hanibal vs alexander

[pat4]

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 don't think it was the Romans who made Hannibal's legend. The Romans destroyed any Carthage culture. They made the Carthaginians seem barbaric and look like a satanic culture. That is of course but it didn't stop the Romans from making nearly all history see that Carthaginians as barbaric. Only recent historical knowledge has gone against the Roman story, it really was the greatest propoganda of the ancient era.

As for Hannibal well I don't know if the Romans dragged his name through the mud or perhaps they respected him and did give him his legend mabye someone else knows.

 

[mnOne]

I think its important to distinguish between their skill on the battlefield and their brilliance on the greater strategic stage. I think that hardly anyone could compare to Hannibal as a general, but as a leader for his people he was a bit of a disaster.
Alexander on the other hand was a charismatic leader as well as a brilliant general (though perhaps not as good as Hannibal). So in my opinion, Alexander wins. Plus, he died undefeated, sitting on top of a huge empire, whereas Hannibal had to commit suicide after years of persecution.

 

[pat4]

But Hannibal wasn't a leader of his people he was a servant. So how can he have been disasterous.

 

[IagoAlberto]

I mnOne made a good point about Alexander's greater strategic success. Given the limitated ability of a General to communicate with their troops up until the present the key for success was and still is planning and good training. Alexander's continual successes shows the emphasis he put on training and planning. He understood that putting a well trained army, that works well together, on the field with a good plan is better than fielding a poorly trained army with an excellent plan.

The most important part of generalship is preparing your forces and getting them to the battlefield in a well supplied condition. The fact Alexander relied heavily on his subordinates is not a sign of weakness on his part, rather a sign that he knew he could rely on his well trained army. He also fielded an army that matched well against its opponents, another sign of good generalship. Analysing your foe's weakness and developing a plan to exploit them is one of the most important part of planning a battle.

The persian army was massive but its well trained core, the immortals and others, was not that much larger than the Greek army. The preponderance of the Persian army was made of levies of troops from various provinces. These varried greatly in quality and had the additional disadvantage of not being terribly used to fighting together. Which in turn, left the Persian commander in a position where he couldn't rely on his subordinates to exploit opportunities that arose on the battlefield to the degree Alexander did.

 

[troytheface]

however, much of what you have credited Alexander with was due to his Father.
(Phillip was going to invade himself)-
he was given this already trained and prepared army, protected by his generals, and when it came time to grow up and rule he couldn't do it and died of a little fever.

 

[IagoAlberto]

Yes but he still demonstrated a strong grasp of his army's capabilities. He also had good relations and communications with his subordinates prior to battle. Besides an army needs to be continually trained to maintain proficiency, are you suggesting Alexander didn't train his own army over 20 years?

Finally, what on earth does getting sick have to do with generalship?

 

[troytheface]

yes, acting on the army's capabality is a good point- the last bit was to the idea that he was a great "leader" (someone mentioned this ) and this was not borne out by the evidence of a fractured post empire.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

I think its important to distinguish between their skill on the battlefield and their brilliance on the greater strategic stage. I think that hardly anyone could compare to Hannibal as a general, but as a leader for his people he was a bit of a disaster.
Alexander on the other hand was a charismatic leader as well as a brilliant general (though perhaps not as good as Hannibal). So in my opinion, Alexander wins. Plus, he died undefeated, sitting on top of a huge empire, whereas Hannibal had to commit suicide after years of persecution.

this thread is about their military leadership and not as leaders of their country because alexander was a king but hannibal was only a general with no major power in the carthaginian senate...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

I mnOne made a good point about Alexander's greater strategic success. Given the limitated ability of a General to communicate with their troops up until the present the key for success was and still is planning and good training. Alexander's continual successes shows the emphasis he put on training and planning. He understood that putting a well trained army, that works well together, on the field with a good plan is better than fielding a poorly trained army with an excellent plan.

The most important part of generalship is preparing your forces and getting them to the battlefield in a well supplied condition. The fact Alexander relied heavily on his subordinates is not a sign of weakness on his part, rather a sign that he knew he could rely on his well trained army. He also fielded an army that matched well against its opponents, another sign of good generalship. Analysing your foe's weakness and developing a plan to exploit them is one of the most important part of planning a battle.

The persian army was massive but its well trained core, the immortals and others, was not that much larger than the Greek army. The preponderance of the Persian army was made of levies of troops from various provinces. These varried greatly in quality and had the additional disadvantage of not being terribly used to fighting together. Which in turn, left the Persian commander in a position where he couldn't rely on his subordinates to exploit opportunities that arose on the battlefield to the degree Alexander did.

well then how could hannibal take troops with all varying succes including mercenaries, veterans and raw recruits and made them all to the best of their advantage while alexander relied on a heavily trained army that was proven succesful and had many other great generals within it...while hannibal was by himself except for when he was defending carthage along with his brother...and here he had to rely on simple tactics that pure citizen recruits could handle instead of having his veterans...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

Yes but he still demonstrated a strong grasp of his army's capabilities. He also had good relations and communications with his subordinates prior to battle. Besides an army needs to be continually trained to maintain proficiency, are you suggesting Alexander didn't train his own army over 20 years?

Finally, what on earth does getting sick have to do with generalship?

yes but as i mentioned before he had a well trained army that he could rely on while hannibal for the most part didnt and made them work...

 

[Rusty Edge]

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...

I'm saying nobody alive knows for sure.

We do know that Alexander was portrayed as a god on coins. Maybe it was ego, and maybe it was purely for the military advantage of being a legend in his own lifetime to intimidate the enemies and secure the obedience of the conquered peoples. Either way, it seems like he was probably the subject of exageration. But no matter how you look at it, you can't take away his achievement of conquering most of the world he knew of. That stands the test of time regardless of the size or skill of the armies involved.

We do know that Rome was pretty vindictive and thorough in destroying and discrediting Carthegenian culture. We know that Hannibal was used as a kind of bogeyman to frighten Roman children. Was Hannibal exagerated by the
Romans as a tool to maximize productivity and sacrifice from it's frightened and angry people? Or was he discredited along with his civilization? Possibly both. His battle tactics have been studied by generals ever since. That stands the test of time, too.


So... I guess that adds up to Alexander was probably exagerated, and what we know about Hannibal could be partly propoganda and less certain either way.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

What destroyed Hannibal was not Rome's greatness, it was Carthage's weakness. If he had the full support of the Carthaginian state, as Alexander had of Greece, had he been given the number of troops he asked for when he asked for them, he could have conquered Rome easily. But Hannibal had many enemies in the Carthaginian senate who would rather see Carthage burned to the ground than see her become glorious under Hannibal.

 

[IagoAlberto]

yes but as i mentioned before he had a well trained army that he could rely on while hannibal for the most part didnt and made them work...

But hannibal didn't win his campaign Alexander did, multiple times. Granted the Romans were stubborn, but Hannibal didn't appreciate the nature of his foes and thus didn't have a plan B. While the Romans hid in their cities and mustered a new army he didn't press home his advantage. I'm not denying that Hannibal's achievements weren't impressive given his army, they were. I'm also not denying that he laboured under the restrictions from his political masters, he did. All I'm saying is that Alexander's achievements are greater. The prize for being second place in war is rather unpleasant...

 

[Black_Pegasus]

But hannibal didn't win his campaign Alexander did, multiple times. Granted the Romans were stubborn, but Hannibal didn't appreciate the nature of his foes and thus didn't have a plan B. While the Romans hid in their cities and mustered a new army he didn't press home his advantage. I'm not denying that Hannibal's achievements weren't impressive given his army, they were. I'm also not denying that he laboured under the restrictions from his political masters, he did. All I'm saying is that Alexander's achievements are greater. The prize for being second place in war is rather unpleasant...

but this isnt about their achievements...lol...its about who was the better general on the field...

 

[IagoAlberto]

Who would you prefer to have leading your army, a tactically brilliant general who wins battles but looses the war, or tactically brilliant general who wins battles and the war? I know which one I'd want to fight for or have leading my army. War is about winning at the end of the day.

 

[caketastydelish]

Who would you prefer to have leading your army, a tactically brilliant general who wins battles but looses the war, or tactically brilliant general who wins battles and the war? I know which one I'd want to fight for or have leading my army. War is about winning at the end of the day.

If Hannibal lead the Greek Army, he would have still won.

 

[IagoAlberto]

If Hannibal lead the Greek Army, he would have still won.

And if Alexander lead the carthiginian army, he could very well have pressed his advantage after Cannae more decisively than Hannibal. Alexander converted tactical success into strategic success more effictively than Hannibal. Perhaps, Alexander's leadership and track record of discipline would have won the day in Italy. But ultimitely we just don't know what would have happened either way. I think we could agree that a lesser General would not have had the success either of them did.

With the sources we have its difficult to rate either Alexander or Hannibal as better unequivocably. They each had their strengths and few weaknesses. We each draw our own conclusions from the sources, and we each have support for them. At the end of the day they're both great generals. I think Alexander rates more highly. You two think Hannibal does.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

And if Alexander lead the carthiginian army, he could very well have pressed his advantage after Cannae more decisively than Hannibal. Alexander converted tactical success into strategic success more effictively than Hannibal. Perhaps, Alexander's leadership and track record of discipline would have won the day in Italy. But ultimitely we just don't know what would have happened either way. I think we could agree that a lesser General would not have had the success either of them did.

With the sources we have its difficult to rate either Alexander or Hannibal as better unequivocably. They each had their strengths and few weaknesses. We each draw our own conclusions from the sources, and we each have support for them. At the end of the day they're both great generals. I think Alexander rates more highly. You two think Hannibal does.

i doubt alexander wouldve done anything better had he been in hannibals circumstance...alexander wouldnt have siege equipment just as hannibal didnt have such equipment so doing more than hannibal would have been hard...and i doubt that alexander would have been as charismatic as hannibal and able to make his troops of all varying degrees fight together...such as the mercenaries and the gauls which had previously fought as barbarians...this i think alexander would not have been able to do...effectively make his army, the same one that hannibal had fight together...while hannibal on the other hand could easily take the macedonian army and fight with it because they were for the most part disciplined veterans.

 

[IagoAlberto]

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.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

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.

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...