won battles due to sheer discipline and will rather than brilliant tactics (not that they weren't good tactics). Moreover, he often risked life in the midst of battle, something a good military leader would not do.

Hannibal, on the other hand, had devastating victories at Cannae and Lake Transamine due to brilliant tactics. He was not facing undisciplined soldiers of the Persians, but rather the discplined, high-morale, Roman legions. Again and Again, Hannibal defeated the powerful Roman army through some of the most original tactics in military history (i.e perfectly executed encirclements during Cannae, luring during Trebia, use of terrain during Transamine), and handed the Romans their worst losses in their history. An old Roman adage was "Hannibal is at the gates" - they often used it to say danger was near. This shows the profound respect that the Romans had for the military genius. True, Hannibal lost at Zama, but his elite cavalry units betrayed him and joined the Romans, his elite troops from the Roman campaigns were gone, and he was forced to resort to raw recruits and mercenaries. On the other hand, Romans had their veterans from the roman campaigns at the hands of a very able general. Scipio Africanus was a veteran against Hadsbrul in Spain, and thus had a detailed knowledge of Catharingian tactics and troop dispositions.

Hannibal's Legacy can be seen in every pincer movement any amateur tactician practices or any ambush or feint you'll ever use.

 

[Kadasbrass]

Hard to tell, complete different circumstances.

Early in the second punic war Hannibal's moves were brillant. Near the end he may of been repeative but it might also be a factor of limited resources. Plus when he went back to defend Carthage he didn't have his army he had in Rome, that Army was still in Rome. Hanniable had to defend Carthage with unexperienced troops and may of had no choice but to use the tactics easiest for those troops to follow.

Also Hannibal wasn't being fully supported by his own side which is where alot of his resource shortages come from.

As for not taking Rome, he lacked the seige equipment and building it would of taken months by which time his forces would of been stuck in a limited area making his army an easier target.

Alexander went his entire conquest with the same army the whole time. Greek Soldiers in general were better soldiers compared to the Persians. More advanced equipment (Better armor and shields), better training.

The differenece between Hannibal's forces and Rome's were much smaller and in most areas the Romans were better soldiers. The Carthangians used good number of mercenaries and allies from other Rome's enemies to fill their ranks. No standardized equipment amoung them. It was really Hannibal's leadership that held the whole thing together.


Now if you really want to compared the two, you have to switch their places in history and see what happens. I dare say an Hannibal in charge of Greece at the time would have done no worse and maybe have done better.

The greatest general in history can still lose when the stars align against him.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Alexander showed himself to be an inventive master of tactics, leadership, strategy, politics, logistics. He conquered an empire many times his own country's size. He defeated the largest navy on earth with a small navy and a brilliant land campaign. He defeated an insurgency in Afghanistan with a combination of military and political strategy. He conquered an island city with no navy of his own. He defeated numerically superior and better balanced Persian forces which contained large numbers of Greek mercenaries fighting in phalanx formations.

Hannibal brilliantly destroyed the Roman army and had free reign up and down the Italian peninsula for years, yet was unable to take any major cities while the Romans rebuilt their strength and his trickled away. Rome was not the superpower at that time that Persia was when Alexander conquered it.

Alexander hands down.