hanibal vs alexander

[Black_Pegasus]

Very interesting thread... We should set up another one exept allow it to encompase all the Military Leaders and see who gets voted the highest.

I have a book titled "What If?" and it talks about I believe both Hannibal and Alexander. I do not remember the Hannibal scenario but the one of Alex falling early in his campaigns to a Persian Axeman was very interesting as it just proves how risky Alex was on the battlefield. (No one attacks with their GG)

thats a very good idea...do you think we should do civ 4 military leaders or just world generals...like all of them....if its civ 4 im thinking hannibal, alexander, napoleon, bismarck...and others...suggest which ones we should do...

 

[troytheface]

The greatest general of all time i would vote for Macarthur. Whooped the japanese, and outflanked the Chinese. Almost single handidly held back the asian hordes.
(and i always lead attacks with my GG)

 

[IagoAlberto]

MacArthur was NOT the greatest American general of world war II let alone greatest general in history. He abandoned the Philippines after doing a piss poor job preparing their army. The USN and Chester Nimitz's campaigns in the central pacific had far more to do with the ultimate Japanese loss in the pacific than MacArthur's campaigns in the south pacific.

His attack at Inchon was a tactical masterstroke. Unfortunately His advance to the Yalu was a colossal strategic blunder. It brought the Chinese into the war, nearly lost it again and left the Americans with no better result than a stalemate. Truman did well to sack him when he did.

MacArthur was a better propagandist than he was a general. Much of his reputation stems from his good relationship with the press at the time and his subsequent desire for political stature. Luckily old soldiers like him fade away.

Oh and while Hannibal was a great general I like Alexander, simply because conquered three empires with such limited resources. It was an incredible feat of logistics to maintain his army over those distances without arousing a bloody insurgency against himself.

 

[troytheface]

lol, his victory brought china in the war? The correct procedure would be to lose and that way china would not enter the war? Alexander had no leader telling him how to conduct the war. Both Hannible and Macauthur had political people pulling the strings, hence hampering their efforts. Macauthor invented new strategies in warfare and made losers like Rommel , and "winners" like Patton (who got stuck in Italy)-look archaic.

 

[IagoAlberto]

No Troy, his victory did not bring China into the war directly it was his belligerant posturing and posting troops too close to the Yalu that brought China into the war. This showed a colossal misjudgement of the strategic situation. Not very indicative of a Great General if you ask me. His threatening of China was what tipped the scales to bring a wavering China into the war. Then he wanted to use nuclear weapons to rescue himself, the use of which would have almost certainly triggered the third world war. Gets better and better doesn't it?

Besides amphibious envelopment was not a strategy developed by MacArthur, the British had been practicing it for centuries. The U.S. Marines were far more influential in developing a coherant amphibious doctrine during the 1920's and 30's after the failed amphibious campaigns of WW1. You should also look at some of the central pacific campaigns, particularly how Nimitz isolated and neutralized the Caroline Islands and Truk in 1944. These were campaigns that were both tactically well fought as well as strategically victorious, something MacArthur can't claim. They were also fine examples of amphibious envelopments which had precisely nothing to do with MacArthur. Besides Nimitz and Holland Smith achieved these victories almost 10 years before MacArthur launched the Inchon landings.

If you would like to see some innovative Generals during the Second World War who acually invented new methods of warfare I can suggest a number of places to look before MacArthur. I already mentioned Nimitz, admittedly an Admiral not a General, during the Central Pacific Campaign. You should also look at Field Marshal Slim during the Burmese Campaign. Slim fought a very successful and innovative jungle campaign against the Japanese. He invented tactics and strategies that not only led him to victory but influenced Generals as diverse as Vo Nguyen Giap and Creighton Abrams.

You should also examine Heinz Guderian as the inventor of Blitzkrieg and practicioner of it in some of the most successful campaigns of the war. They included, Poland in 1939 France in 1940, Barbarossa in 1941. In addition he fought under far more onerous directions from Hitler than MacArthur ever did from FDR or Truman. Look at any war college syllabus I garuntee you they will have Guderian's writings and not MacArthur's. His writings were very perceptive and forward looking. I could go on for the Second World War, but you should really be getting the point by now.

 

[troytheface]

reminds me of vietnam a bit where certain generals were against "body counts" and ground troops at all and suggested bombing instead-macnamara (sp) and other bean counters in the "think tank" were wrong.
Perhaps truman was wrong - and now that China has inter-continental missles the point is mute, and currently N. korea is a thorn in america's side and perhaps capable of starting 3rd world war but thuis time where the enemy has nukes! never has a weapon been invented that was not used- and Macauthor was set on winning- backed by a president that was bent on ...a stalemate?
good points tho, gotta admire Nimitz.

edit- But not to neglect the topic- Hannible's victory at Cannae is said to have killed 50,000 troops- which makes his battle plan as effective as a nuke. Alexander had no such result, unless you consider burning and killing people in undefended cities.

 

[IagoAlberto]

I agree with you Troy, regarding the subsequent development of North Korea and the PRC. Though, I doubt there was any way during the period that the U.S. could have replace the PRC with a Kuomintang Nationalist government or any other kind. However I do think, and many historians agree, that if MacArthur had been more careful in his advance to the Yalu he could have prevented the PRC from entering the war and thus prevented the emergance of North Korea.

I doubt using nukes following the PRC intervention would have allowed the war to be won by the United States. At best the allies may have gained some territory north of the 38th parrallel. At worst it would have triggered the third world war. Which would have caused a nuclear exchange and possibly a successful Soviet invasion of western europe. That was the real reason nukes couldn't be used. MacArthur just wanted to use them to shore up his prestige and in some ways it looks like an act of megalomaniacal desparation. Truman was right to fire him.

As far as Cannae goes, I have to agree it was probably one of the greatest military victories ever won. In fact I think MacArthur may have even cited Cannae as an inspiration for the Inchon landings.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

You should also examine Heinz Guderian as the inventor of Blitzkrieg and practicioner of it in some of the most successful campaigns of the war. They included, Poland in 1939 France in 1940, Barbarossa in 1941.

well although the three were all succesful campaigns, Barbarossa was actually kind of a failure...In the begining of the campaign it was very well but lack of planing brought the Germans into the Russian winter so I'm just pointing out although it was succesfull at the start, it failed in the overall plan of things and was the turning point of the war...

 

[IagoAlberto]

You're absolutely right of course, I was more pointing out the success that Guderian's formations had during the initial months of the campaign. I alluded to Hitler's refusal to allow Guderian and Army Group Centre to fall back to a more sensible front line in Dec '41. This was where the trouble really started and it just went downhill from there. Guderian, incidentally, was sacked for falling back in Dec 41 in defiance of Hitler. Although he was brought back later in the war as Inspector-General of German panzer formations

 

[troytheface]

i read somewhere that the americans learned to allow a blitz-like attack to occur, (on a town in france i think) then would surround the enemy and cut its supply lines.
but blitzkrieg was more of a air, mech, infantry, sabotage proposal, (no blitzkreig on the sea, maybe they could have used a Heinz Guderian in the navy.)

 

[IagoAlberto]

I'm not sure what incident you are mentioning, maybe Bastogne? That was where after the relief of the town the Americans cut off the german salient at its shoulders, starving the cut off units of fuel, food and ammo. The Americans in France actually out blitzkrieged the germans in alot of cases. This was mostly due to that most vital of military vehicles, the truck! The americans could move all of their army not just their armoured formations much faster than the germans could simply because they had so many trucks available.

 

[troytheface]

it wasn't bastogne it was a small town in france after d-day but before the battle of the bulge- don't think it was an important battle rather a side note to ww2 tactics. trucks, lol. i think maybe having transports (wagons (khan?), trucks, planes, ships- like a liner instead of a transport) would add alot to the game, making 1 move units 2 move but -they can get blown up with 0 defense.

 

[donovant22]

Alexander defeated the Thracians who outnumbered him 3 to 1 just by doing some training exercises. He captured a city a mile offshore by using primitive forms of Scuba gear and other innovations. He repeatedly defeated a larger Persian force even when he had a geographic disadvantage. All this before he was 30 years old.

Hannibal had the huge advantage of numbers and Elephants when fighting against the romans. The Romans he fought were disorganized and had very low morale. He had Rome captured and yet somehow lolligagged enough for the Romans to raise an army and attack Carthage with Hannibal still being on the Italian peninsula.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Alexander defeated the Thracians who outnumbered him 3 to 1 just by doing some training exercises. He captured a city a mile offshore by using primitive forms of Scuba gear and other innovations. He repeatedly defeated a larger Persian force even when he had a geographic disadvantage. All this before he was 30 years old.

Hannibal had the huge advantage of numbers and Elephants when fighting against the romans. The Romans he fought were disorganized and had very low morale. He had Rome captured and yet somehow lolligagged enough for the Romans to raise an army and attack Carthage with Hannibal still being on the Italian peninsula.

Are you serious? Hannibal was outnumbered in two of his biggest battles and in the end encircled Romans killing 70,000 in one battle...

 

[caketastydelish]

The greatest general of all time i would vote for Macarthur. Whooped the japanese, and outflanked the Chinese. Almost single handidly held back the asian hordes.
(and i always lead attacks with my GG)

The "asian hordes"? That sounded pretty racist. And from my understanding, China was Against Japan not fighting with it. Therefore, the Chinese did not fight the Americans in world war 2, they were on our side!

 

[el toro loco]

quick question: everyone praises alexander for leading from the front. going in w/ the boys. how does one successful lead from the front to know what is going on in the rest of the battle?

is it just his original game plan or was he able to give orders from the front?

i think a lot of alexander glory is taking over a declining civ and using all their roads and networks to expand.

was alexander a genius or was it his engineers, sub-ordinates, and greek military culture?

 

[troytheface]

also- note that when alwexander's empire broke apart it the pieces were given to his
relatives? no, his generals. perhaps they had more to do with tactical planning than they are creditied with.

 

[pat4]

The "asian hordes"? That sounded pretty racist. And from my understanding, China was Against Japan not fighting with it. Therefore, the Chinese did not fight the Americans in world war 2, they were on our side!

He's talking about the Korean war when America went across the border and right into North Korea and on to China. To be honest I can't comment on this war. I'd know more about Vietnam.

 

[donovant22]

His empire fell apart because he died. If he had lived longer it's possible that the Greek empire would have stayed that powerful for much longer.

And we're all jumping around the main idea. ALEXANDER WON. HANNIBAL LOST. PERIOD.

 

[donovant22]

I'd say the best General of all time was Napoleon. I know I won't make many friends with this statement but he never lost a battle that wasn't in weather below 0 degrees except for Waterloo but that was mostly because he was outnumbered.