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.
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". :/
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.
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.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.