Hannibal and Pyrrhus againt Rome

[Eugene of Savoy]

I'll say Alexander was far above the average general. Yes he was one of greatest but in my opinion he is not greater than Hannibal. He was undefeated (though he lived a very short life) and that means something, but was the persian empire really that strong? Alexander's phalanx and cavalry were both superior to the persian counterparts. He was outnumbered but his troop quality was waaay better. I think Hannibal and possibly even Pyrrhus with Alexander's forces could have accomplished taking Persia.

Split off from the Alexander thread.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

I'll say Alexander was far above the average general. Yes he was one of greatest but in my opinion he is not greater than Hannibal. He was undefeated (though he lived a very short life) and that means something, but was the persian empire really that strong? Alexander's phalanx and cavalry were both superior to the persian counterparts. He was outnumbered but his troop quality was waaay better. I think Hannibal and possibly even Pyrrhus with Alexander's forces could have accomplished taking Persia.

Hannibal yes most likely. Pyrrhus? No. Pyrrhus was a tactical master but lacking in several other areas Alexander excelled in.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Pyrrhus had a weakness for fighting pointless battles that contributed nothing to the overall strategic situation. Even worse he was a quitter and perhaps even took too many risks.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Quitter is a strong word. He never really gave up he just switched projects and started another in the middle of the one he already had. He didn't usually finish campaigns at all really.

[Keyser]

Pyrrhus had a weakness for fighting pointless battles that contributed nothing to the overall strategic situation. Even worse he was a quitter and perhaps even took too many risks.

He didn't fight pointless battles. He needed victories to gather a stronger support. That didn't quite work. He also was a quitter because he (felt it, at least, was it justified ?) hadn't the ressources to win.
So he went in expeditions after another to get a stronger base and more ressources.

If anything, that was his weakness. He wasn't able to grow his powerbase patiently, he wanted to conquer something immediately and launched projects too ambitious for his ressources, meaning that he couldn't accomplish them.
He was totally dependant an allies and was overtly optimistic regarding those allies enjoying his leadership.

I guess you can call that an "Alexander" syndrom. He wanted to follow his steps, but lacked the ressources to do so. He would have needed a Philip...

[Condottiere 40K]

Pyrrhus was considered dangerous enough that he had sponsors to direct his energies elsewhere.

Considering the mercenary make-up of his armies, I find Hannibal sympathetic. Chasing his tail while the Romans went for the jugular does place a question on his judgement.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Pyrrhus was considered dangerous enough that he had sponsors to direct his energies elsewhere.

Considering the mercenary make-up of his armies, I find Hannibal sympathetic. Chasing his tail while the Romans went for the jugular does place a question on his judgement.

Chasing his tail? Slaughtering over 6 Roman armies is chasing his tail? And capturing Southern Italy?

[Condottiere 40K]

While the Romans captured Spain and threatened Carthage.

He didn't destroy either the Roman will to fight nor their means to continue the war.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

So you belittle his enormous achievements? You aren't giving any reasons. You're simply trying to play down someones achievements with no evidence but your own opinion.

[Condottiere 40K]

I have a feeling you believe I don't appreciate his tactical genius, which produced victories in three of the most outstanding battles in history, including what's considered as the perfect one at Cannae, nor his achievement of bringing an army across the Alps in Italy all the way from Spain, say for all intents and purposes, as a cohesive force.

He allowed his veteran army, along with their commander, to become trapped in Italy, long after he seems to have realized he could not successfully besiege Rome. Or perhaps he could have; we'll never know. Having failed to take Rome, and with that army stuck in southern Italy, the initiative passed to the Romans. Who apparently, despite being his inferior on the battlefield, understood the strategic position better than he did.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I think the only reason that he stayed in Italy was because he could not take his army elsewhere. I mean where would he even take it? Is he going to walk across France while there are all sorts of armies between both places. He also needed some reinforcements but Hanno wanted instead to use those troops in Africa or something and disagreed with the war on Rome.

[Keyser]

I have a feeling you believe I don't appreciate his tactical genius, which produced victories in three of the most outstanding battles in history, including what's considered as the perfect one at Cannae, nor his achievement of bringing an army across the Alps in Italy all the way from Spain, say for all intents and purposes, as a cohesive force.

He allowed his veteran army, along with their commander, to become trapped in Italy, long after he seems to have realized he could not successfully besiege Rome. Or perhaps he could have; we'll never know. Having failed to take Rome, and with that army stuck in southern Italy, the initiative passed to the Romans. Who apparently, despite being his inferior on the battlefield, understood the strategic position better than he did.

That's still harsh.

Maybe he should have tried to march on Rome after Cannae and try to gamble his way to peace negotiations because of the panic. Perhaps he should have besieged Rome and risked to be cut from his supplies and have his troops get slaughtered by small groups while they were foraging by the roman garrison and relief armies operating behind the siege... Maybe he could have tricked them into a second Cannae. But i guess he rather wisely judged it was taking too much risk and that it was better to try to consolidate his base of operation in Italy. In wich he failed. That's his main failure imo. He was incapable to prevent the roman from operating against his italian holding.

However i am not sure it's fair to say the roman had a better understanding of the strategical situation than him. It was clear from the start they would try to operate in Spain and Africa as soon as possible and Hannibal knew it. What was a considerable feat from the roman was to be able to do so anyway while Hannibal was in Italy. But that was beyond Hannibal power. How could he foresee that the Roman would trash the Carthaginian utterly in Spain ?
He probably didn't plan to stay that long in Italy, it's possibly another failure of his plans, so he probably didn't plan for Spain to be conquered before his operations were over. But few plans aren't submited to change in the overall situations and unexpected events.

I think the only reason that he stayed in Italy was because he could not take his army elsewhere. I mean where would he even take it? Is he going to walk across France while there are all sorts of armies between both places. He also needed some reinforcements but Hanno wanted instead to use those troops in Africa or something and disagreed with the war on Rome.

He could have returned to Spain, but he would have abandoned everything of what he was trying to achieve in Italy and would have to wage a defensive war. Carthage wouldn't be able to gain anything else than a return to the status-quo in the better case from such a situation.

That really wasn't an option.

[Condottiere 40K]

Well, hindsight is perfect. Perhaps his clan should have followed the Athenian example and invested that silver into building and training a fleet.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

The Athenians failed too... Lol.

I really don't see much that he could have done that would have changed anything. His tactics, logistics, personal combat skills, leadership, and so on were some of the best ever exhibited by a general. I think his strategy was quite good too. Thr attack on Italy by land forced the Romans to recall the army being sent to Africa and many of his decisions were very stratagetically sound. Really, what could he have done better?

[Keyser]

Trying to form or find better second in commands able to win against the roman on their own ?

Building a large fleet in Spain to block the roman invasion, transport his own invasion, facilitate his communications and hindering roman effort on other theater would have been a sound tactic too.
However it was very costly and needed excellent crews. That's probably why he let the naval war to be run by Carthage proper. But they didn't put much effort into it. Probably the first punic war was a traumatic event for Carthaginian seapower.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Not within his control. He tried his best and his seconds and lieutenants were all good if not great.

That would have abeen a strategy not a tactic. Building a huge fleet in Spain was impossible. He had 40 ships already that he couldn't fully man. That idea is not workable in the slightest. He had his colonial fleet the decision to build a larger fleet was Carthage's not his. So far nothing you have named can be laid at his feet.

[Condottiere 40K]

Command of the sea would have permitted the Carthaginians to isolate Sicily; Sicily is the springboard to Italy. And if I recall correctly, pays for itself.

[Keyser]

Regarding the fleet, i adressed it, he let that aspect of warfare to Carthage. But maybe the barcids should have started a naval build up in Spain if they really planned to wage war against Rome at some point in the future. There is the question of wether Carthage would have felt secure with the barcids controlling spain, an army AND a fleet however...

Regarding his staff... I disagree, it was partly in his control. He couldn't choose who the carthaginian senate (or popular assemblies, we don't know how commanders were chosen iirc) would appoint at the head of other armies, but he could choose who would command in Spain.
He let his brother Hasdrubal command there.
But was it because he was the best independant commander after him in his staff ? Or was it because as the eldest barcid after Hannibal he would be able to command respect both to the iberian and to the other carthaginian (wich was important too, i agree) ?
Were the officers he let with Hasdrubal experienced and able enough to help him or operate on his behalf ?

We don't know. What we know is that while the roman had troubles to find commanders able to fight Hannibal, they didn't lack in commanders able to beat the other carthaginians.

It's like if fighting Hannibal was a great generalship school, while the others carthaginians were let to their usual self.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Sicily does not pat for itself. It was the largest ever drain on Carthage. It was Carthage's decision to build a fleet not Hannibal. You guys seem to not get he was not a ruler.

[Pyrrhus the Molossian]

Regarding the fleet, i adressed it, he let that aspect of warfare to Carthage. But maybe the barcids should have started a naval build up in Spain if they really planned to wage war against Rome at some point in the future. There is the question of wether Carthage would have felt secure with the barcids controlling spain, an army AND a fleet however...

Regarding his staff... I disagree, it was partly in his control. He couldn't choose who the carthaginian senate (or popular assemblies, we don't know how commanders were chosen iirc) would appoint at the head of other armies, but he could choose who would command in Spain.
He let his brother Hasdrubal command there.
But was it because he was the best independant commander after him in his staff ? Or was it because as the eldest barcid after Hannibal he would be able to command respect both to the iberian and to the other carthaginian (wich was important too, i agree) ?
Were the officers he let with Hasdrubal experienced and able enough to help him or operate on his behalf ?

We don't know. What we know is that while the roman had troubles to find commanders able to fight Hannibal, they didn't lack in commanders able to beat the other carthaginians.

Must I adress this again? He already had a navy over 40 ships large he could NOT man. Building ships in Spain is nonsensical. They aren't needed. He had already decided to use a method NOT involving ships to reach Rome which worked very well for him.

His commanders were good enough to crush the Romans in Spain twice and fight many close battles and win many skirmishes. Those who fought under him did some brilliant things in his battles.