Who would win - Alexander TG vs Hannibal

[jw1089]

the exact question would be who would win in a pitched battle, Alexander the Great with the army he had when he first went into Asia, or Hannibal, with the army he had before crossing the Alps

[Eric]

This topic has been discussed to death, it's so boring at this point. But, on topic, i'd say Alexander.

[Zhuge_Liang]

Hannibal, because Hannibal made his own tactics and fought and defeated an enemy that could fight back. He also won the single greatest victory in all of history in terms of the number of enemy dead in one day.

Alexander the great took everything, including battle hardened troops and well tested tactics from his father and fought a very poor army.

[jw1089]

Hannibal, because Hannibal made his own tactics and fought and defeated an enemy that could fight back. He also won the single greatest victory in all of history in terms of the number of enemy dead in one day.

Alexander the great took everything, including battle hardened troops and well tested tactics from his father and fought a very poor army.

so are you saying that Alexander couldn't have adapted to fighting a high quality army? i do agree with the fact that the Persian army at that time was weak, but you make it seem as though it wouldn't even be a challenge to Hannibal, but i do respect your thought.

BTW, i didnt realize that this had been talked about before, so i apoligize if it had been for posting this

[Carach]

Alexander the great took everything, including battle hardened troops and well tested tactics from his father and fought a very poor army.

that 'poor' army you speak of was unbelievably larger than alexanders, not only once, but several times.

Not to mention the fact he didnt only fight those huge 'poor' armies, he fought several others too.

THe fact you said that shows you have a lot to learn about Alexander.

Hannibal himself even considered himself lsser than alexander.
thats his own words, not mine.

Unarmoured and untrained Persians, against unarmoured veterans of Iberian battles, Gallic skirmishes, mountain climbing and Latin raids.

You do know that when alexander invaded and darius went to meet him (issus), he had just returned from subduing an egyptian revolt? Not only that, but he had with him a large amount of greek mercenaries (who were present in many of the battles against alexander)

Battlehardened greek mercenaries are hardly poorly trained, unarmoured idiots.

You'll also realise that at Alexander had numerous battles with 'veterans' of warfare - against scythians, against the greeks and so forth. He would have swept through most of europe relatively easily had he continued to live (and not have lost his empire)

[removeduser_426582376423734]

that 'poor' army you speak of was unbelievably larger than alexanders, not only once, but several times.

Not to mention the fact he didnt only fight those huge 'poor' armies, he fought several others too.

THe fact you said that shows you have a lot to learn about Alexander.

Hannibal himself even considered himself lsser than alexander.
thats his own words, not mine.

The Greeks before Alexander managed to defeat them, or when losing cause considerable damage to them. Look at Thermopylae, Marathon and Salamis for a few examples. These were hordes numbering in their tens- and hundreds-of-thousands, and a coalition of city states defeated them. Alexander did the same, except against disheartened enemies who feared Greek soldiers after that fateful invasion by Xerxes.

[Carach]

The Greeks before Alexander managed to defeat them, or when losing cause considerable damage to them. Look at Thermopylae, Marathon and Salamis for a few examples. These were hordes numbering in their tens- and hundreds-of-thousands, and a coalition of city states defeated them. Alexander did the same, except against disheartened enemies who feared Greek soldiers after that fateful invasion by Xerxes.

Xerxes' army was so long before alexander its not really that relevant - they themselves even had greek mercenaries on their side.

[Visna]

Despite me being somewhat annoyed over all these "Who would win?" threads, to make long story short I once saw a reply about one of these completely bizarre scenarios. It went something like this "Hannibal would win the battle, Alexander would win the campaign, Julius Caesar would win the war." Sums up pretty much how I feel about it.
Oh, and Chuck Norris would win over all of them...

[Timmius]

He also won the single greatest victory in all of history in terms of the number of enemy dead in one day.

That victory being?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

That victory being?

Cannae...

[Timmius]

Cannae...

Not on my list.
But never mind. Doesn't matter. It was impressive nontheless.

[The Lacedaemonian]

Hannibal, because Hannibal made his own tactics and fought and defeated an enemy that could fight back. He also won the single greatest victory in all of history in terms of the number of enemy dead in one day.

Alexander the great took everything, including battle hardened troops and well tested tactics from his father and fought a very poor army.

seconded.
but it could be could remember could,
be a draw.

[Hells Bells]

All of the Roman Legions advantages were working against them at Cannae, the manuverabillity,organization and adapativness had to be abandoned due to the size of the Army. it was simply impossible to maintain the manipular tactic with a force of 80,000 men. And because of this it would of been more efficent to put your soldiers in a mass of men like varro did. What Cannae was really is a Over-estimaion of the Romans abillity to break through Hannibals infantry, and an under-estimation of Hannibals infantry abillity to hold.

a mass of men could be quite effective, i recall a certain battle against boudica where close formation flying wedge caused an enormous victory. Needless to say the romans probably hadnt eveloped those tactics by then.. and i dont think the terrain was right, but the large size of the army could make up for the terrain not being in favor as they have more men to play with to take the place of natural formations.

Hannibal, because Hannibal made his own tactics and fought and defeated an enemy that could fight back. He also won the single greatest victory in all of history in terms of the number of enemy dead in one day.

Alexander the great took everything, including battle hardened troops and well tested tactics from his father and fought a very poor army.

#1
i think some world war battles were greatest in all history

#2thats precisely why alexander would win, he had far better troops, veterans of many campaigns, etc. highly disciplined, versus hannibals army which relied heavily on mercenaries etc.

[Holger Danske]

#1
i think some world war battles were greatest in all history

#2thats precisely why alexander would win, he had far better troops, veterans of many campaigns, etc. highly disciplined, versus hannibals army which relied heavily on mercenaries etc.

But Hannibal faced an army that was better than his, and 2 times as big.. Yet he won.

The fact that you can't spell Caesar's name correctly says enough about your knowledge of the dictator. At Pharsalus, his few cohorts of legionaries faced thousands of horsemen on the right flank, stood their ground and repelled them, turning the battle into a victory for Caesar. This wasn't an easy victory, not only because of Pompey's horsemen but also because Caesar's men were exhausted, hungry and wounded.

Well I am very sorry that I mispelled his name, ONCE... mr. perfect! ... Yet Caesar had fewer numbers and was attacking up hill.. that shows his superior generalship.

[Publius]

This topic has been discussed to death, it's so boring at this point. But, on topic, i'd say Alexander.

I second that.

[Zhuge_Liang]

I second that.

Then why bother replying to it? Not everybody has debated this

[Shadow_Imperator]

I honestly think that Hannibal's preference to a 'battlefield' overview as opposed to Alexander's 'leading the companion charge' would firstly give Hannibal a desicive tactical advantage, in term of being able to react to battlefield conditions and events in a swifter manner. Secondly, I have more faith in Hannibal's own intuition, his masterful use of terrain and other battlefield elements which Alexander never showed the ability to grasp, on that note, I believe Hannibal would've been far more resourceful... I mean, how does one last in the toe of Italy for 16 years with a rag-tag half mercinary army in the centre of hostile territory?

Lastly, Hannibal, as history has proven, would be the far more, pragmatic, pratical and grounded Geneal. By the time Alexander reached Egypt, he was already intoxicated by his own 'greatness', we all know he believed himself to be a God, divine, unvanquishable, immortal and infallible, Hannibal had no such opinions about his own mortality nor his own abilities as a whole.... Well, not to THAT extent anyway... He knew he was shrude, sly, unconventional and a cunning tactician as well as knowing well both his limits and his abilities in character, but I'm sure old Hannibal never became deluded, unlike our Macedonian counterpart here...

[najak]

I think that most people think the persian were so weak because alexander defeated them so easily. I doubt that other could`ve won a 200.000 vs 20.000 battle

[Holger Danske]

I think that most people think the persian were so weak because alexander defeated them so easily. I doubt that other could`ve won a 200.000 vs 20.000 battle

Some 20-30 k of that 200k army was professional.. Hannibal defeated 80k of more highly trained troops than the army at Gaugamela.
In short.. Cannae was a more spetacular victory than Gaugamela. And I am quite sure Hannibal could have won the same battle had he been given Alexanders army... But I highly doubt that Alexander could have done the same at Cannae.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Some 20-30 k of that 200k army was professional.. Hannibal defeated 80k of more highly trained troops than the army at Gaugamela.
In short.. Cannae was a more spetacular victory than Gaugamela. And I am quite sure Hannibal could have won the same battle had he been given Alexanders army... But I highly doubt that Alexander could have done the same at Cannae.

Hannibal faced a Roman army with all of its strengths working against it. It could not utilize Flexibillity, and its organization effectively due to the sheer size of it. So Varro, really had only one hope. and that was to completely obliterate hannibals center with a Head on Infantry clash, thats the tactic equivalent of Spray and Pray.

At Guagamela Alexander faced a larger force, with More effective and More numerous calvary, more numerous infantry (Accounts that the persian infantry were untrained levies are unfounded as well, they were at least semi-professional soldiers) Including a large number of Greek mercenaries and, Not only a More competent comandeer but one with much more tactical options then varro had. Especially considering that the Persians were used to commanding these size of forces, Darius himself commanded and army Twice the size at Issus, though it was obliterated because of Alexanders skill as a comandeer, and it could not out flank alexanders army due to the terain.