Hannibal vs. Alexander

[Nuka-sama]

Alright, say Alexander and Hannibal wound up in an onother dimension, and they wanted to see who was the better General.

They Fight at exactly noon on a grassy field and they each have 30,000 soldiers of their choice (Elephants, Calvary, etc.), with weapons of Hannibal's time, and the 2 generals are on horseback.

Who do you think would win and how would the battle go?

Personaly I think Hannibal would win, but I'm not exactly an expert on their tactics.

 

[North King]

Hannibal. Alexander's strategy was generally the charge. Hannibal was particularly effective at destroying charges.

 

[shortguy]

You really ruin Alexander's chances by taking his cavalry away from him.

 

[Nuka-sama]

I would want to see how effective they could be with just foot soldiers

 

[North King]

I would want to see how effective they could be with just foot soldiers

That takes them completely out of their own element, though, given that Alexander trained using his father's army of phalanx mixed with hypaspitites and cavalry.

 

[Nuka-sama]

Fine I changed the first post

 

[North King]

So they can have 30,000 elephants?

 

[Illdisposed]

It could be 60 000 on both sides altogether, and that's a lot of elephants.

In my view, Hannibal was a better general. He was able to dispatch far more advanced and stronger opponent, when Alexander took the opportunity to bring down infested with internal problems and desintegrated Persia.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Which Elephants? I'm I right in saying that they have to be African Elephants because the India ones are too big? I may have got those two mixed up. Fact is, you can't use any old Jumbo.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The African Elephants Hannibal used were smaller than Indian Elephants. They are extinct now and only an even larger African Elephant (bigger than Indian Elephants, but weren't known back then) exist today. Personally, I'd be doubtful that either side would rely on Elephants if they had other troops to rely on (if they did, it would be a mistake).

Anyway, imo, Hanibal would win if it was just a battle. If it was a long campaign, Alexander might win, since I think he was a bit better logistically and could inspire his men to keep going better.

 

[puglover]

Hannibal was a master of logistics. If he could hold off Alexander's charges for the first few attacks, I'm sure he'd be able to finish off that Macedonian upstart.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Hannibal would win... that is if he could keep well supplied... he would have won in Rome if his government helped him out.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

As much as I like the Macedonian, I will admit that his biggest advantage was a better trained army than his opponents, and "more advanced" tactics against the military of his time. However he ruled a full century before the Hannibal faced Rome. Even though advancements moved slower back in the day, it was still a time of advances in warmaking.

If we give them both the later "Hannibal's time" soldiers and tech, I suspect that Hannibal would be in his element and also more familiar with the capabilities of his soldiers. I voted Hannibal.

 

[RickFGS]

Hard to tell, both are ruthless tacticians. Both were able to destroy vastly superior forces in their time. Haniibals army as well trained, so was Alexander´s. The size of forces are similiar for both: around 40.000 men. I vote for a draw, or a big bloody mess, with enourmous casualties for both sides.

 

[Plotinus]

You couldn't have an army made up entirely of elephants - or, if you did, you'd lose. Ancient armies used elephants by simply pointing them at the enemy and making them run. They were quite random and unpredictable. The idea was to soften the enemy up by having these elephants run through their ranks, and then attack them properly - rather like an aerial bombardment before sending in the infantry. You couldn't win with just elephants any more than you can win with just missiles.

 

[Jawsofwar]

Alexander would win IMO. You all do realize that Hannibal got his butt handed to him by Scipii? How then could he have beaten Alexander? Alexander never lost a battle. Even the battle in India was a win. Alexander would be able to adapt to Hannibal's forces. Suprised that Hannibal has more votes. Hannibal is overrated. Take Scipii, he adapted to how Hannibal fought and used his own tactics against him. Shouldn't Hannibal have seen that coming?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Alexander would win IMO. You all do realize that Hannibal got his butt handed to him by Scipii? How then could he have beaten Alexander? Alexander never lost a battle. Even the battle in India was a win. Alexander would be able to adapt to Hannibal's forces. Suprised that Hannibal has more votes. Hannibal is overrated. Take Scipii, he adapted to how Hannibal fought and used his own tactics against him. Shouldn't Hannibal have seen that coming?

Are u rly so.. well, I'd rather not call u ******ed...

Hannibal was a great man, Alexander was lucky and brave... many times in fighting the persians, alexander faced the persian king who just ran... if that coward didn't run, alexander would have likely lost...

Hannibal wouldn't run... he was a brillant tactician and, unlike Alexander, a brillant politician, Hannibal would have the full support of his people unlike Alexander, whom, by the end of his campaigns was lucky he died or face the fact that he know bull about Politics...

EDIT: U may see this a battle of the generals... but victory is hollow if u dont have the policies to keep the people together... and thus u will ultimatly loss.

Hannibal's defeat was do to many reasons but not him being a poor general. His armies had been off for years in rome, and were tired... The Roman General had long enough to study Hannibal's tactics while the great Carthigian general was left to fight blindly...

 

[Illdisposed]

You couldn't have an army made up entirely of elephants - or, if you did, you'd lose. Ancient armies used elephants by simply pointing them at the enemy and making them run. They were quite random and unpredictable. The idea was to soften the enemy up by having these elephants run through their ranks, and then attack them properly - rather like an aerial bombardment before sending in the infantry. You couldn't win with just elephants any more than you can win with just missiles.

You do realize that you have just seriously responded to a joke? Do you?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Scipio had won the battle of Zama before it started. Hannibal's elite numidians went over to the Roman side and most of his other elite troops were long dead. Scipio had vast superiority in all fields. Hannibal's numerical superiority in infantry was meaningless; only a small portion of his troops could actually compete with legionaries. The Bruttian forces brought from Italy were more refugees than soldiers and were simply massacred.

Scipio came up with a few ingenious solutions to his problems, like at Carthago Nova and against the elephants, but there is nil evidence to suggest that he was Hannibal's match as a tactician and there was certainly nothing in any of his battles that any decent general couldn't have done. Don't get me started on the commanders he was faced with.

Likewise Alexander always had great superiority in his army to his opponents.

Hannibal's skill was in leading and coordinating a motley multinational force, and in this field he is pretty much unmatched independent of his great tactical skill. Giving him a great and unified army would in fact remove most of his field of expertise and give Alexander a great advantage over him.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Alexander would win IMO. You all do realize that Hannibal got his butt handed to him by Scipii? How then could he have beaten Alexander? Alexander never lost a battle. Even the battle in India was a win. Alexander would be able to adapt to Hannibal's forces. Suprised that Hannibal has more votes. Hannibal is overrated. Take Scipii, he adapted to how Hannibal fought and used his own tactics against him. Shouldn't Hannibal have seen that coming?

Hannibal had vastly inferior troops at Zama. He was outmatched in cavalry and infantry (and I think numbers as well, iirc). He didn't have much hope of winning.