Hannibal vs. Alexander

[Louis XXIV]

Wow, this is indeed a big bump from the dead. I was all set to give my opinion on this subject, only to find out I gave it Freshman year of college!

I stand by my statements I made a long time ago, although I'll add the caveats that Alexander did make some logistical mistakes too (although, overall, he gets positive marks for them) and that Hannibal's abilities to survive in a hostile countryside for so long suggests he wasn't bad logistically either. And, as far as inspirational ability goes, Machiavelli praises Hannibal for the ability to keep his multi-ethnic army together, so he clearly was pretty good too.

I think, in retrospect, I didn't give Hannibal enough praise. Alexander beat a Persian Empire that was proven to falter against Greeks in the past, Hannibal defeated on some battles, a Rome on the rise that could outmatch him with manpower time and time again, take horrific losses, and not even bat an eye.

 

[Dachs]

I don't think Nuclear kid has changed a whole lot in the last four years.

 

[MrDogbert]

I think alexanders army would have won it for him in the end. It was a far better army all round.

 

[LightSpectra]

This question is silly and unanswerable, but I would like to point out that it's generally considered to be the case that phalanx-based warfare used by the Greeks was demonstrated to be inferior to the mobile infantry-based warfare used by the Romans and Carthaginians at the Battles of Cynoscephalae and Pydna.

 

[Dachs]

Meh. I've always been unhappy with Polybios' reasoning for why the Roman legion was supposedly superior. It doesn't explain Mak tactical successes against the first two Roman armies that invaded in the Third Mak War, for instance. And it basically pigeonholes all Mak troops as phalangitai when we know that there were more varied units, such as the Agrianikoi light infantry and thureophorontic units.

Besides, the actual course of events at Kynoskephalai doesn't really lend itself to any real answer as to whether "legion or phalanx" was better; Phil successfully launched a charge down a hill with one wing of his army, but failed to ensure decent command-and-control over the second wing, which furthermore failed to deploy properly before it was hit by the Roman and allied troops. Pydna is just about as unclear; essentially, the Maks lost because they got disorganized in the course of pursuit.

 

[Keroro]

A disorganised mob with swords and large shields are still a threat to the enemy. A disorganised mob wit small shields and long spears are only a threat to each other. Legions are easier to raise, train and command, but I would contend that a well led phalangite army with decent support troops is very difficult for a legionary army to defeat.

Roman Legions very replaceable. Mak/Epirote armies not so much. IMO that was the reason that Rome was able to survive and thrive despite some losses that would have been crippling to other nations.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Necroed thread closed.

If you're still interested in continuing the discussion, pls start a new thread, thanks.