hanibal vs alexander

But the main difference is that it was in the barbarians own interest to fight against Rome. The proffesional soldiers under Alexander had absolutely no reason to be in India.

so whats the point of this?
 
Its easier to tell people to do something which is in their own interest, then asking them to do something which harms them.

Ergo, they are easier to lead.

Ergo, it shows that Hannibal did not face a bigger challenge than Alexander in terms of leading their army.

oh i see...and your sure that the macedonians didn't feel like taking over parts of the world that alexander said? idk i doubt that...and of course not all of hannibal's soldiers were ok with it...i mean how could all the soldiers be willing to do all of this when their pay risked in the hands of hannibal seeing as how he paid for ALL OF HIS ARMY FROM HIS OWN POCKTS...im sure that they may have been concerned at times and not willing to fight...and ur just making assumptions here really...plus its not like all of the people that he had under his command were just like 'oh yeah lets go beat some romans..' keep in mind he had spanish, iberian, numidian, carthaginian, greek, and gaul soldiers under his command...i doubt they all felt like knocking some roman heads...especially since rome was still on the rise and wasn't really bothering many of these tribes...
 
Can't we come to a compromise. I'd say that, tactically, Hannibal was a far superior general to Alexander. His command at Lake Trebia and the Cannae surely secures his position as a tactical genius. However, strategically he was decidedly inferior; he was unable to counter the senate's inaction, and consequently faced defeat despite his tactical superiority.






"Ergo" is just a monstrously pretentious substitute for "therefore". :/
 
Hannibal even placed Alexander above himself on the list of best generals, so I think that says a lot.

A more interesting debate would be who was better; Hannibal or Scipio Africanus?
 
Hannibal even placed Alexander above himself on the list of best generals, so I think that says a lot.

A more interesting debate would be who was better; Hannibal or Scipio Africanus?

maybe cus hes modest...but hannibal beats scipio no problem...the only reason he lost to him was because he had no reinforcments...
 
The Romans ambushed them, not really his fault the Romans intercepted them.
 
Alexander faced armies more than twice his armies size and won through military disipline and choosing where would be the place to stage the attack(or defence). Would Hannibal be able to use his cavalry troops against an advancing phalanx. And can you retreat when there's a ocean to one side and a mountain to the other. Those reasons are why Alexander never lost a battle.

The Romans ambushed them, not really his fault the Romans intercepted them.
Who says Romans can't fight dirty:mischief:
 
Well if they didn't have a general who could think dirty then Rome would have been cinders. And the world would have turned out sooo much different
 
Alexander faced armies more than twice his armies size and won through military disipline and choosing where would be the place to stage the attack(or defence). Would Hannibal be able to use his cavalry troops against an advancing phalanx. And can you retreat when there's a ocean to one side and a mountain to the other. Those reasons are why Alexander never lost a battle.


Who says Romans can't fight dirty:mischief:

this point has been brought up countlessly...hannibal faced armies twice his size and not only this more disciplined and veteran armies...
 
this point has been brought up countlessly...hannibal faced armies twice his size and not only this more disciplined and veteran armies...

Oh yeah, the Persian army was mostly conscripted peasants handed a sword and told to fight. It also doesn't do much for your army skill if you drag a whole bunch of slaves into fighting.

But the romans were professional soliders
 
Back
Top Bottom