Who is better?

[lelouchx99]

As you know, we are pretty familiar with two historical figures, Hannibal Barca and Alexander the Great
... BUT...
WHO IS BETTER?
Alexander the Great or Hannibal Barca

We should consider the time period, the composition of the army, these two historical figures' opposing armies, the decision they made, and their aftermath.

Such that, Alexander pretty much had an experienced army left by his father Philip, and his accomplishment is pretty impressive.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...edonEmpire.jpg
As for Hannibal, he had an army composed of many different people, Carthaginians, Celtic tribes, & various mercenaries.

We should also analyze the battle of Gaugamela versus Cannae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_cannae

My opinion is that Alexander is a better strategist than Hannibal. While Hannibal is a better Tactician than Alexander.

[Anubis88]

My opinion is that Alexander is a better strategist than Hannibal. While Hannibal is a better Tactician than Alexander.

On what do you base your claim? Where was Hannibals flawed strategy? I really don't understand. IMHO Hannibal was a great strategist, he did the best and more that with what he was given, his strategy stunned the whole Roman Republic, noone had any idea that he would dare attack Italy itself.

Alexander though attacked Persia in the most obvius way, by the Hellespontus.

Also the manouver at Cannae is much more original than the Hammer and Anvil of Alexander, which was the copy of Phillip's tactics.

It's hard to pick a better general, since the armies they fought with and against are extremly different, but if i had to pick i'd pick Hannibal

[Pat89]

Alexander though attacked Persia in the most obvius way, by the Hellespontus.

That's what makes the strategy so perfect

[lelouchx99]

On what do you base your claim? Where was Hannibals flawed strategy?

Hannibal's crossing on the alps is a surprising strategy, although a flawed one, because of that miscalculating act of crossing in the winter, his army suffered clearly. Most of the elephants he bought all the way from Spain died while crossing the alps... There wasn't any elephants used in Cannae were there?

Alexander though attacked Persia in the most obvius way, by the Hellespontus.

Alexander clearly used the best strategy by doing the most obvious thing in conquering the Persians...

Alexanders stratagy was greatly flawed. Did he truly believe he could rule the world? Obviously once his army fractured martial rule over his empire failed, and so it broke. He may have conquered the world, but never tamed it. I argue that even if he had not died and continued his journey of conquest to the end of the earth that his empire would have broken anyways.

True but you have to give Alexander the credits of making it that far! and spreading the Greeks culture all the way to the far East. He is like the first Christopher Columbus exploring the unknown East for the Greeks. I also doubt that the Greeks even knew India existed before Alexander...

[Anubis88]

There wasn't any elephants used in Cannae were there?

Did it matter?

oh, and it's weren't not wasnt

[AtlasGR]

True but you have to give Alexander the credits of making it that far! and spreading the Greeks culture all the way to the far East. He is like the first Christopher Columbus exploring the unknown East for the Greeks. I also doubt that the Greeks even knew India existed before Alexander...

They knew India existed but not much more..

[Aernuss]

On what do you base your claim? Where was Hannibals flawed strategy? I really don't understand. IMHO Hannibal was a great strategist, he did the best and more that with what he was given, his strategy stunned the whole Roman Republic, noone had any idea that he would dare attack Italy itself.

Alexander though attacked Persia in the most obvius way, by the Hellespontus.

Also the manouver at Cannae is much more original than the Hammer and Anvil of Alexander, which was the copy of Phillip's tactics.

It's hard to pick a better general, since the armies they fought with and against are extremly different, but if i had to pick i'd pick Hannibal

Ok, I cannot resist
The manouver at cannae was not "original" as well, then... encirclement was done before and after 216 bc. Anyway, the encirclement at cannae, being an manouver on a battlefield, belongs to the "tactics" plan, not to the "strategy" one! To compare alex to hannibal in anything beyond the tactical skills on the battlefield, is highly unfair to hannibal's memory. In fact, it would be unfair to anyone that ever lived! After all the centuries, alexander's dream stills laying severely ahead. What men can dream of even trying to accomplish what alexander tried - and accomplished - before dying younger than jesus christ did!
It really makes me sad, it shocks me, that someone can even suggest that alexander is bellow any great general of antiquity, and one thing I bet my head is that, if hannibal was here, he would totally agree with me...

[Anubis88]

Ok, I cannot resist
The manouver at cannae was not "original" as well, then... encirclement was done before and after 216 bc. Anyway, the encirclement at cannae, being an manouver on a battlefield, belongs to the "tactics" plan, not to the "strategy" one! To compare alex to hannibal in anything beyond the tactical skills on the battlefield, is highly unfair to hannibal's memory. In fact, it would be unfair to anyone that ever lived! After all the centuries, alexander's dream stills laying severely ahead. What men can dream of even trying to accomplish what alexander tried - and accomplished - before dying younger than jesus christ did!
It really makes me sad, it shocks me, that someone can even suggest that alexander is bellow any great general of antiquity, and one thing I bet my head is that, if hannibal was here, he would totally agree with me...

Can't resist myself either

I know the manouver at Cannae was tactical, who do you think you're talking to young man.
Please tell me of a Battle, that's similar to Cannae from a tactical point of view (before Cannae of coure).
I'm not denying that Alexander was a great general, i mean he is Alexander the Great, i'm just saying, of course IMHO that Hannibal had a tougher job then Alexander.

Sure Alexander brought down the Persian Empire, but seriously, what was the power of Persia at the time? It was well past any of it's great ages, the Greeks did not fear Persia, Persia feared the Greeks. The Athenian empire was a real pain for the Persians, and even after it's fall Persia never intertained an invasion to Greece's mainland again.
Macedon was at the time of the invasion by far the stronges Kingdom in europe. It's military machine was revolutional and numerous, the Macedonian phalanx was undefeated in battle, and the Persian's themselves feared Philip and Alexander. (Of course they did not believe him to be able to conquer them, but i guess they feared they could lose some lands to them). Also the Persian's military was exactly what the phalanxes lusted for, light infantry.

How about Hannibal? Instead of starting with his empire on it's hight, he started with the empire's back practicaly broken. I know some may dissagree, but Carthage was never the same after the first Punic war. The Romans did not take him seriously at first, which he used when he crossed the alps and invaded Italy. He destroyed 3 Roman consular armies in 2 years, killing over 100.000 men. And i'm not talking some rabble from the hills, but Legionnaries whom would never loose a major battle against the Diadochi (interesting?). Any other city, ANY OTHER than Rome would submit after Cannae. Had Hannibal achived that, history would be a lot different (for better or worse). Had Rome fallen, the Carthaginian empire would rule the entire West Mediteranean, and the East would fear it. This is alternate history i know, and i gotten a bit out of the way, but none theles. Hannibal thougt countless battles agains Rome, losing only a few, and only one large one.

I guess what i'm trying to say is, that Rome at the begining of the second Punic war was more powerfull then mighty Persia at Alexander's invasion. After all, 3 lost battles destroyed the largest Empire in the world beyond any chance for it to survive, while 3 lost battles made Rome an empire.

[RickAJ]

The problem with Hannibal was that his strategy was flawed. He had no real goal, other than the destruction of Rome. Alexander had sweeping, ambitious goals, which he captured through the implementation of a careful strategy. Barca, on the other hand, had no opportunity to do so, with the Fabian strategy, which limited his ability to destroy the Romans on the field. Really, while his Alpine crossing was impressive and highly innovative, it eventually proved to be the undoing of his campaign: he couldn't have brought seige equipment with him, therefore meaning he would have to outwait an enemy in his home territory.

[DukeCanada]

Alexanders stratagy was greatly flawed. Did he truly believe he could rule the world? Obviously once his army fractured martial rule over his empire failed, and so it broke. He may have conquered the world, but never tamed it. I argue that even if he had not died and continued his journey of conquest to the end of the earth that his empire would have broken anyways.

Hannibals stratagy did not consist of conquering Rome but rather destroying it, and for a decade and a half he had Rome on it's kneese. Yes, he lost at Zama, but only because his enemy had studied him. Had Darius been given 15 years to study Alexander I'm sure he could of won.

[Arkaeyn]

I tend to give my props to the guy who wins, to be fair. If you're not gonna win, don't fight.

[DukeCanada]

If every loser knew they were going to lose they probably would not have fought...

Ill give alexander credit for his victories. I actaully admire alexander and his legendary achievements. However I must attest to the point that we cannot comply with the historical interpretation of Alexanders victories. More or less because he was over rated in antiquity as a God!

[Arkaeyn]

Exactly. So if you think you're going to win, so you fight, and you don't win, then you're not as good of a general as one who does win.

[Caesar Augustus]

Good to see a fellow spelling and grammar Nazi!

I wouldn't want to compare the two. Alexander achieved alot, but definitely should've consolidated his empire. Had he not died the extra time may have given him the chance to do this. However, as this is speculation it's a bit pointless to discuss what he would have done. Hannibal was also tremendously successful, but was hamstrung by the Carthaginian senate refusing to send him siege equipment so he wasn't able to take Rome, which led to him roaming Italy with his army.

[Gettysburger]

Alexander was the better politician/statesman, which is critical for a successful conquering general. Alexander was able blend Greek and Persian culture into an empire. Hannibal was a great general but not an empire maker.

Of course he had a more difficult task of submitting the Romans, who had no concept of accepting defeat. After the defeat at Cannae, in order to appease the gods, the Romans buried alive a Gallic man and woman, and a Greek man and woman. They would go to any lengths to protect their liberty. The kingdoms of the Persian Empire, on the other hand, had a long history of rolling over for conquerors.

[DukeCanada]

So assumming I have 10 000 men and my enemy has 100, and I win. That makes me the better general?

[Arkaeyn]

It makes you a better general then your opponent if your opponent was the one who decided to fight, yes.

If you're sneak-attacking and basically forcing them to fight, of course not, or if they're being ordered on pain of death to fight. But Hannibal was an important enough political figure that he was involved in the decision to fight.


EDIT: Or another simile. It's like if I say "I'm so good at chess, I'll bet you my life savings that I can beat you without my queen." Chances are, you'll beat me if I'm playing without a queen. So when I lose, my error may not be in tactics, but the strategy of attempting to fight against terrible odds. If you keep your queen, your judgment is fine, as are your chess-playing skills. It doesn't necessarily matter who would win in a "fair" fight, because a fair fight wasn't offered (and in war, is never offered).

[DukeCanada]

Such a sitaution is not relevant to the sitaution with Hannibal. Carthage was very powerful. However no one knew how the senate would act in this war. Hannibal had the means to win but not the proper assistance.

Alexander had his great generals who fought many battles. Alexander did not conquer the world on his own. Hannibal did not have such support or reinforcements, which was to be expected.

By what means did Hannibal decide to go into the war as the underdog? He was never the underdog, but was stalled by a lack of support from his republic later in his campaign.

Also, Hannibals crossing if the alps can be compared to Alexanders crossing into India. Difficult but neccessary to accomplish thier goals. How else was Hannibal to get into Italy undetected? You can't ship 50 000 men...

[lelouchx99]

I wonder if you would rather lose have your army & spending many years from crossing the alps undetected or to just ship straight toward to Italy. Chances are you will be detected either way...

If you look at how the Romans invaded Spain, I am sure that they took the most obvious way... Ship to Spain.

@Anubis & Caesar lol yeah my grandma is pretty bad, but it'll improve

[DukeCanada]

Well he couldn't cross By ocean due to Roman naval supremecy. He had to avoid the Romans in Massalia, if he hadent gone North he would have been easily detected and intercepted.