Alexander the Great vs Hannibal of Cartha

The history of Hannibal Barca , one of the greatest military commanders of the ancient world, is one which has fascinated historians and generals throughout the last two millennia, and yet his final secrets seem often set to never reveal themselves, and especially since Hannibal’s exact route over the Alps – the great secret so long disputed for centuries – seems to have at last been uncovered with the recent discovery of petrified elephant droppings, the historian has to sometimes ask himself, what else is there to find?

Hmm, I think Hannibals cavalry would have to be taken out by alexanders companions in co-ordinated attacks with his light cavalry.  Afterall Hannibals numidians were experts at harrasing attacks from a distance.  In regards to the infantry I would say its a wash unless the phalanx is broken up then its carthaginian advantage all the way.  Also the phalanx wasn't obsolete it was still a very effective formation if used properly and more importantly properly supported with light troops and cavalry.  Head on the roman legionaries had difficulty with the phalanx, it was only after it lost cohesion that it was a slaughter, that being said I think the same would apply to hannibals infantry.

Have we come up with some rough numbers and compositions for each army?  So it will take place on rather uneven ground to level the playing field for the infantry, how about the cavalry, should we assume it will be an even playing field in this regard as well?  Alexander will have the advantage in heavy cavalry in numbers, Hannibal will have the numbers in light cavalry.  I wonder what would happen?

You are right Kamikaze 730. We are talking about the one battle, but on a level playing field where each can throw all they have against the other and both are tested to their extreme limits. Choose your grounds in the fight of the ages for death or glory!

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator 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.

I apologise for the late response, but I do believe you have got your battles confused. please if you have the time read this article on Cannae
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Battle_of_Cannae

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator Hang on, the principle of use behind the Gladius was Roman, so Hannibal couldn't have instructed his men how to use it because he himself wouldn't have known. Also, about the Pilum - "Phalanx, attack" *similtaneous snapping sound*

Firstly I must point out that the basic Gladius celtic or celtiberian in origin and the Romans adopted it from one of these two related cultures (though they made a few inovations over the centuries). Indeed Hannibals Iberian troops would likely have used a gladius since the begining of the campaign (hannibals men would hardly have needed to be taught how to use thier own weapons). According to some in fact the Gladius was first adopted into the Roman army by Scipio Africanus in his Spanish campaigns (though this is contested).

Secondly though I would DEFINATLY not recommend the use of Pilums for a phalanx formation. They could well be used as a pike or spear even after the time of Marius (which is after the second punic war), who is the one credited with introducing the intentional weakness designed to snap the pilum in two after bieng thrown (to prevent it from bieng thrown back), which is what I assume you mean by "snapping sound". A great example of this is the battle of Pharsalus where Julius Caesar instructed some of his men to use the Pilum in close combat against the enemy cavalry and as a result the enemy cavalry were decisevely defeated (thier were other key factors of course).

thats the end of my rant on weaponry.
oh and welcome to All Empires, I see you have contributed a great deal already.

Regards, Praetor.

...As somebody already said, the location is of paramount importance.

Yes, but I don't think that he could have mastered it in ONE battle and could have trained his hoplites to fight like the Carthiginians legionary-esque troops. It would take time.

Yes, I'm sure Fabius taught Hannibal's men ALL about that use of the Gladius. "So how do these use those then?" *stab* "Ohhh! That's how!"

Originally posted by Knights Originally posted by Earl 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. True. Teutoberg Wald was nevertheless a well planned battle on the Germans side. However, Varus fell into a rather idiotic trap, and hadn't chosen his route wisely anyway. So I give credit to the Germans on this instance, even if they just hid in the forest and ran out [simplification]...which is more than I can say for those Gauls at Alesia unfortunately. In the end, it was a total annihilation of the Roman army. Any guesses as to why (other than reasons mentioned by yourself)? The Roman army lost its one severe advantage, order. The legions went into disarray and lost all sense of discipline. A lot of the force ended up fighting just as their foes did.

At Teutoburg, the Romans were warned of the trap but Varus didn't believe it. Therefore, they advanced but when they heard their outlying units had been destroyed, Varus chose another route. He soon changed the route once more and then, when they were in the middle of the forest, Arminius and his men charged. The Romans didn't manage to form into battle formation plus the thunderstorm destroyed the soil and made it treacherous. Still, Varus managed to order his men to advance (after the dawn) and they passed over a clearing. Soon they entered another forest (the same but another part of it...). The entire time fighting ensued. Soon, the generals committed suicide and the army was hacked to pieces... only Numa Pompilius and his cavalry unit saved themselves by charging through the blockade...

Btw... August Mag will feature Teutoburg Forest..

Originally posted by Earl Aster and that was not to face him, as put in place by Fabius Maximus.   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.

Marcellus was a fine general indeed, and his, what you could call guerrilla -in that he too avoided a full on set piece battle-  tactics worked well at wearing down Hannibal's army. It was just a pity that he got called back for poor generalship A balance between the sword and shield might have not cost Rome as much as it paid against Hannibal. That said, even Fabius's avoiding of battle against Hannibal was unsuccessful, just take Ager Falernus. As you would know, Fabius wasn't the most popular senator, nor was his policy. Well Hannibal capitalised upon this in a most perculiar but genius way. I was informed by Praetor of this strategy...what happened was when Hannibal burnt large extents of the Campanian plains after his army had ravaged them, he destroyed every single house too. Except one. Fabius's house. I'm sure the other senator's must have had a sneaking suspicion about Fabius, which exacerbated his unpopularity! Smart tactic.