The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

WEll thanks!

[Iskender-bey]

I've been criticised for posting with content and substance!

What kind of fourm is this!

I thought it was excellent. Thanks for posting it.

[SimpleCourage47]

1.Alexander
2.Caesar
3.Hannibal

Alexander conqured all of the persian empire, he took the bounderies of what people believed about the east to knew heights. For his short lived life he put his energy into creating his 'brotherhood of man' dream uniting greek and 'barbarian' alike (yes i watch oliver stones film to much). Had alexander lived longer then the world would be so much different, many of the current eastern problems might not have happened, had alexander been able to cerment his brotherhood dream onto his heirs (and had they not been killed off).

Caesar again conqured land, won spectactular victories and created the basis of the roman empire that lasted hundreds of years, yet if he at his height with his best army fought alexander at his , with his, i believe alexander would win, alexander would not leave his phalanx's so vunerable and had more and better cavalry and used them better than as the likes of phillip and perseus did in their roman encounters, and also unlike alexander , caesar was not so kind to his defeated celts as alexander was to the persians (in general).

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

many of the current eastern problems might not have happened

Most of the current problems in the middle east are due to foriegn intervention, IE Sykes Pictot Agreement, CIA overthrowning Mosadegh in 53, and many other modern things.

Its not like the Middle East was downhill since Alexander died....look at the Islamic Golden Age and Ottoman Empire..
If there is a single great shift in the Middle East's history it would be the Mongol Invasion....not the death of Alexander.
But thats a different story.

Caesar again conqured land, won spectactular victories and created the basis of the roman empire that lasted hundreds of years, yet if he at his height with his best army fought alexander at his , with his, i believe alexander would win

Phyruss, Philp V and many others tried to beat the Legions with a Phalanx and they all were defeated, or had Pyhrric Victories.

Alexander would have similar results against a extremely competent opponent like Caeser.
Also, Caeser had experiance fighting Hellenistic Phalanxes, like in Egypt and Anatolia, in his respective Campaigns there.

And defeating them.

is phalanx's so vunerable

The Phalanx in objective terms is vunerable from the flanks (which no matter what theyre will always be flanks...

And when deployed on broken or uneven ground.

So the terrain would be extremly important.

Seeing as how Caeser could march his men nearly 40 miles a day (Alexander....not so much) he would have a bigger hand in choosing ground. We see this many times in History, the faster army can manuver to preferable ground (very much so in Napoleon and Caeser's campaigns).

caesar was not so kind to his defeated celts as alexander was to the persians (in general).

Alexander massacred or enslaved 10,000 Thebens and burned the city to the ground, same with Tyre, same with Perispolis.

I wouldnt hold it against him normally, since it was out of nessesity, but since you mentioned it.

[cnaeus]

Caeser could march his men nearly 40 miles a day (Alexander....not so much) he would have a bigger hand in choosing ground. We see this many times in History, the faster army can manuver to preferable ground (very much so in Napoleon and Caeser's campaigns).

you cant really say caesar could march faster(although i dont doubt it)...but Alexander had to march through deserts on the most parts of his campaigns...now just imagine marching in full equipment through a forrest...with mayby some snow in the winters(i know the climate here, trust me on that)...and imagine doing the same thing in the loose sand on the desert dunes with probably a cut ration of water because water is short there.

Phyruss, Philp V and many others tried to beat the Legions with a Phalanx and they all were defeated, or had Pyhrric Victories.

Alexander would have similar results against a extremely competent opponent like Caeser.
Also, Caeser had experiance fighting Hellenistic Phalanxes, like in Egypt and Anatolia, in his respective Campaigns there.

And defeating them.

also i would doubt this very...because the phalanx armies of alexanders' succesers and therefor quite a bit phyrrus' army would use the same kind of units as alexanders' army..but in different proportions....the diadochi's armies where known for their overconfidence in their phalanx and had way more phalanx infantry to have more wheight than the enemy phalanx...but they neglected to use as many support troops because of their phalanx focused army build ups and had way less versitile armies as alexander'. therefor they couldnt use combined arms against the romans in the way alexander did against the persians. and i would seriously doubt a roman victory when alexander met caesar with both their armies.

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

you cant really say caesar could march faster

It's a fact, my source is Caeser: Life of a Colossus , unless you know other wise?

now just imagine marching in full equipment through a forrest

Like most of Gaul?

with mayby some snow in the winters(i know the climate here, trust me on that)

France doesnt have winters?
And so do I, I'm Lebanese.

and imagine doing the same thing in the loose sand on the desert dunes with probably a cut ration of water because water is short there.

The Persian Empire had an infurstructure system since Cyrus the Greats time...the only time I can see him acctually marching through a desert is his retreat from his disastorus campaign in India through the Gordian(?) desert.

[cnaeus]

france does have winters...but im just saying that if you consider the climate mayby the difference in marching speed between alexander and caesar wouldnt be that great...im sure it would be a factor, but not the most important one....wel ok..the roads in persia could be..honestly i dont know that much about persia...but you arent going to tell me that the temperature in persia is beter then in france for marching.

[DIVUS IVLIVS]

I think there maybe a small difference.
But in that case

Caeser also campaigned in deserts, he was in Egypt and Anatolia for sometime.

[cnaeus]

yeah...but when people are talking about the breakneck speed caesar would march at i dont think they would be talking about the times when he was in anatolia or egypt..so do you have records of how fast he would march there?..and dont get me wrong...i totaly understand your point and dont doubt your sources about this fact...but i just think that most sources of alexander talk about his army whilst in the desert...and the sources for caesar would mostly have their information from a campaign in less hostile climates..that why i had second thoughts on the fact that caesar could march VERY much faster...but i wouldnt be suprised if caesar could march faster when they met in fair conditions.

[Legionary Titus Pullo]

I've been criticised for posting with content and substance!

What kind of fourm is this!

I second the opinion of APPLE, i loved your post , very informative, I myself think that ceasar was the best general who ever lived, on the battlefield he was unbeatable, who knows what other acheivements he would of added if he had lived, he was planning an invasion of Parthia at the time of his assination, that would have been an amazing addition to the history books, Books i might add which are still studied bt military leaders today.

[cnaeus]

but the disciplined troops under ceasar could march further than other troops, just like the english in the penninsula war could easily out march the french, and the rifles and green jackets could march faster than the regular redcoats, its all down to better training, remember a roman army could march all day and then build a fortified camp at the end of it, these were not alexanders rag tag bunch of hairy arse mercenarys, they are well trained and drilled troops.

ok..now you've gone too far; "rag tag bunch of hairy arse mercenaries"??...are you questioning the training of the Pezhetaroi(most of alexanders inf)??some of the best foot soldiers ever known?, they're trained so well that they even put up displays before the battle of formations and rearangements of their lines to let the enemy know they are the better trained soldiers. and it put fear into those enemies without even a single kill. so dont get me started on discipline...i know the romans are even more disciplined...but the soldiers of alexander are not the rag tag bunch of hairy mercenaries that his succesors trained. also i would think that even if caesar could choose the battle ground because of faster troops he still would loose because alexander wouldnt throw his phalanx into dissarray as fast as say phillip V ..and if he would he would have a plan for it and he would still not lose his center...and for the cavalry well...you know....macedonian cavalry(some compagnions, thebans, and if he would fight caesar probably aetolian cavalry) would make mincemeat of the equites of caesar...and well...the outcome of the battle would seem sealed i think.

did i say thebans?..i meant thessalian cavalry(at some point they were the best cav in the world)

[Legionary Titus Pullo]

Displays ? what did that entail then pointy sticks up march forward pointy sticks down shuffle forward. !

once the legions get to close quarters your "Greek Bum Boys" wouldnt stand a chance, the Roman Grinder would pulverise them in close combat,

-
-
-
-
-
(sorry that sounds a little harsh - i think im getting a little to imersed in the "Macro" character in my book)

[cnaeus]

have you never heard of the phalanx formation?....they would destroy those overly proud romans over there as long as the phalanx stays intact....and it will under alexanders command.

and the displays where to show the enemy what they were capable of.

[torzsoktamas]

I see you have forgotten Hannibal.He would defeat both of them in battle!
He is a tactical genius:He would just look at the phalangites or legionaries(that happened a few times)and would know how to bring them down.-Expecially if he would have veteran soldiers.

[cnaeus]

i dont really know for sure...but i think alexanders cav would be slightly better than hannibal's and well...the infantry grinder would do the same to hannibal's "veterans" as a meatgrinder does to meat...only mayby a tad slower as they are "veterans" and wont die as fast

[Praefectus praetorio]

Alexander was great general and so was Caesar, so battle between them would be hard. But even if Alexander would have won the battle, I doubt that he would have won the war. Romans did not know word "defeat", they always belived in victory and would have sent other armies against him and eventually he would have been defeated.

[cnaeus]

Alexander was great general and so was Caesar, so battle between them would be hard. But even if Alexander would have won the battle, I doubt that he would have won the war. Romans did not know word "defeat", they always belived in victory and would have sent other armies against him and eventually he would have been defeated.

i have to say that i totally agree with that

[DaddyPro]

Alexander was great general and so was Caesar, so battle between them would be hard. But even if Alexander would have won the battle, I doubt that he would have won the war. Romans did not know word "defeat", they always belived in victory and would have sent other armies against him and eventually he would have been defeated.

dont know about that, Hannibal couldnt win war against romans, but Alexander aint Hannibal.

[torzsoktamas]

dont know about that, Hannibal couldnt win war against romans, but Alexander aint Hannibal.

Yeppp,Alexander ain't Hannibal.....Thats why Alexander would not even win a battle.

[DaddyPro]

Yeppp,Alexander ain't Hannibal.....Thats why Alexander would not even win a battle.

You are either overestimating romans or underestimating Alexander, Alexander beat larger and stronger empire then Romans.