Alexander the Great vs Hannibal of Cartha

 

Marcellus the Delay's idea was also equally valid - by simply shadowing Hannibal and denying him supplies, his huge army could easily have been dismantled piece by piece. The question is if it would work quick enough to stop him from getting to the Roman neighboorhood. In any case, it was a brilliant tactic, and the same pricinple was used by Pompey during the Dymrachium campagin to starve out Caesar's forces and if the politicans in his camp hadn't forced him to intervene quicker, it probably would have worked. In my mind, both Fabious Maximus and Marcus Marcellus (The sword and shield of Rome) both had equally valid, if however diametrically opposed - tactics.

 

I'm not sure if the Libyan spearmen had larger pike lengths than the Hypaspists, but the Macedonian phalanx, as Plutarch often mentions, is a particuarlly effective and large formation. Hypaspists pikes were so long that they needed a counter-weight on the other end to balance them - that is long!

 

I think for this battle, we'll have to be going back to the previous points - Hannibal does have Elephants and troops which are the Punic equivalent to legionaries. Alexander has nothing of the sort - he just has Peltasts, Irregulars and Hoplites for foot troops - he has nothing like Legionaries.

 

...Also, you mentioned the collection of weapons as Traisamene and Trebia - that may be so, but even if they did have Roman weapons, the majority of his forces are still barbarians and will probably not wield them nearly as well as the Romans would. They would use a Gladius to slash and a Pilus as a pike !

 

I also think that using Cannae as an example isn't really fair to suggest the power of Hannibals troops because frankly, the Carthaginians had a huge advantage in time - the Romans weren't expecting anything, they were ambused by numidian cavalry and then attacked in the front by the bulk of his forces. One of the main factors in this battle is of course that the Romans had not eaten and were tired - thus not giving a very satisfactory fight to Hannibal. Also, when they assembled out of the camp, they had no recon or patrols that had warned them, so no real formation for the Roman army based on the current tactical situation could be initiated.

 

[Generalisation] Most barbarian battle tactics did not involve the troops working as one, but rather all for themselves - seeking self glory at the expense of discipline and order. By fighting in the front line amongst them, Hannibal exercised the discipline essential for victory - the orderly retreat (Cannae).

 

Yeah, like at Alesia! The barbarians knew a lot about forward planning there!

 

Many people try to use battles like Tertoburger Wald to argue that the european barbarians had battle tactics, without realising that many barbarian victories (this battle included) were actually due to the weather, logistics, navigation and time and not really to do with military brilliance on the side of the barbarians. Tertoburger Wald was due more to the weather, the time and the fact that the Romans were unfamiliar with the forests than any kind of barbarian brilliance.

 

...Although Alaric did do a good job at Rome in Honorius's reign!

 

...That said, back to the main point. The reader of my reply may think that by stating the inadequacies of gladiators and barbarians as troops against a Greek or Roman army would be proving Alexander to probably win. One has to consider that even though these unit types would not stand a chance against a Macedonian army, Hannibal's selection of these troops was more to boost his numbers and men that he had lost on the march rather than by choice. Hannibal did not CHOOSE to have these men - fortune gave them to him because there was nobody else. So using Cannae and other battles of Hannibal's penetration into Italy as a basis for what kinds of units that he would have in this hypothetical battle is frankly...flawed. The army that he had at Sagnatum (at the begining of the war) was completely different, so if we are (I assume) basing this battle on the original armies of the opponents, Hannibal would not have these barbarians. It's like basing Alexander's army on what his troops were when he reached Pir Sar and the frontiers of India- you can't do it.

 

If you look at my statement, you'll see my evidence for suggesting that the Persia that Alexander attacked was simply not as powerful as the one which attempted to invade Greece centuries before. He was a brilliant general - that is not in dispute. I just find it irritating that so many people will not relinquish the athmosphere surrounding Alexander that they got from the myth and substituting it for historical realism. Regarding what you were saying about the strength of Alexander's soldiers, sunnyspot, that doesn't suggest anything about the abilites of the general as a tactical leader. Greek hoplites were exceptionally well trained and many of them would run the hoplite racing in the Olympics and the training sessions. This entailed running with full armour. If we consider the amount of wars that the average Greek or Macedonian would have partaken in, we can see that his experience would frankly have been increadibally high- he would have been used to the weight of his armour and of the turmoil of the many forced marches that he would have been made to endure. Speaking about the strength of Alexander's men is clearly a mythically inspired act, because frankly, most men of the ancient world have been used to copious war. Also, not all Macedonian soldiers carried such heavy equipment - many, such as peltasts and light cavalry could have been more or less naked. In many respects, the Persians wore more heavy garments and more of them. Look at Thermopyle and Marathon, look at Ipsus and Magnesia - all these examples of Greek battles show hours and hours of fighting under heavy armour and stress. Just because Alexander's men did it (like most soldiers of the time did), then how does that give him more credibility? By your logic, the Roman legions commanders would have been brilliant because of what their legionaries were wearing. Think again - armour and troop types doesn't neccesarily do any justice to Alexander the great.