Hannibal or Alexander the Great or Phyrrus of Epirus?
I would say Hannibal. After looking at the battle of cannae, I'd say no one of those been able to accomplish what he has done.
Hannibal
Phyrrus of Epirus
Alexander the Great
Draw
Vicarius Provinciae
Who would win in a battle?
Hannibal or Alexander the Great or Phyrrus of Epirus?
I would say Hannibal. After looking at the battle of cannae, I'd say no one of those been able to accomplish what he has done.
Praeses
Re: Who would win in a battle?
oh no
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Pointless thread, and Monarchism, get a better name.
☻ This is a random collection of symbols. He's tired of you abusing him.
/▌\ Don't copy-paste this if you know what's good for you.
/ \
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
You can not judge commanders on battles that they have not and will never fight. The tactics Hannibal used were not new they had been used before that in history encircling your enemey was a very ancient tactic. Phyrrus would have used Alexanders tactics but was not as successful. Alexander had the most skilled army and best strategy, he also had a quick grasp of tactics. By default it would be Alexander but if you gave these commanders and equal force with troop types they were unfamilier with how would they fare? How could we judge this when it will never happen? This is a very poor thread.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Civitate
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Pyrrhus would win, but at extreme cost!
Praeses
Re: Who would win in a battle?
a phyric victory perhapsOriginally Posted by Poach
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Civitate
Re: Who would win in a battle?
That is indeed one way of describing it.
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
All 3 had completely different tactics for some very different situations, it's simply incomparable.
Alexander was probably the greatest commander of them though.
☻ This is a random collection of symbols. He's tired of you abusing him.
/▌\ Don't copy-paste this if you know what's good for you.
/ \
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Misspelled and cheesy nonetheless.
☻ This is a random collection of symbols. He's tired of you abusing him.
/▌\ Don't copy-paste this if you know what's good for you.
/ \
Praeses
Re: Who would win in a battle?
yeah an h is missing...but then again, I always make mistakes typing
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
It's actually spelled "pyrrhic" illogical is it may seem
☻ This is a random collection of symbols. He's tired of you abusing him.
/▌\ Don't copy-paste this if you know what's good for you.
/ \
Praeses
Re: Who would win in a battle?
2 mistakes on my side
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Grammar nazis
They're always watching
☻ This is a random collection of symbols. He's tired of you abusing him.
/▌\ Don't copy-paste this if you know what's good for you.
/ \
Protector Domesticus
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Without any further scenario info this is really pointless. Also, even if we had a completely detailed scenario, these people didn't live in the same time, so their armies differed immensely due to tech and warfare in their respective ages.
There's simply no point in asking such a question as in the OP.
Every time you :wub:, god kills another kitten.
If you're gonna hire Machete to kill the bad guy, you better make damn sure the bad guy isn't YOU!
'I understand, and I take the light into my soul. I will become the spear of Khaine. Lightning flashes, blood falls, death pierces the darkness.' , Dhrykna.
Artifex
Re: Who would win in a battle?
I wouldn't say so. All three used Hellenistic armies and tactics. Alexander would probably be in a disadvantage with his army because he would be lacking some later developements, such as elephants, or chain mail. May be we should give him a 3rd Century Ptolemaian army to match up?
Team member of: Das Heilige Römische Reich, Europa Barbarorum, Europa Barbarorum II, East of Rome
Modding help by Konny: Excel Traitgenerator, Setting Heirs to your preference
dHRR 0.8 beta released! get it here
New: Native America! A mini-mod for Kingdoms America
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Well since such an anaylsis is impossible, I will just say that tactics wise Hannibal was probably the best. Therefore I would have to choose him. Of course there are so many other factors, but to me Hannibal had the best grasp of warfare and how to defeat and enemy army out of those three.
Forget the Cod this man needs a Sturgeon!
QVID MELIVS ROMA?
Re: Who would win in a battle?
A mega royal rumble Hannibal VS Alex VS Pyrrhus?
Domesticus
Re: Who would win in a battle?
And after looking at the battle of Zama I would say he wouldn't stand a chance against Alexander, since he completley screwed up when marching against his first trully competent opponent. By the way, why is Pyrrhus even included in this poll? He does not belong to the major league.After looking at the battle of cannae, I'd say no one of those been able to accomplish what he has done.
"Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to hurt his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of the immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured."
Euripides
"This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which avails us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
Augustine
Vicarius
Re: Who would win in a battle?
Yes, why not Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator, Conqueror of Gaul. I am sure he would pose a greater challenge then Pyrrhus.
There are plenty of better commanders after all Pyrrhus lost so many men the victory was worthless. The best commanders know when to retreat on Strategic or Tactical grounds.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Who would win in a battle?
I think Optimus Prime would win
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
