The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[aznflea]

ummm ok.

alexander the great won wars and battles. i dont think there was a single clear cut defeat in his campaign. not only that he conquered persia which was around the size of modern day USA in 12 years. if he came up against hannibal he might have lost once or twice because hannibal probably studied alexanders tactics and knew how to counter them but in the end he would have won the war. he never made irrational and risky guesses like hannibal who relied on the italians betraying the romans and freeing them from the roman yoke. its kind of hard to fight for the man who killed tens of thousands of your sons in battle even if it is to throw off the roman yoke. pyrhus was a great tactician but he didnt quite have the resources and innovative strategies to fight larger armies. alexander defeated armies at least 5 times larger than his own and to make his victories even more spectacular, he fought the enemy army head on instead of finding advantageous ground.

hannibal and pyrhus were great generals but i just dont think that you can compare them to alexander. alexander would almost certainly have tweaked his tactics to fight each army accordingly. remember how he defeated the scythians in the steppes by brilliant usage of screening? this tactics involved hevay usage of cavalry and not much hammer and anvil

caesar was a great general and having a good army is a part of being a good general. he was born in a time when rome was booming and rode the tidal wave like a pro. his tactics in alesia were very nice and it was a brilliant victory but i always get the feeling that if they all got the same resources, the same troops and the same captains, that caesar would come out worst in the war and alexander the GREAT the first with hannibal and pyrhus coming in 2nd or 3rd

[torzsoktamas]

Well this is my theory:

Caesar had a very strong professional army.The gauls had strong warriors,but in overall,the celtic armies were inferior to the roman armies of Caesar.Caesar didn't faced a unified army,.....he even said that a unified gaul can defy the world.So he is number 3.

Alexander had a very strong,professional army.The persians had a weaker army than Alexanders army,but they were unified, not like the gauls.Alexander conquered more territory than Caesar and never lost a battle.So he is number 2 in my opinion.-altough to the previous post:Alexander never faced an army that was 5 times biger!At gaugemala Alexander had aprox.45000 soldiers and Darius had aprox.70000 according to Herodotus(some others asy that there were lesser persians than 70000).

Hannibal had a far from professional army(there were some strong veterans,but the army was not professional with celts,iberians,and afrikans).The romans had a professional army,and were more than Hannibals troops.But Hannibal defeated every roman army in italy, and had very slightly casualtys.And unlike Caesar or Alexander, he not just won the battles, he anihilated the roman army every time, leaving very fuw that escaped.Yes he lost the war,but just because he was naive.....if he would have marched to Rome(the last resistance),like every other general in history, he would have won the war for sure,because after Cannae,Rome was ready to surrender if they will se Hannibal at the gates.
So Hannibal lost the war because of foolishnes, not because he was a weaker general.Sohe is number 1 in my opinion.

I looked at them as GENERALS, not politicians, and not as kings.If I would have looked at them as politicians or kings, Hannibal would not benn in the top ten because his stupid idea to wait for romes surrender rather than make rome to surrender.

[Dafuge]

Errr, do you remember Caesar having a civil war and fighting a Roman army?

[torzsoktamas]

Errr, do you remember Caesar having a civil war and fighting a Roman army?

Yeah I remember,but Caesars legions were better.The reason why I put him number 3 not 2 is because he lost battles against gauls and one against Pompeyus.Alexander didn't lost battles, and Hannibal would have not lost battles if he would have marched to Rome.

[Dafuge]

Even though they were better Pompey had him beat in Greece. The cavalry and infantry was a master stroke. Don't forget he fought in Iberia as well.

[The Sloth]

Being the fan of Hannibal that I am, he is obviously my choice for the best general. He had a knack for redefining ''impossible'', such as evidenced by his habit of outmaneuvering (spelling?) opposing armies in their own homeland, defeating armies superior in pretty much every aspect, campaining in ennemy territory for decades with an army composed of mercenaries from all over the world, and crossing the Alps without any noticeable losses (even though roman propaganda usually claims the opposite). Which brings me to the main point: everything we know about him and his achievements comes from his ennemies. Just imagine what his reputation would be like if historians would only have written the truth about him, instead of diminishing him and trying to ruin his reputation.

He had his faults of course. He was a terrible besieger. The only city with walls worth that name he was ever able to conquer was Saguntum, which he only took after several months... by starving out the populace and attacking while he was ''negotiating peace'' with the inhabitants. During all those years in Italy, he never even seriouly tried to besiege a city, and you could say that he didn't want to attack Rome because he was litterally scared of walls.

His skills as a politician were underwhelming as well. His attempts to win over the Socii were nothing if not naive. A bit like this:
Hannibal: Hello there, I'm Hannibal with my army, and we're here to free you of roman tyranny! *TA-DAAA*
Socii: Uh? Did we ever say we were feeling oppressed by the romans?
Hannibal: Don't worry. If you won't come to democracy freedom, then democracy freedom will come to you!
Socii: I dunno. You even have those celts and other barbarians with you. We're been at war with them for generations, because they have that habit of burning our towns, raping our women and stuff like that.
Hannibal: They're just being misunderstood, that's all.
Socii: Yeah, right! Even while we're talking, they're pillaging our lands!
Hannibal: Well, they have to eat, too, don't they? And for now, we're still ennemies anyway, so there's nothing to complain about. But I'll make them stop once you switch over to our side. This just shows you how incapable the romans are of protecting you!
Socii: Hmmm... And who's gonna protect us once the romans are defeated?
Hannibal: That'll be me. *bright and winning smile*
Socii: So you just want to rule us instead of the romans?
Hannibal: NO! Once the romans are defeated, I'll leave Italy immediately, and return home to my cute kid and sexy wife.
Socii: Then how're you gonna protect us from there?
Hannibal: Errr...
Socii: Honestly, I think we'd better stick with the romans.
Hannibal: Ah sorry about that. In fact, I already defeated them in several huge battles. They're currently recruiting slaves, convicts, children and grandads into their legions. You shouldn't count on their help too much, I'd say. But don't worry, I'll even free the young lads from your cities that were taken prisoner in the previous battles.
Young socii lad: My legs.... Where are my legs...
Socii: Hum, in that case, let's give it a try.
Socii1: By the way, I never liked you, Socii2. *draws sword*
Socii2: Same here! *draws sword*
Romans: Punny traitors! Taste divine retribution!
Socii: Ugrh! *dies*
Hannibal: retards!

[DaddyPro]

Romans who fought Hannibal didn't had any strategy or tactics, Cannae is good example, Romans learned war from Hannibal.

[mattfriend0]

so we should thank hannibal for killing are soldiers but he did teach us tatics? so for a tatics lesson from hannibal it costs 1 roman legion per hour and thats not including VAT

[Maximus Macro]

Romans who fought Hannibal didn't had any strategy or tactics, Cannae is good example, Romans learned war from Hannibal.

very true scipio africanus adopted hannibals tactics and so would future generations

[-Aquila-]

Romans who fought Hannibal didn't had any strategy or tactics, Cannae is good example, Romans learned war from Hannibal.

I wouldn't say they had no strategies or tactics, all Generals must have a tactic in mind beofre a battle. No one in their right mind would just walk out un-prepared into a fight.
The Roman's problem was the lack of understanding of Hannibal's tactics and their over confident nature which led them to believe they could not be defeated by Hannibal (not the Romans as a whole but each individual Consul).

At Cannae, Varro believed he was un-stoppable and wouldn't listen to Paullus (who in my opinion had the right idea about how to handle Hannibal), he thought forming up the maniples with the same length as the Carthaginian line but with extra depth woudl allow his troops to push through Hannibal's line, which it did, however he didn't expect Hannibal to manipulate the Roman's strengths to turn them into weaknesses. Resulting in Varro's plan to break about as Hannibal had learnt about Roman tactics and found weaknesses for him to use.

Scipio, was the first to realise what Hannibal was doing and turned Hannibal's own trick against him, and thus giving the Romans the upperhand once they hand landed in Africa.

[Eric the Great]

Lol nah, its cool man... check out this thread for some info on Celts/Gauls. Pretty cool stuff if you are interested: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=180996

Thats man! My inner nerd in especially greatful.

Hannibal had a far from professional army(there were some strong veterans,but the army was not professional with celts,iberians,and afrikans).The romans had a professional army,and were more than Hannibals troops.But Hannibal defeated every roman army in italy, and had very slightly casualtys.And unlike Caesar or Alexander, he not just won the battles, he anihilated the roman army every time, leaving very fuw that escaped.Yes he lost the war,but just because he was naive.....if he would have marched to Rome(the last resistance),like every other general in history, he would have won the war for sure,because after Cannae,Rome was ready to surrender if they will se Hannibal at the gates.
So Hannibal lost the war because of foolishnes, not because he was a weaker general.Sohe is number 1 in my opinion.

Hannibal couldn't just march to Rome. Hannibal knew if he laid seige to any city he would be beaten. Time was against Hannibal, while he was fighting the Romans, Scipio Africanus was fighting Carthage. Soon, Hannibal was force to return home to defend Carthage from the Romans. While Hannibal was slightly outmatch (he lack cavalry) Scipio outmatch Hannibal tactical on the battlefield. After that battle Hannibal knew it was over and called the surrender. All it takes is one great lost. As the old saying goes you can win battles, but you can't win the war.


Please edit your post instead of double posting. Thanks/ apple

[torzsoktamas]

Hannibal couldn't just march to Rome. Hannibal knew if he laid seige to any city he would be beaten. Time was against Hannibal, while he was fighting the Romans, Scipio Africanus was fighting Carthage. Soon, Hannibal was force to return home to defend Carthage from the Romans. While Hannibal was slightly outmatch (he lack cavalry) Scipio outmatch Hannibal tactical on the battlefield. After that battle Hannibal knew it was over and called the surrender. All it takes is one great lost. As the old saying goes you can win battles, but you can't win the war.

Sorry,but your wrong.Hannibal stayed more than 10 years in Italy after Cannae before going home.Thats enough time to sieg a city and take it or starve it.And again:Hannibal didn't took the city because he taught that the romans would surrender....-quite foolish but that was.As I said As general I think Hannibal was the best,but as king or politician, he is worst than the 10th because of this foolishnes.

[melqart]

The answer is simpler than you might imagine. Hannibal could face a battle but did not have the means and enough men to put a large city like Roma under siege, since the impossibility of blocking the river Tiber. Hannibal understood that, the others not.

[The Sloth]

The answer is simpler than you might imagine. Hannibal could face a battle but did not have the means and enough men to put a large city like Roma under siege, since the impossibility of blocking the river Tiber. Hannibal understood that, the others not.

After reading some good books from less gullible authors, I believe that Hannibal could have taken Rome, and quite easily, too.
Too few men? Just who would he have to fight, anyway? After Cannae, Rome did not have an army! Had Hannibal laid siege to the city, there would have been noone to save it, especially since the socii started to defect to him. And how many more of them would have defected with the city that ruled them under siege?
No siege equipment? He could just have built it. Rams and ladders weren't exactly high-tech, and with Romes old city walls (which, appearently, didn't even have crenels) and no defenders worth speaking of, it should definitely have been possible.
Impossible to block the river? He could just have blocked it with chains.

Hannibal never intended to destroy Rome in the first place. He simply wanted to turn it back into an insignificant city state among many others. After Cannae, he thought he already had achieved that objective...

[torzsoktamas]

After reading some good books from less gullible authors, I believe that Hannibal could have taken Rome, and quite easily, too.
Too few men? Just who would he have to fight, anyway? After Cannae, Rome did not have an army! Had Hannibal laid siege to the city, there would have been noone to save it, especially since the socii started to defect to him. And how many more of them would have defected with the city that ruled them under siege?
No siege equipment? He could just have built it. Rams and ladders weren't exactly high-tech, and with Romes old city walls (which, appearently, didn't even have crenels) and no defenders worth speaking of, it should definitely have been possible.
Impossible to block the river? He could just have blocked it with chains.

Hannibal never intended to destroy Rome in the first place. He simply wanted to turn it back into an insignificant city state among many others. After Cannae, he thought he already had achieved that objective...

Thats complitely true my friend.Hannibal had enough soldiers to sieg and take the city:At Cannae Hannibal had like 50.000soldiers (5000-8000 cavalry and the rest infantry).....6000 died and about 10.000 injured(and I think most of them died).---But even if 16.000 soldiers died hannibal still had 34.000 soldiers, and that is still a big army.

Altough somebody could make a poll with some of the great generals and see who gets the most votes.-just for curiosity.

[aznflea]

well common sense and good judgement is a part of being a general. hannibal was a good tactician, a brilliant one in fact. i believe that if he sieged rome and destroyed he wouldve won the war. the whole point of having a general is to win wars, not go on a rampage and eventually lose a long drawn out war. the fact that he lost the war is enough to say that he was not one of the best general. i know he had brilliant logistics and great surprising events like crossing of the alps with elephants but the very fact that he lost is enough to damn him.

i still believe alexander the great was by far the greatest general out of those 4. all battles AND wars won. his ego was fed through his brilliance and he died a megalomaniac but his ambitions were second to none. he had the means and will to subdue all people around the mediterannian. he was planning to build roads from egypt to the pillars of heracles along the north african coast with regular docks along the path. he wanted to make a tomb to honor philip the size of the pyramids of giza. as a man, a king and a general alexander is the best man.

[torzsoktamas]

well common sense and good judgement is a part of being a general. hannibal was a good tactician, a brilliant one in fact. i believe that if he sieged rome and destroyed he wouldve won the war. the whole point of having a general is to win wars, not go on a rampage and eventually lose a long drawn out war. the fact that he lost the war is enough to say that he was not one of the best general. i know he had brilliant logistics and great surprising events like crossing of the alps with elephants but the very fact that he lost is enough to damn him.

i still believe alexander the great was by far the greatest general out of those 4. all battles AND wars won. his ego was fed through his brilliance and he died a megalomaniac but his ambitions were second to none. he had the means and will to subdue all people around the mediterannian. he was planning to build roads from egypt to the pillars of heracles along the north african coast with regular docks along the path. he wanted to make a tomb to honor philip the size of the pyramids of giza. as a man, a king and a general alexander is the best man.

The idea is that as general Hannibal was better in my opinion.He made a mistake(in not taking Rome),but this dosen't mean that his strategy didn't worked.It did worked very well,but he didn't finished because of his naivenes.

But in my opinion in a battle(with the same number of soldiers)Alexander would have no chance against Hannibal......adn the fact that unlike Alexander,Hannibal nut just defeated an enemy on field,..he anihilated almost the whole enemy army with its generals.Alexander won battles by routing the enemy,bot by anihilating it.Just think about Darius.If he wouldn't be murdured by some of his men, it would have been possible to gather such an army that Alexander would not defeat.Also Alexander had to pay some nomad,horse tribes(like the dahae,saka,and some others)because he could not defeat them(even if he defeated the scythians once-altough this is just a legend).Hannibal didn't payed Romes allies,he made them to join him by fear.That means that Hannibal had a far biger fear factor than Alexander.In a battle Hannibal would beat Alexander because he would just look at Alexanders army, and would know how to counter those phalangites(because its not a big philosophy to beat a phalangite army).And most probibly Hannibal would kill Alexander himself in the battle just as he killed Caius Flaminius and Terentius Varro.

Thats my opinion.I see Hannibals decision to not to attack the capital a naive mistake, but I see his strategy a good, working strategy.-I and probably 2 million other human would have taken the city if had the chance(and Hannibal had the chance).If Hannibal would have taken Rome, he would have won the war, and we would not have this discussion as everybody would think him as the greatest general.

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, in my opinion, you can't say who would have won had they faced each other because a) we don't know what tactics they would have used, b) we don't know the terrain, and c) we don't know what army composition they would all have used (though we could assume they would use the same as they normally had). However, I think we can still say which one was better as a whole.

Alexander: Good tactician (he didn't exactly ever lose...); killer instinct (he didn't need to defeat the enemy 1500000 times to win the war); great besieger (e.g. the siege of Tyre good leader, but he couldn't get his troops to follow him to India, decent politician (he kept the empire together reasonably well).

Hannibal: Brilliant tactician and leader; lacked a killer instinct (which was his downfall. He didn't know when to go in for the kill and destroy the enemy); great leader (he united many peoples in his struggle. I can't think of any other so multinational army escept for the Persian one); good politician (I have heard after the war he started to reform the Carthaginian senate).

Phyrrus: Good tactician; didn't have much luck; terrible politician (he couldn't hold onto anything!)

Caesar: Decent tactician (but not great); great leader (managed to pursuad his men to march on Rome); knew how to win a war; brilliant politician

So, a general with Hannibal's tactical capability, Alexander's killer instinct, sieging ability and ambition, and Caesar's political skill and leadership ability would have ruled the world!

BTW, another few good ancient generals I can think of are Aetius, Gaiseric and Sun Tzu.

[DaddyPro]

Alexander beat Darius I who was also a great leader, Hannibal beat some nameless general w/o any idea how to lead army, i bet even Hannibal himself and Ceasar though that Alexander was a greatest general of all times.

[torzsoktamas]

Alexander beat Darius I who was also a great leader, Hannibal beat some nameless general w/o any idea how to lead army, i bet even Hannibal himself and Ceasar though that Alexander was a greatest general of all times.

Yeah because they weren't egoists.

Actually somebody could make a poll with some of the greatest generals.Than we will se who gets the most votes.