Alexander the Great vs. Hannibal Barkas

[immortalmack]

This actually came to mind from reading Livy. He takes some of the 9th chapter of book 2 to analyze Alexander and any Roman general of the time.

So....how about...

[C.J.Woolf]

Are we comparing them as generals or as national leaders too? On the latter, I give the nod to Alexander. He was better at getting conquered people to accept his rule, and he knew when to quit. He was one of the few invaders of Afghanistan who got out before it ground him down like the Afghans grind down everybody. Hannibal, on the other hand, started a war with a nation Carthage could never defeat. Rome was the Russia of its time.

[immortalmack]

As generals.

[dennis44x]

Alexander achieved way more but when you compare the situations I think Hannibal achieved more. When Alexander took over the rule of his father he inherited the most advanced military machine of that time with advicers like Aristotle and Ptolemy. His father had united all of Greece and never before had a leader from Greece so much power. In other words he was born in the perfect position to be a great conquerer.

Hannibal on the other hand inherited a war with the most powerfull country of his time. His home country refused to help him all his career and his armies were mainly different allies united under his name, his supplies were stolen from the Romans or came from allies. Yet he was beating the biggest armies ever brought together with completly new tactics battle after the battle. Later in life he came far in carthaginian politics.

In other words I think Hannibal was a way more talented person.

[kendoiwan]

Hannibal, on the other hand, started a war with a nation Carthage could never defeat. Rome was the Russia of its time.

:no: that's not quite accurate

[Ferrus]

Hannibal, on the other hand, started a war with a nation Carthage could never defeat. Rome was the Russia of its time.Carthage could have defeated them in the First War. And he could've in the Second, had he had a larger army with him. His expedition was far too small, ultimately, to prevail. Had he capitalised on Cannae better, or what an invasion in and then from Sicily been effective, they might have done it.

[Helios]

I gotta vote for the sexually omnivorous guy with curly blond hair.

[kendoiwan]

Carthage could have defeated them in the First War. And he could've in the Second, had he had a larger army with him. His expedition was far too small, ultimately, to prevail. Had he capitalised on Cannae better, or what an invasion in and then from Sicily been effective, they might have done it.

Furthermore he didn't "start" the war, he just brought the fight to their soil

[Zephyrus055]

Carthage could have defeated them in the First War. And he could've in the Second, had he had a larger army with him. His expedition was far too small, ultimately, to prevail. Had he capitalised on Cannae better, or what an invasion in and then from Sicily been effective, they might have done it.

Exactly. He was given an opportunity to destroy Rome, and instead he sued for peace. He may have been brilliant with battlefield tactics, but was not so great on the grand campaign. There's a saying about him that "Hannibal could win a battle but not a war."

Alexander The Great, however, was brilliant on the grand campaign level of warfare. He was so unconventional that his generals were like "WTF are you doing!? Oh, my bad"

[kendoiwan]

Exactly. He was given an opportunity to destroy Rome, and instead he sued for peace. He may have been brilliant with battlefield tactics, but was not so great on the grand campaign. There's a saying about him that "Hannibal could win a battle but not a war."

Monday morning General:p

[Ferrus]

Yes, Hannibal was the greater battle field general, Alexander the consummate conqueror - to the banks of the Indus itself.

[C.J.Woolf]

I call Rome the Russia of its time because:

1. It had tremendous reserves of manpower. After losing three armies -- at the Trebbia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae -- Rome raised more armies. If Hannibal had detached the Italian allies from Roman allegiance he might have run Rome out of soldiers, but Rome had the home-field advantage. The Italians knew that when -- not if -- Hannibal's army moved on, the Romans would be back to punish any defectors.

2. The Romans were stubborn as hell. They stayed at war after defeats that would make any other nation sue for peace. Hannibal lacked the siege train necessary to take the city of Rome, and no Roman would have betrayed the city to him a la Tarentum.

I think Rome was a bully and Carthage was screwed by history, but that doesn't change the fact (IMO) that the Second Punic War was unwinnable for Carthage, as much because of Rome's strength as because of Carthage's shortcomings.

[Curtis24]

It was my understanding that Hannibal didn't have enough manpower to take Rome. His whole strategy was based on the assumption that after a few devastating victories, Rome's Italian city-state rivals would side with Hannibal and contribute manpower and resources. Which never happened despite said victories being as devastating as they possibly could be. So really, the entire understaking was fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.

[C.J.Woolf]

It was my understanding that Hannibal didn't have enough manpower to take Rome. His whole strategy was based on the assumption that after a few devastating victories, Rome's Italian city-state rivals would side with Hannibal and contribute manpower and resources. Which never happened despite said victories being as devastating as they possibly could be. So really, the entire understaking was fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.
I wonder if any Carthaginians said "They will welcome us as liberators." :devil:

[Curtis24]

lmao! History definetly repeats itself :stupid:

[kendoiwan]

I wonder if any Carthaginians said "They will welcome us as liberators." :devil:




lmao! History definetly repeats itself :stupid:

Why are we ignoring the fact of Rome's imperialism in all of this?

[C.J.Woolf]

Why are we ignoring the fact of Rome's imperialism in all of this?
I'm not, but the Carthaginians were not exactly sweethearts either.

[Ferrus]

I'm not, but the Carthaginians were not exactly sweethearts either.
Although by the morals of their time, both states had shown high virtue.

Fabius is one of the least glamorous generals in history, but his presence of mind aided Rome greatly - and his tactics have probably been more successfully employed by fighting forces with a disadvantage than any other.

Hannibal was greatly hampered by the incompetence of his brothers in Spain - had they succeeded in reinforcing him, perhaps Rome would've been a possible taget.

[omnirook]

Hannibal went up against the true Romans, not the amalgam of peoples who later were called and called themselves "Roman." Rarely has history tossed up a lot as hale and sturdy as the Romans; they were staunch and STUBBORN, stubborn to a degree that has rarely been equaled and has never been surpassed. The Romans were possessed of a self-confidence that modern people simply do not, cannot, know. The Romans thought nothing of dispatching a few elderly, senior senators w/a small escort of lictors to face an entire enemy army. "Go home" would be their order - and it is amazing that, far more often than not, the order was obeyed. The sight of the senators in their togas and their purple shoes and simple iron rings preceded by the lictors in their crimson tunics and wide belts, carrying the fasces, was enough to intimidate whole nations. Rome not only mastered the Art of Intimidation but re-invented it. W/60 thousand well-trained troops, Marius crushed a German army of half a million; Caesar did much the same w/the Gauls. Between their victories were the victories of Sulla - and before any of them, the victories of the Scipio's - Africanus and Aemielianus. To say that Hannibal would have won w/more men is - wrong. Cunctator's men, Scipio's men, would have followed them into the Pit of Hell! - and would have marched out w/the heads of Cerebus among their trophies.

[lowtech redneck]

I call Rome the Russia of its time because:

1. It had tremendous reserves of manpower.

um, you mean in relation to Napolean and Hitler, right? Cause nowadays manpower is Russia's greatest weakness, one that's going to bite them in the ass sometime within the next fifteen years.

Also, wasn't the Persian empire one of the greatest in its day? Its been quite awhile since I studied either of these time periods, but I'm pretty sure that Persia had much more overwhelming numbers against the Greeks than the Romans did against the Carthaginians. Or were Greek numbers likewise significantly greater than Carthaginian numbers?

[Ferrus]

Cunctator's men, Scipio's men, would have followed them into the Pit of Hell! - and would have marched out w/the heads of Cerebus among their trophies.
Yes, and their resolve was doubly stiffened when the soldiers saw how Roman prisoners of war were treated by the senate after Cannae.

Machiavelli's analysis of Livy is an extremely interesting reading of it too - the republican civic virtu of the Romans, which was only ever matched by the civic virtu of the Spartans.

[C.J.Woolf]

um, you mean in relation to Napolean and Hitler, right? Cause nowadays manpower is Russia's greatest weakness, one that's going to bite them in the ass sometime within the next fifteen years.
Yes.


Also, wasn't the Persian empire one of the greatest in its day? Its been quite awhile since I studied either of these time periods, but I'm pretty sure that Persia had much more overwhelming numbers against the Greeks than the Romans did against the Carthaginians. Or were Greek numbers likewise significantly greater than Carthaginian numbers?
The Greek/Macedonian style of warfare beat the Persian style such that even Persian numbers couldn't save them. The Persians preferred archery while the Greeks got up in the enemy's face and poked them with spears. That style of fighting shocked the less bloody-minded and less heavily armored Persians. Troops that were not trained for it broke and ran away from troops that were.

The Roman style was bloodier still for their enemies. Their primary close combat weapon was the gladius, a broad, two-foot-long stabbing sword that made fearsome wounds.

[Ferrus]

The sarissa was more than just a spear - it was a brutally large pointy battering ram.

[omnirook]

I realize that I am "going off topic," but, you see, that's the way I am ... ah, well ...

But, in a nod to the OP ...

Alexander/Hannibal - ? An odd comparison! Yes - great generals both, but Alexander was far more than a general, had greater ambitions than beating down his rival (Persia). Hannibal had inherited his nation's traditional foe - Rome - and was struggling to contain Rome, so that Carthage could reclaim its economic pre-eminence. He was hardly interested in things syncretic.

Now - Roman armies ... It is interesting to note that it was not until Marius that Rome accepted recruits from the capite censi - the "head count," the poor who owned nothing, who paid no taxes, who gave Rome nothing but more mouths to feed.

Marius, a well-to-do outsider from the rural town of Arpinum, had, by strength of will, masterful ability, an ever increasing fortune, and a strategic marriage alliance w/the fantastically noble Julian Family, managed to gate crash Rome's elite, who had shunned him prior to his marriage but who could not shun him after it. There wasn't a Roman alive who would not have licked the ground clean as she advanced to get a Julia into his house, no matter what horrible sort of person came in her train, even an up country nobody w/a funny accent. Thereafter, there was no stopping Marius. The Senate was putty in his hands. When the Germans came, Marius got the command. There simply were not enough eligible Roman property owners to make up an army that could meet the Germans. Marius demanded that "head count" be admitted to the legions. The Senate reluctantly agreed, almost hoping that Marius would go down w/his peasant army. But he didn't. He trained his "head count" legions, equipped them, and met the Germans, who outnumbered him 10 to 1 - and beat them, beat them so badly that the name Marius would cause Germans to shudder for centuries to come. It is estimated that a million Germans were sold in Rome's slave markets, all of the proceeds going into Marius' money box ...

My point? Marius should be far more famous than he is. Not only did he equip the legions w/his invention, the pilum, (a spear that was deadly but which was useless after it had been used: the enemy was no longer able to arm itself w/Roman spears) and re-organize the legions, creating Rome's first professional soldiers, he practically invented the centurion - that NCO about whom Caesar said, "W/1 thousand centurions, I could conquer the world!" The centurion was everything to the Roman soldiers (who were usually about 17 years old when they first joined up): father, mother, teacher, nurse - and dreaded disciplinarian. A Roman soldier was far more afraid of his centurion than any enemy! ... But it wasn't just these things that made Marius great. It was the regular pay. It was the guarantee of land at the end of one's service. It was the guaranteed share in the spoils. For the first time in history, Rome's legions had uniform equipment and promotions based upon merit and merit only. A consul's son might find himself mucking out the stables if he were inept as a soldier, but a man from the head count who showed ability got promoted. Marius' career is fascinating - and, long term, his accomplishments are far finer than those of either Alexander or Hannibal!

[Ferrus]

Interesting thoughts about Marius.

I think the problem with Marius' reputation is - he does appear to have been outclassed by Sulla repeatedly. Whether over the wranglings with the Numidians, the furor over who was to fight Mithritades, and of course his desperate attempts to get a final consulship and fight off Sulla's returning army - he came across as an old man past his prime, being chicaned and cajoled into error by the irrepresible upstart. Sulla demands greater recognition for one thing - voluntarily giving up the dictatorship after the prescriptions had reduced all opposition. Only in a Republic with as strong moral codes as Rome - even in spite of Sulla's 'bending' of these, such as taking the army into the city itself - could produce such an effect where normally a man of such stature would become a tyrant.

Although it was their strong sense of duty which led to Cannae (their disregard and explusion of Fabius) - it was the same sense of collective morality which stiffened their resolve after Cannae, against blind panic.

[01intp]

um, you mean in relation to Napolean and Hitler, right? Cause nowadays manpower is Russia's greatest weakness, one that's going to bite them in the ass sometime within the next fifteen years.


This is off topic, but I couldn't help myself.
Napoleon actually had far more men then the Russian Empire when he invaded. Unfortunately for him, the logistics of keeping all those men fed and the Russian's refusal to give more decisive battles after Borodino doomed the Gran Armee into a shameful and fatal retreat from Moscow during winter.

With the 3rd Reich vs. USSR, it was a different story, but not nearly what most Westerners believe. The USSR's entire population was maybe 2.5 times the size of Germany. People forget most of Russia isn't heavily populated.
In later years, the Soviets certainly pushed the numeric odds in their favor with superior generalship which concentrated large masses of men in a small section of the front, resulting in the Red Wave assaults that doomed the Germans to constant retreats and trying to patch up their lines.

[Ghost-Girl]

I gotta vote for the sexually omnivorous guy with curly blond hair.

I imagine Hot or Not: Famous Generals Edition would go over well with a very small minority of history buffs.

[Ferrus]

In later years, the Soviets certainly pushed the numeric odds in their favor with superior generalship which concentrated large masses of men in a small section of the front, resulting in the Red Wave assaults that doomed the Germans to constant retreats and trying to patch up their lines.
Hitler relied on his momentum - once the winter set in and he failed to capture Moscow, he was doomed.

[OrionzRevenge]

This is off topic, but I couldn't help myself.
Napoleon actually had far more men then the Russian Empire when he invaded. Unfortunately for him, the logistics of keeping all those men fed and the Russian's refusal to give more decisive battles after Borodino doomed the Gran Armee into a shameful and fatal retreat from Moscow during winter.

With the 3rd Reich vs. USSR, it was a different story, but not nearly what most Westerners believe. The USSR's entire population was maybe 2.5 times the size of Germany. People forget most of Russia isn't heavily populated.
In later years, the Soviets certainly pushed the numeric odds in their favor with superior generalship which concentrated large masses of men in a small section of the front, resulting in the Red Wave assaults that doomed the Germans to constant retreats and trying to patch up their lines.

I agree that Stalin (in the end) had more than just bodies to throw into the fray. Indeed, once Russian industry recovered, they made awesome weapons to counter Hitler. The T-34 Tank was the best in the world period, when introduced and prompted Hitler to counter with the Tiger. The Ruskies had tuff Warbirds too, and pilots willing to chew off your tail with their prop in order to win.

I think the image of the suicide waves comes from the desperate stops at Stalingrad and in front of Moscow… When that’s all Stalin had to use at the time.

More Topical, IMO, Alexander comes across as a Brute Force Kinda guy… Conan Bashing his way forward with a two handed sword.

The conquest of Tyre and the tale of the Gordian Knot seem to illustrate this point.
Less, of an Objective than a Quest >>> Master to the ends of the Earth.
Which also might explain why he gave no thought to succession, other than to say it should go to the strongest.

So too, it might explain why things did not go really wrong at the gates of India when his subordinates refused to go forward.
…Nothing would snap Conan back to reality like the breaking of his sword and the consuming desire to have it fixed.

:):):)

[01intp]

I agree that Stalin (in the end) had more than just bodies to throw into the fray. Indeed, once Russian industry recovered, they made awesome weapons to counter Hitler. The T-34 Tank was the best in the world period, when introduced and prompted Hitler to counter with the Tiger. The Ruskies had tuff Warbirds too, and pilots willing to chew off your tail with their prop in order to win.

I think the image of the suicide waves comes from the desperate stops at Stalingrad and in front of Moscow… When that’s all Stalin had to use at the time.
:):):)

Yes, the great purges of the 30's basically castrated the Soviet military. All the best officers and generals were seen as dangerous for Stalin and he had them imprisoned or killed. The people put in charge in their place were loyal communist party members - but they weren't warriors, they were politicos, and thus had no chance against the well trained Germans.

It could also be argued that Soviet victory came at a reversal of factors - at the start of the war, Stalin and the politicians would try to manage the fighting, which failed badly, while Hitler relegated the combat duties to his excellent generals. Towards the middle and end of the war, the Soviet generals who survived became on par with their German counterparts and Stalin let them do their thing, while Hitler on the other hand became increasingly paranoid and neurotic, trying to micromanage and overruling his generals' better judgement in favor of his nutty, yaked up ideas (Hitler was prescribed amphetamines by his doctor for years which some historians think drove him bat shit crazy in the end).

[omnirook]

Interesting thoughts about Marius.

I think the problem with Marius' reputation is - he does appear to have been outclassed by Sulla repeatedly. Whether over the wranglings with the Numidians, the furor over who was to fight Mithritades, and of course his desperate attempts to get a final consulship and fight off Sulla's returning army - he came across as an old man past his prime, being chicaned and cajoled into error by the irrepresible upstart. Sulla demands greater recognition for one thing - voluntarily giving up the dictatorship after the prescriptions had reduced all opposition. Only in a Republic with as strong moral codes as Rome - even in spite of Sulla's 'bending' of these, such as taking the army into the city itself - could produce such an effect where normally a man of such stature would become a tyrant.

Although it was their strong sense of duty which led to Cannae (their disregard and explusion of Fabius) - it was the same sense of collective morality which stiffened their resolve after Cannae, against blind panic.

Unfortunately, Marius - lost. History has rarely been kind to the loser. (Antony and Cleopatra are exceptions; because they were lovers, history has romanticized their story, rather than blame them for pissing away a navy, an army, vast wealth - an empire.) At any rate, Marius was a great general - until the end, when it must be remembered that he was an old man, a sick man, one who had suffered a series of strokes. Sulla had risen under Marius, had learned from Marius, had been given chance after chance to shine - and he did shine. Marius was not a hog! He willingly gave Sulla opportunities for glory - and Sulla took them - why not?

Sulla was - and is! - another fascinating man - but for different reasons. Sulla generaled very well, remarkably well given that he had no prior experience. Sulla was a Cornelian patrician, which meant that he was related to Scipio. His birth was almost as good as Caesar's - almost. However, his branch of the gens had fallen on very hard times, so that his father was a pauper. Sulla grew up in the Subura (like Caesar!) and got by on his wits. He had nothing. No property, no money, nothing - just his spectacular pedigree. Had the rich Marius not taken an interest in Sulla, Sulla would probably have died in an alley. Marius made Sulla - and Sulla paid him back by destroying him.

Sulla stepped down, yes - but, as you say, only after he was certain that there was no one who could (for now) undo his work. How about the scandalous farewell speech that Sulla gave to the Senate before retiring? They had to sit there and listen to Sulla sing the praises of his catamite, Metrobius, and tell them all about how he had had them all fooled for years, no one suspecting that Sulla liked boys.

[Ferrus]

Well... Sulla was extremely lucky, above all else, that a wealthy courtesan, and presumably a long-time lover, decided to bequeath all her wealth on Sulla, otherwise, yes, he would have never risen above a petty gambler and partier.

I find the Roman attitude to sexuality interesting. Homosexuality seems not to have such a comfortable existence as in Greece, but it is tolerated in private, it would seem. And what is also interesting is that the Romans, although obsessed with masculinity, saw womanising as rather effete. From what I understand of Cato, for example, it seems an obsession with sex was the domain of women (a prejudice they shared with the Greeks, although Roman women were supposed to be considerable more frigid), whilst a man should focus primarily on the cultivation of his military, physical and economic prowess. I seem to remember Caesar's penchant for wenching, along with his fashion-consciousness, and the affair with the Bithnyian king meant his senatorial rivals never ceased to portray him as effeminate.

I read Cicerco's Phillipics against Anthony recently. I wonder if they were pure fabrications, or whether Anthony really was as he is portrayed by him.

[Joystick]

Ok, I cannot be really objective on this, but it is indeed an odd comparison to make.

You seem to forget here that Alexander acted almost a 150 years before Annibas, and that he was almost only 18 when he started crossing the Asia.
He would keep up moving forward, and just until 31, when died as well, he had reached India

Moreover, Hannibas was mostly motivated from the need to defend, and reassure Calhedon's position, while Alexander was the type of the conqueror and holded a very different vision for it. Of course there was the Persian threat shadowing on Greece, but this would have faided away by Alexander's times;

So, I guess, the comparison is quite problematic, except if you just compare in terms of square meters, or probably different fighting strategies.

[Gracchus]

Well Alexander inherited a first class army of disciplined classical-style pikemen and expert heavy calvary against a rotting persian empire while Hannibal took a disparate mob of barbarian mercenaries and pretty much clobbered the Romans (if only the Romans weren't so relentless and had a nearly endless supply of manpower he would have). As impossible it is to tell who is better, I am more impressed by Hannibal's victories and his abilities as a tactician, although I have to give credit to Alexander for being such a ballsy crazy mofo. Either man has his own impressive qualities that fit the age in which he fought.

[Ferrus]

Alexander had the ability to take towns in sieges in a way Hannibal singularly failed to do repeatedly.

[kendoiwan]

Well Alexander inherited a first class army of disciplined classical-style pikemen and expert heavy calvary against a rotting persian empire while Hannibal took a disparate mob of barbarian mercenaries and pretty much clobbered the Romans (if only the Romans weren't so relentless and had a nearly endless supply of manpower he would have).


Alexander had the ability to take towns in sieges in a way Hannibal singularly failed to do repeatedly.

:popcorn:

[YardGnome]

Carthage could have defeated them in the First War. And he could've in the Second, had he had a larger army with him. His expedition was far too small, ultimately, to prevail. Had he capitalised on Cannae better, or what an invasion in and then from Sicily been effective, they might have done it.

Despite the size of his army I believe he may have lost in the second due to the fact that he had no siege weapons (he couldn't get them over the Alps). Forget about sacking Rome let alone any city at the time without siege weaponry.

[kendoiwan]

Despite the size of his army I believe he may have lost in the second due to the fact that he had no siege weapons (he couldn't get them over the Alps). Forget about sacking Rome let alone any city at the time without siege weaponry.

I meant to say it yesterday, good to see you posting again...

[OrionzRevenge]

Alexander had the ability to take towns in sieges in a way Hannibal singularly failed to do repeatedly.

Good point.
The story of the Gordian Knot would seem a metaphor for Alexander’s dogged determination when it came to siege warfare. (As with the Island Fortress of Tyre.)

IMO, what sets Alexander upon a shelf higher than Hannibal is the adaptability and situational awareness both tactical and strategic.

Hannibal led a herd of elephants over the Alps for battle field shock effect. However, most died in transit and the Romans soon learned how to overcome the remainder. Something Hannibal should have understood from the outset would reap only meager returns for the effort.
Secondly, Hannibal completely under-estimated the calming/stabilizing effects of the Pax Romano upon the subject city states in Italy.

As per Alexander, the best example of adaptability came at the gates to India when his generals refused his wish to continue. Most leaders used to absolute loyalty would have reacted in a reckless way that would have wrought disaster.

History is replete with fools like Hitler who allowed their ego to run rough shod over their councils of war. Not Alexander.
:) :) :)

[YardGnome]

I meant to say it yesterday, good to see you posting again...

I have to be careful, I lost a job a few years back by neglecting my duties, instead spending most of my day reading the posts on this site. I'd rather not see history repeat...

[Ferrus]

I have to be careful, I lost a job a few years back by neglecting my duties, instead spending most of my day reading the posts on this site. I'd rather not see history repeat...
Heh, you should have an award named after you for that spectacular achievement. 'The YardGnome award for excessive obsession with INTPc'. To be granted to Delilah for the first year.

[YardGnome]

Heh, you should have an award named after you for that spectacular achievement. 'The YardGnome award for excessive obsession with INTPc'. To be granted to Delilah for the first year.

Heh, I'd rather not be commemorated by something that would remind me of it annually...

Thread officially derailed. About that Hannibal...

[kendoiwan]

Tactically speaking you can't fault Hannibal for not being able to properly conduct a siege without the proper equipment or a proper army.

Fact is Rome never beat him on Roman soil, and had to cut the legs out from under him, by attacking his homeland, in order to ultimately defeat him.

Doing more with less is always the mark of a genius to IMO.

Not to disparage Alexander either, winning when you're supposed and knowing when to quit is also the mark of a genius.

[C.J.Woolf]

My read on history is that the army commander had a greater effect on a field battle than on a siege. Success in siege was more driven by the army, its military system, and logistics.

The Roman army was one of the best siege armies in history.

[Oso Mocoso]

I have to be careful, I lost a job a few years back by neglecting my duties, instead spending most of my day reading the posts on this site. I'd rather not see history repeat...

Ouch. That sucks! Don't do that again.


My read on history is that the army commander had a greater effect on a field battle than on a siege. Success in siege was more driven by the army, its military system, and logistics.

I'd go with logistics.


The Roman army was one of the best siege armies in history.

Rome was amazingly good at logistics. They were not always great innovators, but they were very good at stealing technologies and ideas from other places and then making everything really efficient.

[kendoiwan]

Rome was amazingly good at logistics. They were not always great innovators, but they were very good at stealing technologies and ideas from other places and then making everything really efficient.

You mean Jupiter wasn't an original idea?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[dennis44x]

I read a lot about both and it's hard to compare them.

Alexander had the advantages of a father who had developed equipment years ahead of there time and he was mostly fighting people with very little motivation and against terrible generals. On the other hand, nobody had a courage, determination and future vision like Alexander. That guy knew he was going to conquer the world and nobody was going to stop him.

Hannibal was a complete genius. He was fighting an impossible war against the toughest culture in history and was still doing very well. Yet Hannibal didn't had the determination of Alexander, he was a defender forced to fight using an attack strategy.

So if I was a general and the question was who I feared most in direct battle, it would be Hannibal. Yet if I was a king and the question was who I wouldn't want to have as enemy king, it would be Alexander.

[kendoiwan]

^^^ I approve

[OrionzRevenge]

On Monday Night (March 9th. 2009)
History Channel kicks off a new series: BATTLES B.C.

The first episode: Hannibal: The Annihilator (http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=416526)

It's filmed in High Contrast with a slight green tint (Like the movie: 300)
Looks worth the while... IMO

[jerkface]

I believe Alexander to be the superior general because he encountered every type of army in the ancient world, and crushed them all. Granted, Alexander led the best organized army of antiquity, a true force of all arms, but it was his ability to adapt it to any situation that sets him above not only Hannibal, but every other general since.

Rome fielded a primarily infantry army, and heavy infantry at that. This army was the best at what it did, and the Gladius was the most lethal infantry weapon the world was to see until the advent of gunpowder. However, Rome was rarely forced to deal with efficient cavalry, and when it had to, the results were often disastrous.

Sulla was able to offset this deficiency by entrenching his flanks during his Parthian campaign, but this is the exception to the norm. Surenas and his camel archers at Carrhae, and the efficient missile cavalry that was to come in the guise of steppe peoples that later entered Western Europe were able to exploit Rome's lack of efficient cavalry to the full, ultimately leading to her downfall.

I am of the opinion that not just Alexander, but any of his generals would have destroyed any army Rome ever put in the field, Caesar notwithstanding, because of the superior tactical flexibility the Macedonian army possessed.

Hannibal's failure was in his inability to recognize that the war could not be ended by any other means than taking Rome. Rather than elephants, he should have crossed the Alps with a siege train, or absent that, engineers to construct one once he had entered Italy.

[OrionzRevenge]

As noted in post 49, The History Channel's new series "Battles BC" is an awesome look at the generalship of both these leaders and others. To get some idea of Alexander's battle field acumen, try to catch a re-run of "The Battle of The Hydaspes River". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes_River) His understanding of human nature was his best asset.

[OrionzRevenge]

I was just reading about the battle of Arbela in 331 BCE from a D/L PDF book:
50 Battles That Changed the World ~ ~ Copyright © 2001 by William Weir

http://www.4shared.com/file/42616173/5bf7a59d/50_Battles_That_Changed_the_Wo.html?s=1

Sorry, the clipboard formatting from the WYSIWYG PDF is imperfect.

THE CHALLENGE


The army Darius III had assembled was not a million strong
as some ancient writers assert. That figure is absurd. It was, however, many
times larger than the 40,000 foot and 7,000 horse in Alexander's army. The
Greeks saw that the Persian line was so long that it could easily envelop both of their
flanks. Both Persian wings were held by cavalry. Some of them were heavy cavalry
with both riders and horses wearing armor. The rest of the horsemen were light cavalry, the dreaded horse archers of the steppes. Between the cavalry wings were two
lines of infantry. In the center of the first line stood mercenary Greek hoplites, flanking the Persian "Immortal" infantry, Darius's corps d'elite. And in the center of the
Immortals was the Great King himself.
Front and center of the whole Persian army were 15 elephants, beasts the Macedonians had never seen before. On either side of the elephants were 100 chariots with
scythe blades on their wheels. Darius apparently was banking heavily on the chariots.
He had leveled the field in front of his army so the chariots could operate efficiently.


THE BATTLE


At sunrise, Alexander led his troops up to the leveled field. Then he did some-
thing the Persians had never seen before: He moved his army obliquely to the right.
It was a kind of giant-scale version of the "right oblique, march" familiar to any veterans of the U.S. Army's "dismounted drill." The right wing of Alexander's army
would be the first to contact the Persians. The Macedonian king was there, leading
his Companions and Sarissophoroi in person. A screen of light infantry covered the
advance. To foil any flanking attacks by the enormous Persian army, Alexander had
several infantry and cavalry divisions behind his own flanks. They could face right, left,
or to the rear as needed.
Darius noticed that the Greeks, while moving forward, were also moving away
from his prepared field. To stop that movement, which would frustrate his chariots, he
sent his heavy cavalry to charge the Greek right. Alexander met the charge with Greek
mercenary cavalry. The Greeks were driven back, but Alexander charged the enemy
horsemen with his own heavy cavalry. Meanwhile, Darius unleashed his chariots.
The chariot had been the ultimate weapon a thousand years before this. It was
a mobile missile platform, with a driver and one or two archers. All other soldiers
could move only as fast as their feet could carry them, so it was easy for charioteers
to concentrate overwhelming firepower wherever needed. Then soldiers learned to
ride, and cavalry replaced chariots as the mobile arm. Cavalry could occasionally be
used as a shock weapon, but only the most expert riders on the best trained horses
could get their mounts to crash into a steady line of spear points. A charioteer, standing behind a pair of horses, never could. Darius's scythe chariots could only be successful if the Greeks panicked. They didn't. The archers and javelin men shot down
both charioteers and their horses. The panicked horses that escaped ran around the
battalions of phalangites and were captured by the grooms in the Macedonian camp.
All the Persian charioteers had accomplished was to demonstrate why chariots had
been obsolete for centuries.
What the elephants did was unknown. Whatever it was, it had no effect on Alexander's army. It seems most likely that they suffered the same fate as the chariots.
While battling the Persian horsemen, Alexander sent one of his cavalry divisions
to flank the would-be flankers. The Persians, menaced from the rear, stampeded off
the battlefield. The Persian cavalry attack had opened a gap in the Persian front.
Alexander noticed the gap. He detached his Companions , some hypaspists, and four
battalions of phalangites and led them in a charge straight at Darius. The Persian
emperor dropped everything and galloped away, running for his life. Most of the
Persian army followed him. The Persian right wing, however, had ridden around the
Greek left wing and attacked the camp. They were trying to rescue the family Darius
had left behind after Issus. Alexander turned and charged to the rear. The Persians
were finally routed. The Macedonians pursued the remnants of the Persian army for
35 miles, slaughtering thousands.


And most important, THE GLOBAL IMPACT


Before Alexander, Persia had seemed to be on the verge of accomplishing with
diplomacy and money what it had failed to do with military power. The Great King
was taking sides in Greece's incessant civil wars. After the Peloponnesian War, Sparta
had become the chief power in Greece. Spartan hegemony in the Aegean Islands was
destroyed in the Battle of Cnidus. The victorious fleet was Greek, but the Great King
had paid for it. Later, in 384 BC, the Great King arranged a peace among the warring
Greek states. In this "King's Peace," Persia again got undisputed sovereignty over the
Ionian Greeks in Asia Minor. Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth all took turns lording it over other Greeks, and all took Persian money for enterprises, which in the long
run benefited only Persia. The Persian Empire was like a great black hole, sucking the
small Greek states into it by economic gravity.
Alexander changed that. He obviously did not preserve democracy from extinction at the hands of Persia. He almost made it extinct in Greece. But the idea had
already crossed the Adriatic to Italy, where the Roman Republic was growing stronger
annually. Slowly the idea of people ruling themselves would spread over the world.
It would die in some places but spring to life in others. What Alexander did was shift
economic, as well as military, power from Asia to Europe. The idea of the rights and
duties of citizenship did not die, even under Alexander and his successors. Because of
his conquests, Europeans would never become the slaves of a divine king, as in Persia
or Egypt.
Alexander added an idea of his own to both Europe and Asia. The brotherhood
of man has had even rougher sledding than democracy, but we've come a long way
from the Great King, and even from Aristotle.