Greatest General of the Ancient World

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

I agree-its always fun to debate Lord Stronghold, and especially when it is against another person well versed in the times and history of the subject.

Not that I dont disagree with you!

I agree with you NM that the phalanx is not invulnerable but his "refusing a flank" maneuver made NO FLANK available. How could the persians destroy a formation when they couldn't get at the men themselves.

Thats my point-Alexander executed a brilliant move.. look at history and you will see it isnt easy to make a formidable manouver like that. It was a show of generalship.

NM, Hannibal defeated Rome at Cannae when the romans had possibly 100,000 men, They had 8 legions which in the romans alone is 40,000. Allies were about half as well so make that 80,000 Roman soldiers. These soldier are armed, lead by a competent general, well equiped and armored.

Rome at the time was the dominant power. No empire of that time could lose upwards of 80,000 men in one battle and continue to survive. Hannibal attacked them. In other words Cannae was just as great a battle as Guagemela. You have to understand that many of those persian troops are not well equipped, not well armored and have no reason to fight.

I never disputed that Cannae wasnt a truly great battle! It was one of the most magnificent in all of warfare. It was a masterpiece of generalship. But I have a dare for you Lord Stronghold...find me an example of Hannibals greatness outside of his ability on the field. The man was perhaps the greatest TACTICIAN of all time... unbeatable with vastly superior forces, but he was inept strategically. He had no great ability at sieges, he was unable to coordinate reinforcements to his army, and his ultimate failure was a direct result of this. As always, the roman warmachine is unstoppable in grand strategy. They had manpower, fleets, etc, and they always utilized them to maximum effect.

Hannibal made it as far as he did because he used his armies advanteges flawlessly, such as his numidian cavalry...and then he also was a master of ambush. He saw the critical weakness of the bloodlust behind the roman mindset at cannae as well. All of these actions are tactical, they are not a matter of states, but individual leadership, charisma, and certainly intellegence.

But Hannibal never had a brilliant plan. Again, crossing the alps, while a strategic manouver, had a desired TACTICAL effect-it surprised the romans, and so crushed their moral. But it had zero strategic effect-he was unable as you say, "to take advatage of his victory". His tactics gave him the strategic initiative, but what did he do with it? Nothing.

Now look at alexander. What did he do with such opportunities? He conquored whole regions. He blitzkrieged through the middle-east. When Darius, after Issus, came offering peace terms, Alexander was already strategically foward looking to see that he could potentially conquor all of persia. Indeed, Alexander was able to make a coalition and empire out of some of the most proud, independant people of all time such as the egyptians, the persians, the phoesians, and of course, the democratic greeks! To do this not only shows his strength of character, but his ability to overlook the biases of his day because he saw the military and cultural advantage. Most generals would have let there troops pillage and rape-he saw a better alternative.

Hannibal was quite a person, and his personallity held mercenaries close to him miles away from there homes..but he also failed to unite the italian tribes against rome. Another strategic failure that ultimately cost him.

Hannibal won most if not all of his sieges through treachery at the gate by citizens of the town.

Indeed. And if you look, he still lost many, many men in each siege. He was never able to wage a successful siege, and if you planned ahead-you would see this was a tremendous oversite. Sieges take the mind of great men-they are mathematical and strategic by there very nature. I think Hannibals inability to wage a successful siege shows his lack of strategic forsite.

At the very least Hannibal and Alexander are equal.

I just dont agree. Dont get me wrong-my favorite 3 generals are:
1) Napoleon
2) Alexander
3) Hannibal

But he is not the equal of old Alex. Alexander was a greater mind. Alexander would never have let a small family vendetta cloud his vision for the roman empire-he may still have conquored it, but Hannibal was impatient and desired only revenge-he would have destroyed the city of Rome. Alexander would have admired it. That shows how great a man Alexander was, and that quality of his mind, if you study his campaigns, is quite apparent in his generalship as well.

NM

[Mehmed II]

The thing "greatest" reminds me of other things. Which general's victories have the most effect in our history?

Alexander: Conquered the known world in a decade, won a war against a nation who has an army over 1 million men.

Hannibal: Declared war to one of the greatest empires of all times; won one major battle against his enemies but lost at the end.

The winner is:Alexander...

The conversation is over

[Trobalov]

Good point Mehmed ! Let's see what Anibal will say now...

[Wulf]

Bah, Alexander would have been defeated with his slow-moving phalanx vs a real Persian army. Dont get me wrong, the village louts that were levied were all gonna be dead, but at least Alexander's army would have been defeated because they would've been surrounded and skirmished to death.

And Persians had heavy cavalry as well by the time of Darius III, but these suffered heavily from the fact that, while they could contend - in theory - with hetairoi, they failed because they had no saddle and no stirrups. The result: they fell off their horses in the charge. Sigh.

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

no saddle and no stirrups

Uhhh...the stirrup wasnt invented for hundreds of years--the greeks certainly didnt have an advantage in that! It was the superior Macedonian Breeding program that produced champion horses like Bucephalus that made them unbeatable, in addition to the fact the Macedonians were just more natural horsemen. The persians had horses, but they never entered the culture as prominently as in Macedon.

Bah, Alexander would have been defeated with his slow-moving phalanx vs a real Persian army. Dont get me wrong, the village louts that were levied were all gonna be dead, but at least Alexander's army would have been defeated because they would've been surrounded and skirmished to death.

I couldnt agree more Wulf. I think that despite the many people who seem to think Gaugamela was a shoo-in and easy victory, this was a real threat to Alexander at the battle, and it easily could have gone the other way. The Spartans showed that when there flank was protected the phalanx was virtually unbreakable. (Thermoplyae) but several battles show how truly disasterous a flank attack against a phalanx could be. If the persians had moved peasants or horse around a flank it could have caused the whole flank to unwind, and the battle to quickly fall apart for the greeks.

People seem to forget that Alexander would gamble in his battles. Sure, they were calculated and ultimately worked out, but the man was a risk taker, and his battles were not guaranteed victories but flashy moves that ultimately paid off. Darius didnt just urinate all overhimself and flee-he saw a charging greek cavarly chewing through his heavy cav, and then his infantries flank. Alexander hit hard because to just trade blows WOULD have lead to a defeat, as his horse became exhausted the persians would have been able to manouver around the greek lines and shatter them. It was a more precarious situation than people seem to give them credit for.

NM

NM

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Originally posted by GodEmperor Nicholas@Mar 30 2004, 12:51 PM

no saddle and no stirrups

Uhhh...the stirrup wasnt invented for hundreds of years--the greeks certainly didnt have an advantage in that! It was the superior Macedonian Breeding program that produced champion horses like Bucephalus that made them unbeatable, in addition to the fact the Macedonians were just more natural horsemen. The perians had horses, but they never entered the culture as prominently as in Macedon.

NM

Bucephalus was brought to Phillip the 2nd by a thracian trader..so the horse wasnt macedonian, but your poitn stands, the Makedonians were very adept at husbandry. BTW, Bucephalus means - "Ox-Head", because he had a white marking of what looked like abd oxhead on his forehead Cool eh?

[Eothain]

I always liked Aetius. As well as that Byzantine bloke who invaded Italy.

[Anibal Barca]

I can only say you have awaken my wrath! ...no strategy? LOL he is called the FATHER OF STRATEGY! The way he get where he got ALONE against such an outnumbering and military TRAINED enemy shows his pure unmatchable strategy ...no siege abilities? LOL he conquered by assault and storm HUNDREDS of cities even after leaving his siege machine in Iberia before crossing the pirenees! Sorry NM but you wished to discuss "against another person well versed in the times and history of the subject" ...you shall have it.

First, the well informed Wulf, and Stronghold, bring a point where no comparison can be made: by the time of Alexander (and his fathers' trained and ONLY professional army of the world) the persian army was a bunch of poorly armoured, poorly trained and poorly commanded army, while the roman army had came from several wars, was among the better (if not the better) armoured soldiers of those days and was very disciplined. Only the persian cavalry had some reputation. About Darius, let's just say he fled the field after the first couple of guys droped down, and the rest of the army followed him not much after.

Hannibal as a strategist

find me an example of Hannibals greatness outside of his ability on the field

I could right you a book on this one..and after reading the last page on this post, I'm finally decided to start a new thread in this section, divided in chapters, where I will thouroughly expose Hannibal's greatness as a strategist, in the words of the reliable and objective Polybius. I'll focus some main points before though, that prove Hannibal's valour as a strategist. The way he moved from Spain to Italy, through hostile terrain and hostile forces most of the way, including Southern Gaul and the Alps, and then literally playing with the roman superior numbers and only bringing battles when he wanted and when conditions favoured him. The way he won allies in Cisalpine Gaul, Numidia, Iberia even before this so uneven war started, and later also gaining allies in Southern Italy, Sicily and Macedonia, show his diplomatic strategy skills too. The way he did all this without having supply lines, sea supremacy and facing such outnumbering and powerful foe is unmatchable. Alexander had supply lines, a much superiorly armoured and disciplined force, and was facing a bunch of nearly 'peasants', led by a coward 'clumsy' general. His strategy...move forward

crossing the alps, while a strategic manouver, had a desired TACTICAL effect-it surprised the romans, and so crushed their moral. But it had zero strategic effect-he was unable as you say, "to take advantage of his victory".

LOL, no advantage of this?!?!? It was a master strategic move and it had great effects! Let me just tell you that one of the two roman consular armies was geting ready in Sicily to embark to Africa when Hannibal emerged in Italy, while the other consular army missed Hannibal for a couple of days (even hours as cavalry clashes actually hapened) in Massilia/Marseille, where Scipio's father and his consular army landed, thinking he was going to be with a good days advantage over Hannibal, giving him time to coordinate his defense with his Gaulish allies against Hannibal....Hannibal already had crushed those gauls brilliantly at the river Rhone. Hannibal decided to continue the march to Italy though, preventing the romans to concentrate their forces in Hannibal's land, and so preventing them to play an atrition war with Carthage's Iberian/ African allies. The exact atrition war that Hannibal was about to start in Italy with Rome's italian allies. Want a better example of strategy than this NM?

he was unable to coordinate reinforcements to his army, and his ultimate failure was a direct result of this

he also failed to unite the italian tribes against rome. Another strategic failure that ultimately cost him he

misjudgement again! Hannibal's strategy, and the gaining of allies, was working fine. Capua, the 2nd biggest italian city, the Samnites, Lucania, Brutium, many towns in Apulia and many greek cities OPENED the gates to Hannibal. After Cannae, most of Southern Italy was turning to Hannibal. But as you can imagine, an unsuported ocupying 'little' army, no matter how powerful and intimidating it may be, cannot control an all region forever. And here's where Hannibal strategy (better say his home suport) 'failed' if you want: he had to secure these southern recent allies (so not that reliable), and their LARGE recruiting pools, away from the romans with another army and standing garrisons at least. Only then could he march on Rome and break her from the also LARGE recruiting pools of the central states, without fearing being pinned against the walls of Rome during the siege, and risk being surrounded from several armies from all sides. I mean, after Cannae, Rome still had tons of manpower resources and a proof is that less than 3 years later, in the begining of the 213BC, Rome had 220.000 men on the field! The reinforcements Hannibal asked and so urgently needed to finish the war right after Cannae never came!

Explaining what hapened: After Cannae, Hannibal sent tons of jewelry and booty to Carthage from all those dead roman officers, and asked for reinforcements to the Senate. Though the Barcid party immediately congratulated themselves and agreed on sending him reinforcements, there were the other 'guys' who hated the Barcids, who delayed and eventually redirected the reinforcements elsewhere. Ahead of them were the leaders of the rival families and especially Hanno 'the great', who was the greatest enemy of the Barcas, coming from far behind:

During the first punic war, when Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal's father, was in Sicily harassing the last (credible) two roman forces from an easy defensible high ground called Mount Erix with some troops, controling the seas and making raids to the coast of Italy, he was waiting for reinforcements to finish the war as the romans' resources were exhausted after more than 700 warships being wrecked by battles and tempests,not to mention human casualties, reaching several hundreds of thousands, including a land roman army slaughtered in African soil in the only main engagement of the first punic war. Instead of reenforcing the fleet and Hamilcar's army, and give the final blow on the romans they decided to spent the few resources left of the almost also exhausted Carthaginian empire on a mercenary army sent to campaign through the interior of Africa lead by....Hanno "The Great(Bastard)"! When they decided to reenforce Hamilcar, the romans had recovered and had built a new fleet that intercepted ,by treachery, those reinforcements and so, ending the 1st punic war. This misplayed actions of some in the senate were the beginning of the great quarrels between the Barcas and those some (especially Hanno) that would last, unfortunately, forever, also blewing Hannibal's war. The Barcas were not overthrown, just because Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barca, brilliantly won the 'Truceless/Mercenaries war' saving Carthage from more than probable defeat (10000 under Hamilcar and Carthage pinned to their very walls, against 100000 mercenaries+lybians including Uttica, 2nd biggest carthaginian city, under their control) and so getting the people's support and screwing the plans of his rivals. That's another reason why Hamilcar decided to go to Spain, there was just too much 'pressure' at home.

Back to the 2nd punic war. The rivals at Carthage, were red jealous by both recent Spain, and mostly, Italy's Barcas' successes. So instead of making the right move by sending another army to Italy and so, allow Hannibal's final move ('destroy' Rome), and probably end the war imo the unthinkable hapened. Two(three) armies were dispatched, and none to Italy. One was sent to Spain under Hasdrubal Gisgo. Why? They were starting to fear the overthrowing power the Barcas' would have in the possible victorious end of the war (I guess they never believed Hannibal would get this far) and so, they wanted to prematurely 'share' the ruling of the spanish settlement presently under Hannibal's brothers control. Must say the intention was perfectly understood by Hannibal's brothers which caused tension and distraction among the now 3 present armies ‘allowing’ Scipio Africanus to capture Cartago Nova where the insurance of the alliance with the spanish tribes was kept: 300 spanish tribe leaders's childs as hostages. This turned the balance of power in Spain to Rome's favour, coz many tribes switched sides. The other army (about 25000inf 3000 cav and 12elephants) was sent to Sicily, landing in Agrigentum exactly, and even another army was sent to Sardinia. I guess this 2 last were just to say they too had made some conquests and so take some credit from the war for themselves within the people at home. Hannibal got 0 reinforcements, and only years later he would finally get some reinforcements, yet they were stupidly small.


I will counter afetr your arguments on his lack of siege qualities and expose the reasons for his lack of siege machinery.

[Anibal Barca]

Hannibal's Siege Qualities/Means

Hannibal and Carthage were not renowned for sieging techniques. Greece had philosophers and mathematicians. They had easy access to siege engineers. Carthage really didn't have any of those.

Hannibal won most if not all of his sieges through treachery at the gate by citizens of the town.

- Lord Stronghold

He was never able to wage a successful siege, and if you planned ahead-you would see this was a tremendous oversite. Sieges take the mind of great men-they are mathematical and strategic by there very nature. I think Hannibals inability to wage a successful siege shows his lack of strategic forsite

- NM


First, Hannibal left his siege train before crossing the Pyrenees(&#33 into Gaul, in his long march to Italy, also through the Alps(&#33 and under hostile territory ... understandable, as he also had to be fast due to logistics, strategic and safety issues! Here's Polybius accounts, after Hannibal SIEGING and TAKING ALL the subject roman cities in Northeastern Iberia (not to mention the well fortified Saguntum taken before):

"Crossing the Ebro, he set about subduing the tribes of the Ilurgetes, Bargusii, Aerenosii, and Andosini as far as the Pyrenees, and having reduced them all and taken some cities by assault, with unexpected rapidity indeed, he left Hanno [his brother] in command of all the country on this side of the river, placing the Bargusii under his absolute rule, as he mistrusted them most, owing to their friendly sentiments toward Rome. He assigned to Hanno out of his own army ten thousand foot and one thousand horse, and he left with him all the heavy baggage of the expeditionary force . He dismissed at the same time an equal number of troops to their homes, with the view of leaving them well disposed to himself and encouraging the hope of a safe return in the rest of the Spaniards, not only those who were serving with him, but those who remained at home, so that if he ever had to call on them for reinforcements, they might all readily respond. With the rest of his force, thus lightened of its impedimenta and consisting now of fifty thousand foot and about nine thousand horse, he advanced throughout the Pyrenees towards the crossing of the Rhone"

You also say that once in Italy he only took cities by treachery coz he had also no engineers...

First, he took many cities by storm and not treachery, i. e., Casilinium, Arpi, Tarentum and many others, though ONE is reported indeed as being taken that way. Others he didn't have to coz his tactic was to seduce many italian cities to ally with him and friendly open his gates. And it worked in many other cities like: some towns in Apulia, the Samnites, Lucania and Brutium and many greek cities...and also the mighty Capua, who after some time of siege and negotiations opened his gates to Hannibal, who is reported entering the city in his last surviving elephant, Serus. Here comes the discussion of wether he really decided to adopt a non-siege tactic due to lack of siege abilities/means (though, as I wrote before from Polybius accounts, he had them and used them with "unexpected rapidity indeed") or if it was part of his strategy.

It was obviously part of his strategy. It was not lack of sieging qualities, it was rather time!!! He stormed saguntum and all those cities, some quite briliantly and rapidly, to anticipate Rome's moves. He even ignored and didn't siege important roman strategic cities during his march, like Emporia for example, coz he was playing against time. Had he not reached Italy so soon he 1)would have not reached his goal in fighting in the enemy's land 2)would have not prevented a roman consular army in Sicily to turn back and march to Trebbia (North Italy) when it was ready to embark to Africa 3)would have not prevented the other consular army to land in one piece in Iberia giving them the chance of playing themselves the war of atrition that Hannibal played in Italy, with Hannibal's fresh allies, the Iberian tribes, in Iberia itself."

Secondly, contrary to what you might think, he HAD engineers with him and examples like:

1)the bridge he built for his elephants to cross the BIG river Rhone after briliantly defeating the Gauls who were blocking his crossing of the river on the other side:

"They built a number of very solid rafts and lashing two of these together fixed them very firmly into the bank of the river, their united width being about fifty feet. To these they attached others on the farther side, prolonging the bridge out into the stream. They secured the side of it which faced the current by cables attached to the trees that grew on the bank, so that the whole structure might remain in place and not be shifted by the current. When they had made the whole bridge or pier of rafts about two hundred feet long they attached to the end of it two particularly compact ones, very firmly fastened to each other, but so connected with the rest that the lashings could easily be cut. They attached to these several towing-lines by which boats were to tow them, not allowing them to be carried down stream, but holding them up against the current, and thus were to convey the elephants which would be in them across. After this they piled up a quantity of earth on all the line of rafts, until the whole was on the same level and of the same appearance as the path on shore leading to the crossing. The animals were always accustomed to obey their mahouts up to the water, but would never enter it on any account, and they now drove them along over the earth with two females in front, whom they obediently followed. As soon as they set foot on the last rafts the ropes which held these fast to the others were cut, and the boats pulling taut, the towing-lines rapidly tugged away from the pile of earth the elephants and the rafts on which they stood. Hereupon the animals becoming very alarmed at first turned round and ran about in all directions, but as they were shut in on all sides by the stream they finally grew afraid and were compelled to keep quiet. In this manner, by continuing to attach two rafts to the end of the structure, they managed to get most of them over on these, but some were so frightened that they threw themselves into the river when half-way across. The mahouts of these were all drowned, but the elephants were saved, for owing to the power and length of their trunks they kept them above the water and breathed through them, at the same time spouting out any water that got into their mouths and so held out, most of them passing through the water on their feet." - Polybius Book 3

2) the building/creating of passages in the midst of the slopy Alps for his elephants, cav and pack-animals:

"No engineers?.. how sadly put. Havent you heard of what his army was able to do while snowed-in up in the Alps? He ordered his soldiers to soak a set of blocking rocks in oil and then torch it.. sure enough they broke, and his army was able to pass through. Ill say it again, Hannibal did not have heavy siege capability due to his outlook. His aim was to force march, overland, to hit the Romans where and when they least expected it" - the good ole scholared Tzentri back at .com

"The descending path was very narrow and steep, and as both men and beasts could not tell on what they were treading owing to the snow, all that stepped wide of the path or stumbled were dashed down the precipice. This trial, however, they put up with, being by this time familiar with such sufferings, but they at length reached a place where it was impossible for either the elephants or the pack-animals to pass owing to the extreme narrowness of the path, a previous landslip having carried away about one and a half stades of the face of the mountain and a further landslip having recently occurred, and here the soldiers once more became disheartened and discouraged. The Carthaginian general at first thought of avoiding the difficult part by a detour, but as a fresh fall of snow made progress impossible he had to abandon this project....then, Hannibal encamped on the ridge, sweeping it clear of snow, and next set the soldiers to work to build up the path along the cliff, a most toilsome task. In one day he had made a passage sufficiently wide for the pack-train and horses; so he at once took these across and encamping on ground free of snow, sent them out to pasture, and then took the Numidians in relays to work at building up the path, so that with great difficulty in three days he managed to get the elephants across" - Polybius Book 3


Finally, Stronghold, you say only the greeks had trained engineers (and consequently the ability to build 'good' siege machinery and well defended fortresses i suppose).... For all the reasons I stated before Carthaginians were quite capable in what enginnering concerns (not to mention that Syracuse and ARCHIMEDES himself fought side by side with Carthage against Rome), but there's a final irrefutable reason. Hannibal and the Carthaginians were no n00bs in fortresses. Rome and other Greek cities weren't even near the fortress Carthage was: her perimeter was 22miles long (against Rome's 5 miles); it had 2 inner ports, one commercial and another one restrictly military with space for 220 warships, being both linked to the exterior by a straight walled and towered with heavy catapults passage; her walls were 40 to 100 feet high and 30 feet thick, and the only straight land access to the city was protected by a mighty triple wall (the last 2 of these 3 walls were impressively imponent and well armed with very powerful catapults - as the romans would costly understand when trying to unsuccessfully breakthrough this passage during their 149-146 siege even after 2000 of their finest catapults and other artillery - and also around 200.000 sets of weapons/armour - had been delievered to the romans, before the siege began, in exchange of peace as demanded by the romans...they haven't kept their word, as always); it had 300 inner elephants' garages; the agricultural fields in and around the city were the most advanced in the whole world by a long way, including already irrigation and crop rotation (the romans would later admire and adopt their skills by capturing their very well elaborated agricultural manuals); and last but not least, a magnificent architectural piece of art: their giant water reservoires built under the city itself, who kept the winter rains in enormous quantities and served well in case of prolonged siege. Only Constantinople MANY years later would compare to Carthage's might! With such fortress, I can assure you Carthaginians were no n00bs in engineering. And about philosophers and mathematicians, Carthaginians had already greek teachers in their education system. Sosylus (spartan?) was Hannibal's greek teacher who even acompanied him during his campaign and wrote on Hannibal's side....but unfortunately it was destroyed.

[Lord Stronghold]

Hannibal by what I meant by sieging and the greeks was that Hannibal never had any catapults or ballastae in his army during his campaign in Italy. I meant also that they did have siege just not great siege and as many as the romans.

Hannibal: Declared war to one of the greatest empires of all times; won one major battle against his enemies but lost at the end.

Please read a book at least on Hannibal Mehmed II. Hannibal caused the deaths of at least 200,000 romans in over 4 battles that can be considered major. Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae to name a few. He also crossed the pyrenhees and the alps which to the romans was considered to be impossible at that time of year.

The Spartans showed that when there flank was protected the phalanx was virtually unbreakable. (Thermoplyae) but several battles show how truly disasterous a flank attack against a phalanx could be. If the persians had moved peasants or horse around a flank it could have caused the whole flank to unwind, and the battle to quickly fall apart for the greeks.

You must get over that fact that at Guagemela Alexander created a box with which no flanks were available. You cannot flank a box because it always has a front end and the Persians were forced to head straight into that end. It would undoubtedly be a slaughter with only few macedonian casualties. I fail to see how making your men form a box is a show of generalship. many generals have done that before.

Hannibal was quite a person, and his personallity held mercenaries close to him miles away from there homes..but he also failed to unite the italian tribes against rome. Another strategic failure that ultimately cost him.

Actually Hannibal managed to get the Bruttiians (italian tribe) which was the head tribe in Italy to send him thousands of warriors. The only fault as to uniting men was that he was unable to get the latins to support him due to them having a deep hatred of anything Carthage from the get go.

First, he took many cities by storm and not treachery, i. e., Casilinium, Arpi, Tarentum and many others, though ONE is reported indeed as being taken that way.

Tarentum was taken with the help of a hunter's aid in eliminating the gate guards at Tarentum. A few romans managed to escape to the citadel however.

We must also look at Hannibal's ability to break sieges. For example, When Capua was besieged, Hannibal sent his force straight to Rome itself. This drew off several thousand enemy troops away from Capua but not enough.

Now after Marcellus was killed in a pitched battle against Hannibal no general of Rome would willingly engage and fight Hannibal in the field. These generals go to academys and train you know. Darius was just a king he was no experienced general in the way of victory. I can prove that either Darius was unskilled or just plain dumb. Alexander won a lot of battles before attacking at Guagemela. He annahilated all armies in the way and the persians knew this.

Why would Darius willingly attack Alexander when he had untrained men? He attacked because he was full of himself; Impetuous. Which is the first sign of a :wub: general. Darius sent over 100,000 persian(mainly peasants) into battle against heavily armored foes that could really only be killled by archers and skirmishers. The persian forces could easily outmaneuveur and flank the greeks but they did so stupidly if at all.
The box made by Alexander was the only way to beat the huge massive front line of Persia. Any general would have noticed that you would have need of defending your flanks against such a line and a box was perfect. He lured them in with the opening and then slaughtered them from 20 feet away with the pikes.

Cannae was in a way the same. Hannibal let the romans come through his centre and then slammed into them from the sides thus crushing over 80,000 soldiers.

Most people think that a great general that kills a ton of men is the best. Not so. Alexander faced a headstrong idiotic persian king Darius. While Hannibal faced many experienced Roman generals over his career and even convinced the romans for years that he was invincible. This is against a technologicaly advanced civilization and one that has better soldiers than Persia.

Don't anyone get me and Anibal started on Zama. Hannibal lost that battle due to a simple thing that his opponent had easy access to.

[Mehmed II]

Please read a book at least on Hannibal Mehmed II

Whoa! Hold that big mouth of yours right there! I won't tolerate these words, especially if it's from a guy who wanted to change the religion of his faction to Islam in 200 bc (RPG).

Hannibal caused the deaths of at least 200,000 romans in over 4 battles that can be considered major. Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae to name a few. He also crossed the pyrenhees and the alps which to the romans was considered to be impossible at that time of year.

So what? Celaleddin Harzemshah won quite a lot of victories against the mongols of Temuchin by using the infamous guerilla tactics; he retreated at the end and escaped mongol imprisonment by riding his horse to the end of a cliff and jumping to a river. Despite his recovery, his lack of negotiations lead to his downfall as his army was annihilated by Seljuks. A shepherd stabbed him because he didnt believe that he was harzemshah king!

He was far less fortunate than Hanibal. He didn't even have a modest army to start with. But he lost and died the death of a loser, just like Hanibal. Who knows? Maybe he was the greatest general of all times, but none of his victories had a major effect in our history.

If you ask me, Hanibal can't even be compared to Alexander.

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

Uhhh these posts are getting too long. I have a life you know.

Lord Stronghold:

You must get over that fact that at Guagemela Alexander created a box with which no flanks were available. You cannot flank a box because it always has a front end and the Persians were forced to head straight into that end. It would undoubtedly be a slaughter with only few macedonian casualties. I fail to see how making your men form a box is a show of generalship. many generals have done that before.

An ignorant, incorrect assumption. You need to stop telling Mehmed to read books and go pick up a few yourself. Alexander attacked, obviously he didnt just sit there and form a box. Furthermore, you seem to think a phalanx box is invulnerable, this is incorrect. Third, they didnt form a box, they executed a celebrated military manouver known as a refused flank, or attack in the olbique order.

You say many generals have done that before. In fact, you couldnt be more incorrect. Give examples, or your agruements will be considered invalid. Epimandous is considered the first person to use the refused flank in war, and it was less than one hundred years before Alexander then used it. Philip was the only person to do it in that time. After that, you have a handful of generals throughout time who use the manover-infact, Frederick the great won his most decisive victories with that attack as late as the 1700's, and he was called the great...hmm.. wonder if it was because he could execute that well...

Hannibal caused the deaths of at least 200,000 romans in over 4 battles that can be considered major. Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae to name a few. He also crossed the pyrenhees and the alps which to the romans was considered to be impossible at that time of year.

In WW1, French generals lead to the death of hundreds of thousands in days. In WW2, the Americans bombed cities and killed 500,000 in dresden in hours. If you think bodycount is in any way equated with success, then you are showing that you have different priorites than I. Hannibal showed that he could take the enemies greatest strength: there unbeatable infantry, and used it as there greatest weakness--there flank. That isnt pure bodycount, it is more elegant and skilled. Your quoting of numbers should not even be subject of debate.


Now the meat: Annibal

First, he took many cities by storm and not treachery, i. e., Casilinium, Arpi, Tarentum and many others, though ONE is reported indeed as being taken that way. Others he didn't have to coz his tactic was to seduce many italian cities to ally with him and friendly open his gates. And it worked in many other cities like: some towns in Apulia, the Samnites, Lucania and Brutium and many greek cities...and also the mighty Capua, who after some time of siege and negotiations opened his gates to Hannibal, who is reported entering the city in his last surviving elephant, Serus. Here comes the discussion of wether he really decided to adopt a non-siege tactic due to lack of siege abilities/means (though, as I wrote before from Polybius accounts, he had them and used them with "unexpected rapidity indeed") or if it was part of his strategy.

And were any of these cities greatly contested? Were any of real strategic value? Rome was glad Hannibal went off after them, it gave them a breather.

The issue of siegecraft and strategy is one: the objective always was rome, and Hannibal failed to identify that. He mistook the enemy center of mass as being the italian city states. A greater general would not have allowed war to begin with rome if he could not win. Hannibal did that.

Give me all the nitpicking details and large responses you want, I think you could more succinctly state your intented thesis. You are making Hannibal the cause of all his fortune, and others the cause of his defeat. Obviously fortune plays a part. But it doesnt affect things such as supplies, siegecraft, and strategy as much as you like to pretend. You sound like adolf hitler, claiming the only way Hannibal could lose was from a "Stab in the back". The man made a strategic miscalculation thinking he could bring rome to its knees. Obviously if he lacked the men, siege equipment, support from home, etc. he was putting himself in a fatal situation. He performed brilliantly, but that doesnt excuse the situation he put himself in, given that he has all the time he could ever desire--He did start the war with Rome remember. If he wasnt ready, he should have waited. This is no Waterloo that allows a gamble to be taken without regard for risk because of time, he had all the time in the world.

NM

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Watch the polemic guys....and my vote , in this discussion, goes to Alex
Below, cannae and gaugamela...just BOXES! right?

[Lord Stronghold]

Firstly, MehmedII get over that I am crushing Thracia in the war. In your own words. " It's called Diplomacy". You stated that to to PG Whilst he was getting crushed. I have never once gone to Church. Why? Because my parents believe that you should not have to go to church and listen to some old fart preach for 2 hours about god. I could not answer 1 question of religion with any intelligence. Seeing as I live in Canada I would have no clue as to Islam and you have to go and make a joke about it. I don't understand how that is funny.

Secondly, I flamed MehmedII on reading because he was biased in his account of why Alexander is better and took offense to it. Seeing as he is our Eastern historian I wonder how that is detailed and have lost some respect from the hoard I once had for him.

Thirdly, I am over the fact(long time now ) that a phalanx is invulnerable but how could an unexperienced ( never won a major battle)general( Darius) crush such a formation? Could you? He effectively took away any chance of flanking by not reacting. If Darius was a capable general he would try to flank the refusing the flank (confusing no?) but he didn't becuase Darius is an idiot. Darius was full of himself and thought he would win by just advancing his men. How could a man who is doing nothing other than advancing possibly to their dooms? The only real way to beat such a formation of macedon was to use skirmishers and archers. The Macedonians even had companion cavalry to boot and could crush the persian cavalry and long rangers easily. The only other option is to just advance into the phalanx and hope you can beat them through outnumbering forces.

Fourthly, I realize that a major part of Alexander's style of warfare was based on gambles, but was alexander riding in command of his men an unnecessary gamble? There are 3 options to Alexander riding in personally.
1. just plain dumb
2. morale
3. fun of it

For arguments sake I will eliminate 1,3 lol. . So Alexander rode in for morale. But is this a good idea or a bad one? I think a bad one overall. Here's the reasons.

1. He could be easily killed. A simple fall from a horse could cause this. Would result in the destruction of his army.
2. He effectively isolates himself from giving any commands.

Needless to say 1 is not good and easy to understand but 2 I will explain. 2 Means that because he is in the thick of battle he is unable to give orders. He must focus fully on crushing the enemy in front of him and cannot actually adapt to any changes or flanks the persians might attack him with. Had Darius bothered to flank his enemy Alexander would not be able to make any changes because he cannot see the flanks and thus his army is lost. This could have been unknowing or just for some unknown reason.

You state that within the same century the "refusing the flank" technique was used a few times. The greeks were well known for their scholars so they would have written down these magnificent techniques. Alexander was the son of Philip; King of Macedon and was intelligent as you placed him. More than likely he would have read something on military maneuvers and even possibly how to "refuse a flank" This means that many of Alexander's great victories would go out to Epiminondas(spellling?) and not to Alexander seeing as Alexander only copied a military move.

There was no precedent to what happened at Cannae. No great Greek or Carthaginian had let the romans do what they want to do and then crush them as they did it. Hannibal came up with the maneuver and was creative in that manner giving him a strategical point. .

Of course this is relying upon whether or not Alexander or Hannibal could actually read and were whether alexander had an interest in military maneuvers.(he probably did)

With regards to numbers of men guys I took special care. Carthaginias, Romans, and Greeks were all biased to one another. Every single account of these battles could be biased. The Carthaginians and Romans were at war and fought for war whilst Greece hated the Carthaginians for contending for Sicily and controlling the western sea trade.The accounts I take are rough and could easily be wrong but hypothesis account that approximately 5000 soldiers per legion x 8 = 40,000 + half as much from allies =60,000 at Cannae alone and that is rough. There are several accounts of Rome's fighting capability going from 727,000 to 227,000 during the Hannibalic wars but is probably wrong and I have not yet investigated it.

I would not urge you to make fun of my reading ability guys. I took a test in gr.6 called the "gifted learning test" and can not give away heavy details due to Canadian law , but I am allowed to state that I scored a University level in reading and a High school in Math. I have started a reading group in school and know more about history than any student up to Grade 12 in my entire school. He beat me in modern and industrial :'( . I have read several hundreds of thousands of pages of several books from several genres and have read about 6 approximate books on Alexander and 8 on Hannibal at my school library. I continually look up sites each night on anything to do with medieval or ancient history. I am but a 15 year old kid living in Canada.

I am but a simple civitate and my opinion is being blurred by a mod(NM) and both of our western and eastern historians whom I both greatly respect. I have an obligation to my pride and justice to see this argument through to the end whether I am soundly defeated or win .



Ps: Thanks Boris for the informative sketches of Cannae and Guagemela however check the stats on Cannae for it might be a tad high. That is quoting the Carthaginian reference.

Anyway my main question for NM is how would you beat the macedonians at Guagemela?

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Originally posted by Lord Stronghold@Mar 31 2004, 12:02 AM
Anyway my main question for NM is how would you beat the macedonians at Guagemela?

Aloow my to intercede...one answer...

Pary....a lot...Ahura Mazda better be listening...

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

Anyway my main question for NM is how would you beat the macedonians at Guagemela?

Not run away

[Mehmed II]

Firstly, MehmedII get over that I am crushing Thracia in the war. In your own words. " It's called Diplomacy". You stated that to to PG Whilst he was getting crushed. I have never once gone to Church. Why? Because my parents believe that you should not have to go to church and listen to some old fart preach for 2 hours about god. I could not answer 1 question of religion with any intelligence. Seeing as I live in Canada I would have no clue as to Islam and you have to go and make a joke about it. I don't understand how that is funny.

1.Who cares about a game? IT'S A GAME!
2.What does that have to do with going to church? A priest isn't obliged to tell you that Islam was found 600 years after Christianity. You learn it by reading a book or searcing the web nowadays.

Seeing as I live in Canada I would have no clue as to Islam and you have to go and make a joke about it.

Oh that's such a shameless reason. I live in Turkey and it seems that I know a lot more about christianity than you know about Islam. It seems that I'm the guy who's reading after all....

[Trobalov]

Ok guys cut it out! This has gone way to far. I will not tolerate any more flaming arguements like these. They are getting personal instead of staying on topic.


Lord Stronghold don't ever insert RPG matters again here. Leave that out of here. Also Its not about who is moderator or historian or civitate. We are discussing here ,but as excpected Anibal, Mehmed and LordStronghold are arguing not because they support different generals and have different beliefs but because they have taken too seriously their personal duels in RPG! Don't argue like kids and respect others' opinions however you dislike it. That will be all.

P.S: NM please as well keep the tone down a bit.


Any more sign of this kind of flaming and topic will be closed.

[Anibal Barca]

Anibal, Mehmed and LordStronghold are arguing not because they support different generals and have different beliefs but because they have taken too seriously their personal duels in RPG!

- Trobalov

you better reread my posts Trobalov. I never mentioned the RPG and I didn't even answered to any of Mehmed's misinformed posts exactly coz I know he is overly frustrated and overreacting for what is hapening in the RPG. If you reread the last posts you'll find that it was Mehmed who brought his anger and the RPG issue to the discussion right here and not Stronghold in fact:

especially if it's from a guy who wanted to change the religion of his faction to Islam in 200 bc (RPG).

- Mehmed

...this when Stronghold asked him to get informed before posting misinformed posts.

Anyway Trobalov, I ask you to remove my name from that quote of yours coz I have always kept historical content on my posts here in this topic. I also repeat I didn't answer Mehmed coz I can only understand his frustation...going from a proud arrogant member of the powerful ACA (anti-Carthage alliance) to a war where everybody, including your longtime allies, the Dacians, have joined me and declared him war. Worste of all, I (Carthage) declared and initiated this war

I also see why, even having few factual knowledge, Mehmed so strongly favours Alexander. After all Alexander swept ancient Turkey in like one 'afternoon', and so Mehmed must praise the man almost as a God...otherwise he would be assuming that ancient turks were a bunch of 'sissys' *lol*


Let's get now (and requoting NM) to the meat
Hannibal's strategy

And were any of these [italian] cities greatly contested? Were any of real strategic value? Rome was glad Hannibal went off after them, it gave them a breather.

The issue of siegecraft and strategy is one: the objective always was rome, and Hannibal failed to identify that. He mistook the enemy center of mass as being the italian city states. A greater general would not have allowed war to begin with rome if he could not win

- NM

WOOOHHH your lack of strategy insight surprises me NM! :sad: I even already have given the reason for Hannibal's strategy but I shall repeat myself. First, of course that breaking Rome from its numerous and overpopulated italian allied cities was CRUCIAL. If he went, as you suggest, right on to Rome with some slowing heavy equipment the following would happen:

1)it's a bit difficult and dangerous task to take that heavy gear through the Pirenees, Southern Gaul and the Alps...all hostile territory as the multiple enemies Hannibal had to fight or ingeniously avoid show us.

2)it would have slowed him immensily, and he and his army would have more than probably been pinned by multiple armies, and obliged to offer battle when the conditions did not favour him. Besides, being slow, would doom his war from the begining as he would have not prevented some of his main goals, including fighting in the enemy land and play the allies-atrition war in Italy and not in his homeground:

"one of the two roman consular armies was geting ready in Sicily to embark to Africa when Hannibal emerged in Italy, while the other consular army missed Hannibal for a couple of days (even hours as cavalry clashes actually hapened) in Massilia/Marseille, where Scipio's father and his consular army landed, thinking he was going to be with a good days advantage over Hannibal, giving him time to coordinate his defense with his Southern Gaulish allies against Hannibal....Hannibal already had crushed those gauls brilliantly at the river Rhone, where those same Gauls were blocking Hannibal's cross on the other side of this large river. Hannibal decided to continue the march to Italy though, preventing the romans to concentrate their forces in Hannibal's home ground, and so preventing them to play an atrition war with Carthage's Iberian/ African allies. The exact atrition war that Hannibal was about to start in Italy with Rome's italian allies."

3) if, as you suggest, he would have headed on Rome, he would have been pinned down against the walls of the well fortified Rome by multiple LARGE armies coming from all the overpopulated Italy and rome's allied cities. That's why he had to neutralize and secure the overpopulated southern region from the romans, before heading on Rome and its also overpopulated central allied states. As you must agree, his 'little' army was incapable of doing both, and that's why he asked for reinforcements (another army) after Cannae, to secure with standing garrisons and a nearby army, these numerous vital new allied cities! The southern Italy region was the first place to be neutralized and secured also coz it was the easiest point to get those reinforcements from Carthage. And as I said, those reinforcements never came, but Hannibal still managed to hold alone with his little army, STRATEGICALLY and TACTICALLY, for 14 years and still winning battles, even if surrounded by greatly outnumbering roman armies. As I said, less than 3 years after Cannae, Rome had already 220.000 men on the field.

Quite frankly NM, he would have never nearly got where he did with your doomed strategy. Hannibal's strategy was brilliant, worthy of an unmatchable genious... but screwed by the factor one could less expect, his suposedly strongest ally, Carthage itself.

You are making Hannibal the cause of all his fortune, and others the cause of his defeat

- NM
and I couldn't be more right



Premature and/or unfounded war? NAH

He did start the war with Rome remember

- NM
Let's not start another argue about the reasons for the start of this war ok. Rome's imperialism and dishonor started it, not Hannibal.

"both Rome and Carthage had, including a MILITARY treaty against Pyrrus of Epiro when he invaded Italy!! To thank those large years of alliances and cooperation this is what happens in 264BC: The city of Messana in Sicily is being attacked by the greek Syracusans (also Sicilians) and asks help to Rome first. Rome denies that help saying they were no more than pirates. They then ask Carthage for help. Carthage sends help and gets them peace with the syracusans. Half of those in Messana don't like the Carthaginians and ask for help again to Rome promising them to plot against the rest and give them the city. Despite all those past treaties, Rome sends a BIG army to the city, and the small carthaginian garrison can do nothing more than retreat. Capturing some roman vessels some days later, Carthaginians even escort them safely to a roman port thinking the 'Messana incident' was a misunderstanding coz no reason for war existed at all. Wrong. Rome had declared WAR, as simply as that. If you want to search it in the vast Polybius' works you will confirm it, but any good historian can confirm you this." - me on another post

"When, on the suppression of this disturbance by the Carthaginians [the Mercenaries War, right after peace had been reached for the 1stpunic war], the Romans announced their intention of making war on Carthage [again out of nothing], the latter [Carthage] at first was ready to negotiate on all points, thinking that, justice being on her side, she would prevail; but as the Romans refused to negotiate, the Carthaginians had to yield to circumstances, and though deeply aggrieved they were powerless, and evacuated Sardinia, agreeing also to pay twelve hundred talents in addition to the sum previously exacted, in order not to be forced to accept war at that time. This, then, we must take to be the second and principal cause of the subsequent war [2nd punic war]; for Hamilcar, with the anger felt by all his compatriots at this last outrage added to his old indignation, as soon as he had finally crushed the mutiny of the mercenaries and secured the safety of his country, at once threw all his efforts into the conquest of Spain, with the object of using the resources thus obtained for the war against Rome" - Polybius

If he wasnt ready, he should have waited. This is no Waterloo that allows a gamble to be taken without regard for risk because of time, he had all the time in the world

- NM
I revert you to point 1 and 2 (playing against time) and to the fact that Rome allied with Saguntum already to check the Iberian situation, encouraging the saguntines to grow dissenssion among the iberian tribes against Carthaginian dominance (which actually was hapening and was the cause for Hannibal siege it, other than the fact that saguntines had executed one of Hannibal's allied Iberian tribes' leaders - probably for not ligning on their antiHannibal tactic). Had not been Rome still busy with the Ilyrian invasion and with the Cisalpine Gauls in Northern Italy (trying to complete her dominance in the whole Italian peninsula), Rome would have already continued her greedy bloodthirsty treatybreaking warstarting imperialistic policy towards the wealthy carthaginian Iberia. What better proofs would one need than the immediate past (Messana and Sardinia and Ilyria) and the immediate future (Gaul, Iberia, Brittania, Greece, Numidia etc etc), to show this? Hannibal simply started the inevitable.

[Mehmed II]

1. If a guy states that you're ignorant for no reason, you get angry. "Please read a book at least on Hannibal Mehmed II" I won't tolerate these words from a guy who does not know that Islam was founded after Christ.

2.

The thing "greatest" reminds me of other things. Which general's victories have the most effect in our history?

Alexander: Conquered the known world in a decade, won a war against a nation who has an army over 1 million men.

Hannibal: Declared war to one of the greatest empires of all times; won one major battle against his enemies but lost at the end.

The winner is:Alexander...

The conversation is over

What I'm trying to tell you is that you should look at the whole issue with a different point of view: which of these general's actions affected our history the most?
Hannibal took his own life rather than surrender to Rome; Alexander died because of a stupid sickness at the height of his power. Yes, Anibal, the truth hurts doesn't it?
Hannibal may be the father of all military strategy(and I'm sure he is) or heck; he was maybe far more clever than Alexander. But, Alexander was succesful and Hannibal wasn't. It's plain simple.

also see why, even having few factual knowledge, Mehmed so strongly favours Alexander. After all Alexander swept ancient Turkey in like one 'afternoon', and so Mehmed must praise the man almost as a God...otherwise he would be assuming that ancient turks were a bunch of 'sissys'

Anibal, check this:

Now let's see; During 4th century bc,chinese records show that a nomad tribe called Xiong Nu (which means the people in turkish) have been raiding the chinese countryside. See, I underlined the world twice; chinese!

Now tell me, Does any of Alexander's conquests have anything to do with the empire of China?

Waiting for your answer.....