hanibal vs alexander

[Black_Pegasus]

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.

and yet when hannibal was outnumbered 2 to 1, he came up victorious...hmm....napoleon was a great general but not the best...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

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.

doesnt that show he couldnt create a good enough empire that it wouldnt need to be babysat by alexander and so when he died it could still survive...so what if hannibal lost...alexander never lost because compared to his army, he fought weak undisciplined troops....the only reason he took so much was because of his generals and his army...not because of his tactical skill...

 

[caketastydelish]

.alexander never lost because compared to his army, he fought weak undisciplined troops....the only reason he took so much was because of his generals and his army...not because of his tactical skill...[/QUOTE]

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.

 

[pat4]

doesnt that show he couldnt create a good enough empire that it wouldnt need to be babysat by alexander and so when he died it could still survive QUOTE]


Come on thats a terrible argument. This is about being a great general not building an empire to last the ages. Even so it shows how strong Alexander was to keep his empire together even when he was in India. The fact that it fell apart when he died has to be a testemant to his greatness.

As for Napolean, well he did have some amazing victories wit superb tactics. But his invasion of Russia was a farce and he failed to land a force on Britain a bit like the Russians. Also he wouldn't help the Irish uprisings so screw him.

 

[Ekmek]

Besides arguing the merits of who is best, you can look at this argument a different way.

If hannibal never existed what would the impact be? If alexander never existed?

Doing this thought exercise you see that Alexander had a greater impact militarily (and culturally)

have a nice day!

 

[caketastydelish]

Besides arguing the merits of who is best, you can look at this argument a different way.

If hannibal never existed what would the impact be? If alexander never existed?

Doing this thought exercise you see that Alexander had a greater impact militarily (and culturally)

have a nice day!

I think Alexander had a greater impact on history, hands down.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Besides arguing the merits of who is best, you can look at this argument a different way.

If hannibal never existed what would the impact be? If alexander never existed?

Doing this thought exercise you see that Alexander had a greater impact militarily (and culturally)

have a nice day!

ok this thread is about their military genious and not their impact on history...had hannibal never come along, i have a feeling rome would have never risen because they wouldnt have seen a threat that they saw in carthage...so much of the western world as we know it wouldnt exist...

 

[caketastydelish]

ok this thread is about their military genious and not their impact on history...had hannibal never come along, i have a feeling rome would have never risen because they wouldnt have seen a threat that they saw in carthage...so much of the western world as we know it wouldnt exist...

Carthage is so much smaller than Rome. Hannibal's genius is the only reason they stood a chance for while. Were it not for Hannibal's heavy infliction or Roman casulitys, they might have conqured even more lands!

 

[Black_Pegasus]

.alexander never lost because compared to his army, he fought weak undisciplined troops....the only reason he took so much was because of his generals and his army...not because of his tactical skill...

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.[/QUOTE]

ok well look at the battle of issus...some disciplined troops and leadership right...the persians outnumbered the greeks 2 to 1 and yet when they broke through the macedonian line they just kept heading towards the camps blindly thinking they had won...is that disciplined? and on top of that, their own king Darius III flees from the battle...what discipline will that leave for the troops?

Another point that i have is the siege of tyre...why did alexander hold the siege for seven months and not once being opposed with all the might that the persian army had? why was he also able to siege gaza for so long again without opposition? maybe because the persian army under its poor leadership wasnt all that its cracked out to be and maybe because it no way resembled the power of the roman army and generals...the romans lost many brave generals fighting hannibal who stayed and continued to fight while persian generals fled...

and the persian historian part...point me to a place that has a persian historical account instead of a greek one and ill gladly look at it...but history is often written by the conquerers and not the loosers...so that might be hard to do...but anyways i hope you see my point...

AND ANOTHER THING FOR ANYONE THAT USES HANNIBALS LOSS AS A REASON FOR A FAILURE: the best general doesnt have to win every battle because sometimes, things just happen...thats just the way the world happens...and especially when someone like alexander can easily take crumbling empires...another example beyond persia is egypt...alexander just walking into persia practically and acquiring it...how can alexander not loose a battle when he gets reinforcments from his country and can run his country how he wants, giving himself troops when he wants, a disciplined army he inherited from his father and disciplined experienced generals when hannibal was by himself...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Carthage is so much smaller than Rome. Hannibal's genius is the only reason they stood a chance for while. Were it not for Hannibal's heavy infliction or Roman casulitys, they might have conqured even more lands!

well then what about hammiclar...? carthage along with rome was the superpower of its day and they were both on the rise and one had to be eliminated...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

[/QUOTE]

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.[/QUOTE]

oh here is another good point...why is it that almost all of alexanders history and victories are written by greeks making them maybe overexaggerate his victories and accomplishments while all of hannibals is by romans such as the historian livy...

 

[caketastydelish]

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.[/QUOTE]

oh here is another good point...why is it that almost all of alexanders history and victories are written by greeks making them maybe overexaggerate his victories and accomplishments while all of hannibals is by romans such as the historian livy...[/QUOTE]

Well perhaps the Romans were more honest than the Greeks.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.

oh here is another good point...why is it that almost all of alexanders history and victories are written by greeks making them maybe overexaggerate his victories and accomplishments while all of hannibals is by romans such as the historian livy...[/QUOTE]

Well perhaps the Romans were more honest than the Greeks.[/QUOTE]

well doesnt that prove my point...i mean if the romans make hannibal what he is, an incredible general...and the greeks overexaggerate alexander, wouldnt hannibal be better?

 

[caketastydelish]

You don't know that for a fact. Most westerners think very little of the Persian empire, and their culture and such. If you know so much about the Persian troops, tell me what you know. How they fought, etc. And I don't want some description from a Greek historian, because thats with a Greek bias.

ok well look at the battle of issus...some disciplined troops and leadership right...the persians outnumbered the greeks 2 to 1 and yet when they broke through the macedonian line they just kept heading towards the camps blindly thinking they had won...is that disciplined? and on top of that, their own king Darius III flees from the battle...what discipline will that leave for the troops?

Another point that i have is the siege of tyre...why did alexander hold the siege for seven months and not once being opposed with all the might that the persian army had? why was he also able to siege gaza for so long again without opposition? maybe because the persian army under its poor leadership wasnt all that its cracked out to be and maybe because it no way resembled the power of the roman army and generals...the romans lost many brave generals fighting hannibal who stayed and continued to fight while persian generals fled...

and the persian historian part...point me to a place that has a persian historical account instead of a greek one and ill gladly look at it...but history is often written by the conquerers and not the loosers...so that might be hard to do...but anyways i hope you see my point...

AND ANOTHER THING FOR ANYONE THAT USES HANNIBALS LOSS AS A REASON FOR A FAILURE: the best general doesnt have to win every battle because sometimes, things just happen...thats just the way the world happens...and especially when someone like alexander can easily take crumbling empires...another example beyond persia is egypt...alexander just walking into persia practically and acquiring it...how can alexander not loose a battle when he gets reinforcments from his country and can run his country how he wants, giving himself troops when he wants, a disciplined army he inherited from his father and disciplined experienced generals when hannibal was by himself...[/QUOTE]

The fact that "the victors write the history" just makes a more solid argument for me, if anything. Just to name two Persian accounts, Ibn Rustah, and Al-biruni.

The Persians (or Parthians, if calling them that makes you happy) were never invaded by the Roman empire. The Persians and the Germanic tribes were the only ones able to survive against the wrath of Roman everyone else that messed with Rome fell. If there military sucks so much, how come they managed to hold against Rome? The two superpowers of the Ancient world was Rome and Persia.

Sure Greece invaded Persia, but not long after Rome invaded Greece, and Persia eventually brought themselves back together. The only reason the Arabs managed to invade Persia was just because the Persians army was tired fighting with the Romans, and thats why the Romans lost there north African footholds to the Arabs, and Persia was invaded. The Romans and Persians had depleted there army fighting each other, and the Arabs simply took advantage of the situation.

Hannibal eventually was defeated by the Romans, and Persia never was, yet you make it sound like the Carthagranians were somehow superior to the Persians. Your logic makes a LOT of since.

 

[caketastydelish]

oh here is another good point...why is it that almost all of alexanders history and victories are written by greeks making them maybe overexaggerate his victories and accomplishments while all of hannibals is by romans such as the historian livy...

Well perhaps the Romans were more honest than the Greeks.[/QUOTE]

well doesnt that prove my point...i mean if the romans make hannibal what he is, an incredible general...and the greeks overexaggerate alexander, wouldnt hannibal be better?[/QUOTE]

I think Alexander was a great man, and a great general. However, Hannibal might have been slightly better. While most Greeks of the day thought the Greek race was superior to the other races, especially the Persian race, Alexander thought all races were equal (and I'm the Persians and other civilizations thought there race was superior as well, don't get me wrong) but in the midst of all this racism, Alexander saw past it. He was ahead of his time.

But I'm getting a bit of subject. Hannibal was the better general, because his Empire was so small, and the Roman empire was very big. It would be like Canada winning some battles against the United States.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Well perhaps the Romans were more honest than the Greeks.

well doesnt that prove my point...i mean if the romans make hannibal what he is, an incredible general...and the greeks overexaggerate alexander, wouldnt hannibal be better?[/QUOTE]

I think Alexander was a great man, and a great general. However, Hannibal might have been slightly better. While most Greeks of the day thought the Greek race was superior to the other races, especially the Persian race, Alexander thought all races were equal (and I'm the Persians and other civilizations thought there race was superior as well, don't get me wrong) but in the midst of all this racism, Alexander saw past it. He was ahead of his time.

But I'm getting a bit of subject. Hannibal was the better general, because his Empire was so small, and the Roman empire was very big. It would be like Canada winning some battles against the United States.[/QUOTE]

im glad u agree im just dont agree with one point you made...alexander didn't regard everyone equal as he took slaves from the places he conquered as well as being harsh on the people there...like for example when he took tyre, it is estimated that he killed 10,000 people...crucified 2000 young men, and sold 20,000 children and women into slavery...

 

[caketastydelish]

well doesnt that prove my point...i mean if the romans make hannibal what he is, an incredible general...and the greeks overexaggerate alexander, wouldnt hannibal be better?

I think Alexander was a great man, and a great general. However, Hannibal might have been slightly better. While most Greeks of the day thought the Greek race was superior to the other races, especially the Persian race, Alexander thought all races were equal (and I'm the Persians and other civilizations thought there race was superior as well, don't get me wrong) but in the midst of all this racism, Alexander saw past it. He was ahead of his time.

But I'm getting a bit of subject. Hannibal was the better general, because his Empire was so small, and the Roman empire was very big. It would be like Canada winning some battles against the United States.[/QUOTE]

im glad u agree im just dont agree with one point you made...alexander didn't regard everyone equal as he took slaves from the places he conquered as well as being harsh on the people there...like for example when he took tyre, it is estimated that he killed 10,000 people...crucified 2000 young men, and sold 20,000 children and women into slavery...[/QUOTE]

He didn't do that because he saw them as racially inferior. He did that because slaves were simply good for the Greek economy (and I'm not saying that justifies what he did, but I'm just saying you can't call him a racist as a result of it). Anyhow, I read in my world history book that Alexander saw all races equal. If that information is incorrect, blame the publishers of the textbook, not me.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

I think Alexander was a great man, and a great general. However, Hannibal might have been slightly better. While most Greeks of the day thought the Greek race was superior to the other races, especially the Persian race, Alexander thought all races were equal (and I'm the Persians and other civilizations thought there race was superior as well, don't get me wrong) but in the midst of all this racism, Alexander saw past it. He was ahead of his time.

But I'm getting a bit of subject. Hannibal was the better general, because his Empire was so small, and the Roman empire was very big. It would be like Canada winning some battles against the United States.

im glad u agree im just dont agree with one point you made...alexander didn't regard everyone equal as he took slaves from the places he conquered as well as being harsh on the people there...like for example when he took tyre, it is estimated that he killed 10,000 people...crucified 2000 young men, and sold 20,000 children and women into slavery...[/QUOTE]

He didn't do that because he saw them as racially inferior. He did that because slaves were simply good for the Greek economy (and I'm not saying that justifies what he did, but I'm just saying you can't call him a racist as a result of it). Anyhow, I read in my world history book that Alexander saw all races equal. If that information is incorrect, blame the publishers of the textbook, not me.[/QUOTE]

well maybe i am incorrect...i appologize...

 

[Rusty Edge]

I often wonder how accurate our knowledge really is....

The deeds of heroes are often exagerated.

Hannibal, Ghenghis, and Napoleon are the archvillians of western history. Because they prevailed only temporarily they didn't get to write the history books. Are their bodycounts exagerated to make them more evil? Do they get the deserved credit for their accomplishments ? Are the reported battle odds dependable? What if one of these guys is even better than we think because they've been discredited? Or suppose they were even better at deception and misdirection than we thought, and won some of their victories with considerably smaller fighting forces than we currently believe?

I'm reminded of Joe Paterno ( head football coach at Penn State University from the 1960's to the present ) in an interview, when asked to compare some of his greatest teams and players from different eras, he replied " I hate to do that, because what you give to one, you take away from the other."


I feel that way about great generals and admirals. Alexander The Great conquered most of the known world as a youngster. That's a stand-out achievement in human history.

Hannibal out-thought, ought-fought and handed Rome it's axx, they were just too stubborn and proud to admit it and negotiate a peace. I wonder if Rome would have ever reached it's great heights, if it hadn't had him to focus and galvinize it's people, or teach it's generals lessons.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

I often wonder how accurate our knowledge really is....

The deeds of heroes are often exagerated.

Hannibal, Ghenghis, and Napoleon are the archvillians of western history. Because they prevailed only temporarily they didn't get to write the history books. Are their bodycounts exagerated to make them more evil? Do they get the deserved credit for their accomplishments ? Are the reported battle odds dependable? What if one of these guys is even better than we think because they've been discredited? Or suppose they were even better at deception and misdirection than we thought, and won some of their victories with considerably smaller fighting forces than we currently believe?

I'm reminded of Joe Paterno ( head football coach at Penn State University from the 1960's to the present ) in an interview, when asked to compare some of his greatest teams and players from different eras, he replied " I hate to do that, because what you give to one, you take away from the other."


I feel that way about great generals and admirals. Alexander The Great conquered most of the known world as a youngster. That's a stand-out achievement in human history.

Hannibal out-thought, ought-fought and handed Rome it's axx, they were just too stubborn and proud to admit it and negotiate a peace. I wonder if Rome would have ever reached it's great heights, if it hadn't had him to focus and galvinize it's people, or teach it's generals lessons.

this is a really good point and i like it...but what about when there is multiple historians writing the books and there is some on each side...thats where we get our knowledge from really and we use this knowledge which we believe to be correct...but by what you are saying is that alexander couldn't have been under-credited and could only have been exaggerated because he was able to write the history books...while hannibal wasnt...