Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

  1. #1

    Default Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Hey guys,
    I wanted to start a little historical discussion in reference to this legendary mod about two of the most legendary commanders in antiquity.

    I have always wondered who of them would prevail in a ypothetic head-to-head battle with their best army at the zenit of their power. So for Hannibal it would be his battle-hardened army after his overwhelming victory against the romans at cannae and for Alexander his veteran macedonian forces after defeating the persian empire at Gaugamela.

    The comparison of both commanders could be based on 3 main factors:

    - Leadership skill in terms of own army management, reading opponents moves, psychological warfare etc.

    - Battlefield tactics & strategies and its degree of effectivity

    - Their army compositions
    to give you an overview of their different units:

    Hannibal's Infantry: heavy gallic & spanish infantry, elite african infantry in hoplite formation partly equipped with looted roman equipment from dead roman soldiers, balearic slingers & libyan peltasts as light infantry

    vs

    Alexanders infantry: macedonian veteran phalangites flanked by hypaspists and greek mercenary hoplites from the greek city-states, thracian peltasts & cretan archers as light infantry

    Hannibal's cavalry: heavy gallic & spanish cavalry, lethal numidian skirmisher cavalry

    vs

    Alexanders cavalry: Macedonian elite companian cav, thracian & thessalian heavy cav and greek light cavalry

    Who would come out on top ultimately in consideration of these aspects, in your opinion?

  2. #2
    VektorT's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    675

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Both of them at 80km/h?

    Ok, for those kind of comparation I'm generally inclined to go with the more accomplished of the parts just to be fair. While Alexander conquered almost the whole world he knew, was unbeaten to the end and only stopped when his own troops said "Jeez, man, stop moving I need to pee" and then feel sick, Hannibal wasn't nowhere near that successful. No denying old Hannie was one of the finnest and most brilliant generals of all times, but while Alex conquered all the way to India Hannie couldn't take the Italian peninsula and ultimately lost the war, exiled itself from Carthage and went from court to court losting another war to the romans and finally being betrayed by his bithynians overlords in favor of the garum eaters. Granted, Hannie maybe was facing a way more tough opponent than Alex, but still my vote go for Alex leadership.

    About their troops, it's mostly the same story. While Hannibal was a genius, I don't see his troops on the same level as the macedonians prime. Carthaginian army was tough, of course, but we don't remember them for the toughness of their troops but the cunning of their commanders. While Alexander forces, phalanxes, cavalry and whatever, was probably the most competent and hardned troops of the whole world at their own time no question asked, the punics wasn't that overpower at their time. The macedonians phalanxes and companions quite frequently could win the battle on their own, making Alex job even easier. It could go on the way "Hannibal was better because he did more with less" but I don't think it's quite right. Alex have the brains (leadership) AND the muscles (troops) for the job, while Hannie I think have a comparable brain but quite not the same muscles. By itself I don't think carthaginian army could stand the macedonians and with a comparable (or maybe better) leader on the otherside I think they don't have much of a chance in a fair fight.

    Maybe in a war context, not a single battle, Hannibal could have more of a chance. He was a "campaign map" movement genius and that the was one of his main qualities to overpower the romans, but again, it's not like Alexander crossing half the world to still win battles on a unknow land so far away from home didn't knew what he was doing and couldn't pull out some puchs on the same level. Maybe I think Hannie was better at the grand scheme of things, after all Alex probably stretched to much, but maybe not since the punic commander managed to put itself inside Italy in a situation he was unable to finnish while the hellenic fella never really put himself in that situation.

    Anyway, I think I go with Alex. Maybe he would won 4 in each 5 battles, wich is a lot but don't rule out the possibility of the one-eyed guy pulling out one of his "campaign map" magic tricks and totally surprising his big nosed counterpart. But again, Alex was no fool himself and was not willing to bite that many baits like some roman leaders was and have the troops advantage and probably a even better leadership. So Alexander Still The Great & The Phalanxes band owns that Grammy Award to me.
    Last edited by VektorT; November 16, 2018 at 11:51 AM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Hehe - the most probable answer is 'Parmenio'...

    Hannibal would kill Alexander after only a couple of battles to confirm that Alexander did the same thing every time - charge at the head of his cavalry - Alexander's own Cannae.

    But under old reliable Parmenio the Cathaginian infantry would have rolled over the Carthaginians.
    "VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    this is just what if moment again... but I'm really bias about his and gonna pick Hellenic faction can beat Phoenician faction

  5. #5
    VektorT's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    675

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Also one less little tiny thing I would like to consider about Hannibal. To me he is the best poorly accomplished general I know, but there's maybe a reason for it. We mainly know about Hannibal from the romans, and they just LOOOOVED to make things 'harder' to them than they truly was just to make their success seens greater and also to minimize their defeats. The armies they defeat always was outragenous big, the leaders vicious, the challenge so much... but, well "we romans handled it". It's a well know fact that romans usually exagerated their enemies strenghts and maybe thats what they did with Hannibal to justify how he was able to defeat the romans so many times and fiddle around Italy, so they don't have to write down "man, we screw up big time this day". While I do think Hannibal indead was great, one of the greatest, part of the prize he receives maybe was exactly the romans trying to explain how their ass was handled to them by the cartaghinian general that managed to exploit romans mistakes: "Okay, but you know, but the guy was genius! We totally didn't sucked a couple of times... he that was a truly master and took another master to beat him. All hail Scipio and the romans that defeated one of the greatest generals in history! We rock, man, yes we do."
    Last edited by VektorT; November 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by ur-Lord Tedric View Post
    Alexander did the same thing every time - charge at the head of his cavalry - Alexander's own Cannae.
    That's true but this denies the genius of alexander. He was always able to create the conditions he needed for that knockout charge even when opponents anticipated it and tried their damnest to hard counter it (see gaugamela).

  7. #7
    Dead*Man*Wilson's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Heaven or Hell
    Posts
    1,225

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Interesting opinions.

    Keep going, guys. I guess I never really think about fantasy mash-up historical versus battles, so its fun to see people discuss it.

    How about how their troops would match up with each other?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Well, if you asked Hannibal, he'd say Alexander followed by Pyrrhus. (In the somewhat fantastical recounting of a conversation between he and Scipio according to Livy). I think Alexander was the better commander. Hannibal knew how to exploit the Roman weaknesses and get under their skin, but Alexander won against much stronger opponents than those Hannibal lost to. Let's put it this way, Roman Republican vs. Persian Empire? I doubt little Rome would have lasted long. Alexander also won the "campaign map" better than Hannibal by earning the allegiance of former Persian satraps including Egypt, whereas Hannibal struggled in vain to win over the Samnites and Campanians in mass.

    While I think there's a fair question about commander quality, there's simply no doubt about troop quality. Hannibal had great light cavalry, and that was about it. Hoplites were an inferior force compared to phalangites, and even those formed a small portion of his army. Hannibal's collection of troops were to a large extent a hodge-podge of whatever he picked up en route. Wasn't it 30,000 from Gaul as he passed through? Alexander's core infantry were a well equipped, highly trained, and battle-hardened force. And his heavy cavalry was better as well.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhvanputten View Post
    Well, if you asked Hannibal, he'd say Alexander followed by Pyrrhus. (In the somewhat fantastical recounting of a conversation between he and Scipio according to Livy).
    you're sure its Livy and not Appian?
    according to Plutarch, Hannibal didnt mention Alexander at all: 'Hannibal, however, declared that the foremost of all generals in experience and ability was Pyrrhus, that Scipio was second, and he himself third, as I have written in my life of Scipio.'

  10. #10
    Alex(España)'s Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hispania, Evropa
    Posts
    127

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Alexander of course! We are talking about the greatest man of all history, the only Alexander, the one who can be named The Great(and the only one who deserves it).

    PD:yes I'm an Alexander fanboy
    Si en el frente veis a unos soldados sucios, mal afeitados, con el uniforme desabrochado y las botas rotas, cuadraos ante el, es un héroe, es un español.

    Sobre los muchachos de la División Azul.



  11. #11

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    you're sure its Livy and not Appian?
    according to Plutarch, Hannibal didnt mention Alexander at all: 'Hannibal, however, declared that the foremost of all generals in experience and ability was Pyrrhus, that Scipio was second, and he himself third, as I have written in my life of Scipio.'
    I believe Plutarch was a contemporary of Scipio and a client of his family. Of course that’s what he would write about the affair.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhvanputten View Post
    Well, if you asked Hannibal, he'd say Alexander followed by Pyrrhus. (In the somewhat fantastical recounting of a conversation between he and Scipio according to Livy). I think Alexander was the better commander. Hannibal knew how to exploit the Roman weaknesses and get under their skin, but Alexander won against much stronger opponents than those Hannibal lost to. Let's put it this way, Roman Republican vs. Persian Empire? I doubt little Rome would have lasted long. Alexander also won the "campaign map" better than Hannibal by earning the allegiance of former Persian satraps including Egypt, whereas Hannibal struggled in vain to win over the Samnites and Campanians in mass.

    While I think there's a fair question about commander quality, there's simply no doubt about troop quality. Hannibal had great light cavalry, and that was about it. Hoplites were an inferior force compared to phalangites, and even those formed a small portion of his army. Hannibal's collection of troops were to a large extent a hodge-podge of whatever he picked up en route. Wasn't it 30,000 from Gaul as he passed through? Alexander's core infantry were a well equipped, highly trained, and battle-hardened force. And his heavy cavalry was better as well.

    I 100% support this. According to Wikipedia, for what it’s worth, Hannibal’s army after Cannae and Alexander’s after Gaugamela had similar numbers, about 44,000 men. As has been stated above though, Alexander has the greatest army the world had ever seen, whereas Hannibal had an elite force supplemented by a hodgepodge of mercenaries with varying degrees of elan. The big advantage Hannibal would have in the event of a pitched battle is that his army would probably handle rough terrain better than Alexander’s, so if Alexander could be baited into fighting on unfavorable terrain I think Hannibal’s army could stand a chance. But on neutral, flat ground my money is on Alexander.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by Standard Nerd View Post
    I believe Plutarch was a contemporary of Scipio and a client of his family. Of course that’s what he would write about the affair.
    thats Polybius

  14. #14

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    thanks for your ideas and opinions, it looks quite interesting and creative so far There are some things though that are worth mentioning and noting since some debatable and questionable statements were made

    Quote Originally Posted by VektorT View Post
    Ok, for those kind of comparation I'm generally inclined to go with the more accomplished of the parts just to be fair. While Alexander conquered almost the whole world he knew, was unbeaten to the end and only stopped when his own troops said "Jeez, man, stop moving I need to pee" and then feel sick, Hannibal wasn't nowhere near that successful. No denying old Hannie was one of the finnest and most brilliant generals of all times, but while Alex conquered all the way to India Hannie couldn't take the Italian peninsula and ultimately lost the war, exiled itself from Carthage and went from court to court losting another war to the romans and finally being betrayed by his bithynians overlords in favor of the garum eaters. Granted, Hannie maybe was facing a way more tough opponent than Alex, but still my vote go for Alex leadership.

    About their troops, it's mostly the same story. While Hannibal was a genius, I don't see his troops on the same level as the macedonians prime. Carthaginian army was tough, of course, but we don't remember them for the toughness of their troops but the cunning of their commanders. While Alexander forces, phalanxes, cavalry and whatever, was probably the most competent and hardned troops of the whole world at their own time no question asked, the punics wasn't that overpower at their time. The macedonians phalanxes and companions quite frequently could win the battle on their own, making Alex job even easier. It could go on the way "Hannibal was better because he did more with less" but I don't think it's quite right. Alex have the brains (leadership) AND the muscles (troops) for the job, while Hannie I think have a comparable brain but quite not the same muscles. By itself I don't think carthaginian army could stand the macedonians and with a comparable (or maybe better) leader on the otherside I think they don't have much of a chance in a fair fight.

    Maybe in a war context, not a single battle, Hannibal could have more of a chance. He was a "campaign map" movement genius and that the was one of his main qualities to overpower the romans, but again, it's not like Alexander crossing half the world to still win battles on a unknow land so far away from home didn't knew what he was doing and couldn't pull out some puchs on the same level. Maybe I think Hannie was better at the grand scheme of things, after all Alex probably stretched to much, but maybe not since the punic commander managed to put itself inside Italy in a situation he was unable to finnish while the hellenic fella never really put himself in that situation.
    Thanks for the detailed analysis it woulkd have been interesting to see how both commanders performed in reverse roles: Alexander the Great fighting the Roman republic with his army while hannibal fought the persian empire with his forces respectively

    Quote Originally Posted by nhvanputten View Post
    Well, if you asked Hannibal, he'd say Alexander followed by Pyrrhus. (In the somewhat fantastical recounting of a conversation between he and Scipio according to Livy). I think Alexander was the better commander. Hannibal knew how to exploit the Roman weaknesses and get under their skin, but Alexander won against much stronger opponents than those Hannibal lost to. Let's put it this way, Roman Republican vs. Persian Empire? I doubt little Rome would have lasted long. Alexander also won the "campaign map" better than Hannibal by earning the allegiance of former Persian satraps including Egypt, whereas Hannibal struggled in vain to win over the Samnites and Campanians in mass.

    While I think there's a fair question about commander quality, there's simply no doubt about troop quality. Hannibal had great light cavalry, and that was about it. Hoplites were an inferior force compared to phalangites, and even those formed a small portion of his army. Hannibal's collection of troops were to a large extent a hodge-podge of whatever he picked up en route. Wasn't it 30,000 from Gaul as he passed through? Alexander's core infantry were a well equipped, highly trained, and battle-hardened force. And his heavy cavalry was better as well.
    Size doesn't matter right? Miraculously that little Roman republic managed to defeat Carthage, The Greek successor kingdoms, the iberians and the Gauls to become the dominant ruler of the Mediterranaean. So what could it have done against the Persian Empire? Well it would obviously have mopped the floor with it It is a bold statement to downgrade the Roman republic, i think it is out of debate that Hannibal fought a far stronger and tenacious opponent than any other leader in the antiquity. The Roman Manipular Army proved alot of times to be superior than the Hellenic Phalanx battle style. Historical records display this time and time again against the Macedons and the Seleucids in the 2nd Century BC: Battle of cynoscephalae, battle of pydna & Battle of Magnesia. The Roman Triples axies is simply designed to destroy the front line of any opponent army no matter if there is a elite phalanx or a peasant army. Their double pila throw serves to soften up the enemy line and break their cohesion by making their shields unusable thus creating huge gaps in the enemy line while the roman legionnaires close in and sneak through to crush the exposed phalangites.

    I think the prime example for this is Pyrrhus campaign in Italy. I guess y'all know the Pyrrhic Victories? Did you also know how he managed to beat the Romans? Only his war elephants saved the day, (Yes Epirus introduced both the Romans and the Carthaginians to war elephants and the Carthaginians liked them so much that they decided to run these themselves lol) , initially he held them back until he saw that he was about to get defeated then he decided to deploy them on both flanks as a last resort and charged them inward to the roman infantry causing havoc. Since Romans have never seen elephants before, they panicked and routed ultimately. But before he was actually loosing both the infantry and the cavalry battle, especially the center of the epirote army got decimated by the roman infantry. Imagine Pyrrhus lost around 5.000-11.000 Phalangites on average per battle against the Romans - thats like 25-40% of his entire phalanx - as well as most of his commanders and he got wounded himself too on top of that. Once the Romans adapted to war elephants they defeated him unsurprisingly. Also Pyrrhus himself is a very capable leader with previous battle experience in the Diadochi wars (cavalry commander at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC) probably the second finest hellenic leader after Alexander. That shows how strong the Roman Republic actually was even in its early period and while even fighting against special weapons like elephants which they didnt know to have existed back then.

    I dont know how Alex would have performed against the Romans. It is clear that he is the better commander than Pyrrhus and although similar in quality his army was more battle-hardened than pyrrhus one. He would have won battles against the Romans for sure but at a higher cost and sacrifice than against the Persians. it would have been a much greater challenge to fight them (He didnt have war elephants too)

    One last thing that came up: While it is out of question that a standard Carthaginian hoplite is inferior to a standard Greek hoplite since hoplites and phalanx battle styles are invented and mastered by the Hellenic factions. But we are specifically talking about Hannibals army not a standard carthaginian army. Yet you describe his one as whatever he picked up en route like you would describe them as peasant troops he randomly picked up lol. But he recruited mercenearies after all which was a professional fighting force of their own style too. I leave the discussion about troop quality to you but you have to keep in mind when it comes to battle experience and professionalism: hannibals army defeated several iberian tribes, the gauls in southern france and 3 large roman armies with relatively few losses (in comparison to pyrrhus for example) - one of them was 86.000 strong. Doesnt that make them battle-hardened and highly trained too?

    Let's take the battle of cannae as an example: While it took the brain and leadership skill to outmaneuver and outsmart a roman army twice the size of his own, that alone isnt enough to defeat the romans you need "the muscles" as well. It is essential and obligatory to have a lot of discipline, coordination and high training to deliberately fall back and keep the cohesion of your center simultaneously while being outnumbered with 40.000 men vs 80.000 romans who are notorious and specialized for steamroll tactics as described above. Without the necessary quality of troops like with levies instead your infantry line would get overwhelmed pretty fast, collapse and end in a disaster. The opponent is the Romans after all.
    To summarize: Leadership can influence the outcome of a battle only to a certain extent, if your troops dont have a particular level of battle experience and training even the best leader cannot avoid defeat.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal STO View Post
    thanks for your ideas and opinions, it looks quite interesting and creative so far There are some things though that are worth mentioning and noting since some debatable and questionable statements were made



    Thanks for the detailed analysis it woulkd have been interesting to see how both commanders performed in reverse roles: Alexander the Great fighting the Roman republic with his army while hannibal fought the persian empire with his forces respectively



    Size doesn't matter right? Miraculously that little Roman republic managed to defeat Carthage, The Greek successor kingdoms, the iberians and the Gauls to become the dominant ruler of the Mediterranaean. So what could it have done against the Persian Empire? Well it would obviously have mopped the floor with it It is a bold statement to downgrade the Roman republic, i think it is out of debate that Hannibal fought a far stronger and tenacious opponent than any other leader in the antiquity. The Roman Manipular Army proved alot of times to be superior than the Hellenic Phalanx battle style. Historical records display this time and time again against the Macedons and the Seleucids in the 2nd Century BC: Battle of cynoscephalae, battle of pydna & Battle of Magnesia. The Roman Triples axies is simply designed to destroy the front line of any opponent army no matter if there is a elite phalanx or a peasant army. Their double pila throw serves to soften up the enemy line and break their cohesion by making their shields unusable thus creating huge gaps in the enemy line while the roman legionnaires close in and sneak through to crush the exposed phalangites.

    I think the prime example for this is Pyrrhus campaign in Italy. I guess y'all know the Pyrrhic Victories? Did you also know how he managed to beat the Romans? Only his war elephants saved the day, (Yes Epirus introduced both the Romans and the Carthaginians to war elephants and the Carthaginians liked them so much that they decided to run these themselves lol) , initially he held them back until he saw that he was about to get defeated then he decided to deploy them on both flanks as a last resort and charged them inward to the roman infantry causing havoc. Since Romans have never seen elephants before, they panicked and routed ultimately. But before he was actually loosing both the infantry and the cavalry battle, especially the center of the epirote army got decimated by the roman infantry. Imagine Pyrrhus lost around 5.000-11.000 Phalangites on average per battle against the Romans - thats like 25-40% of his entire phalanx - as well as most of his commanders and he got wounded himself too on top of that. Once the Romans adapted to war elephants they defeated him unsurprisingly. Also Pyrrhus himself is a very capable leader with previous battle experience in the Diadochi wars (cavalry commander at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC) probably the second finest hellenic leader after Alexander. That shows how strong the Roman Republic actually was even in its early period and while even fighting against special weapons like elephants which they didnt know to have existed back then.

    I dont know how Alex would have performed against the Romans. It is clear that he is the better commander than Pyrrhus and although similar in quality his army was more battle-hardened than pyrrhus one. He would have won battles against the Romans for sure but at a higher cost and sacrifice than against the Persians. it would have been a much greater challenge to fight them (He didnt have war elephants too)

    One last thing that came up: While it is out of question that a standard Carthaginian hoplite is inferior to a standard Greek hoplite since hoplites and phalanx battle styles are invented and mastered by the Hellenic factions. But we are specifically talking about Hannibals army not a standard carthaginian army. Yet you describe his one as whatever he picked up en route like you would describe them as peasant troops he randomly picked up lol. But he recruited mercenearies after all which was a professional fighting force of their own style too. I leave the discussion about troop quality to you but you have to keep in mind when it comes to battle experience and professionalism: hannibals army defeated several iberian tribes, the gauls in southern france and 3 large roman armies with relatively few losses (in comparison to pyrrhus for example) - one of them was 86.000 strong. Doesnt that make them battle-hardened and highly trained too?

    Let's take the battle of cannae as an example: While it took the brain and leadership skill to outmaneuver and outsmart a roman army twice the size of his own, that alone isnt enough to defeat the romans you need "the muscles" as well. It is essential and obligatory to have a lot of discipline, coordination and high training to deliberately fall back and keep the cohesion of your center simultaneously while being outnumbered with 40.000 men vs 80.000 romans who are notorious and specialized for steamroll tactics as described above. Without the necessary quality of troops like with levies instead your infantry line would get overwhelmed pretty fast, collapse and end in a disaster. The opponent is the Romans after all.
    To summarize: Leadership can influence the outcome of a battle only to a certain extent, if your troops dont have a particular level of battle experience and training even the best leader cannot avoid defeat.
    I agree with all you wrote I would add just additional aspect: It seems to me little unfair to compare Alexander and his army as it was, with might of Republican Rome (manipular), just because there is 200 years difference between them. Romans had studied Alexander's ways very well, while Alexander had never seen manipular organisation of roman army. It is reasonable to assume Alexander, being clever strategos, would have adapted differently to fight against manipular heavy infantry than light equipped Persians. if he used horse archers from east, maybe Carrhae would happen for Romans much sooner...

  16. #16
    Bento's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    192

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    For myself, I would say Hannibal.

    Primarily because Alexander had a tendency to be rash and on a couple of occasions, lucky to survive the battle at all.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarkiss View Post
    thats Polybius
    You right my bad

  18. #18

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hannibal STO View Post
    Hey guys,
    I wanted to start a little historical discussion in reference to this legendary mod about two of the most legendary commanders in antiquity.

    I have always wondered who of them would prevail in a ypothetic head-to-head battle with their best army at the zenit of their power. So for Hannibal it would be his battle-hardened army after his overwhelming victory against the romans at cannae and for Alexander his veteran macedonian forces after defeating the persian empire at Gaugamela.

    The comparison of both commanders could be based on 3 main factors:

    - Leadership skill in terms of own army management, reading opponents moves, psychological warfare etc.

    - Battlefield tactics & strategies and its degree of effectivity

    - Their army compositions
    to give you an overview of their different units:

    Hannibal's Infantry: heavy gallic & spanish infantry, elite african infantry in hoplite formation partly equipped with looted roman equipment from dead roman soldiers, balearic slingers & libyan peltasts as light infantry

    vs

    Alexanders infantry: macedonian veteran phalangites flanked by hypaspists and greek mercenary hoplites from the greek city-states, thracian peltasts & cretan archers as light infantry

    Hannibal's cavalry: heavy gallic & spanish cavalry, lethal numidian skirmisher cavalry

    vs

    Alexanders cavalry: Macedonian elite companian cav, thracian & thessalian heavy cav and greek light cavalry

    Who would come out on top ultimately in consideration of these aspects, in your opinion?

    What about the battle positions of troops the supply situations of both armies their experience(are they fresh troops or experienced veterns?) also what about the geographical advantages and disadvantages of the armies positions AND location of the battle , the climate, the weather and the time?
    Troop Numbers are not as important as these other factors. Honestly if none have the advantage then the battle is one of wills. Who will chicken out first?
    Last edited by Ahmedaliqu; November 19, 2018 at 08:43 AM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Alexander would win.

    First of all, his own circumstances say so. Alexander is the more aggressive commander, that is an advantage in itself. He was at least as imaginative if not more so than Hannibal. To our knowledge, he never lost a battle in which he was in personal command. He fought against a great variety of military cultures, ranging from the hoplite phalanxes of Greece, the collected nations of the Persian Empire to the armies of the Indus Valley. The mix of Hannibal's forces would not phase him.

    As for Hannibal, his personal and military advantages enjoyed against the Romans would not be enjoyed against Alexander. He was famous for confounding the Romans, but I doubt he could have confounded Alexander. Alexander would not have made the most elementary mistakes, such as perennial neglect of scouting or choosing to fight on the enemy's terms. Alexander's forces had excellent cavalry and light infantry, at least on a par with Hannibal's if not superior (accounting for the gap of a century), so that advantage is gone. If fighting on rough ground, Hannibal faces an enemy well versed in it with both specialised troops and the ingenuity to make his pikes fight in a different manner. If fighting on open, flat terrain, he faces the Macedonian sarissa phalanx with shock cavalry at the height of its powers.

  20. #20
    Dead*Man*Wilson's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Heaven or Hell
    Posts
    1,225

    Default Re: Hannibal vs Alexander the Great - Who would win?

    Barca handles tough, but dated Macedonian army model.Speed & mobility kills. Alexander's undefeated streak versus mobs of peasants and untrained zoo animals comes to an end into the face of a capable leader and force used to routing disciplined heavy-infantry armies when heavily outnumbered. Numidian cav frustrates and stymies Companion cav akin to erectile dysfunction.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •