The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[Svyatoslav]

I guess, Hannibal is the greatest between this 4 generals. Because his victory at Cannae was THE FIRST example of tactical encirclement, this is studying even now by military students. And what did Alexander, Caesar or Pyrrhus give to history? Pyrrhus - saying, Alexander - just an example of what can ambitious young man with great father's army do. Caesar - another example of ambitious and talanted, but governor after all. Btw; Pyrrhus and Caesar were Alexander's fans, and just tried to repeat his glorious way, while Hannibal was going by his own.

[torzsoktamas]

To me, Hannibal should be consider the fourth greatest general, not the second or third, because in spite of the amazing victories he won, he failed completely his goal of destroying rome, and in a rather incompreensive way! I agree with Alexander beeing the greatest (who doesn't?), but the second place should be disputed by Pyrrhus and Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus (185 - 129 BC), the destroyer of Carthage and Numantia. This, of course, if you just consider roman/hellenic/punic individuals, and ignore tribal chieftains who were portents of strategic military action, like viriathus of the lusitanians, or nonwestern all time references like Sun Tzu

You say that Hannibal deserves just fourth because he wasn't succesfull.But Pyrrhus, at your second,..wasn't succesful neither.He made a little hard time to Rome and thats all.Also you have forgotten to admit Julius Caesar.

Some say that Alexander is better than Hannibal just because he succeded in defeating ultimately his enemy and Hannibal not.But you forgot that while Alexadner recieved reinforcements whenever he wanted as he was the supreme king,...Hannibal recieved almost nothing.But he still crushed Rome to a point where just luck could save them(and they were damn lucky).If Hannibal would have recieved just one major reinforcement,..Rome would have fallen.Or if Scipio Afrikanus would have been just a bit more afraid(as the other senators were),he would have agreed with the others to surrender.

[Aernuss]

And what did Alexander, Caesar or Pyrrhus give to history?

Sorry friend??

[Svyatoslav]

Sorry friend??

Read my post one more time.

Hannibal gave us some lessons of tactial innovation, while Alexander, Caesar or Pyrrhus were using usual for them troops and tactics: Philip's phalanx, Marian legion and once again Philip's phalanx. They didn't invent anything, there were no novelty in their action. Yes, some of their deciesions were tricky, but nothing more.

[Aernuss]

You say that Hannibal deserves just fourth because he wasn't succesfull.But Pyrrhus, at your second,..wasn't succesful neither.He made a little hard time to Rome and thats all.Also you have forgotten to admit Julius Caesar.

Some say that Alexander is better than Hannibal just because he succeded in defeating ultimately his enemy and Hannibal not.But you forgot that while Alexadner recieved reinforcements whenever he wanted as he was the supreme king,...Hannibal recieved almost nothing.But he still crushed Rome to a point where just luck could save them(and they were damn lucky).If Hannibal would have recieved just one major reinforcement,..Rome would have fallen.Or if Scipio Afrikanus would have been just a bit more afraid(as the other senators were),he would have agreed with the others to surrender.

You have a good point here, but I don't consider Pyrrhus to be nº2, I think Alex should be nº1 and after that, as the saying goes, " let the devil chose". I've given my opinions on ceaser in the post next to the one you're quoting.
About hannibal, let me say 2 things:
1- I deeply admire him as one of the greatest warrior generals ever existed.
2- the words of Livy (35.14): «[Scipio] Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general of all times. Hannibal said:"Alexander... because with a small force he had beaten endless armies, and because he crossed remote lands. [...]Pyrrhus [in second]. He was the first to teach the art of establishing an military camp, and never other has shown such hability in chosing proper ground or in disposing his forces. And he could always win man to his side..." When Africanus asked who was the third, Hannibal didn't hesitate a second, and answerd "Myself". Scipio laughed before his answer and said: "What would you say, if you had defeated me?"
"In that case", Hannibal said, "I would certainly have chosen myself before Alexander and Pyrrhus". This answer [...] deeply impressed Scipio[...].»

Allow me to throw this idea: Hannibal was a hell of a general? He could even have been the greatest! ...If he wasn't the only general I can remember who defeated... himself!

[Binshuy]

Hannibal is just awesome! xD
my little tribute to one of antiquity's greatest General

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Mirionis9]

The Parthians had Persians in their armies. They were in fact mostly Persians-Iranians.
As I said, Hannibal managed to win roman arrogance, not Rome itself.

[torzsoktamas]

Just awnser these two questions:

1.What would have ben if Hannibal would have recieved full suport of his country and got some reinforcements?(Just as Alexander recieved enough)

2.What would have been if Alexander would hvae been just a simple general(hated by all senators or king)and wouldn't had been recieved reinforcements?(Just as Hannibal was in Italy)

My awnsers would be :

1.He would have won EASELY!
2.Would have lost evne before Babylon!

[Aernuss]

Just awnser these two questions:

1.What would have ben if Hannibal would have recieved full suport of his country and got some reinforcements?(Just as Alexander recieved enough)

2.What would have been if Alexander would hvae been just a simple general(hated by all senators or king)and wouldn't had been recieved reinforcements?(Just as Hannibal was in Italy)

My awnsers would be :

1.He would have won EASELY!
2.Would have lost evne before Babylon!

I would answer rather different:
1- hannibal didn't need reinforcements to finish rome, he didn't finish rome because he didn't wanted to, and that's exactly why I said that he defeated himself!
1- the second answer I think is even simpler: "if" is a word that history don't acknowledge.

[chaplain118]

Guys, when you play RSII, you'll start to realize why Hannibal couldn't march against Rome.

[melqart]

[QUOTE=Aernuss;6483451]

1- hannibal didn't need reinforcements to finish rome, he didn't finish rome because he didn't wanted to, and that's exactly why I said that he defeated himself!

Sorry but your opinion is wrong. Do you even have an idea of what meant besieging a huge city like Rome without having any chance of blocking the Tiber and the not remote possibility to find another roman army from the rear?? In that situation it was simply a very wrong move.

[torzsoktamas]

I would answer rather different:
1- hannibal didn't need reinforcements to finish rome, he didn't finish rome because he didn't wanted to, and that's exactly why I said that he defeated himself!
1- the second answer I think is even simpler: "if" is a word that history don't acknowledge.

You are wrong.Hannibal wanted to finish rome,but lacked the manpower to do so.He recieved a reinforcement of 4000 troops from Carthage at some date,but his two brothers failed to bring him reinforcements.If just one of them succed,...by by Rome.

[SimpleCourage47]

Alexander was the best leader IMO, because not only was he a great tactician but because he was a great visionary and brave indeed he was suicidally brave. He risk his neck with his men and was lucky to survive most battles. Like the incident on his way back to Babylon where he scaled the walls and attack something like 1000 Indians with just 7 bodyguards. Another reason is Alexander had the whole 'brotherhood of man' vision of uniting the world under one banner, ruled by one king with with each province having an Athenian style democracy. The world would have been a better place had Alexander's open mindedness and liberation Imo being a worldwide thing.

[General Brittanicus]

Alexander was the best leader IMO, because not only was he a great tactician but because he was a great visionary and brave indeed he was suicidally brave. He risk his neck with his men and was lucky to survive most battles. Like the incident on his way back to Babylon where he scaled the walls and attack something like 1000 Indians with just 7 bodyguards. Another reason is Alexander had the whole 'brotherhood of man' vision of uniting the world under one banner, ruled by one king with with each province having an Athenian style democracy. The world would have been a better place had Alexander's open mindedness and liberation Imo being a worldwide thing.

Maybe he would have succeeded if his troops had wanted to go any further or if he didnt die-possibly poisoned by some crazy fool. But still if im not going with hannibal i will stick with the Duke of Wellington.

[Aernuss]

1- hannibal didn't need reinforcements to finish rome, he didn't finish rome because he didn't wanted to, and that's exactly why I said that he defeated himself!

Sorry but your opinion is wrong. Do you even have an idea of what meant besieging a huge city like Rome without having any chance of blocking the Tiber and the not remote possibility to find another roman army from the rear?? In that situation it was simply a very wrong move.

I am not wrong, because we're dealing with arguable opinions here, and those are not right nor wrong, but they can be defended with best or worst arguments; and saying simply that I'm wrong, period, is not going to prove your point any better... Let me ask, did the gauls blocked the Tiber when they sacked rome? The romans were not in an even more desperate situation after cannae than they were after the battle of allia? And another thing, after all hannibal and his army had passed through, don´t you agree that is strange that he doesn't siedge rome only because there was "the not remote possibilty" of not having success, that is what you're sugesting? Why would he go there, in the first place then...

torzsoktamas
You say hannibal "lacked the manpower", compared to whom? The romans after Cannae? I think that can be very arguable! And what one can always argue, reading your words, is that hannibal would have failed then, for he wasn't prepared for the task he proposed to...

[torzsoktamas]

torzsoktamas
You say hannibal "lacked the manpower", compared to whom? The romans after Cannae? I think that can be very arguable! And what one can always argue, reading your words, is that hannibal would have failed then, for he wasn't prepared for the task he proposed to...

Well I think he must have thinked that he will have a suport from the carthaginian senate.As I said,with a reinfocement,he would have been 100%succesfull.

But you say that Alexander was better.OK I agree that he was good,...but would have he succed without reinforcements,witch he recieved quite often?

In my opinion Alexander was a better leader than anybody else.He was a great king,brave warrior and a good tactician in battles.He was succesfull,as nobody else.But if we talk about generals/tacticians in a battle Alexander is not even near to Hannibal.

Can you name any other general who defeated the romans in a battle with inferior forces?I personally can't.But the persians suffered losses to the greeks too.Mutch biger losses in battles with mutch less achivements than against Alexander.

Another thing is that Alexander had a for better army with far superior soldiers.He wouldn't need to think about his soldiers morale that seriously as he had the best army at it's time.Hannibal in the other hand had an inferior army with inferior armament and with inferior vallor.He was inferior to the romans by numbers too.He had no reinforcements,so he had to defeat the romans in every battle with minimal casualties,...and he made it.The fact that he didn't took Rome suggests that he wasn't that good,but if you look into its situation deeply you realise that it was impossible for him with an army that he had.But still the romans almost surrendered to him,...only Scipio Africanus said that: " don't go to him and surrender!Atleast wait untill he comes to the gates and then will we praye for our lives!".....-or something like that.

Also if we look into the battle of Zama deeply witch he lost(while ALexander had no lost battle),...that we can analize it a bit:
Massinissa, a numidian switched sides to the romans,because Scipio promised him the numidian throne if he helps him.Hannibal had an inferior cavalry,and he run away from the battlefield bringing the enemy cavalry away.Now the roman infantry engaged the carthaginian first line.The first line consisted of fresh soldiers.They were weak and illtrained.The romans broke them and they fled to the second lines back witch were still weak troops.The romans broke it again,and the two lines fled to the third lines back.The third line were the veterans witch with a bit of a help from the other lines at their backs started to beat the romans.And before the romans broke,Massinissa arived,charged the carthaginians and won the battle for Scipio.Had not be a Massinissa,the Romans would be in dept again.

[Aernuss]

Well I think he must have thinked that he will have a suport from the carthaginian senate.As I said,with a reinfocement,he would have been 100%succesfull.

But you say that Alexander was better.OK I agree that he was good,...but would have he succed without reinforcements,witch he recieved quite often?

In my opinion Alexander was a better leader than anybody else.He was a great king,brave warrior and a good tactician in battles.He was succesfull,as nobody else.But if we talk about generals/tacticians in a battle Alexander is not even near to Hannibal.

Can you name any other general who defeated the romans in a battle with inferior forces?I personally can't.But the persians suffered losses to the greeks too.Mutch biger losses in battles with mutch less achivements than against Alexander.

Another thing is that Alexander had a for better army with far superior soldiers.He wouldn't need to think about his soldiers morale that seriously as he had the best army at it's time.Hannibal in the other hand had an inferior army with inferior armament and with inferior vallor.He was inferior to the romans by numbers too.He had no reinforcements,so he had to defeat the romans in every battle with minimal casualties,...and he made it.The fact that he didn't took Rome suggests that he wasn't that good,but if you look into its situation deeply you realise that it was impossible for him with an army that he had.But still the romans almost surrendered to him,...only Scipio Africanus said that: " don't go to him and surrender!Atleast wait untill he comes to the gates and then will we praye for our lives!".....-or something like that.

Also if we look into the battle of Zama deeply witch he lost(while ALexander had no lost battle),...that we can analize it a bit:
Massinissa, a numidian switched sides to the romans,because Scipio promised him the numidian throne if he helps him.Hannibal had an inferior cavalry,and he run away from the battlefield bringing the enemy cavalry away.Now the roman infantry engaged the carthaginian first line.The first line consisted of fresh soldiers.They were weak and illtrained.The romans broke them and they fled to the second lines back witch were still weak troops.The romans broke it again,and the two lines fled to the third lines back.The third line were the veterans witch with a bit of a help from the other lines at their backs started to beat the romans.And before the romans broke,Massinissa arived,charged the carthaginians and won the battle for Scipio.Had not be a Massinissa,the Romans would be in dept again.

With all due respect, I sincerilly don't understand how can you talk like that of hannibal's army! Jesus Christ, men... When we're talking about hannibal, we're not speaking only of one of the best generals ever, we speak of one of the best armies of history! In fact, if you consider hannibal the best, more you must consider his army, for it was them who won the battles, and it wasn't their fault that hannibal choosed to wait for the wipping romans to surrender, instead of securing the surrender himself! I understand that you legitimatly want to refer to the fact that hannibal must be credited for commanding an army of multiple origins, but must you say that he "had an inferior army with inferior armament and with inferior vallor"? Why do you think things like this?! Because they were iberians and gauls? The deeds of those man speak for themselves, or not? I really don't get what your point is... are you suggesting that were only hannibal qualities, that he miraculously reflected upon a bunch of barbarian losers, who won all the battles, from saguntum to cannae? Do you ignore that celtiberians and gauls were among the top rated mercenaries (or not) warriors of the time? And that they produced some of the best war gear, from which the romans were to copy many itens? And that multiple years performing together made them the best fighting force that someone could face then, and that no roman legion could even dream to match by that time?
My point is precisely that: hannibal's army succeeded in coresponding to his general, and obtained what may well be the most spatacular victories of history; but hannibal failled totally in giving his man the final victory, even if he was instigated to, and you know very well he was...
A commander who beated the romans outnumbered? viriathus, many times... for example.

[torzsoktamas]

Your are a bit wrong if you think that the iberians and the gauls in northern italy(under roman rule) were better soldiers than the romans.They didn't had armor(chainmail),and they weren't well trained as they were under roman rule.And you can read that every historian agrees that Hannibal in Italy had an inferior army than the romans had not just by numbers.And just think a little...if gauls were better than romans,than why they lost a bunch of battles were they outnumbered the romans quite a bit.

[chaplain118]

Gauls lost out to Roman due to tactics. They were anything but the naked fanatics that people tend to imagine them as.

Also, Hannibal could not have taken Rome due to the Romans opening up legion recruitment to all aspect of the male society post-Cannae rather than just eligible citizens. Previously, slaves and freedmen barred from service, now a new segment opened up. Cannae brought about 50,000 deaths with 30,000 men still remaining that were formed into two legions sent to Sicily. The population of Rome at the height of the Second Punic Wars numbered around 300,000 not counting the Italian allies who remained on Rome's side.

[Aernuss]

Your are a bit wrong if you think that the iberians and the gauls in northern italy(under roman rule) were better soldiers than the romans.They didn't had armor(chainmail),and they weren't well trained as they were under roman rule.And you can read that every historian agrees that Hannibal in Italy had an inferior army than the romans had not just by numbers.And just think a little...if gauls were better than romans,than why they lost a bunch of battles were they outnumbered the romans quite a bit.

you say curious things, my friend... maybe another wants to answer what you just said, but let me advance you that you have some twisted ideas there.