The better general : Pyrrhus vs Hannibal and Alexander

[Philip_II]

Ah yes, it was Gaza, thanks for correcting me.

If Hannibal was such a great leader, than why didn't he go for the final blow? I mean, come on, he had the Romans on the ropes, his foot on their neck. Alexander pushed his army far beyond their breaking point into lands no Western eyes had ever seen or dreamed of conquering and yet they only stopped when the very ground itself swelled against them (typhoon season in the Punjab is devastating to a fully equipped army). Hannibal was merely stopped by his will not being able to push his mercenary army any further. And if he knew it would be a problem, why not push your army through Sicily or southern Italy and gain some coffers to pay your troops? Alexander's ability to execute his rolling economy allowed him to overpay his troops and thus keep them in line only because he aimed for the high value options first and enabled his brilliance on the battlefield to shine more. Hannibal was a brilliant general on the field, but he couldn't finish at the rim, to borrow a sports euphemism.

[DaddyPro]

If Hannibal was such a great leader, than why didn't he go for the final blow?

There shouldn't be if, he was a great leader and general, maybe he didn't had means to take Rome or maybe he wanted them to surrender, doesn't matter he proved to be a great leader by wining battles and that shouldn't be questioned, tho i think Alexander was better because he died so early and didn't had much time to do all he wanted.

[Philip_II]

There shouldn't be if, he was a great leader and general, maybe he didn't had means to take Rome or maybe he wanted them to surrender, doesn't matter he proved to be a great leader by wining battles and that shouldn't be questioned, tho i think Alexander was better because he died so early and didn't had much time to do all he wanted.

Well, no the only reason I ask that question is because Hannibal certainly had the opportunity, but the histories all tell us his army broke apart. Why? Alexander's army was telling him since they took the largest of cities in Persia from Babylon to Susa to Persepolis to Hecatompylos that they wanted it all to be over. Yet how did he get them to go as far as India? The ability to lead is something that goes beyond sheer tactics or ability on the battlefield.

[torzsoktamas]

Well, no the only reason I ask that question is because Hannibal certainly had the opportunity, but the histories all tell us his army broke apart. Why? Alexander's army was telling him since they took the largest of cities in Persia from Babylon to Susa to Persepolis to Hecatompylos that they wanted it all to be over. Yet how did he get them to go as far as India? The ability to lead is something that goes beyond sheer tactics or ability on the battlefield.

NO.Alexanders soldiers went to him to India, because of fear.There was atleast one time when Alexander punished his men, executing a number of them.

[chaplain118]

Well, no the only reason I ask that question is because Hannibal certainly had the opportunity, but the histories all tell us his army broke apart. Why? Alexander's army was telling him since they took the largest of cities in Persia from Babylon to Susa to Persepolis to Hecatompylos that they wanted it all to be over. Yet how did he get them to go as far as India? The ability to lead is something that goes beyond sheer tactics or ability on the battlefield.

To the contrary, history showed that his army stayed cohesive until his loss at Zama. Much of his infantry center were comprised of his veterans from Italy. His cavalry contingent was beginning to be filled with large amount of fresh troops to bolster numbers and he also received new elephants.

[Visiar]

As everyone is arguing about Hannibal and Alexander, I will join. First, lets look at facts.


Hannibal: A great general and great strategist. Managed to destroy several roman armies. Lost at Zama.


Alexander: Conquered the Persian Empire. Never lost a battle. A great general and strategist.


But the question remains, who's better? Arguments could go on and on for years and we wouldn't be any closer to an answer. The only fact is Alexander and Hannibal were both good generals and both accomplished great feats. But we will never know who is better.

[Sergius64]

Pyrrhus is getting too much bad press here. You guys gotta remember this is a competition between generals, meaning what these historical figures actually accomplished with their victories is not as relevant. Also you've got to take into account all of the other wars that Phyrrus was invloved in. He conquered Macedon several times, and ran over Carthage in Sicily. Those battles not analysed as well has his battles against the Romans.

Also he wrote on strategy in his memoirs (which are now lost to us ) and those were greatly respected and read by both Romans and Greeks. I suspect those memoirs and the defeats he inflicted upon the Carthaginians were the reasons that Hannibal called him second only to Alexander as a general.

[Banana Jelly]

Hannibal hands down.

But Alexander is cool to.

[Binshuy]

well you have to look that Hannibals forces were mixed, supplies low and had poltical enemies back at Carthage but still annihilated the romans

Hannibals the best strategist for me plus the a one eyed semetic general makes him look cool

Alexander is the best conquerer of all.

[|Sith|Duke_Spartacus]

remember alesia, i say again. REMEMBER ALESIA.

and btw, what about gaius marius? i mean come on, jugurtha, the cimbri/tutones and other battles.

[StenKilla]

Muahahaaha Go Pyrrhus!

[General Brittanicus]

To the contrary, history showed that his army stayed cohesive until his loss at Zama. Much of his infantry center were comprised of his veterans from Italy. His cavalry contingent was beginning to be filled with large amount of fresh troops to bolster numbers and he also received new elephants.

I read that the elephants were newly trained though and unused to battle, so they were not particularly effective(especially since they were basically all killed right near the start of zama. Besides if he did get elephants into Italy without them all dying in the alps, he never really used them to win his victories. He may also have had fresh cavalry, but i expect the desertion of Masinissa and his numidian cavalry severely crippled him in that department, plus it meant the romans had cavalry superiority at zama. Even with all these problems though, he was apparently still very close to victory at zama and who knows, if massinisa had stayed loyal and syphax hadnt got himself and all his men killed really easily, Hannibal may very well have won the battle of zama.

Personally i prefer the The Iron Duke, Sir Arthur Wellesley as a general, but if i had to choose one of these generals, it would be Hannibal hands down. For all those complaining that he didnt finish off the romans maybe you should listen to Maharbal "Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory, but not how to use one." He could beat the romans at every turn on their home ground and i expect if he had been in supreme command of his nation, he would have been able to make alot better job of it rather than having to rely on the decisons of the stupid ruling council.

[Xellos_Moon]

I think Alexander wouldve taken rome if he went there. We must remember that by the time Alexander got to the throne rome was just a fledgling city state that did not even control all of italy. All those disciplined legions were not perfect yet. Alexander was using his father's phalangites which were an innovation at that time. His tactics were never before seen. He would've taken over Italy in a heartbeat.

With that said i still stand that Hannibal tops all of em. I dont really need to justify that.

[Mirionis9]

Well you cannot clearly say who was the best, simply because they never fought against each other. All of them were innovative in many battles. Their enemies cannot be compared. Persians Indians and Romans were totally different. Yet, when Rome decided to invade Parthia found it impossible, while Alexandros with an army of 30000-40000 men made it possible. Not to mention that he was marching to completely unknown lands, at least from susa and onwards. Every single battle he gave is a tactics lesson. And we ought to keep in mind that he was always in the hottest spot of every battle, a true warrior. Pyrrhos tried to do the same and failed. A good general he was. Hannibal was also a legendary general but no equivalent to Alexandros. He lacked perception. He couldn't take any advantage of his victories. My guess is that the right order should be: Alexandros, Hannibal, Pyrrhos.

[melqart]

I think that genius and ability of a general should be estimated by the value of the enemies he faced on battlefields.
Can we really compare roman legions, the best army of ancient times, to the ridicolous weak persian armies Alexander faced on battle fields?
Hannibal was without any doubt the best general in history and even a genius like him simply could not do more against the best war machine of ancient times and above all a solid State, with never ending resources, like Rome already was during Punic wars.

[Mirionis9]

Well the "ridiculous" persian armies simply smashed the roman legions many times in history... The Romans couldn't advance under the archer fire of their opponents. And when they marched into persian lands, they had to retreat. No western army managed to cross these lands again. And I think it says a lot.
Hannibal managed to beat roman arrogance, not Rome itself.

[torzsoktamas]

Mirionis9: You are a bit wrong.Persians are not Parthians.Alexander when fought against persia he faced infantry,heavy cavalry and chariots.He faced horsearchers too after he took Babylon,but he was forced to buy their services with money.On the other hand,...even if the romans were defeated at Carrhae,Traianus conquered Mesopotamia and Armenia from the Parthians and armenians.

The roman army that Hannibal faced was far more powerfull than what Alexander faced.And according to some historians,the persian armies weren't that big as 200.000 or more.And don't forget that while Alexander was a king and got reinforcements whenever he wanted,...Hannibal didn't recieved enough reinforcements.

[General Brittanicus]

I dont believe persia still existed as a powerful state, if at all when the romans made it that far east, it would have been the parthians, they were fighting who were alot different and had alot more horse archers than the persians. The persian army would never have been able to beat the romans in my opinion, becasue they couldnt even beat alexanders. The Persian empire was basically all the land that people knew about in the east at that time, all alexander would have to do was beat one large persian army and he would give the whole empire a crushing morale blow, it strikes me that it would then be rather easy to march around mopping up the forces of the former vassal states and subjects of the persians empire.

[Aernuss]

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

[Aernuss]

As everyone is arguing about Hannibal and Alexander, I will join. First, lets look at facts.


Hannibal: A great general and great strategist. Managed to destroy several roman armies. Lost at Zama.


Alexander: Conquered the Persian Empire. Never lost a battle. A great general and strategist.


But the question remains, who's better? Arguments could go on and on for years and we wouldn't be any closer to an answer. The only fact is Alexander and Hannibal were both good generals and both accomplished great feats. But we will never know who is better.

Between those two, I don't even hesitate to apoint Alex as the better. Hannibal was an fascinating individual and made the world tremble, but comparing his achievements to those of Alexander... well, that simply woudn't be fair!
And about ceaser, he was another fascinating character, of course one of the best, but let's not forget that, beside the gallic situation that mullatothrasher described so well formerly, and the military/recruitment inovations taking place in rome since marius that favoured ceaser directly, this great general was (as the others, sure) not alone, having under his command subordinates whose iniciatives were crucial to ceaser's sucesses, like Publius Crassus, Quintus Cicero or Labienus.