1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

hanibal vs alexander

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Black_Pegasus, May 31, 2008.

  1. IagoAlberto

    IagoAlberto Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    178
    Location:
    Canada
    Perhaps Alexander would have done no better, but I think you're streching credibility greatly when you credit Alexander as un-charasmatic. From our sources, Alexander lacked certain things, modesty springs to mind, but he certainly did NOT lack charisma. He certainly could have put the army Hannibal fought with together and kept it together. Honestly I think Alexander's leadership may even have given the Carthiginian army more cohesiveness.
     
  2. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England

    On the second highlighted point. By the time Alexander took control of the Macedonian army they had already conquered Greece (although Alexander did have to put down some rebellions) and were thus, veterans. We both agree on that. However, that does not mean that they were easier to control. They would have been cocky, arrogant and exceedingly proud. To command men like these requires someone of great strength and skill. Only someone expection could command the respect of such a skilled army.

    And there is no doubt that Alexander did this. Several times his army mutinied, and everytime he addressed his men and urged them to push further. After he conquered Persia, his army demanded to return home (they had wives and families there after all), but Alexander convinced them to fight all the way to india. That is a huge distance which he made his men march on foot, and they did so willingly. They were even willing to die for him at the end of it. To convince men to follow to the end of the earth (quite literraly they believed) requires huge amounts of charisma. His men probably new after a while that they would never return home but they chose to carry on anyway.

    I think that anyone who has enough charisma to do that; has enough charisma to convince some Barbarians to fight against there oppressors.
     
  3. Black_Pegasus

    Black_Pegasus Caesura

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    New York
    it seems useless arguing my point...but wtvr...see hannibal didnt just convince barbs he was able to take a lot of men of varying degree and varying origins and have them fight under one rule...and a veteran army could still be easier to control than one made of multiple peoples of varying degrees...along with a history of fighting alongside one another while the other wariors do not have much history...except for maybe the barbs with barbs and the recruits...but i have never once heard or read of hannibals men mutinying against him which shows how much of a great leader he was...
     
  4. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  5. Black_Pegasus

    Black_Pegasus Caesura

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    New York
    so whats the point of this?
     
  6. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  7. Black_Pegasus

    Black_Pegasus Caesura

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    New York
    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...
     
  8. Comrade Alex

    Comrade Alex Warlord

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Socialist Republic of Scouseland
    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". :/
     
  9. PimpyMicPimp

    PimpyMicPimp Regrets His Username.

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    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?
     
  10. Black_Pegasus

    Black_Pegasus Caesura

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    New York
    maybe cus hes modest...but hannibal beats scipio no problem...the only reason he lost to him was because he had no reinforcments...
     
  11. Acal

    Acal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    The Romans ambushed them, not really his fault the Romans intercepted them.
     
  12. munam

    munam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5
    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:
     
  13. Acal

    Acal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    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
     
  14. Black_Pegasus

    Black_Pegasus Caesura

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    New York
    this point has been brought up countlessly...hannibal faced armies twice his size and not only this more disciplined and veteran armies...
     
  15. Acal

    Acal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    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
     

Share This Page