Hannibal Barca vs. Alexander the Great...who would win?

[BOTP]

. Both are excellent leaders of men, being both very inspiring and brave. Both are great tacticians, being able to pull off amazing moves. So let's say, if both of these Leaders, in the height of their careers, were to face off against one another, which ancient general would prove to be the victor? The resources that both have are available to their respective kingdoms, without any supply problems such as the ones which crippled Hannibal's war against Rome. The armies would be made up of the same types troops that they commanded in their actual campaigns. Alexander gets Greece, and Asia Minor (Minus S. Arabia) and Hannibal gets North Africa, and Southern Spain (Italy, Corsica, Sicily, Sardina are Neutral). Consider the armies to be of equal size but made up of the troops that each commander had at his disposal during their zenith. Who wins?

FIGHT!!!

I'll submit my thoughts later

 

[Xen]

Carthage; it wa sonly the shock innovation of Scipio that defeated hannibal, when hannibal had proved that even the romans standard innovations in tactics wouldnt win every battle; by contrast, Alexander didnt really inovate on anything...

 

[Amenhotep7]

Well, let's look at it constructively:

-Alexander had devised tactics which inevitably destroyed Persia. For a fine display of Macedonian tactics, refer to any book which describes the Battle of Gaugamela.

-Hannibal Barca was able to keep and maintain an army that could go over rough terrain, and fight long, hard wars.

BUT

-the Carthaginian army was comprised mainly of mercenaries, and mercenaries could be paid to not fight, or fight against Carthage. Refer to any book describing the Battle of Zama.

Ergo, ATG kicks @$$!

 

[Julius Gandi]

Pro's of hannibal
Hannibal could go into battle see what was going on and on the fly create a plan to defeat his enimies. He lived like the men, this gained their loyalty.
Con's of hannibal
Well the problem with hannibal is he knew how to win a battle, not a war.

Alexander
I really don't know a lot about.
Edit: Although Hannibal did say to scipo years after the war that he was second best commander ever. Of course Alexander being first.

 

[BOTP]

Well the problem with hannibal is he knew how to win a battle, not a war.

why do you say that?

I really don't know a lot about.

1) http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ALEX.HTM

2) http://faq.macedonia.org/history/index.html

3) http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/


I hope these help with your research.

 

[Julius Gandi]

Well really i should say he did not study the Roman Political structure and he did not know how to make a knock out blow to finally defeat them.

 

[BOTP]

Well really i should say he did not study the Roman Political structure

they just had a civil war a few years before, so he expected much help from the Rome's oppressed Allies...and I'm not sure what his decisive blow was, but Cannae sure as hell fits under that catogrey.

As for my response. Hannibal was very good at analyzing the opponents he faced, and their style of fighting, taking into account his enemy's weaknesses, strengths, and characteristics, and then working out a way to use these to his advantage. The Carthaginian general appreciated the Roman’s advantage and adapted their tactics so that he could fight in multiple lines. He was also quite familiar with the Macedonian phalanx, in fact, he had studied Alexander’s tactics, so he was familiar with his methods. A very likely possibility would be that Hannibal would lay a trap for Alexander, like he did to the Romans at Trebia, Lake Trasimene, or Cannae. Before the battle started, he would have devised a strategy to try and either trap or put the Macedonians at a disadvantage, and deprive Alexander of his Companion Cavalry that pulled his @ss out of the fire so many times. As for Alexander, he was very agressive, the type of commander Hannibal excelled against. He had let himself get trapped, and forced into the battle of Issos. He led from the front thereby relinquishing control of most of the army to Parmenio. He almost got himself killed numerous times. Even more, if he had faced a more determined commander, he could have easily lost both Issos and Gaugamela.

The battle would not be an easy win for Hannibal, or Alexander for that matter. It would have been a long years of fighting, with unprecedented dead and casualties on both sides. In the end however, I would have to say that Hannibal would win, for the main fact that his mind worked in such a way that would allow him to devise some brilliant tactic that would dumbfound Alexander, and place his Companions, the arm that won him the world, at a total disadvantage.

Alexander would’ve most undoubtedly lose his first battle against Hannibal. However after examining Hannibal's way of warfare, I believe Alexander could give Hannibal a black eye in his next battle. Alexander was an inventive enough commander to alter his way of fighting. He did very well in a multitude of situations (warfare against barbarians, warfare against multiple enemies, warfare against guerilla-style tactics, warfare against unexplored enemies, and siege warfare). The man was a genius in the art of warfare and his creative innovative mind could come up with some amazing things to combat the Carthaginian general. But again, Alexander would be lucky to survive his first battle, and I seriously doubt Alexander would get another chance if he were to suffer a "Cannae", given his lack manpower.

 

[BOTP]

Although Hannibal did say to scipo years after the war that he was second best commander ever. Of course Alexander being first.

For those that bring up the fact that Hannibal himself considered Alexander and Pyrrhos the greater general, the actual story goes a little further...

"After Hannibal had said that, he was asked whom he would consider the greatest general ever, had he won the war against Rome... and without hesitation he answered: Myself."

 

[Xen]

Well really i should say he did not study the Roman Political structure and he did not know how to make a knock out blow to finally defeat them.

Roman politicval structure? it wouldnt have mattered in Ropme was a despotism or democracy, he didnt have the forces to do it, period.

 

[BOTP]

Roman politicval structure? it wouldnt have mattered in Ropme was a despotism or democracy, he didnt have the forces to do it, period.

Now the sole question is wether the war between Hannibal and Rome was strategically winnable for Hannibal. Hannibal would have easily been able to defeat Rome had he received the proper support from Carthage in the first place. The government of the city was more interested in economics and trade than the military conquest of Rome, and sent aid to Sicily and Spain, and refused to help her greatest general, who was so close to victory. They did not see the danger that Rome represented to them and therefore did not send Hannibal the support he needed. The only reason that Hannibal eventually lost was due not to any mistake on his part but on the mistakes of Carthage. poor fellow

 

[Longasc]

I would consider this after watching Aliens vs. Predator 2. It does not matter who wins. We lose.

Alexander was probably better on a strategic level than Hannibal, while Hannibal was a brilliant tactician (Cannae and several other battles on roman soil) and great in terms of logistics (Crossing the Alps was unthinkable on a large scale, he dared to do so).

I still wonder why Hannibal did not march into Rome as he had the possibility. Are there any new discoveries regarding this topic?

I would bet on Alexander. Hannibal suffered from lack of support from his own government, true, but all his efforts were for naught, he lost decisive battles (Zama) or did not use the opportunities that were given to him. (why did he not try to take Rome? -> There are many theories, but he must have known that he could not count on much support from Carthage).

Alexander succeeded in fulfilling his dreams, even if he did not conquer India as he wanted to.

 

[luiz]

Alexander was never defeated, Hannibal was. So I must say Alexander, even if it's impossible to make an objective or decent analysis on such scenarios.

 

[BOTP]

Alexander was never defeated, Hannibal was. So I must say Alexander, even if it's impossible to make an objective or decent analysis on such scenarios.

But I would say that any general, would have also lost, and probably with less results than even Hannibal was able to achieve. Even then, winning is not the true mark of greatness, how well you stand up to adversary is

 

[North King]

Hannibal. I have no doubt Alex would do what he was apt to do as usual, that is, charge straight into the enemy with his companion cavalry. Hannibal was a master at laying traps. Alex falls into Hannibal's trap; Alex dies, Greek army routes.

Facing Hannibals well led, inspired, and equipped army is quite different from facing the Persians.

 

[BOTP]

I still wonder why Hannibal did not march into Rome as he had the possibility. Are there any new discoveries regarding this topic?

I would bet on Alexander. Hannibal suffered from lack of support from his own government, true, but all his efforts were for naught, he lost decisive battles (Zama) or did not use the opportunities that were given to him. (why did he not try to take Rome? -> There are many theories, but he must have known that he could not count on much support from Carthage).

Alexander succeeded in fulfilling his dreams, even if he did not conquer India as he wanted to.

Zama : The truth is, Hannibal's loss at Zama can actually be understood clearly. I know Scipio defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama, but you have to realize that Hannibals troops were of relatively low quality due to most of his veteran troops dying in battle, and the majority of Hannibal's men were not experienced and lacked the experience of fighting together. Hannibal had an army of conscripts and untested mercenaries. Worse yet were his untested war elephants that panicked at the sound of the battle trumpets and fled in all directions. Not only did he not have the same quality of cavalry he was used to, he also didn't have the same quantity of cavalry he was usually would've(Scipio's advantage in cavalry turned out to be the decisive factor, something to note) Futhermore, you can't overlook the fact that Hannibal's veteran troops were exhausted from years of endless fighting, and a long voyage home. Furthermore, I can bet that morale amongst Hannibal's troops was quite low, considering the fact that they were forced to defend their own soil after years on the offense.Hannibal's most professional troops were left in Italy, while only a few came back with him. Also Hannibal lacked better cavalry that he was used to having. If you ask me, that's justification enough for Hannibal's loss.

Not marching on Rome: Beseiging Rome would have been a major league trap, and he knew this. His army would have been pinned in hostile territory, wasting their time trying to take the city. Rome could have massed her forces against the besieging force and still sent forces to take back Hannibal's southern Italian stronghold. Besides, how would you expect him to carry Seige Equiptment across the Alps? He knew that his army was not able to both besiege a large cities and beat the armies that Rome would field against him. Had Hannibal's army been large enough to do both at the same time, he more than likely would have made the equipment that he needed. Even then, he wouldn't have brought it with him, because they would have been too much of a burden when crossing the Alps. Siege warfare simply did not, and could not, factor into his plans.

Why Alexander ended up winning : The reason that Hannibal finally ended up losing and Alexander was undefeated was due to their opponents. Alexander did not face the same problems as Hannibal. Alexander fought against the Persians. While they were many in number, they were not much of an army. The kingdom was already in decline, and the leaders were nothing great. Alexander was able to attack the country piecemeal, because the different parts of the empire would not work together. There was no tactical planning on the Persian side, while the Macedonians were led by many great leaders, not just Alexander. Hannibal, on the other hand faced some of the greatest generals that Rome ever produced. Marcellus was the greatest Roman general before the last century BCE. No great general ever faced the opposition that confronted Hannibal. He managed to defeat Roman armies that were superior in both quantity and quality in term of experience, equippment and discipline. Even in his first three years in Italy, before Fabius became dictator the generals that he had to deal with were capable, although not great. But once he had Fabius, Marcellus, Nero and finnaly Scipio opposed to him, it is a wonder he lasted so long. Had any other general been up against such odds, he more than likely would have been defeated. For not only were the generals opposed to Hannibal amazing, the armies themselves were the greatest in the world. When Alexander attacked Persia, the kingdom was far from its zenith. When Hannibal attacked Rome, she was just rising the to be a world player.

 

[Longasc]

The question is, did Hannibal ever have a chance of winning, and did he know this?

There were many bright plans in history that were part of operations that were doomed right from the beginning. I could now say, did he make the best of the options he had? He knew that the... damn, do not know the english word for them... in Carthage were a source of constant grief to the Barca family and to all military operations.

Hannibal was romanticized later on, as was Alexander. Up to the extent of fighting for liberty and free trade against the Roman oppression and such things.

Did he see his only chance in winning against Rome or was he simply not able to adapt to a delaying strategy against Rome. It is too bad that all his victories finally ended in a lost war for Carthage. His father was a great leader, too, but even he had problems with the Romans.

In a fair fight on equal terms, Hannibal would win. If history is not adjusted to make him greater than he was, to cover inept Roman leadership. But I think he was really great, he just had too much success attributed to him that this all can be exaggeration.

The Roman state probably did not have a Hannibal, but it was too much for a single genius and his men to stop. Hannibal fought his whole live against the Romans, but he always lost in the end until his suicide.

There are never even terms on a battlefield, there is no chessboard with equal opportunities for everyone. Maybe Hannibal did not accept the fact that he could not beat this enemy with the material given to him.

Alexander probably fought corrupt Satraps with little coordination, really not an enemy as strong as Rome. But success is a judge of its own, according to that I would value him higher. He also had a fair share of military innovation and tactics, the macedonian Sarissa e.g., a superheavy spear weapon for tearing up the classical phalanx.

I argument he could not show all his genius because his enemies could be defeated with half of his wits.

Anyway, we can probably replay the Campaigns of both, or at least of Hannibal (Alexander probably falls out of the time frame of ROME), in Rome: Total War.

 

[BOTP]

The question is, did Hannibal ever have a chance of winning, and did he know this?

There were many bright plans in history that were part of operations that were doomed right from the beginning. I could now say, did he make the best of the options he had? He knew that the... damn, do not know the english word for them... in Carthage were a source of constant grief to the Barca family and to all military operations.

Hannibal was romanticized later on, as was Alexander. Up to the extent of fighting for liberty and free trade against the Roman oppression and such things.

Did he see his only chance in winning against Rome or was he simply not able to adapt to a delaying strategy against Rome. It is too bad that all his victories finally ended in a lost war for Carthage. His father was a great leader, too, but even he had problems with the Romans.

In a fair fight on equal terms, Hannibal would win. If history is not adjusted to make him greater than he was, to cover inept Roman leadership. But I think he was really great, he just had too much success attributed to him that this all can be exaggeration.

The Roman state probably did not have a Hannibal, but it was too much for a single genius and his men to stop. Hannibal fought his whole live against the Romans, but he always lost in the end until his suicide.

There are never even terms on a battlefield, there is no chessboard with equal opportunities for everyone. Maybe Hannibal did not accept the fact that he could not beat this enemy with the material given to him.

Alexander probably fought corrupt Satraps with little coordination, really not an enemy as strong as Rome. But success is a judge of its own, according to that I would value him higher. He also had a fair share of military innovation and tactics, the macedonian Sarissa e.g., a superheavy spear weapon for tearing up the classical phalanx.

I argument he could not show all his genius because his enemies could be defeated with half of his wits.

Both took a strategy that was the only viable option open to them. Alexander succeeded, partly because of the weaknesses of Dareios and the Persian empire; Hannibal came up just short, partly because of domestic politics, and partly because he faced a much more stubborn opponent. A siege was one of the most dangerous things to undertake. He had not dissolved the Roman union; He did not have the siege equipment with him. Because he lacked Italian allies, he did not have a suficient supply of food. Yes, he misjudged the fidelity of the Roman allies (though they had been in a civil war just years earlier). Strategically it was a great move because the Romans expected the War to be fought in Iberia, and they dispatched a force to fight him there... Hannibal then crossed the Alps (no small achievement in itself because of Barbarian tribes and the rugged terrain) and invaded Northern Italy, forcing his enemy onto the defensive. In his defense, he could never have guessed that after thrashing the Romans so soundly in their own backyard AND marching around Italy for years that the boys from Latium would not yield. He managed to get himself trapped in Italy, fighting like a lion but doomed to fail, and with such weak allies as the Macedonians, what can one expect?

Should he have waited in spain or carhtage as the romans slowly nibbled away at carthahaginian power? The only better thing he could have done strategically would have been to surrender uncondtionally and turn himself and carthage over to rome to be destroyed as soon as war was declared for that would have just saved everybody a lot of time. But that of course wasn't an option. But still, I think the choices he made were the only ones left open to him. It did lead to the fact that the Romans were afraid of him forever (in the Colloseum, large games always had the imitation of Zama), and there is no denying that in the end, the elements and, to a lesser degree the Gauls, killed more of his troops than the Romans, And yes, Alexander indeed was brilliant , there no doubt about but his opponents were not. Granted, Alexander, did accomplish amazing feats while still a young man. But Hannibal, in Alexander's place would have likely done the same and probably even more. IMHO the main difference between Alexander and Hannibal is that the Roman Empire, unnlike the Persians, did not collapse under the massive defeats inflicted upon it. Just my thoughts

But back to the topic. Again, I would say Hannibal would win. Given the advantage of battle site, I'd place my money on Hannibal. For instance, Hannibal could have quite easily routed Alexander's phalanx, an oppurtunity which was presented to the Persians at Issos, and at especially Gaugamela on a silver platter. Hannibal would most likely wait for Alexander to fight him on unfavorable ground. His infantry, excluding his Libyans, were much more mobile and much better on broken ground. They could have exploited the weakness of the Macedonian phalanx and caused huge slaughter. In The end the slaughter of Alexanders armies would be more severe then that at Cannae. Then he could have opted to fight the companions to a standstill, who would no longer have any troops to back up their charge. The biggest danger to his forces would probably have been the shield bearers. The battle may be determined by a clash of cavalry? The interesting part of this debate will start now: the debating of tactical possibilities .

 

[BOTP]

"Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied: 'Alexander, King of the Macedonians, because with a small force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because he traversed the remotest lands. Merely to visit such lands transcended human expectation.' Asked whom he would place second, Hannibal said: 'Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side; so that the Italian peoples preferred the overlordship of a foreign king to that of the Roman people, who for so long had been the chief power in that country.' When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio burst out laughing at this, and said: 'What would you have said if you had defeated me?' 'In that case', replied Hannibal, 'I should certainly put myself before Alexander and before Pyrrhus - in fact, before all other generals' This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, and this unexpected kind of flattery...affected Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had set him (Scipio) apart from the general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond calculation. "
Livy, The History of Rome from its Foundation XXXV.14

 

[Vasileius]

I don't know who could win ... They were in different eras , so it's difficult to compare them ...

Hannibal would most likely wait for Alexander to fight him on unfavorable ground

Alexander never attacked first ... He waited till the enemies show on his chosen battlefied .

Anyway Alexander fought with a small force ... He occupied cities without even attacking them ... Like most of the cities in Israel .
Hannibal fought in a different war , a total war with the Romans ... While Alexander was "hunting" his enemies , Hannibal was having a bloody slaughter in Sicily and Italy ... The Macedonian tactics were already known to the Romans and the Carthaginians , so Hannibal could easily win Alexander . But If he was the opponent of the Greeks instead of the Persians , he wouldn't win Alexander .
One is sure ... If Alexander hadn't died so early , there would be no Punic Wars .

 

[BOTP]

I don't know who could win ... They were in different eras , so it's difficult to compare them ...

Alexander never attacked first ... He waited till the enemies show on his chosen battlefied .

Believe me, Alexander woudl attack first. If Alexander only had a couple thousand troops, and was facing 500,000 he would have attacked. It was simply part of his nature. Hannibal’s careful choice of battlefields displayed the genius his eye had for picking them. He would have came up with tactics that could outmatch Alexander's immobile phalanx, simply with the terrain of his choice.

Anyway Alexander fought with a small force ... He occupied cities without even attacking them ... Like most of the cities in Israel .

Granted, he did command a small force, but if there's one thing that he had that HAnnibal never had.....it was SEIGECRAFT...Alexander had the best seige specailist at his disposal. Plus many of the Persians were quite dissatified with Darius, so they were willing to open their gates to Alexander w/o a fight. It was a different story for Hannibal.

The Macedonian tactics were already known to the Romans and the Carthaginians , so Hannibal could easily win Alexander . But If he was the opponent of the Greeks instead of the Persians , he wouldn't win Alexander .

say what?

One is sure ... If Alexander hadn't died so early , there would be no Punic Wars .

well, if he had lived longer, he porbably would have invaded Sicily, cause Carthage was vitally interested there, so he would have ended up crossing swords with Hannibal's Grandfather there