hanibal vs alexander

[troytheface]

Persia (the east) was on the decline. Rome (the west) was on the rise. Alexander was sloughing through a carcass, Hannible- battling what would be the new and largest empire yet. Pyrhuss (sp) knew Alexander-like tactics (i would guess) and the result against Rome was Pyhric (sp). Good points tho on the alexander arguement. I think a problem his story has is, he just never lost. (which could be due to different reasons)

 

[pat4]

It is fair to say that Hannibal had a harder time than Alexander but that dosn't make him a better General. Alexander conquered Persia Hannibal didn't couquere Rome. I know it isn't as black and white as that but it is still the best argument.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

It is fair to say that Hannibal had a harder time than Alexander but that dosn't make him a better General. Alexander conquered Persia Hannibal didn't couquere Rome. I know it isn't as black and white as that but it is still the best argument.

but the reason he couldnt conquer it is because of reasons listed above...i think its ignorant to believe that hannibal was a weaker general than alexander...

 

[Olleus]

They were both tactical genius', there's no doupt on that. But who was better?

Well Alexander had a better army, but he also faced a much more potent enemy. Also, you can't blame everything he did on luck. A single battle can be based on luck, but not half a dozen. Besides, great skill can often look like luck: Napoleon himself only promoted officers that wre "lucky". So Alexander inherited a very good army and used it to conquer the world. He was a great tactician, orator and organiser.

Hanibal also had a very distinguished campaign. His is marked even more by the fact that his army was made up in large parts of mercinaries and didn't have the skill of Alexanders army. However, the rest of his army was made up of spanish veterans and wre probably the best army at the time. The romans on the other hand only had levies of citizen-farmers and were lead by incompetent fools (at the begining anyway( who only cared about their personal advancement. However, Hanibal was still at a severe numerical advantage and managed to win battle after battle. That makes him a good general, but wining a war is more important. Sun Tzu said that the general who wins without glory is the best one, because he makes it look easy be completely beating the enemy by fighting as few battles as possible.

Troytheface, you say that persia was weak and Rome was strong, so Hanibal had the harder job. I think that thats a case of foresight ruining the perspective. Rome became strong because it beat Hanibal; it did not beat Hanibal because it was already strong. You said yourself that it was only after the 2nd punic war that Rome pushed out of Italy. At the time of Hanibal it was still 'pacifying' northern Italy. Likewise Persia only became weak because of Alexander. Before him, it was a superpower.

 

[Kazbar]

i think its ignorant to believe that hannibal was a weaker general than alexander...

Why are we even holding this discussion if you aren't going to accept any point against Hannibal? You'll just claim it as "ignorant".

 

[Tecibbar]

Hannibal is one of my favorite general in history and in Civ4.
Alex has a bit of murderer and drunkard in him.

Alex do won many wars where he is badly outnumbered. But IMHO in acient warfare quantity isn't nearly as important as quality. Only the battle front counts; and once the line is broken, the battle is basically over. Greater numbers can be important to outflank the enemy, but Alex has superior calvary, so was seldom outflanked.

I feel that greek can conquer persia whenever they feel like to, just look into Marathon

 

[troytheface]

"I feel that greek can conquer persia whenever they feel like to"

I too have this suspician. They did not need Alexander at Marathon nor Platea (sp).
But at a certain level an impossible arguement- different enemies, different terrain, and a time gap. Xenophone walked around with a small group of Hoplites in the middle of the persian empire and managed to get home without supplies or a home base.

 

[zebomba2]

Rome was no superpower before the Punic Wars.
Since most points have already been discussed, I say Magnus first and Hannibal second. The most astounding series of victories the world has ever seen, invincibility in the face of the then superpower. His empire was fragmented but its legacy went on for centuries, from the eastern Mediterranean to India.
As for Carthage, it could have been much more and the Mediterranean could be an Ocidental lake. A Carthaginian Empire could have never fell like Rome so who knows how history would turn out. But its factions killed it from within, and Hannibal indeed suffered from that. Maybe that could be called luck, and Napoleon was right in favouring lucky people.

 

[Tecibbar]

As for Carthage, it could have been much more and the Mediterranean could be an Ocidental lake. A Carthaginian Empire could have never fell like Rome so who knows how history would turn out. But its factions killed it from within, and Hannibal indeed suffered from that.

Carthage will never create an empire like rome. They are an commercial culture, and isn't big on conquering others. Even if Hannibal conquered all Mediterranean, it would collapsed like Alex's empire.

 

[el toro loco]

have to go hannibal. anyone who can get an army over the alps and then still go against romans and win.

 

[CCRunner]

have to go hannibal. anyone who can get an army over the alps and then still go against romans and win.

Except that they didn't win.

 

[el toro loco]

Except that they didn't win.

if hannibal's countrymen would have sent him additional troops and pledged themselves it could have had a different outcome. when you get no reinforcements it is hard to win. sure he could have sacked rome but he had some decency. which is another reason i vote for him.

 

[Comrade Alex]

I wouldn't say Hannibal was predictable... At Trasimene, Trebia and Cannae he employed vastly different strategies. The only reason the Romans avoided annihilation was by hiding in their cities and avoiding confrontation for years.

Still Alexander though. It takes more than "dumb luck" to fell a superpower such as Persia, and carve an Empire stretching from Macedonia to India.

 

[zebomba2]

Carthage will never create an empire like rome. They are an commercial culture, and isn't big on conquering others. Even if Hannibal conquered all Mediterranean, it would collapsed like Alex's empire.

But policies change. Rome didn't start with an imperialist attitude (bullying neighboors is a good start for that but they weren't trying to conquer the whole known world back then). Who knows if Carthage could have gone through Marian reforms and the like? They did have a large, well funded military and submitted most cultures around them just like Rome did. They were far from the ultimate peaceful commercial civilization most games portray them as.
Carthage is probably the most underrated could-have-been empires ever. If you ask random people on the street about them you will get mostly "uh?" responses.

And the idea that Alexander was dumb lucky is wishful thinking.

 

[caketastydelish]

To all of you saying Alexander is better because he faced the Persians with such superior numbers...

1. Hannibal was also outnumbered.

2. I can't help but notice almost every historical source regarding Greek vs. Persia, is by a GREEK historian of the time. "according to this Greek historian, according to that Greek historian" And no kidding! If you take everything from the GREEK perspective, the Persians will seem like the "bad guys". Well you know what? If you take everything from the Persian perspective, the Greeks will seem like the bad guys!

But oh wait, who am I kidding... This is the west, I should have known better. Greece is the symbol of the west and anyone that dosen't worship it like a mindless robot deserves to die...

All of you guys are talking about how horrible the Persian army was. Those "statistics" could have been made up as far as I"m conserned, but let me ask you this: If the Greek army was so great and the Persian army was a piece of crap, how come Rome easily invaded Greece, but never did so with Persia?

And sure Greece invaded Persia, but how long did they keep it? If by that definition Greece invaded Persia, England invaded America in the war of 1812.

In reality, Persia outlasted Greece. Greece "invaded" Persia for a short time, but in the end the two super powers were Rome and Persia. Rome never managed to invade Persia (or vice versa). Now I'm not saying Persia is better than Greece. I'm saying they're equal to Greece. In some ways Greece is better and in some ways Persia is better. Most westerners won't admit that though.

Persia is studied little in the west, and the few times it is, it is with a HUGE Greek/Roman biased.

 

[caketastydelish]

Persia (the east) was on the decline. Rome (the west) was on the rise. Alexander was sloughing through a carcass, Hannible- battling what would be the new and largest empire yet. Pyrhuss (sp) knew Alexander-like tactics (i would guess) and the result against Rome was Pyhric (sp). Good points tho on the alexander arguement. I think a problem his story has is, he just never lost. (which could be due to different reasons)

Rome was on the rise... If anything, that would make problems even WORSE for Alexander, not better.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I saw a documentary on History Channel, times ago.
Two historians, one expert of Alexander, the other expert of Hannibal, debated about their greatest wins: the battle of Isso for Alexander, and the battle of Cannae for Hannibal.
They imagined what it was happened if they had fought one against the other, fighting in the same way as they did in those battles.
They "simulate" such an imaginary battle, one "playing" as Alexander, the other as Hannibal.
Hannibal resulted the winner! It was really nice and historically accurate.

 

[troytheface]

hannible was a few hundred years in the future. alexander would look like a quaint antique. his little ponies would have been smashed by spanish horse. the phanalx would face the same fate they did when they confronted rome. (the romans seized the initiative and ducked under the pikes and came up with their short swords. - the greeks won, but pointlessly so- their army was decimated.
There is an old saying that Rome (and later the British) "lose every battle but win the war" (they could probably throw Vietnam in that saying as well).

 

[pat4]

I'm not saying that Hannibal didn't have better tactics, of course he did. He was in the future, battle tactics change and evolve becoming better more inventive and encomposing new technology. It's like at the start of ww2 when Poland, France and Britain tried to fight using ww1 rules but the nazi's invented new ones. I'm certain that Hannibal had superior tactics but military leaders have to provide results which Alexander gave more of.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Why are we even holding this discussion if you aren't going to accept any point against Hannibal? You'll just claim it as "ignorant".

i didnt say i wasnt accepting any points against hanibal...in fact im happily taking them in and enjoying the discussion cus i like looking at both sides of everything...but anyways i said it was ignorant because pat4 stated in that one little post that just because alexander actually conquered persia but hannibal didnt conquer rome, that it made alexander the better general...i think you have to also look at the power each man possesed. for hannibal, it wasnt much other than his might on the field because the Carthaginian Senate refused to let him march directly into Rome and dictated where he went...in fact he payed his troops out of his own pocket. Hannibal was just a general and not a king that could decide what campaigns he wanted and when...I mean sure Alexander had opposition when deciding to go into his campaigns but keep in mind that with his rule he was ultimately able to decide what to do and when...unlike hannibal who didnt have the support of his own country...now off to look at the other posts!