Vote On Greatest Military Commander

[Da_TRU_1]

IM BACK!!! here we go again. Lucky number 3. This time lets a have a little vote ill have 9 spots, 8 for my top 8 and 1 for other, i wish i could have 20-30 spots as everyone has their own opinion. 11 should suffice however. Heres my top 10 list plus many other great military commanders on the honorable mention list of who I think are the greatest military commanders ever. The criteria can be different for each one. I weigh heavily on great tactics, extraordianry leadership, the technology differences, and not necessarily the amount of area conquered or casualties inflicted. It can fluctuate depending on certain circumstances because there has been great commanders from all over the world. here we go, im interested to here what my fellow RTW fanatics have to say.

1.Alexander the Great - The facts speak for themselves, conquered as much land as 1 man has ever done, even Genghis Khan whose mongols conquered more land but alot of it after his death, he demonstrated great tactics since he was 20 at charonea, then his most underated achievement was at the great walled city of Tyre where he conquered in 7 months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon laid seige to the city for 10 years and couldnt defeat it. He just had that great knack for battle and exploiting weaknesses in the enemy. Then both at Issus and Gaugamela he showed amazing tactical skill to defeat a much superior force not to mention the X factor; he led his forces by example, literally leading his troops into the enemy himself doing everything he would ask his soldiers to do. His tactics at gaugemela single handedly stopped the use of chariots in major battles for the rest of history(except in Britain where chariots were used vastly different). He changed the course of history and didnt even reach the age of 33. Even Caesar who is in my top 10 admitted he hadnt done anything compared to Alexander. He thought the unthinkable and did the imposssible. If i had one battle to win I would pick Alexander to lead my army.

2. Genghis Khan - Conquered as much land as any commander ever. Took a small tribe united it and laid way for the largest empire the world has or will ever see. The only knock on him he never completed his ultimate goal; conquer ALL of China. Nevertheless, he adapted well to combat by using the smart tactic of taking the smartest of the enemies people and using them for your beneift, by using the best Chinese engineers to build siege weapons to conquer the strong fortified cities of northern China. Then moved on to the Kwarzam empire and despite being outnumbered used his strength(cavalry) to its fullest ability and annihlated thist east persian empire by "shock and awe". Like Alexander never lost a battle.

3. Hannibal - he didnt conquer much but just like Robert E. Lee or Frederick the Great, he fought with great tactics, overcame huge odds, and crippled the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. Every1 knows about Cannae, but Lake Trasimene and the battle of Trebia were also fine examples of his knowing the enemy strengths and weaknesses, and that of his own army. He was one of the first to live by the biggest cliche in war, "the greatest defense is a strong offense". Even at Zama where he met Scipio Africanus also one of my greatest generals, he maybe would have won if his numidian cavalry hadnt betrayed him and tipped the balance of power to the Romans.

4. Frederick II of Prussia aka Frederick the Great - okay okay, i know what you are thinking. He really only conquered the rich province of Silesia, yeah but he faced odds that resemble the Alamo, but on a much larger scale. This isnt who conquered the most land ever poll. In almost all of his battles, both small and large scale he was heavily outnumber at least 2 to 1 up to 4 to 1 and yet won almost all the time.He displayed brilliance on both the battlefield and in diplomatic relations. Napolean even considered him his idol. This would be equivalent to a Roman general in 200-150BC considering Hannibal his idol, just unthinkable. He changed warfare, being outnumbered 70 million to 4 million by France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire(Saxony) and later Spain not only held them off, but after the treaty of Paris had transformed Prussia from a small insignificant province to arguably the greatest military power in Europe. Even when facing defeat, his reputation singlehandedly caused Russia to drop out of the Seven Years War, and this allowed him to concentrate on the Austrians and the French after shortly defeating the Swedish. He beat down both the French and Austrians at the end and this eventually laid the foundation for the future unified German state. of the great generals in German history (eugene, theodoric, arminius, guderian, rommel, hindenburg, etc...) he has to be considered the best. Even the US military studies his tactics in their military schools. When Napolean had entered berlin in 1806 he and his marshals and generals went to the tomb of Frederick's and he told them to take of their hats off in respect because as he put it "if he(Frederick) were alive, we wouldn't be here today."

5. Gaius Julius Caesar - Some ppl have him much higher, and others much lower, he conquered much land, but did it with the most advanced and well trained force in the world at the time. He was outnumbered sometimes, especially at Alesia, and demonstrated great tactics and valour in his campaigning. He probably is the best combined commander/statesman/ruler/priest/ambitious person ever. He displayed great courgae and lust for battle as any great leader should, when he would frequently dismount from his horse and fight side by side on the front lines with his legions. Defeated another great general and army of Pompei the great which earns point for him, who knows if he would have been higher if he wasnt assasinated in 44BC, as he was about to undertake campaigning in the East against the formidable Parthians.

6. Timur the Lame aka Tamerlame - conquered one of the largest empires ever seen, was more brutal than Genghis Khan, showed great tactics and singlehandedly stopped the Turks expnasion in Asia minor and Europe with his defeat of the much larger force of Ottomans. He planned to conquer China much like his forged ancestor Genghis Khan, but died of fever. He was swift and decisive in his victories and had an empire as far west as Turkey to east of Western China far south to modern day northern irag, and far north to the russian steppe. He stacked piles of skulls into pyramids. Truly a fearsome foe.

7. Napolean Bonaparte - perhaps the greatest military commander in modern days. Some have him number 1 however he had a huge resource of manpower and lost a couple of key battles. Waterloo and his failed invasion of Russia, not to mention his struggles in Spain lower his ranking on my list. His tactics were unmatched at the time. His brilliant victories in Italy and especially at Austerlitz show his genius for battle. He didnt face the odds that Frederick or Alexander faced, and he nearly had the technological advancements that Caesar had, however, he did overcome formidable armies of the Prussians, Austrians, and Russians throughout his career.

8. Robert E. Lee - too bad his mind and skill wasn't used for conquering other nations instead of fighting against his countrymen. If it wasn't for him, the Civil War would've been only a small conflict not an almost 5 year brutal, bloody, war that eventually claimed 1 million lives(with mortally wounded soldiers counted). He had inferior manpower, resources, land, and financials, yet won many battles and if he had won the battle of Gettysburg, we'd be seeing the Confederate flag flying over the American capital.

Now we are getting to the hard part. Any of the following can easily be rearranged from top to bottom as far as im concerned, therefore i will put an honorable mentions list. Anywhere from 9 to the last of honorable mention I honestly believe can be switched with each other. The difference is so miniscule and the criteria for each other is so vastly different, yet their circumstances they faced were almost equally challenging.


9. Sun Tzu - developed great tactics and the philosophy of warfare. IF you write a book about anything almostr 2500 years ago that is still considered viable and useful, then you have done something significant. His leadership and skill despite being outnumbered, eventually helped in the unification of China. Faced a force of 200,000 and defeated it with only 30,000.

10. Publius Cornelius Scipio aka Scipio Africanus - should be much higher, maybe even higher than Napolean, defeated the mighty Hannibal and before that he was dominant in northern Africa and also defeated and killed Hannibals brother Hasdrubal in Spain. After he defeated Hannibal he conquered King Antiochus of Syria aka the Seleucid dynasty in 189 bc. Secured the Roman republic for the future where there wouldnt be a sulla, marius, or caesar if not without him.

honarable mention (still damn good)

Prince Eugene of Savoy - won almost every battle he fought-stopped Ottomans in Hungary, joined with Duke of Malbrough to defeat French again and again(no suprise) kept all enemies out of the German lands, which became the province of Prussia and eventually led to the unification of Germany. Was the unofficial tutor to Frederick the Great.

Oda Nobunaga - great Japanese general, adopted advanced tactics so he could realize his dream finally unifying Japan after hundreds of years of civil war, won key battles, many decisive battles was outnumbered 25,000 to 3,000 at battle of okegizama and destoryed the enemy. He could be considered the Japanese Julius Caesar since he was so cunning in his matters of the state, making key political manuvers all while being assasinated just short of his ultimate goal of unifying Japan. It was eventually unified under Ieyasu Tokugawa in 1603.

Chaka - changed the fate of South Africa forever. Much like Frederick the Great, he morphed his Zulu people form a small tribe into a great nation and the most powerful tribe in southern Africa. Ironically this could have led to the downfall of his ppl much after his death, since the British saw the Zulu as the biggest threat to there expansion of their empire in Souther Africa.

Marshal Alexander Suvorov - greatest Russian commander ever, legendary in russia like arthur is in england, commander in between frederick and napoleans times. Fought and won battles in the seven years war, the crimea, against the poles and turks and at the time of his death in 1800 had defeated some of napoleans top marshals.

Gustavus Adolphus - of Sweden, modernized and revolutionized armies and how to wage warfare before Eugene, Turenne, Frederick, and Napolean.

Hernando Cortes - faced extremely overwhelming odds, although the enemy was led imcompetently and fought with inferior weaponry and tactics. He did what was needed to conquer and subdue the enemy.

George Washington - ironically he never won a decisive battle until Yourktown,,, but unlike most great generals, he achieved his ultimate goal in that he kept his army intact, so the colonies would not surrender. Without his leadership there would be no USA. Also dont forget his valiant service in the French and Indian War(aka Seven Years War).

Cyrus the Great -the founder of the Persian Empire, conquered Babylon, was lenient to his conquered subjects which allowed for him to conquer more and also be free to focus on the next conquest. Laid the foundations for his dynasty that went uninterupted until Alexander the Great decided to join in on the party.

Crazy Horse - didnt live long, died when he was 27 but considering the technology difference between his Lakota and the US army id say that definately deserves high praise. He and Sitting Bull won at Little Big Horn, and before that he and Red Cloud actually forced the Army to temporarily withdrawl from their territories in modern day Wyoming and West Nebraska. He inspired all his Warriors to face the impossible, and fore a short time succeed.

Horatio Nelson - arguably the greatest naval commander ever. won trafalgar and harassed the french fleet in the mediterannean making stopping necessary reinforcements for napolean in his egyptian.

Sargon the Great - the earliest of all great commanders. ruled Mesopotamia, which in his day was most of the known world. Laid foundations for the language and military tradition of the Mesopotamian world. According to known sources ruled for 56 years.

Cao Cao - great military leader in 2nd and 3rd century China who conquered much of northern China and is a household name in china.

Moshe Dayan - Israeli leader in the Six Days War, defended Israel in a mseterful campaign from a much larger force of Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian forces in the Six Day War. Also was instrumental in the War for Independence in 1948.

Belisarius - Justinians best general instrumental against the Persians in the east, than fought the goths and eventually recaptured Rome.

El Cid - Greatest Spanish conqueror before Cortes, never lost a major battle, defeated the Moors and ultimately broke their stranglehold temporarily in Spain.

Douglas MacArthur - even though he retreated in the phillipines early in WWII came back triumphant in '45, also was the UN leader in the Korean war and with his tactical skill pushed back the overwhelming North Korean force(aided by China) before being pulled by Truman.

Salah-al-din aka Saladin - possibly greatest military commander of the Crusader era. Reclaimed Jerusalem from the Crusaders and conquered Syria, Egypt, and modern day northern Iraq. He was from Tikrit same as Saddam Hussein, who envisioned himslf as the modern day Saladin, which is ironic because Saladin was of Kurdish descent and of course Saddam tried to annihlate the Kurds with chemical weapons.

Seleucus I - Alexanders best general if he wasnt assasinated he perhaps could have kept Alexanders empire intact. Won many key battles despite being surrounded by several hostile neighbours.

John Churchill aka duke of marlbrough - fought along with Eugene of savoy and formed a dominant team with him. won many battles including blenheim in late 17th century and early 18th.

Zhuge Liang - great chinese general who won many battles with his cleverness forced a much larger army to retreat without having to fight by acting calm in the face of overwhelming odds. Lived in late 2nd and early 3rd centuries.

Phillip of Macedon - Just like Julius Caesar was to Augustus or Frederick William I was to Frederick II (the Great) Phillip was to Alexander. He instituded the phalanx and made it the superior fighting force if its day. Conquered Greece and if not assasinated would have crossed the Hellespont to attack Persia.

William I of Normandy aka William the Conqueror - when he was a kid had to move from castle to castle just to survive assasins, when he was old enough won many battles in Normandy before he crossed the English Channel and defeated an able general in Harold Godwin to claim the throne of England.

Constantine the Great - won the decisive at the milvian bridge despite being outnumbered, defeated the other emperors in his successful campaign to unify the empire once more and be the sole ruler.

Attila the Hun - transformed the Huns from a wandering tribe to a powerful yet short lived empire while looting and pillaging eastern and western roman provinces.

Theodoric the Great - fought for the Eastrern Roman Empire one of the greatest German commanders. Fought on many different fronts including against the Franks.

Alaric I - sacked Rome in 410 won many battles in Greece and macedonia.

Pausanias - great Spartan general, step son of Leonidas from the great battle of Thermopilae who also should be on this list won the battle of Platea which thrawted the mighty Prsian invasion.

Mohammed - although his battles were on a much smaller scale he defeated larget armies and showed military skill and brutality on his conquests of arabia. Forebearer for all future muslim conquests.

Leonidas - one word, Thermopylae. nuff said

Charles Martel- the hammer Stopped the Muslim conquests at the battle of Tours in 732.

Marshal Georgi Zhukov - led the Soviet forces in the defense of Moscow in 1941-42 and also leningrad and stalingrad later on. He then led the Soviets into Berlin ans was their finest commander in WWII.

Edward the Black prince - had massive potential but died early won a couple key battles against the french at Crecy and Poitiers.

Admiral Togo - legendary Japanese admiral who was vitorious in the sino-japanese war in the late 19th century and was brilliant in the destruction of the Russian fleet at the battle of the tsuhima straits. It had been under 40 years since the Japanese had opened its doors to the west and began modernizing, and in that time span it went from a feudal middle aged society to a naval superpower mainly thanks to Togo.

Mehmed the Conqueror - conquered Constantinople in his early 20's expanded the Ottoman Empire.

George Patton - great and controversial commander of the Third Army in Europe. one of the best tank commanders ever.

Thomas Stonewall Jackson - lets face it, up until his death(May 13th 1863 - my b-day but in 1982) at the battle of chancelorsville, the South was winning the war. they had the two best generals, lee and jackson, 3 if u count johnston, and were winning most of the major battles. Lee even said that when jackson lost his left arm, that he(lee) had lost his right arm.

Suleman the Magnificent - greatest Ottoman sultan and Conqueror

Ludendorf and Hindendburg - i put them together because they worked so well together in destroying and embarassing the much larger Russian force in East Prussia during WWI.

Vo Nguyen Giap - North Vietnamese Commander who heled out the Japanese during WWII, the French shortly after and led the NVA against the US and ARVN in the Vietnam War.

Heinz Guderian - military theorist and leader fo the modern military movement of Germany's armed forces for WWII. Instituted tactics and ideals for air combat as well as the panzer formations which were highly succesful in WWII. Personally led the attacks on Poland and through the Ardennes.

Turenne - great French military commander in the Thirty Years War, constantly outnumbered yet victorious most of the time. Won the battle of the Dunes in 1658. Napolean mentions him as one of the greatest seven captains(alexander, hannibal, caesar, gustavus adolphus, eugene of savoy,frederick the great were the others)

Erwin Rommel - great leader of axis forces in africa and in europe, loved by his men which was forbidden for axis forces, if hitler had given him panzers and let him have complete control against the allies d-day landing who knows, maybe he would have stopped the invasion(thankfully wasnt the case)

Themistocles - great Athenia general who fought against the Persians, then with the Persians, after Athens showed their thanks for him winning the decisive battle of Salamis, by exiling him from the city. The persian king artaxerxes I was ecstatic to have him join their ranks.

adm karl doenitz - greatest axis naval commander, probably better than yamamoto because he faced worse odds.Wrote the book on submarine warfare. his tactics are still studied today. Crippled the allies shipping. along with Manstein and rommel never joined the nazi party yet were probably the 3 greatest commanders the germans had in WWII.

Adm chester Nimitz - leader of the American fleet in the Pacific, overcame tremendous odds, a potent and battle hardened Japanese fleet, with a battered navy and won at the coral sea and midway.

erich von Manstein - best german general on the eastern front won many battles even after the turning point at stalingrad. If it wasnt for Hitler's foolish commands he fought brilliantly despite facing the huge swarm of Soviets pouring westward.

Gaius Marius - won battles in North Africa, defended rome from a massive barbanian invasion, instituted reforms that chaned the roman army forever.

[Freddie]

Everyone please vote for Hannibal just so ABH shuts up.

Ok I'm only jokeing. ANyway do you know there are like a million of these threads already on these boards? It normally comes down to either Hannibal or Alexander.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Sorry dude, but this thread seems a bit useless to me. There are about 3 or 4 'greatest military commander(s)' threads, it's better to discuss this issue in 1 thread.

The Greatest Military Commanders are the sergeants and lower officers during Thermolypae, Gaugamela, Kursk, D-Day, Bastogne, Mogadishu, and every other battle in the worst :wub:s in our world.

[Da_TRU_1]

im just doing this cuz my other two threads got shut down lol. and like i said before if alexander defeated the romans at cannae, what would he have done? theres no doubt he would have headed straight for rome no matter how many troops he had and would have conquered it, hell he would have went straight for Rome after he had won at trebia, thats the difference between hannibal and alexander, and should be the end of that discussion.

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by 00RedBaron

Sorry dude, but this thread seems a bit useless to me. There are about 3 or 4 'greatest military commander(s)' threads, it's better to discuss this issue in 1 thread.

The Greatest Military Commanders are the sergeants and lower officers during Thermolypae, Gaugamela, Kursk, D-Day, Bastogne, Mogadishu, and every other battle in the worst :wub:s in our world.

true but the difference between modern battles and ancient battles or at least roughly pre nineteenth century battles is that the commnder usually led in the front of the battle or at least was in the thick it, instead of being miles away in a war room plotting strategies. Definately the seargeants and LT's and corporals and others were more valuable to battles like mogadishu, d-day and the bulge, as opposed to being importantant but not as valuable as the general at thermopylae and gaugemela, cannae, etc...

[Sidus Preclarum]

Napole*O*n, ffs ...

[Da_TRU_1]

who ever voted for other who would u say is the greatest and why, im initerested to know.

[Aztecateotl]

Like I said Alex for me!

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by Aztecateotl

Like I said Alex for me!

exatly Alejando for me also, although i feel gneghis and frederick deserve more love, however its tough when u only got one vote

[Holger Danske]

I'd go with hannibal barca for one reason.. He crushed the largest army Rome ever assembled and only lost because of the cowards in Carthage wouldn't help him at Zama. If he could beat the Roman Legion then I am sure that he could have beaten Alexander and his Phalanx! why... Rome's legions crushed the phalanx'es of Macedon and Seleucia without great problems and Hannibal Anihilatted more than 3 roman armies before losing because of betrayal but his own country!

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

I'd go with hannibal barca for one reason.. He crushed the largest army Rome ever assembled and only lost because of the cowards in Carthage wouldn't help him at Zama. If he could beat the Roman Legion then I am sure that he could have beaten Alexander and his Phalanx! why... Rome's legions crushed the phalanx'es of Macedon and Seleucia without great problems and Hannibal Anihilatted more than 3 roman armies before losing because of betrayal but his own country!

lol yeah was alexander commanding those armies??? no, first off the romans at cannae were led by two dumbass generals with completely different philosophies on warfare, they fell right into hannibals trap and he ate them up as any good commander would. Like ive said a million times, lets say alexander wins at cannae, hell lets say he wins at trebia or trasimene, he wouldnt just march up and down in italy, he would've went straight to the walls of Rome itself, and would've conquered the roman empire before there was an empire to conquer. i could go on but i dont need to. end of story :laughing:

[Holger Danske]

im just doing this cuz my other two threads got shut down lol. and like i said before if alexander defeated the romans at cannae, what would he have done? theres no doubt he would have headed straight for rome no matter how many troops he had and would have conquered it, hell he would have went straight for Rome after he had won at trebia, thats the difference between hannibal and alexander, and should be the end of that discussion.

Well.. I really don't doubt that Alexander would have gone after Rome it self IF he had defeated the Roman armies.. But Rome had formideble (spell) defences and would most likely had won over Alexander because he would have no reinforcements... Hannibal was wise not to attack rome after Cannae because he knew the limitation of his army and himself. If Hannibal had the manpower and equipment he would have defeated Rome for good!.. But there is truely a personal diffrence between the two.. Alexander dreamed of world supremecy and believed he was a God (a very selfish man indeed). Hannibal was at war with Rome to defend Carthage.. his 'home' and because he promised his father to end the Roman menace. He was (like alexander) a great leader that could unite people

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Well.. I really don't doubt that Alexander would have gone after Rome it self IF he had defeated the Roman armies.. But Rome had formideble (spell) defences and would most likely had won over Alexander because he would have no reinforcements... Hannibal was wise not to attack rome after Cannae because he knew the limitation of his army and himself. If Hannibal had the manpower and equipment he would have defeated Rome for good!.. But there is truely a personal diffrence between the two.. Alexander dreamed of world supremecy and believed he was a God (a very selfish man indeed). Hannibal was at war with Rome to defend Carthage.. his 'home' and because he promised his father to end the Roman menace. He was (like alexander) a great leader that could unite people

no doubt hannibal was an all time great general, and alexander elieving he was a god had nothing to do with this, he displayed amazing skills at sieging a city when he conquered the city of Tyre in only 7 months the same city that many ppl had tried to conquer and all of them had failed, including nebuchadnezzar of babylon who had conquered much of the surrounding area, he laid siege for 10 years and finally gave up. That siege is still baffling military historians to this day. and IF he defeated the roman armies? he defeated 2 armies much larger than the one hannibal faced at cannae, granted they weren't as good soldiers as the romans, but had a competent commander in Bessus, so its basically a wash there, he obliterated both armies with minimal casualties, and the persians had plagued the greeks for longer than the romans had the carthaginians, the persians even supplied the thebans, and athenians in the battles against phillip and alexander, so he definately had a reason, not to mention he did want world conquest, but other than a small handful of commanders in ancient times who didnt???

[Aztecateotl]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Well.. I really don't doubt that Alexander would have gone after Rome it self IF he had defeated the Roman armies.. But Rome had formideble (spell) defences and would most likely had won over Alexander because he would have no reinforcements... Hannibal was wise not to attack rome after Cannae because he knew the limitation of his army and himself. If Hannibal had the manpower and equipment he would have defeated Rome for good!.. But there is truely a personal diffrence between the two.. Alexander dreamed of world supremecy and believed he was a God (a very selfish man indeed). Hannibal was at war with Rome to defend Carthage.. his 'home' and because he promised his father to end the Roman menace. He was (like alexander) a great leader that could unite people

In order for Alexander to conquer Rome he would have had to go through Macedon thus getting reinforcements then going to Rome. He wasn't stupid either you know, he knew his strength of his men! Did he ever loose a battle?

[Holger Danske]

Originally Posted by Da_TRU_1

lol yeah was alexander commanding those armies??? no, first off the romans at cannae were led by two dumbass generals with completely different philosophies on warfare, they fell right into hannibals trap and he ate them up as any good commander would. :

I know that.. But the way the romans used their legions never changed dramaticaly after cannae.. And still the romans slaugthered the phalanx... I'm not saying that Alexander was a bad general.. But the fact that hannibal could set up these massive traps time and time again shows that he was more than brilliant! To be honest I don't think that the two Roman generals where 'dumbass' They simply felt in to a carefully planed and perfectly runed ambush. Even tough some of Hannibals tricks were inspired by Alexander the Great. Hannibal would have been able to fully predict Alexanders moves and would have knowned that taking out Alexander and his Companions would be decisive.. And the fact that Alexander was very careless about himself would have brought him in to trouble against Hannibal... Hannibal proberly knew everyting about the Phalanx strength and weaknesses! The fact is that Hannibal could make an amush on a plain against an army twice as big and strong (Cannae).. The main enemies of Alexander was the Persians and they where NO match for the macedonians in one-one combat..

[Holger Danske]

Originally Posted by Aztecateotl

Did he ever loose a battle?

Did he ever faced a equal or superior apponet? The Persians are out of the question...(overkilled)

[Aztecateotl]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Did he ever faced a equal or superior apponet? The Persians are out of the question...(overkilled)

So how do you know Hannibal would beat Alexander? Lol.... :laughing:

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

I know that.. But the way the romans used their legions never changed dramaticaly after cannae.. And still the romans slaugthered the phalanx... I'm not saying that Alexander was a bad general.. But the fact that hannibal could set up these massive traps time and time again shows that he was more than brilliant! To be honest I don't think that the two Roman generals where 'dumbass' They simply felt in to a carefully planed and perfectly runed ambush. Even tough some of Hannibals tricks were inspired by Alexander the Great. Hannibal would have been able to fully predict Alexanders moves and would have knowned that taking out Alexander and his Companions would be decisive.. And the fact that Alexander was very careless about himself would have brought him in to trouble against Hannibal... Hannibal proberly knew everyting about the Phalanx strength and weaknesses! The fact is that Hannibal could make an amush on a plain against an army twice as big and strong (Cannae).. The main enemies of Alexander was the Persians and they where NO match for the macedonians in one-one combat..

the romans were not ambushed at cannae each side knew where they were at, when varo's time to command was there, he attacked contrary to paulus' plan to sit and wait for a better oportunity and more favorable terrian, becuase they were closer to their supply base and hannibals men were already getting hungry and tired, thats why they were at cannae in the first place. Alexander was careless, but he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, by attracting the enemies attention he attracted that of his own men, whne they saw him charge head first into the enemies formation they fought with such vigor and furor that no army in the world at that time could face them one on one. Hannibals brilliance at cannae was somewhat due to the foolishness of the roman philosophy at the time. They were just used to slugging it out and punching the gap in the enemies line with their overwhelming numbers. They all converged on the center of hannibals line where he had the center fall back so the wings could collapse around the romans and use the infamous double envelopment manuver. U honestly think Alexander would have foolishly done the same??? hell no, i dont know exatcly what he would have done, because he always adapted his strategy for each battle, but i know for sure he would NOT have done that, especially with an army that outnumbered his enemy. dont forgret Hannibal also had phalanx formation in his army with his libyan spearman. Also the Macedonians cavalry was unquestionably the best in the world at the time, they never had huge numbers but they wouldn't have gotten routed like tha romans' did at cannae. Darius also knew that the companions were the key to Alexanders success and had his large cavalry forces, which were formidable and outnumbering the Macedonians, shadow Alexander as he created a gap in the huge persian line than struct at the heart of the bear(Darius).

[Da_TRU_1]

Originally Posted by Holger Danske

Did he ever faced a equal or superior apponet? The Persians are out of the question...(overkilled)

the theban band was just as good if not better than the macedonian phalanx, and he and his father slaughtered them to a man at charonea.

[Holger Danske]

Originally Posted by Aztecateotl

So how do you know Hannibal would beat Alexander? Lol.... :laughing:

Well looking on the statistic i'm convinced that he would beat Alexander.. Why? Alexander never faced a superior enemy on the battlefield (only in numbers)... With less Hannibal could defy the odds against a wastly superior enemy.. I doubt Alexander could do the same... Alexander could see the weaknesses in an armys formation.. But Hannibal would be able to spot these gabs in time and close them! The main concern for Hannibal would be to disable the compaions before the Phalanx closed in on him.

The pure and simple reason for Hannibals defeat was Betrayal but his own country... And the loss of his brothers army in southern France.