The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

[Rowan11088]

Personally I don't see Alexander's unusual character traits as flaws. It certainly doesn't make him a worse general that he didn't particularly care about how Macedon survived after his death. I'd say the kind of deserved arrogance and narcissism he possessed actually makes him a more compelling historical figure, which was probably his intent as well. He knew full well the kind of mark his actions would leave on history, and his ego merely embellishes that. When a person like Alexander is so clearly superior to any contemporary figures, I think it only appropriate that he not hide behind false modesty. His persona, in fact, is probably the reason he's being considered right now as the top commander in history. Not only did it contribute to his victories in the effect it had on the morale of his troops and that of his enemies', but it simply draws people to him, even posthumously. I still don't necessarily think he was the best battlefield general the world has seen, but I think he was perhaps the greatest master of how history works, in terms of establishing himself as an icon of greatness.

[VandalCarthage]

Controlled? All of Iberia was a flighty people. The territory he effectively controlled at the beginning was most of Southern Iberia, with central Iberia being subservient through tribal alliances. If the Barcas controlled the land, how was Hasdrubal the Handsome assassinated in his capital?

What are you talking about? Hasdrubal died campaigning somewhere above the Tagus river. Those Iberians were so loyal they in fact instantly instated the next leader without a problem.

Hasdrubal the Handsome was Hamilcar's son-in-law! Just plain Hasdrubal was most notably Hannibal's younger brother, and in another seperate case, his lieutenant in Bruttium. Hasdrubal the Handsome was assassinated by the Iberians you claim he controlled, in his home in Cartegena.

[conon394]

AbH

Nearly half his amry was barbarian, and he relied more on mercenaries then Hannibal did.

I still don’t understand how you can turn 7000 or 8000 barbarians out of 48,000 into half.
Drop the Greek Mercenaries and allies and Alexander still has around 15,000 Macedonian troops, roughly double the amount of barbarians.

All of which had no other option but to fight under him. Unless death is what you consider a good second choice. The original army was made up of only veterans of his past campaigns, and he had no mercenaries besides a few Liguarians. He had more manpower and more money at his disposal when he started then Alexander did

While I would agree Carthage as a whole did have better financial resources than Alexander but Alexander had far more control over how Macedonian resources would be used, than Hannibal did over those of Carthage. I don’t see that Hannibal had better manpower resources. Alexander’s initial invasion force was some 48-49,000. Antipater had about 14,000 men in Macedonia. There were the garrisons at Corinth, Euboea, etc. Within one year he was able to call up around 4000 soldiers from Macedonia and Greece. Antipater could raise 25,000 or so allies when Persia threatened Macedonia via Sparta.

Almost none of his army was made up of mercenaries.

At least 1/3 of Hannibal's forces were African

I don’t see what you mean, aside from his the rest of the Barca’s I can’t see any Carthaginians in Hannibal’s army. The Africans were mercenaries.

Or it speaks more highly of the men then you care to give them credit for. Macedonians were hardly civillized people, and the Greeks Alexander used hated him for the most part. I can't imagine many of the barbarians cared much for him at the beginning, either.

I just don’t see the evidence to support that. I don’t see any evidence to suggest his mercenaries hated him, at least not till his entire army India, but then they had good company with the Macedonians. As for the Allies, every description in the sources describes them as from states they were friendly and allied to Macedonia. Large numbers of allies enrolled as mercenaries, after Alex mustered out the Allied troops with the final victory over Persia. That does not seem to be the action of men who hated Alexander.

[VandalCarthage]

At least 1/3 of Hannibal's forces were African

More specifically, Libyan. There were nearly no actual Punic levies in Hannibal's army, only Libyan mercenaries acquired through traditional arrangements with neighboring kingdoms.

I just don’t see the evidence to support that. I don’t see any evidence to suggest his mercenaries hated him, at least not till his entire army India, but then they had good company with the Macedonians. As for the Allies, every description in the sources describes them as from states they were friendly and allied to Macedonia. Large numbers of allies enrolled as mercenaries, after Alex mustered out the Allied troops with the final victory over Persia. That does not seem to be the action of men who hated Alexander.

Very true. The succession after Alexander's death was first decided by the cavalry and the chiefs of his various satraps and military institutions, going over the heads of the infantry, who were so devoted to the Macedonian royal house, that they supported a relative for the position, opposed to the regent... Eumenes being the only other officer of note to support Olympias son and Alexander's son with Roxane. These were men instilled with an instinctive loyalty to their leader and his family. Whether or not they liked the man, they were a devoted and loyal force, no thanks to any particular strength of personality of his... which is why they prefered Philip's son for regent, instead of Alexanders.

[avesta]

Spartan JKM congratulations and admirations on a great post. If I may be allowed, I would plead for the inclusion of Cyrus the Great and Sargon the Akkadian in tier 1. Reasons:

1. Cyrus brought the somewhat obscure Persians to the Hegemony of Asia and forged one of greatest Empires of antiquity. His defeat of the combined Lydian/Babylonian/Egyptian armies was a masterpies (the refused flanks formation). His subsequent defeat of the Lydian Ulans was no mean achievement either. He captured Babylon, without the besieged even realising it. Is it not a greater achievement to capture in a single blow the largest city in the world without loss, than to battle the walls of Tyre for months and loose thousands.

May be most people overlook him, because he did not fight many famous battles (the sources are somewhat obscure), but in my mind what made him Great was him a bility to achieve a smashing victory without fighting costly battles, when he did not have to. And is that not the mark of true generalship.

2. Sargon (Sharru-Kin) of Akkad. O, you ungratefull siblings! You left out the First Conquerer, the First Lord of the Four Quaterers, the Creator of the First Empire, the First King-of-Kings out of Tier1. Damn, he created the Tier, He created the idea of the universal empire and the universal ruler. The rest just followed in his path. A man, probably son of a temple prostitute and a gardener, who more than 23 centuries before Christ conquered most of the lands between India and the Meditarranea, who created the first professional army, who never lost a battle and forged the first world empire. Tier1. Period.

Also, don't forget the the Cyrus cylinder which is the first charter of human rights and right of nations. I agree that conquering one of the world's largest cities without resistance deserves mention, but naturally, that comes with the territory, of having a large empire. Not to mention that Cyrus was named in the bible over 40 times or so for his actions in Babylon, freeing of the Jews, etc...

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Hasdrubal the Handsome was Hamilcar's son-in-law! Just plain Hasdrubal was most notably Hannibal's younger brother, and in another seperate case, his lieutenant in Bruttium. Hasdrubal the Handsome was assassinated by the Iberians you claim he controlled, in his home in Cartegena.

You have no clue what you're talking about...

While I would agree Carthage as a whole did have better financial resources than Alexander but Alexander had far more control over how Macedonian resources would be used, than Hannibal did over those of Carthage. I don’t see that Hannibal had better manpower resources. Alexander’s initial invasion force was some 48-49,000. Antipater had about 14,000 men in Macedonia. There were the garrisons at Corinth, Euboea, etc. Within one year he was able to call up around 4000 soldiers from Macedonia and Greece. Antipater could raise 25,000 or so allies when Persia threatened Macedonia via Sparta.

Hannibal started with an army of over 100,000. He had sent 10,000 back to Carthage, plus a good deal was left in Spain. He had well over 100,000 men at Saguntum. Hasdrubal was able to raise several very large armies in Spain during the wars. Not to mention the the two massive armies raised against Scipio in Carthage when threatened. You can view it however you like, but the number of men Carthage raised was massive. OH, and Hannibal also had Gauls and Italians to use in his armies on the way.

I don’t see what you mean, aside from his the rest of the Barca’s I can’t see any Carthaginians in Hannibal’s army. The Africans were mercenaries.

Mercenaries according to who? The Africans were Hannibal's best troops, and had served the Carthaginians fine in every one of their wars.

I just don’t see the evidence to support that. I don’t see any evidence to suggest his mercenaries hated him, at least not till his entire army India, but then they had good company with the Macedonians. As for the Allies, every description in the sources describes them as from states they were friendly and allied to Macedonia. Large numbers of allies enrolled as mercenaries, after Alex mustered out the Allied troops with the final victory over Persia. That does not seem to be the action of men who hated Alexander.

Few of the Greek mercenaries were even willing to switch sides to Alexander during the war. There is only one actual instance where they came over from the Persian side. It's safe to assume that the average Greek didn't care for Alexander.

It wouldn't surprise me if a great number of those who served under Alexander had a change of heart, simply because of who Alexander was.

[Shawkhan]

...For some reason people seem to forget that Alexander added at least 30,000 men to his forces when he disbanded his navy. Certainly a nice chunk of manpower.

[VandalCarthage]

You have no clue what you're talking about...

Oh yeah ? Well, scroll briefly down on this page, and you'll learn how little you must know of the subject not to recognize the name:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...Handsome&hl=en

Scroll down a little more, and you'll find Hasdrubal's lieutenant listed.

Hannibal started with an army of over 100,000. He had sent 10,000 back to Carthage, plus a good deal was left in Spain. He had well over 100,000 men at Saguntum. Hasdrubal was able to raise several very large armies in Spain during the wars. Not to mention the the two massive armies raised against Scipio in Carthage when threatened. You can view it however you like, but the number of men Carthage raised was massive. OH, and Hannibal also had Gauls and Italians to use in his armies on the way.

Hannibal sent 10,000+ Spanish deserters to Carthage to endear them to him personally by the act. But recognize what a significant chunk of the male population of Iberia their part of 100,000 would represent. Would you have had him leave no native troops behind?

So, the barbarians Hannibal used are a strong advantage to him, but the barbarians Alexander used were just a burden to his command?

...For some reason people seem to forget that Alexander added at least 30,000 men to his forces when he disbanded his navy. Certainly a nice chunk of manpower.

Excellent point. Hannibal didn't even have a navy to disband

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

...For some reason people seem to forget that Alexander added at least 30,000 men to his forces when he disbanded his navy. Certainly a nice chunk of manpower.

What are you talking about? Those Alexander disbanded he paid and sent home.

Oh yeah ? Well, scroll briefly down on this page, and you'll learn how little you must know of the subject not to recognize the name:

I knew who he was. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Had you, it would have been quite clear I wasn't talking about Hasdrubal, Hannibal's brother, as I did not describe his death, or anything close. The man I talked about was killed in Iberia.

Hannibal sent 10,000+ Spanish deserters to Carthage to endear them to him personally by the act. But recognize what a significant chunk of the male population of Iberia their part of 100,000 would represent. Would you have had him leave no native troops behind?

No, I'd advie Hannibal not to lose 80% of his army getting to Italy. He wasn't using all of Iberia's resources, anyway. As stated, those forces Hannibal had were all just veterans of previous campaigns he had tried to pick for their loyalty. He is said to have nearly 150,000 men at Saguntum. He also had sent some 10,000 back to Carthage. Hasdrubal was able to raise full armies in Iberia, plus he doubtlessly had numerous troops on garrison duty. There were still large amounts of unused resources on Iberia.

So, the barbarians Hannibal used are a strong advantage to him, but the barbarians Alexander used were just a burden to his command?

My point was clearly that Hannibal's barbarians weren't the unreliable, rag-tag army people try to paint them as, and they were plenty able to resist the Romans when they invaded at later points in time even without a Hannibal in charge...

Excellent point. Hannibal didn't even have a navy to disband

That's not true at all. He had a navy to work with, and one of which was still somewhat capable. They would have even been able to transport him to Italy had Hannibal actually wanted. The reason they weren't used to do so is because it was deemed to much of a risk by Hannibal. He did use the navy, though. As I said already, he had them raid the Italian coast. They were used to transport troops.

[Brutii Matt]

I reckon Hannibal Barca was the greatest militray commander. After all, the only reason he didn't capture Rome was because he wanted to give his men a rest! It was an amazing feat to get 60+ elephants across the Alps, never mind defeating the Romans at Cannae and Lake Trasimene. Although I say this, a general's 'competence' depends on his troops a lot, as a person could be a fantastic general, but have crap troops. Communicatiuon is ital also. When Caesar was beseigeing Vercingetorix, the only reason the Gaul didn't win was communication. He couldn't synchronise his attacks. All in all, you cannot properly compare generals unless they fought each other, or used similar armies,

[Dromikaites]

When Caesar was beseigeing Vercingetorix, the only reason the Gaul didn't win was communication. He couldn't synchronise his attacks. All in all, you cannot properly compare generals unless they fought each other, or used similar armies,

Vercingetorix made the unforgivable mistake to let himself being trapped inside the fortress at Alesia, instead of staying outside with the cavalry, preventing the Romans from foraging.

Staying inside can only be explained by not trusting his men to resist without him being present. If this would have been the case, he shouldn't have locked himself there in in the first place.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Staying inside can only be explained by not trusting his men to resist without him being present. If this would have been the case, he shouldn't have locked himself there in in the first place.

He was the war-leader, he didn't have a lot of choice, he had to be with his army.

His plan came within a few minutes of succeeding as well, as Brutii Matt says, the only real reason Caesar won was that Vercingetorix couldn't co-ordinate his attacks with those of the relieving force (though you have to give credit for that to Caesar for preventing the communication). Even then it was a very close run thing and it was Caeasar's charge at the head of his cavalry (wearing his very distinctive cloak) that rallied his troops and won the day. All it would have needed was a bit of luck and Caesar would have been killed, Vercingetorix would have won. Or a bit of intellicence/foresight from Vercingetorix to work out a simple way of communicating across Caesar's lines (smoke signals, fires, mirrors, semaphore etc).

---------------------------------

As regards Hannibal vs. Alexander, you have to accept that Alexander was immesurably better at moving his forces through difficult terrain that Hannibal was. His marches through Asia were as hard as Hannibals through the Alps, but he lost far fewer troops (if you can rely on the few sources we have). *

Hannibal showed real brilliance in maneuvering in a very tight space in Northern Italy, even if the Roman Generals weren't hugely keen on attacking him if they had sensed a weakness they would have gone for it. Alexander never had to operate in such conditions, he had a lot more space to play with. 80% losses in pretty pathetic generalship, unless you had planned for it from the start.

On the battle front, both showed real brilliance in the application of their forces in beating their enemies, in a battle one on one I'd tip Hannibal to win, if only because Alexander's habit of leading from the front would get him killed Actually, I think you could toss a coin and use that to decide the winner.....

But overall, Alexander has to be better because in the final analysis, Alexander achieved his goal, Hannibal didn't.

And Genghis is better than Alexander, He started from a lot less, achieved his goal and managed to pass it on to his successors.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

On the battle front, both showed real brilliance in the application of their forces in beating their enemies, in a battle one on one I'd tip Hannibal to win, if only because Alexander's habit of leading from the front would get him killed Actually, I think you could toss a coin and use that to decide the winner....

Leading from the front was the only way to keep communications up. There seems to be this idea around here that you lose contact with your army by leading like Alexander did, but it has no basis. He was able to communicate with his army at Issus and Gaugamela well into his charge, as he received distress signals from his phalanx and left flank.

Alexander tactics were far superior and more difficult to carry out then Hannibal's, as well. Alexander's cavalry could not go head-to-head against the Persian cavalry, while Hannibal's could overwhelm the Roman cavalry. Alexander had to avoid the enemy, but yet the enemy had a flank over a mile longer then his, while Hannibal's was equal with the Roman front. Not being outflanked was an almost impossible task to do under circumstances Alexander faced, while he actually managed to flank the enemy. By usually complex, and careful manuever, he was able to create a gap into the Persian line, withdraw his cavalry forces, form them into a wedge, then lead a decisive charge against the enemy. It required perfect timing to carry out.

If one can tell me what wsa difficult about what Hannibal did at Cannae, maybe I'll give him a bit more credit. But you'll be hardpressed to do that. The Romans lined up with their cavalry alone against his cavalry. He beat them on the flanks, which was guarenteed to happen. He then hit the romans in the back. Yet what would Hannibal have done if the Romans strengthened their cavalry with some of their infantry? His entire plan would have been worthless, as was seen days before when Roman cavalry mixed with infantry defeated Hannibal's cavalry. This wouldn't have effected the Roman center, either.

You now have the flanks holding for the Romans far longer, if not actually winning, and the center easily doing its job. The flanks can now be taken in their rear, and the battle is done.

And Genghis is better than Alexander, He started from a lot less, achieved his goal and managed to pass it on to his successors.

Genghis wasn't able to pass it on any better than Alexander was, in spite of the fact that he lived to over twice the age of Alexander. His Empire was split up, just like Alexander's, and many wars were fought between them.

People, realize that Alexander achieved everything he did before the age of 30, and had no heir to take over for him. You are comparing him to men like Hannibal, Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon, who all lived into their 60's.

[fallingstar]

Alexander tactics were far superior and more difficult to carry out then Hannibal's, as well. Alexander's cavalry could not go head-to-head against the Persian cavalry, while Hannibal's could overwhelm the Roman cavalry.

But remember its the same thing with the persian infantry can they go head to head with alexander macedonian phalanx?

Its just the other way round with hannibal, hannibal have better cavalry, whilst alexander has better infantry.

Alexander had to avoid the enemy, but yet the enemy had a flank over a mile longer then his, while Hannibal's was equal with the Roman front. Not being outflanked was an almost impossible task to do under circumstances Alexander faced, while he actually managed to flank the enemy. By usually complex, and careful manuever, he was able to create a gap into the Persian line, withdraw his cavalry forces, form them into a wedge, then lead a decisive charge against the enemy. It required perfect timing to carry out.

I understand what you are saying in terms of alexander's complex manuever, however, for the first part, you must remember that hannibal and alexander were both outnumbered, the enemy had a flank over a mile longer, but for the romans they can have one mile long too, but they didn't because they fight in a tightly packed chess board formation.

If one can tell me what wsa difficult about what Hannibal did at Cannae, maybe I'll give him a bit more credit. But you'll be hardpressed to do that. The Romans lined up with their cavalry alone against his cavalry. He beat them on the flanks, which was guarenteed to happen. He then hit the romans in the back. Yet what would Hannibal have done if the Romans strengthened their cavalry with some of their infantry? His entire plan would have been worthless, as was seen days before when Roman cavalry mixed with infantry defeated Hannibal's cavalry. This wouldn't have effected the Roman center, either.

Well if you also think not on the roman side but also in the persian or indian side, you can also add the following: "What would Alexander have done if the persians or the indian strengthened their infantry like upgrading them to phalanx style?"

Genghis wasn't able to pass it on any better than Alexander was, in spite of the fact that he lived to over twice the age of Alexander. His Empire was split up, just like Alexander's, and many wars were fought between them.

People, realize that Alexander achieved everything he did before the age of 30, and had no heir to take over for him. You are comparing him to men like Hannibal, Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon, who all lived into their 60's.

I agree with the first part whereas for the second part you must also remember that alexander was in full control, whreas for hannibal and julius caesar they are under the ranks of the senate and have every reason to be catious. And also hannibal never have an heir to suceed him.

As for Genghis Khan he had entire control with heirs he can choose, so no comment.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The real clincher for Genghis though is that he started from nothing. He effectively rolled Philip & Alexander into one. ie. set up the power base and then expanded it into an empire. He also built his army from the ground up, including organising communications that weren't bettered until the advent of radio. He also understood the value of decent scouting and intelligence gathering, something Alexander never really did. (Why is it that if you say anything bad about Alexander on this board you almost feel like you are trolling? :laughing: )

That's why I'd put Genghis above Alexander.

Its just the other way round with hannibal, hannibal have better cavalry, whilst alexander has better infantry.

Becomes even more important if you agree with the generally accepted view that the infantry wins the battle, the cavalry decides by how much.

I do, however, think that Alexander's non-battle skills are being underestimated (which is why I'd put him above Hanibal). He was expert at the strategic maneuvering of troops, the logistical requirements of armies and the non-military methods to succeed. One of the reasons that he won so quickly in Asia has to be that he absorbed the local ruling class into his empire. In effect he was saying 'why bother fighting me, come and join me and you'll keep your old positions it's just that the I'll be your boss rather than Darius'. A very shrewd move, the impact of which, at a time when diplomacy was very basic, should not be under-rated.

I also read somewhere that one of the suspected reasons he won the battle of Gaugamela was that he had previously met Mazaeus (commander of Darius' right flank) at Thapsacus and agreed terms with him. As a result, Darius' right flank didn't perform particularly well (if at all) in the battle. Mazaeus certainly became satrap of Babylon under Alexander. if Alexander did manage that it is very impressive, and builds upon his diplomatic ability.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

But remember its the same thing with the persian infantry can they go head to head with alexander macedonian phalanx?

Alexander's infantry never decided the battle, and as I've stated far too many times already, they are recorded as having been driven back at Issus, and they weren't making any progress at Gaugamela.

I understand what you are saying in terms of alexander's complex manuever, however, for the first part, you must remember that hannibal and alexander were both outnumbered, the enemy had a flank over a mile longer, but for the romans they can have one mile long too, but they didn't because they fight in a tightly packed chess board formation.

The Roman formation at Cannae was in fact changed to make their front even with Hannibal's. The manipule system was completely changed by Varro. And the manipule had a larger front then the phalanx Hannibal was using naturally. That isn't an excuse for the Romans not adding something to help their cavalry at this point. The Romans showed no change in battlefield tactics throughout the entire war. They repeated the same mistakes in battle against Hannibal at Cannae as they had at the Trebia.

Well if you also think not on the roman side but also in the persian or indian side, you can also add the following: "What would Alexander have done if the persians or the indian strengthened their infantry like upgrading them to phalanx style?"

Well, first, for the Indians they are all stated as being archers. According to you, missile troops destroy phalanxes...They also had very powerful bows which could penetrate armor effectively.

As for the Persians, you've clearly never heard of the Cardaces. They were Persians trained and equipped like Greek hoplites. They were used at Issus.

I agree with the first part whereas for the second part you must also remember that alexander was in full control, whreas for hannibal and julius caesar they are under the ranks of the senate and have every reason to be catious. And also hannibal never have an heir to suceed him.

Alexander was constantly fighting with his own officers when he started. Parmenio had stacked pretty much every position with a relative or friend of his, and had equal if not more authority in the army at the beginning than Alexander. It took 6 years for Alexander to get rid of them all.

Alexander, while being a King, did not have the funds or manpower available to both Caesar and Hannibal in their campaigns. Hannibal controlled all of Iberia, plus received troops from the homeland.

The real clincher for Genghis though is that he started from nothing. He effectively rolled Philip & Alexander into one. ie. set up the power base and then expanded it into an empire. He also built his army from the ground up, including organising communications that weren't bettered until the advent of radio. He also understood the value of decent scouting and intelligence gathering, something Alexander never really did.

I can stand someone saying Genghis Khan may have been superior, but Alexander, above any other ancient general, knew the importance of good intelligence. The enemy almost never did anything that he didn't know about. He was always one-step ahead of his opponents. For one very good example, I point you to the example of the Thracians and their boxcarts. He knew when, where and how they were going to attack him, and acted accordingly.

The peak of his ability is perhaps best shown at the Hydapses, where Alexander spread so much disinformation he left the Indians unsure as to what to think.

I also read somewhere that one of the suspected reasons he won the battle of Gaugamela was that he had previously met Mazaeus (commander of Darius' right flank) at Thapsacus and agreed terms with him. As a result, Darius' right flank didn't perform particularly well (if at all) in the battle. Mazaeus certainly became satrap of Babylon under Alexander. if Alexander did manage that it is very impressive, and builds upon his diplomatic ability.

I highly doubt this is the case, as the the Persian right was beating back Alexander's left under Parmenio at Gaugamela.

[piko]

there can be no conclusion unless we get a time machine to prove all of our points we had this discussion on RTR forums too....it is endless

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Alexander's infantry never decided the battle

agreed, but that is not the point. You need sufficient infantry to allow you to gain time to use your cavalry, if the infantry breaks it doesn't usually matter how good the cavalry is, you are going to loose in the majority of cases. Therefore, Alexander with a strong infantry/decisive cavalry army had a better starting point than Hanibal who had a predominantly cavalry army.

I highly doubt this is the case, as the the Persian right was beating back Alexander's left under Parmenio at Gaugamela.

I'll have a look for the source this evening when I get home. If true it would only improve his abilities in my eyes.

there can be no conclusion unless we get a time machine to prove all of our points we had this discussion on RTR forums too....it is endless

But that is exactly what makes it so much fun to speculate. Everyone can argue their own point of view and no-one can really be shown to be factually correct. It all comes down to how good their argument is.

I started off on this board not really having a huge preference for Hanibal or Alexander, the discussions on the board have changed that as various people have argued for their hero.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

agreed, but that is not the point. You need sufficient infantry to allow you to gain time to use your cavalry, if the infantry breaks it doesn't usually matter how good the cavalry is, you are going to loose in the majority of cases. Therefore, Alexander with a strong infantry/decisive cavalry army had a better starting point than Hanibal who had a predominantly cavalry army.

Except Alexander's infantry was being beaten on many occasions, and only his actions with the cavalry won the day. And that cavalry action should have been impossible under normal conditions, as the enemy had vast cavalry superiority. Has any other general in history ever overcame such odds as Alexander did at Guagamela? He was outnumbered over 5:1 in cavalry, and the Persians were nearly all heavily armored, more so then the Macedonians. They were fighting flat, wide open terrain. Alexander not only kept his cavalry alive in the battle, but it was his decisive arm in the battlefield.

At Issus, his cavalry had slightly better odds, but was still in a horrible position. His infantry was being overwhelmed in the battle, and driven back into the river. The formation had been split, and over 100 Macedonian officers were killed. Parmenio was in a desperate position, as well, until Alexander came into position to hit them from behind, and the Persian right began to withdrawl.

Now, what was so difficult about Hannibal's cavalry manuevers at Cannae?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

The point is though that his infantry was good enough (more than good enough if you take into account the odds) to provide a secure enough base for his to carry out his cavalry maneuvers. If his infantry hadn't been so good he would never have had the opportunity to use his cavalry so decisively.

What was so special about Cannae was that Hanibal turned conventional wisdom on its head. He was outnumbered and his infantry were of much poorer quality. There was no way they could hold against the Roman army so he used that to his advantage. To be honest, he actually won Cannae with his infantry, the cavalry just did a screening role - eliminating the Roman cavalry (thus allowing his infantry to carry out their part of the plan) and then providing the coup de grace.

Both commanders used their cavalry decisively, Alexander just used them slightly more conventionally (though no less brilliantly), Hanibal made his weaknesses into a virtue.