The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[DaddyPro]

wouldnt be anyone to stop him??...you think that their was nothing in the way if hannibal tried to take rome after cannae??...you couldnt just take rome(a very big city with proper defenses with an army with little manpower left....rome simply isnt that easy to take...and even if hannibal took the walls...there's no way his men could beat the roman garisson in street fights where there was no possibility to suprise and surround them...and taking them head on is simply not a good idea if you have lesser equipement and no cohesion whatshowever....and if alexander ever got that far he would have been massacred alongside his army as its nigh impossible to properly deploy a phalanx in urban combat.

Rome inst easy to take? Goths took it i don't see why military genius like Alexander couldn't.

[chaplain118]

Goths took a city that had been declining for centuries, and it was after prolonged assault. Don't assume the Goths were a military pushover either.

[DaddyPro]

Just saying if goths couldve taken it why Alexander couldn't? Rome was even larger at the time goths took it.

[cnaeus]

yes, but when the goths took it...the nation was completely thrown apart and the forces inside the city nearly completely depleted when they took it(dont know much of that era so dont quote me on that, i just figured that was the case)...when hannibal destroyed the romans at cannae the city of rome itself still had a garisson that was more of a match for any army to destroy.

[DaddyPro]

yes, but when the goths took it...the nation was completely thrown apart and the forces inside the city nearly completely depleted when they took it(dont know much of that era so dont quote me on that, i just figured that was the case)...when hannibal destroyed the romans at cannae the city of rome itself still had a garisson that was more of a match for any army to destroy.

why they cant just starve them out?

[cnaeus]

hannibal couldnt let his army stand arround doing nothing...first of all his army needed food to...second of all....a city the size of rome could hold out for almost an eternity...and considering that a big part of hannibals forces was only with him because he promised to kill lots of romans they wouldnt stand around for that long a time....and its almost impossible to starve out a city that big as you cant possibly surround the city completly as that would thin out the army to much and would make it vonurable to raids the romans could than have planned from the city...the second optoin is to only blockade all roads leading to the city...making it very possible for the romans to smuggle food in across the countryside...not the one im checking...but rome is also positioned close to the sea...and at the time hannibal was in italy rome still controlled the sea...so food could be brought in if needed

[DaddyPro]

Talking about Alexander in the place of Hannibal, he couldve bring supplies from Macedon also they couldve build wall surrounding Rome like Romans did in the Jerusalem, the bigger the city is the more food it need, when goths were besieging Rome they were running out of food.

[chaplain118]

Yeah, when Goths were sieging Rome, Rome had also been going under centuries of infighting and decline. You can't assess Romans in the face of Cannae to the Romans at the end of the Western Empire. The political and military situations are completely different. It's like asking why the United States couldn't win battles in the Revolutionary War when it has the most advanced army today. It makes no sense.

Alexander would've succeeded against the Romans in field battles like Hannibal, but I doubt he could take their cities, especially Rome, particularly as his campaigns in Persia describe mostly field battles rather than sieges.

[Philip_II]

Yeah, when Goths were sieging Rome, Rome had also been going under centuries of infighting and decline. You can't assess Romans in the face of Cannae to the Romans at the end of the Western Empire. The political and military situations are completely different. It's like asking why the United States couldn't win battles in the Revolutionary War when it has the most advanced army today. It makes no sense.

Alexander would've succeeded against the Romans in field battles like Hannibal, but I doubt he could take their cities, especially Rome, particularly as his campaigns in Persia describe mostly field battles rather than sieges.

Tyre ring a bell? He built two seige towers taller than the walls, built a mole across a mile of water, and then took the city. For Memphis, he moved the towers that he used at Tyre across the desert to besiege it. I would say that Alexander could have easily taken the city. My only question is how Alexander could have kept up with constant warfare in Italy. In Persia he took out his opponents in relatively conclusive battles where in Italy he'd have to fight fort after fort. Something his army could have done but not something Alexander may have planned for tactically.

[chaplain118]

Tyre and Memphis, two cities out of the hundreds that dotted the Persian empire. He failed in his frontal assault against Halicarnassus, only taking the city when he forced his way through by conventional means. He took Tyre because the Persian navy that returned defected to him and gave him the ships necessary to carry out the operation.

[Philip_II]

Tyre and Memphis, two cities out of the hundreds that dotted the Persian empire. He failed in his frontal assault against Halicarnassus, only taking the city when he forced his way through by conventional means. He took Tyre because the Persian navy that returned defected to him and gave him the ships necessary to carry out the operation.

At what point are you critiquing his modus operendi and where are you critiquing his actual ability? By the time he beat Memnon at the Granicus, Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch relate that cities would open their gates to him out of either fear or admiration (I suspect a combination of both). Alexander was one of the best leaders in the field with how he compelled soldiers from the front of the Hezetairoi and between him and Caesar I really see no truly successful comparisons with the soldier-general (maybe outside of Philip, but once again, not on topic).

On a different note, my full opinion on Hannibal is he was the poker player of the generals seen here. His crossing of the Alps was a gamble, plain and simple. There was no true tactics involved here outside of sheer will to catch everyone off guard. His strategy at Cannae was based on a bluff and ambush with his cavalry both gambles IMO. In the end, he didn't seem to have a plan for what he wanted to achieve in Italy outside of fighting for his homecity and punching the hated Romans in the mouth.

The reason I'm hesitant to put Alexander over Caesar is my own bias, as I think everyone who posts to this topic has to be arguing from anyway. For Alexander it was all variations on a theme, something that most generals do well. The truly great leaders are those that are the most innovative. For Caesar to me that lies in the particulars where he just puts things into motion no other general would think of doing. For Alexander it's based on the sweeping scale of his aims. No other leader set out to do what he did, outside of Philip but we all know what happened before he got the chance. Now if Caesar had taken all of Britain, Gaul, Spain, and Germania, then the comparison could be made. But those weren't his aims and thus he almost sold himself short on how fare he COULD have gone.* In the end, they're comparable but the differences truly are like apples and oranges.

*Part of this is the basis of the Roman republic versus the Macedonian pseudo-monarchy. Caesar couldn't have gone any farther because the Senate wouldn't have let him. Alexander was only stopped by the general consensus of his army simply not measuring up with the spirit of their leader.

[chaplain118]

The points that I'm getting at is that Alexander's abilities to siege a city and take it down did not truly boil down to his effectiveness at operating siege engines. Tyre and Gaza (not Memphis) employed the same style of siege engines: siege towers. Granted, the mole that he built was impressive, but it failed to do its objective, which was to reach the walls of Tyre. In the end, he had to rely on the Persian navies that defected to provide the ships necessary to act as a ram against the wall, and even then the Tyrians were able to fight off several attempts. His sieging style was very crude, ingenious in its implementation, but crude nevertheless. If he were to attempt to siege Rome, the technical response from the Romans would be overwhemingly strong, and may even break his siege.

And once inside, the street-to-street fighting becomes another business from the open field fighting. Romans didn't believe in giving up and surrendering, even at the sacking by Brennus in 387BC, the Romans held out and waited for Camillus to attack the Gauls. Alexander, like Hannibal, was a master at maneuvers (hell, every one of his victories proved that). But once he enters Rome, he would find a city completely hostile to him, where each corner meant another Roman soldier ready to kill. There would be no room in the city to pull off fancy maneuvers. Quite simply, if Alexander had made it into Rome, he would've failed.

I've always ranked Alexander first, but Hannibal follows much closer to him. The fact of the matter is, Hannibal and Alexander both fielded a multinational army, of which they were the only ones who could hold it together. The Diadochi sprung up and went for each other's throats the second Alexander died. The mercenary army of Hannibal dissolved once the man himself was gone. In terms of battlefield innovation, Hannibal deserves due credit. His crossing of the Alps was more than a mere gamble. He used vinegar and fire to help move his army through snow and rocks in the Alps, and once he descended, managed to get the help from the Ligures. He was able to tempt his enemies into a situation that turned their own strengths against them, an art that is incredibly difficult to master. Look at Trebbia, where he used the Roman zeal for combat against them by enticing them across the freezing river. Then look at Trasimene, where he continued to exploit the Romans with baits. Finally, at Cannae, where it was a flat ground with no trees to hide his ambushes. For all practical purposes, it was just like Guagamela. The Romans sent forth 100,000 men to completely overpower Hannibal's forces. Yet he was able to reverse everything and slaughter most of them. There was very little chance that Caesar could've achieved that.

[torzsoktamas]

These is the way how I see these three generals:

Caesar was a good leader, but a better politician.On the battlefield, he had from these three generals,the best army, and fought against the weakest enemy-celts(or equall to the persians)even if he faced biger armies in number.SO I rank him third.


Alexander was a good tactician,strategian and understood politics,management too.He was a GREAT king.But he had a very good army.Hes enemy,the persians also fielded big armies in number, but still with weak troops(except a few,and the cavalry).Historians put him the best,because of his combination of being a good tactician,strategist on the field, but still being a good king understanding management and politics.But I will put him second as I look at their abilitys on the battlefield.

Hannibal was a master on the battlefield.He had a mercenary army that was far weaker than Alexanders or Caesars army, and faced the strongest enemy-the romans.But besides that the odds were against him,he still anihilated the romans at every battle,losing minimal casualties and killing almost all of the enemy soldiers.Hes strategy of defeating Rome was good and went well, but he didn't finished it.All of his lessere generals urged him to take the city(Rome),but he didn't wanted to.Some historians say the he fealed that he will not be able to take it, some others say that he wanted to wait Romes surrender thus this being a big shame to the romans.But you are wrong if you say that Hannibal could not take the city.After Cannae just some town militias remained in the city that were few in numbers,....Hannibal still had a +36.000 soldier army.And almost all of the senators wanted to surrender(except Scipio).The other senators wanted to go out and surrender, but after all they decided to wait Hannibal and after they see him at the gates then they will surrender.But Hannibal didn't marched there, so ultimatly he lost.Even if historians see Alexander the best,they still think that on the battlefield,Hannibal was the better....so thats why I put him first.

[Eric the Great]

Maybe that TV show on Spike: "The Greatest Warrior" should do Hannibal vs Alexander. However that probably will not end the debate. lol.

P.S. I think Alexander is the better general, but in an one on one duel I think Hannibal would crush Alexander.

[chaplain118]

Hannibal was a master on the battlefield.He had a mercenary army that was far weaker than Alexanders or Caesars army, and faced the strongest enemy-the romans.But besides that the odds were against him,he still anihilated the romans at every battle,losing minimal casualties and killing almost all of the enemy soldiers.Hes strategy of defeating Rome was good and went well, but he didn't finished it.All of his lessere generals urged him to take the city(Rome),but he didn't wanted to.Some historians say the he fealed that he will not be able to take it, some others say that he wanted to wait Romes surrender thus this being a big shame to the romans.But you are wrong if you say that Hannibal could not take the city.After Cannae just some town militias remained in the city that were few in numbers,....Hannibal still had a +36.000 soldier army.And almost all of the senators wanted to surrender(except Scipio).The other senators wanted to go out and surrender, but after all they decided to wait Hannibal and after they see him at the gates then they will surrender.But Hannibal didn't marched there, so ultimatly he lost.Even if historians see Alexander the best,they still think that on the battlefield,Hannibal was the better....so thats why I put him first.

Hannibal sent a delegation led by Carthalo to Rome demanding surrender immediately after Cannae with moderate peace terms, Rome refused.

the city would NOT surrender. The tribune who suggested surrendering was forced by the Senate to take a public oath of allegiance.

[torzsoktamas]

Hannibal sent a delegation led by Carthalo to Rome demanding surrender immediately after Cannae with moderate peace terms, Rome refused.

the city would NOT surrender. The tribune who suggested surrendering was forced by the Senate to take a public oath of allegiance.

Yeah, but if the city would have seen Hannibals entier army, than they would have surrendered or would have died in a siege.Atleast in my opinion.

[chaplain118]

What army? His force of 56000 was whittled down to around 48,000. If the Romans saw this force march up to their city, they would've realized how few men Hannibal really had. It would've been the opposite effect of what he wanted. Rome encompassed a much larger area than what we're used to seeing on the battle map in RTW. Not to mention that Rome still had considerable forces located in Spain and Sicily. There was little that Hannibal could truly do against the Romans if he were to start a siege, especially in lieu of siege engines.

[DaddyPro]

Rome had 2 fresh legions defending Rome after Canae, dont see how they would hold up against more experienced and much larger Hannibal's force.

[chaplain118]

Street to street fighting =\= open field battle

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I think this debate seriously depends on information that is not present. For instance, we know that the Romans would not accept defeat, despite many tactical blunders and massacres. But Alexander the Great was never defeated in battle, so how can we ever say that he would not have the resilience that Rome did? Alexander was already actively integrating native peoples into his army when he died, so his manpower pool would have been immense. He also would have had the cavalry necessary to make the phalanx more than a stop-gap measure against flexible Roman maniples; he also used efficiently the light infantry mentioned in previous posts.