General Hannibal vs King alexander

[Carthagast]

i wonder who would win. my money is on hannibal
who would you follow?:hmmm:

[Clearchus of Sparta]

Good Question. I think Hannibal would probably win the first few battles as he was probably the better stratagist, however, I think Alexander would win the war simply due to the resources available to him.

Who do you think would come out on top between Scipio and Alexander?

[Carthagast]

Good Question. I think Hannibal would probably win the first few battles as he was probably the better stratagist, however, I think Alexander would win the war simply due to the resources available to him.

Who do you think would come out on top between Scipio and Alexander?

in may eyes scipio was not that great.
As Hanno the great 2 won the war for the romans.

Hanno the Great was a wealthy carthaginian aristocratin the 3rd century bc.
Hanno's wealth was based on the land he owned in Africa and the iberian peninsula, and during the first punic war he led the faction in Carthage that was opposed to continuing the war against the Roman republic. He preferred to continue conquering territory in Africa rather than fight a naval war against Rome that would bring him no personal gain. In these efforts, he was opposed by the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca.

Hanno demobilized the Carthaginian navy in 244bc, giving Rome time to rebuild its navy and finally defeat Carthage by 241 bc.

After the war, Hanno refused to pay the mercenaries who had been promised money and rewards by Hamilcar.
The mercenaries revolted, and Hanno took control of the Carthaginian army to attempt to defeat them. His attempt failed and he gave control of the army back to Hamilcar. Eventually, they both cooperated to crush the rebels in 238 bc.
His nickname "the Great" was apparently earned because of his conquests among the African enemies of Carthage, and he continued to oppose war with Rome, which would necessarily involve naval engagements. During the second punic war, he led the anti-war faction in Carthage, and prevented reinforcements from being sent to Hamilcar's son Hannibal after his victory at the Battle of Cannae. After Carthage's defeat at the Battle of Zama n 202bc, he was among the ambassadors to negotiate peace with the Romans.

so between Scipo and alexander.:hmmm:

that's easy, i go with alexander!!

No wait i stay with Hannibal

[Mikail Mengsk]

Hannibal was by far the better tactician: with enough troops by his side probably it would be no chances for Alexander. The slow phalanxes would be outflanked and surrounded even easily than the Roman legions at Cannae, and the mighty Hetairoi cavalry would be countered by the quick Numidian and carthaginian cavalry.

Alexander would probably lose the first few battles, and then only if he would dramatically change its tactics he would have a chance against Hannibal's genius. Scipio did that, and win (thanks to the mighty Legions, better than any other infantry), Alexander would do the same? I don't know....

[Carthagast]

Scipio won at zama because of the numidian cavelry.
if they came just a little bit later to the aid ''the suprior roman legions'', scipio would have being cruhst by the carthegian forces who outnumberd him.
Plus hannibal had his veterans with him.
Especially the lybian infantry, for my far more suprior than roman infantry.
Why? Simple, their ability to adapt them selfs against their enemies.

[Mikail Mengsk]

That's not correct, Hannibal (IMHO) did his best at Zama, countering Scipio's manoeuvers, pushing away his cavalry temporarily out of battle, and making the whole battle a frontal infantry crush.

But it's not fair to say that the Roman Legionaires weren't as deadly as Hannibal's troops.

First, in Hannibal's army there weren't only Italian veterans: most of the infantry were Carthaginian's conscripts.

Second: the Roman infantry were slightly outnumbered by the Carthaginians, but kept fighting until the return of the cavalry, refusing to give up and ultimately saving Scipio's plans.
It was the resilience of the Legions that saved the day at Zama: if they would have been broken BEFORE cavalry's return, Hannibal would have win the battle.

Third: the Legion proved to be the best military unit in the antiquity thousands of times. Thanks to their discipline, their weapons and their tactics, the Legions had crushed every enemy army in their path. Not barbarian hordes, not phalanx armies, not heavy infantry armies could match the Legions. And even the Parthian armies had been defeated, after the disaster at Carre.

That's why i said "thanks to the mighty Legions, better than any other infantry".



Anyway, why are we discussing about Zama and the Legions?

[Carthagast]

[quote=Mikail Mengsk;3493607]That's not correct, Hannibal (IMHO) did his best at Zama, countering Scipio's manoeuvers, pushing away his cavalry temporarily out of battle, and making the whole battle a frontal infantry crush.

But it's not fair to say that the Roman Legionaires weren't as deadly as Hannibal's troops.

First, in Hannibal's army there weren't only Italian veterans: most of the infantry were Carthaginian's conscripts.

Second: the Roman infantry were slightly outnumbered by the Carthaginians, but kept fighting until the return of the cavalry, refusing to give up and ultimately saving Scipio's plans.
It was the resilience of the Legions that saved the day at Zama: if they would have been broken BEFORE cavalry's return, Hannibal would have win the battle.

Third: the Legion proved to be the best military unit in the antiquity thousands of times. Thanks to their discipline, their weapons and their tactics, the Legions had crushed every enemy army in their path. Not barbarian hordes, not phalanx armies, not heavy infantry armies could match the Legions. And even the Parthian armies had been defeated, after the disaster at Carre.

That's why i said "thanks to the mighty Legions, better than any other infantry".



Still most historians agree that without the numidans the romans would have lost at zama.

[Carthagast]

i would follow hannibal because of his respect towards his men.
if i was a soldier under alexander i would be pride but allsow afraid.
the men thinks his a god. and hy makes his soldiers return throw the desert as punishment. Many died. Better to die in the alps in atempt to suprise rome.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Still most historians agree that without the numidans the romans would have lost at zama.

No doubt about that


@HemilcoBarca- Well, a GOOD student . Scipio, after learning from Hannibal's tactics, became the best Roman general for years. And so Alexander did: he became the best Greek general for years.

His anvil-and-hammer tactic were a further improvement of his father's tactic at Chaeronea. Both Alexander and Scipio developed their own (and better) tactics from their mentors.

[Sureño]

[QUOTE=Carthagast;3493741]

That's not correct, Hannibal (IMHO) did his best at Zama, countering Scipio's manoeuvers, pushing away his cavalry temporarily out of battle, and making the whole battle a frontal infantry crush.

But it's not fair to say that the Roman Legionaires weren't as deadly as Hannibal's troops.

First, in Hannibal's army there weren't only Italian veterans: most of the infantry were Carthaginian's conscripts.

Second: the Roman infantry were slightly outnumbered by the Carthaginians, but kept fighting until the return of the cavalry, refusing to give up and ultimately saving Scipio's plans.
It was the resilience of the Legions that saved the day at Zama: if they would have been broken BEFORE cavalry's return, Hannibal would have win the battle.

Third: the Legion proved to be the best military unit in the antiquity thousands of times. Thanks to their discipline, their weapons and their tactics, the Legions had crushed every enemy army in their path. Not barbarian hordes, not phalanx armies, not heavy infantry armies could match the Legions. And even the Parthian armies had been defeated, after the disaster at Carre.

That's why i said "thanks to the mighty Legions, better than any other infantry".



Still most historians agree that without the numidans the romans would have lost at zama.

Sorry if I'm posting a bit out of the blue here but I wanted to elaborate a bit on things said. Roman legionairs were definatly inferior in the second Punic war. However as you know, Scipio took his legions to fight in Spain before the battle of Zama. During that period (and also in Italy before that, despite the defeats) the legionairs gained immense experience and confidence. This prepared the Roman legionairs well for the final showdown on Carthaginian ground.

Even after the defeat of Carthage, those legionairs proved to be war seasoned veterans proving themselves over and over in the Macedonian wars. One must also keep in mind that these veterans would become an invaluable element in the training of new recruits.

OT: Definatly Hannibal. As others mentioned Hannibal didn't get the support needed from the Cartheginian government. There were no reinforcements for Hannibal, no funds nor supplies. Everything Hannibal needed he had to take from his enemies by force. Hannibal also fought a much tougher enemy than Alexander IMO. Romans would NEVER give up until Italy is reduced to ruin, which is hard to do with no reinforcements or aid. Maharbal said "Thou knowest indeed, Hannibal, how to conquer, but thou knowest not how to make use of your victory". Maharbal and many others were wrong in my opinion. Hannibal knew exactly how to exploit victory and he did by converting Italian allies to his side by winning battles. However besieging Roma after Cannae was impossible. The only reason Alexander conquered more imo, is because he had his people to back him up.

[St Naffatun]

the Legion proved to be the best military unit in the antiquity thousands of times

Their defeats get really blown out of proportion, even 100% total surprise ambushes are supposed to suggest the Legionary was somehow inferior to the "barbarians" - forgetting any number of their victories when outnumbered.

For me holding the fearsome macedonian right at Cynocephalae long enough to allow others to flank showed their amazing resilience. I would really like to have seen anyone else stand in the way of that without either running away or being annihilated. Alesia and Bibracte - from what I've read it seems like multiple fronts were opened up on them and they not only held but actually won without reinforcements (what?!).

Back to the topic you would have to imagine hannibals numidian + iberian cavalry would be a match for the companions and they might cancel each other out. I doubt either commander would fail to identify the prowess of each others' cavalry.

Both of them being so cunning, you never know what they might have up their sleeves in order to try to get cavalry superiority. I doubt they would just chuck their cavalry in against each other and hope for the best. At Gaugamela Alexander cleverly avoided the Bactrians. It would be a great fight either way.

However one numidian javelin at the head of Alexanders wedge and it might be curtains for Alex he might be wise enough to be more careful against Hannibal (and that is possibly the geekiest sentence I have ever written in my life ).

[Strasbourg]

I always thought that Alexander got lucky. If memnon of rhodes hadn't died or darius wasn't a total wuss, we'd likely be reading different history books today.

[St Naffatun]

if darius wasn't a total wuss

Please point out where Darius went wrong, his tactics and deployment seemed pretty sensible :hmmm:

[Tony83]

Please point out where Darius went wrong, his tactics and deployment seemed pretty sensible :hmmm:

I don't think Darius went anymore wrong than did the Gauls against Caesar. It was simply a combination of better trained troops, better generalship, and inspired leadership.

[Strasbourg]

Please point out where Darius went wrong, his tactics and deployment seemed pretty sensible :hmmm:

At both Issus and Gaugemala Alexander charged Darius, who in turn fled instantly. His army quickly followed in a rout seeing their "divine" king fleeing.

[HemilcoBarca]

If only hannibal didn't lost the 2 nd punic war, we ll not have this question !!!

[Carthagast]

If only hannibal didn't lost the 2 nd punic war, we ll not have this question !!!

??????????????????

[HemilcoBarca]

I still didn't understand, why comparing hannibal to alexander.
Well alexander conquers the western world, ok i understand, but he had as ennemy a semy fragile persian units (nothing if compared to roman legions defeated at every field of italy by hannibal)
I don't understand why considering alexander as the best greek general, he is the fruit of many battles and he is the student of Marathon, Thermophylae, Platea, Leuctra and even Chaeronea.

The only thing he did (and generals of those battles didn't) is to conquering an empire.

I m enclined to give the title of "best hellenic commander" to "Themistocles" the athenian stateman and co-general during the battle of Marathon (Athenian victory) and Admiral responsible of the land and sea defences during the battles of Thermopylae and Salamine (the spartan King takes credit of the land battle of thermopylae, but the real man behind all this is Themisocles)

In my advice, alexander is to the other greek generals (Epaminondas, Philip, Themistocles, Leonides...) what scipio is to Hannibal; a student who learned his lesson

[HunGeneral]

The question is a very difficult one.
Alexander and Hannibal lived in a "different" Timeframe.

Alexander had been fighting against an empire wich was already "starting to fall" and used a completely new (at its time) kind of warfare tactic (Hammer and Anvil) his personal ambitions also had a great impact on his personality.
He took over an experienced and battle-hardened army from his father Philipp II. of Macedon.
Alexander himself had plans to "reform" the phalanx into a more flexible variant... some historians belive he was even planning to give up the phalanx based army concept and build a fighting force mostly consisting of well equipped "mobile" soldiers - which is probeably very close to how the roman legions became and how Hannibal had trained his troops.

Hannibal fought against an empire that was on "the rise".
He never had the full support of the Carthaginian "senate".
He faced several enemy leaders (Scipio was one of the roman survivers of Cannae and his father died fighting against Hannibal) Scipio had learned much from Hannibal and he used that knowledge against him (he also seems to have been very lucky).
Hannibal also used "new" tactics against the romans.
Many of his soldiers had also fought under his father Hamilcar.

Both Hannibal and Alexander were great leader's with their strengths and thier weaknesses. Both had achieved alot in their lives.

The main problem about the question is that there would have hardly been any chance that they would have faced eachother on the Battlefield - like sad before they didn't live at the same time. Alexander fought to control the east, Hannibal fought against Rome (for control of the Western Mediterranien). Even if Alexander had lived so long to realise his plan to attack Carthage .... Hannibal would not have been born yet.

[Mikail Mengsk]

The main problem about the question is that there would have hardly been any chance that they would have faced eachother on the Battlefield - like sad before they didn't live at the same time. Alexander fought to control the east, Hannibal fought against Rome (for control of the Western Mediterranien). Even if Alexander had lived so long to realise his plan to attack Carthage .... Hannibal would not have been born yet.

Sure, this is only an hypothetical comparison