Hannibal vs. Alexander

[onejayhawk]

I think that either Hannibal or the Khan were the best best general in history, so that dictates this choice (no pun on Roman Generals).

I must say that this is a particularly boring way to approach the problem. Why not give them a couple hundred personal troops/priests/translators, a few thousand hectacres of varied country with scattered resources and personnel and see who could form the dominant position.

First question, would either win without a fight?

J

 

[silver 2039]

Hannibal would have won hands down. Alexander was actually not all that great of a tactican as he is made out to be.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I dont know all that much about Hannibal.

But Alexander Phalanxes were essentially the heavy infantry of the late ancient period. Matched against the romans man for man they provded superior the main failing thou was he inflexable formation and vunerable flanks. Alexander thou have very tough veterans including "silver shields", "bronze shields" and "compaion foot" these given there performance during and after alxanders time were extremely capable at holding the ends of the line.

alxanders second main advantage was hes use of the compaion calvary which he himself lead. (not the best tactical position for a general) would perform masterful charges including changing charge at almost 90 degress. allowing him to make unexpected charge change direrection and plow into the flank of the enemy body breaking them up and allowing them easy prey for the phlanxes.

other tactics though are lost to time. We know alexander did use mercanry forces and auxliaries. good seige weapons and skills. but tactics against indian elephants though have been lost.

By hannibles time though advances in tactices had changed from the inflexable phalanx to the more flexable formations and development of calvary as a more powerful force.

I would have guessed it would have gone alexanders way initally as the phalanx weapons and formation would have been very effective at the hands of alxanders veterans. But once hannible expolites the weakness of such a formation by pinning alexander compaion calavary (which would have been outnumbered) and then out flanked and broken the phalanx formation it would have gone hannibls way though with heavy losses.

no doubt like the 10,000 the greek veterans would have reformed and fought on even in the most hopeless situations make it a very bloody fight.

 

[Eli]

Alexander had to contend with weaker enemies that Hannibal. So I too choose the Carthaginian.

 

[acidsatyr]

Hannibal..... cuz he's financial and charismatic

 

[Plotinus]

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

No, I have no sense of humour!

 

[darrelljs]

Hannibal would have won hands down. Alexander was actually not all that great of a tactican as he is made out to be.

That might be true, but it is not conventional wisdom (here is one link where both leaders are listed). Anyway, the OP's question is not really meaningful since a large part of what makes a general great is controlling the terms of engagement. Just putting a bunch of troops on opposite ends of a grassy field takes most of that away.

Darrell

 

[Kal'thzar]

If I say Anything I beleive Alexander to be a stratagist and Hannibal to be a master Tactician.

 

[silver 2039]

If I say Anything I beleive Alexander to be a stratagist and Hannibal to be a master Tactician.

I would be inclined to agree.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Yes, debates like this are what serious history is made of...

 

[Eli]

Alexander is no strategist and "conquer everything in sight" is not a strategy.

A real strategist would've consolidated his Empire instead of trying to conquer India. He could rule for another forty years from Babylon, creating an enormous, long lived Hellenistic Empire.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Hannibal was a great man, Alexander was lucky and brave....

Lucky...that makes it certain.

Alexander would win, not only did he have excellent cavalry with which to counter the main decisive arm of Hannibal (the key to Sciipio winning was having Massinissa's cavalry) and he had excellent infantry. Certainly in terms of quality of men Alexander comes out ahead, hell in crossing the Alps Hannibal had lost vast quantities of men and in Africa it was all bad. In general Hannibal had to rely on mercenaries and not men fighting for some greater loyalty that will keep them there.

Alexander was also capable of overcoming fortifications even in the most ardueous circumstances, something that Hannibal proved pretty inept at.

But also in terms of communications and conducting long range operations no-one really beats Alexander for that, his campaigns were extensive over massive geographical areas and he kept that all together in addition to his power at home. The man was a prodigy and something all great military captains have aspired to.

Add to that luck and balls, that success leds to success and Hannibal will be living out his days in hiding...again.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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.

Hannibal had to rely on what Carthage would grant him, Alexander could do what he liked as he was King as well as commander a supreme advantage.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Alexander is no strategist and "conquer everything in sight" is not a strategy.

A real strategist would've consolidated his Empire instead of trying to conquer India. He could rule for another forty years from Babylon, creating an enormous, long lived Hellenistic Empire.

Remind me HOW Alexander secured his Victory over the Persian Empire?

 

[Keroro]

Firstly, it seems utterly fallacious to think that either of these great generals would have allowed themselves to be brought to battle on an empty grassland against an opposing general whom they respected.

It seems that people are assuming that the two guys would only be able to use the troop types that they used historically, in which case I would consider it a win for Alexander. The Carthaginians would have no answer to the incredable destructive power of a well trained and commended Phalanx. The only real weakness the Phalanx had was a lack of Maneuverability (sp?) that was exploited by several Roman generals, but Alexander would have countered this by wise use of his hypaspists. The Carthaginian armies were simply not sufficiently well trained to stand against them IMO. If Hannibal had a free choice of troops like Alexander's phalangites or Rome's legions, then he would probably win in a single battle situation. If they fought a full campaign then Alexander would probably win due to Hannibal's major weakness - allowing his supply lines to be cut due to lack of support from his political masters.

Alexander is no strategist and "conquer everything in sight" is not a strategy.

'Conquer everything in sight' (and incidentally, Alexander conquered plenty of places that were out of sight) is not possible without a very deep understanding of strategy.

A real strategist would've consolidated his Empire instead of trying to conquer India. He could rule for another forty years from Babylon, creating an enormous, long lived Hellenistic Empire.

Alexander did consolidate his Empire massively. Before his conquests the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Greeks were in a state of near rebellion against the Persians, but they behaved themselves once conquered by Alexander. Taxilas and Porus were at war with each other in India before Alexander came along, but they co-existed fairly happily as Satraps after Alexander annexed one and defeated the other.

It wasn't his campaign in India that weakened his Empire, it was his premature death. And although that is probably linked to the Indian campaign, there is no definate evidence that he would not have died anyway. If you look at the amazing stability of the Seleucids, Bactrian Greeks and Ptolomies then you will realise that Alexander laid the framework for probably the biggest cultural assimilation ever known - it was only his premature death (and later Craterus' premature death) that stopped the Empire from staying together, not any lack of ability or foresight.

My 2 cents there. BTW, look at my scenario for Civ 3 if you're interested in Alexander's campaigns.

 

[deo]

Its really hard to say, lets say Hannibal and Alexander would meet, Hannibal after Cannae and Alexander after finishing Persia (experience counts a lot!).
IMO, it all would be decided in who would have had a better army, I mean, Hannibal, a master tactician lost to Scipio learned nealy everything from him only because he had a better (far better) army.

My vote goes to Hannibal, because of Cannae, because he, with an army mostly of mercenaries, slaughtered 50 thousand Romans, excellently trained and that in the middle of the republic.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I voted for Alexander, although I personally think they would not have fought each other (even if they were around at the same time )

@Plotinus: You've given me a good idea concerning the Persians

 

[FriendlyFire]

Firstly, it seems utterly fallacious to think that either of these great generals would have allowed themselves to be brought to battle on an empty grassland against an opposing general whom they respected.

well not always.

Hannible was forced into early action by hes galic allies (whom were over earger to fight) even though hes army and perticulary the Elephants had not fully recovered.

Alexander though was forced to fight on the battlefield of the persions since they effectively scoached earth the alternative routes in which alexanders army could march. (Logistics played a large role)

 

[FriendlyFire]

F

It wasn't his campaign in India that weakened his Empire, it was his premature death. And although that is probably linked to the Indian campaign, there is no definate evidence that he would not have died anyway. If you look at the amazing stability of the Seleucids, Bactrian Greeks and Ptolomies then you will realise that Alexander laid the framework for probably the biggest cultural assimilation ever known - it was only his premature death (and later Craterus' premature death) that stopped the Empire from staying together, not any lack of ability or foresight.

That was hes reckless leading of an attack in which he recieved a near fatal wound. (leading an seige attack) Which ended him from active combat or leading from the front every again.

Alexander great feats also meant the exposure of greek culture which was both envied and EMULATED by so many.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the siege of Tyre shows that Alexander was more than just an arrogant but brave guy rushing into battle with superior troops. He could be organized and determined to win even against very difficult odds. But so could the Romans (and Hannibal had great success for awhile). Then again, the Romans eventually won, so who knows about Alexander.