Alexander the Great vs Hannibal of Cartha
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20742
Printed Date: 10-May-2024 at 22:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alexander the Great vs Hannibal of Cartha
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Alexander the Great vs Hannibal of Cartha
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 06:07
|
Who would win this battle Alexander or Hannibal??? I know this battle between the two would be evenly matched and probably alot of other people would agree with me on that. But in this case scenario there can only be one who will come out triumphant so in your opinion who would win this battle and why??? Due to numerous accounts of mentionings of the battlefield etc. Well the battlefield is set on flat ground there is no trees nothing else but flat ground. The weather is perfect the sun is ou, not too hot, not too cold its just a perfect day for a battle. There is no location.
As for the armies Alexander using his army during the battle of Gaugamela and Hannibal using his army at the battle of Cannae. Both armies with about the same numbers about 50,000 on both sides. Only two masterminds will decide how this battle ends.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 06:39
|
It's very hard to say but I would be backing on Hannibal. Military technology had advanced considerably and the nations that were still using Phalanx tactics like the Diodachi states were promptly defeated by those that had developed multiple-role troops. Hannibal had the advantage of legionary-ish troops against Alexander's hoplites. Remember the battle of Cynosephalae? Alexander's hoplites could easily be flanked if they were on anything but flat terrain. I'm seriously betting on Hannibal - Alexander knew how to win a victory against other Hoplite-bearing nations and eastern light infantry, but no way to exploit that victory. Hannibal was a brilliant commander who knew not to occupy towns or not to get distracted - just to break the Roman army and take Rome as soon as he could - an Ancient "Blitzkrieg"- Yup. Hannibal is my bet. ------------- |
Posted By: sunnyspot
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 02:07
They would probably decimate each other. But I tip Alexander - not because of his phalanx, which the Romans would have been able to maneavure around, but his hard bitten generals - Phillip's old guard. I see them standing at the end of the battle, victorious. It was these old grizzeled war veterans that war the anvil of the Macedonian army - proved time and time again in his wars against the Greeks and Persians. |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 05:05
This is one of the most classical questions in history forums  Honestly I don't know what to say.
-------------  
SÃ¥ nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 05:26
|
Because I believe Hannibal was a better general, I would pick him to take the cake. However, as is the case with all of these comparisons and general/army face-offs, they are completely dependent on a myriad of external factors of the mere general/army himself/itself. I have moved this thread to historical amusement, but please do feel to continue discussion over these two great generals. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 06:08
|
I can certainly see Sunnyspot's point about Alexander's generals - those men like Ptolemy, Selucos and Antiochus could really have been an asset in this make-believe-battle, but frankly, when it comes to sheer military technological superiority, in this battle it would go to Hannibal. Hannibal's light legionary-like troops would easily be able to defeat a Phalanx. This battle wouldn't be Phalanx against Phalanx, it would be light troops, heavy troops, elephants, missile troops and cavalry versus phalanx, missile troops and cavalary. When looking at it in this way, one can see that Hannibal has the ability over Alexander to flank. ------------- |
Posted By: sunnyspot
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 00:36
You left out the best of them. Who can forget Cleitus, Parmenion, Hephaistion - brutal warriors... |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 07:06
|
How many of them were there, then? Alexander's never been an area that i've read up on heavily ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 14:55
|
If it is alexander at his height against hannibal against his height, alexander would win without a doubt. He was a superior general, and his phallanx was simply there to hold the enemy (hannibals) line while he took his cavalry through the opposing cavalry (inferior numidians in this case) and hit the enemy in the flank and rear. Phallanx is the anvil and the companion cavalry is the hammer. Alexander had better troops and better generals.
There were a ton of them some of the more famous ones are: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, Lysimachus, Parmenion, Antigonus, Cleitus, Hephaestion, Antipater, Craterus, Perdiccas etc. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 16:28
...But not all of them were Diodachi, no? Only a handful of the ones that you mentioned ever formed his successor states.
Justinian, why are you always under the conviction that Alexander could definatley have beaten Hannibal and other generals of that time?
A- the unit types are completely different
B- good general or no, cavalry or no, the Roman and Carthaginian units are centuries ahead in military technology
C - It depends on the general- despite popular belief, Alexander was not infallible
Frankly, we just don't know, but Alexander could not have just smashed his way through any Roman-era army. I'd like to see him take on Trajan's Elite Legions in the Parthian campagins, or Pompey's legions in the Mithradic wars, or Allatus's cavalry at the battle of Magnesia! Having a Phalanx face a Legion is a little like having a flintlock muskeeteer face and aquebus- the same era but one still much more powerful than the other.
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 15:02
In the beginning all of these generals supported the regent and Alexander's successors; his son and half brother. Once these two were out of the way then the wars began. Remember that many of these generals killed each other off before the successor states were set up. So you are right in the sense that only a few of them set up successor states.
I admit I am biased in favor of Alexander, even though I am a big fan of Hannibal (see avatar). Since this discussion is all hypothetical, I can only guess what would happen. That being said I look at Alexander who never lost a battle and fought multiple enemies with completely different tactics on the fly and beat all of them. Hannibal fought one enemy who used heavy infantry and repeatedly beat them until that enemy used hannibals main weapon against him (numidian cavalry). I hope that explains why it appears I think Alexander is invincible.
 Edit: In regards to military technology, even if one side has inferior technology depending on the situation it might not make a difference. There are numerous examples of inferior armies beating superior ones, even if that is unlikely.
Perhaps I missed it but is it suppose to be alexander and military technology circa 330 b.c. versus hannibal and the military technology of 220 b.c.? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 19:42
|
I can see your point, but also look at these variables - the Persian empire was crumbling after numerous civil wars (Cambyses II etc.), and their vast size eventually made them cumbersome, like all large empires. Darius III/Codomannus was appointed by Bagoas, the Grand Vizier who murdered Artaxerxes III in 338 BC, used him like a puppet. Yes, Bagoas was later killed, but the fact that courtiers were more and more frequently doing things like this (khabash in Egypt, for example...) clearly shows an empire in its slow demise. Darius wasn't even trained in running an empire- he had never held a previous post! Even when Xenophon marched the 10'000 to hell and back through Persia, we can see that Artaxerxes's forces were simply not planned enough to contain them, despite the fact that Xenophon and his generals were not as "powerful" as Alexander. The gradual pressure from Greece had begun to nibble away at the corners of the Persian empire - the Egyptians revolted, with Necetabo II being declared Pharoah and promptly killed by Atraxerxes's forces near Elephantine. Greek incursions such as those of the Athenian archon Cimon and later generals, had begun to take their toll. The peoples of the foreign lands that they subdued, such as the Carthaginians, began to become restless (they refused to row in the Persian navy of several occasions). I'm not disputing the fact that Alexander was a brilliant general in his time, but also, in his time the Persian empire was crumbling and was nothing like as powerful at the time of Marthon. If Alexander had succeeded against fighting a more unified and powerful persian empire some 200 years earlier, now that is the question... ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 22:48
| Im leading with Alexander in this one but Im not discrediting Hannibal, both were great generals for their time. The thing is, Hannibal never truely faced against a Macedonian phalanx before so I dont really know how Hannibal will react. Hannibal cant deploy his troops like in Cannae because its nearly impossible to encircle Alexander's army. I think it would all be about the cavalry, which ever wins decides the fate of the army and I think Alexander's Companions can defeat any Numidians cavalry. Thats why I think Alexander could defeat Hannibal, without the cavalry Hannibal cant stop a flanking (even if the Libyian Spearmens were deployed). Thats just my opinion, its hard deciding which is better when you are comparing history's greatest generals... |
Posted By: sunnyspot
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 01:56
|
Earl Aster, I back the Macedonian General. It was the way these guys conducted themselves. Think about how many strong men they had to cut down. What I think about is how several thousand Macedonians, on the left at the battle of Gaugamela, can hold back such a massively numerous force (in hand to hand combat) for how long? A half hour - An hour. Super fit boxers can only manage 'MINUTES' in the ring under fire, with rests in between. Think about the heavy armour and weapons they carried, and using them in a hand to hand bloodbath for AN HOUR or so, while your loins are screaming out 'die'. Take these guys - and they would decimate ANY force that came at them in equal numbers. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 12:38
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 00:30
I think at the Battle of Cannae, the center of Hannibal's troops fought for nearly 4 hours...  |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 05:53
|
I think comparisons can be so unfair. What Alexander had
going for him were good generals and troops with foreknowledge of enemy
tactics. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 05:59
This is indeed the case. Hannibal's centre not only had to undertake the orderly retreat, but then fight back. Furthermore, they then had the task of finishing off an entire Roman army (upwards of 60,000 men by this stage, though they had support on the flanks and rear now). Although the Romans were doomed, they still had plenty of fight in them, and Hannibal had to call it to an end when his troops were on the brink of complete exhaustion. Hence, a couple of thousand escaped to the nearby village, only to be sent to Sicily as a punishment. So, if endurance is anything, Hannibal's troops really have it going for them. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 08:40
|
Yes, but that was by neccesity - just because in that battle Hannibal's troops displayed endurance, it doesn't mean that the Romans would have shown just as much if the situation was reversed. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 23:41
|
Some of Hannibal's troops were trained gladiators and showed during battle. That the Romans trained men to die for amusement at the circuses cost them dearly. Supermen of their own creation were set loose against them. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 05:37
|
Before we can decide who would win "this battle" we need to know what
exactly "this battle" is. the only things known of ezycompany's
scenario is that it is a "battle" between Hannibal and Alexander and
there can be no draw. Aside from that we know nothing, we don't know
where the battle will take place, which forces each commander will have
at his disposal or whether this is meant to be an abstract comparison
to decide who was the better general. If our task is to compare them
with thier historical armies at which point in thier historical careers
should we do this as both the size, experience and makeup of thier
forces changed over thier military careers. ..........In short ezycompany I am asking for you to elaborate. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 07:13
|
It's not for me to say but I would choose Egypt as the most exciting battle ground. Both had experience over the conditions and both would have good supply lines. They would have circled around looking for advantage and then fought like lions in a brilliant series of thrusts and counter-thrusts. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 12:03
|
Elenos, yes, Hannibal did have gladiators, but frankly, a trained troop is far more superior (especially a legionary...) to a gladiator. A gladiator is hired for a few minutes of bloody amusement for the plebs - it's hardly very fair to compare them to a Roman legionary, who had much more basic training and much better equipped for a battle. Gladiators may have been good in small combats, but legionaries were trained troops with formations who knew how to respond and follow to orders. Also, not all Gladiators were "supermen" - their abilities ranged hugely. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:11
|
Exactly Earl Aster. Gladiators, though some may be more skilled than the average legionary in single combat, they are in no way trained in the art of fighting as a part of a legion. The Roman maniples/legions/army as a whole was a single machine, with each legionary playing his part. It's success depended on each man staying in formation and discipline was very necessary. This would be where gladiators would be quite a disadvantage. This was the same for the Barbarians (Celtiberians, Gauls, Ligurians.etc) employed by Hannibal, but he managed to keep control of them, most impressively at Cannae. [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). ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:16
Also, most Gladiators (sure, some people did enjoy it and signed on again even after they had been freed!) weren't exactly there voluntarily, so I'm suprised that Hannibal managed to control them.
The principle is similar to learning fencing (I love fencing!) - although one is trained for duels one on one, it doesn't neccesarily mean that you could fight in a battle as part of a unit. Succesful warfare is about co-operation, and frankly, Gladiators would simply not have the military knowledge or training to hold formation and give a good battlefield performance. It doesn't matter how good they individually are - if they don't know how to act as a team, then they would be cut apart by the professional soldiers on the field.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:22
|
You've hit the mark there. Hence why the well trained and disciplined legions were as successful as they were. I'm sure you could always use gladiators as initial shock troops as an attempt to break the enemy line, before engaging the legionnaires. Also, the advantage of having such a well trained and disciplined troop such as a legionnaire, is that if the time arises, they are perfectly fit to fit one on one. We see a good example how even the most elite gladiators are unable to gain very much success against a well trained and organised force, in the case of the Spartacan revolt. I mean, they did get somewhere, but not overly far... NOTE: I edited the poll, changing "Alexader" to "Alexander" and "Hannibal or Carthge" to "Hannibal of Carthage". ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:27
|
Oh yeah, look above- I've added a lot more to my previous post that you evidently didn't see whilst responding. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:29
Yeah, like at Alesia! The barbarians knew a lot about forward planning there!
[/quote]Yes! Alesia, what a wonderful example of foresight and excellent planning... 
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:30
Did you edit it twice? I saw one edit, and responded to that. However, you've added something about Alexander I see. I will have to respond to that when I get back from school, sorry. Must go. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:51
|
Yeah, I spent a while typing that stuff, and during that time, you were posting.
...Also, at Tertoburger Wald, the Romans were (I think) betrayed of their presence to a German chieftan. But also, they were on the march with heavy baggage trains that got stuck in the marshes. They were far too slow and were not moving at the time in a manner that would successfully give them forest advantages. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 02:20
|
Indeed, Arminius (the German Cheiftain) led Varus and his advisers into thinking he and his tribe were allies to Rome, but led Varus and his legions right into the ambush.
------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 02:37
We mustn't forget, however, that by Cannae and during his days of roaming southern Italy, Hannibal's veterans were elite troops, capable of easily matching a legionnaire. The training and discipline, as well as experience gained from battle and campaign, turned what was left of his army into a mean fighting machine. The collection and administering of Roman armour and weapons after Trebia and Trasimene meant that Hannibal's troops were very well equipped too. At that stage, there was only one way not to lose to Hannibal - and that was not to face him, as put in place by Fabius Maximus. By the way, as far as I know, Hannibal's crack Libyan spearman fought in both phalanx and loose formation at Trebia and Cannae respectively. Do you have any idea of their pike lengths? I wouldn't imagine they would compare to Alexander's phalangist's sarissas though. Maybe a tough match for the hypaspists? ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 03:07
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. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 03:58
|
Hmmh... Are you sure Alexander had the Hypaspistoi formed already? I've always been thinking that they were an invention of Seleukos (along with the Agyraspistoi).
------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:00
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.
Still, a Ligurian warrior, dressed in little more than pants and maybe a shirt, with a spear would have got a great deal more protection from Roman armour, and a much better weapon (gladius), plus may even get a scutum. You don't need to know how to wield armour, and with the amount of drilling Hannibal exercised on his troops, I'm sure they could pick up the art of the gladius in no time. Though, it is fun to imagine them using the pilum as a pike  *will reply to remainder upon my return* ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:02
|
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* ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:05
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.. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:36
Hannibal was very well versed in military history, tactics and procedure. He was a well educated and first class general, and anyone like that surely knows that a short sword is for quick stabbing movements. Also, by purely observing the Romans he could have picked the principle up, as could his troops have (I don't know how to word that last bit). As for the Pilum phalanx offensive - ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:58
|
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!"
Also, about Teurtoburger Wald - I read tacitus's account on it, but I haven't read it for a long time.... ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:08
|
You mean Knights how Alexander and his men would have quickly mastered use of the short sword. Definitely, and that's what makes this subject so interesting. Hannibal would have picked up things about Greek formation and he was very good at adapting to suit the situation. The two meeting would have brought Old World military thinking to a new level.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:50
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 06:43
|
Quite true, we must give them time to prepare by learning of each other and their battles tactics first. I mean we have that advantage before we begin the game. I suppose we would have to do some mathematics and fine tune by adding to one and subtracting from another. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 11:55
|
...As somebody already said, the location is of paramount importance. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 20:53
|
I did suggest Egypt as a likely ground, but then Alexander could probably get reinforcement more quickly. In Turkey perhaps?
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 04:50
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 - http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Battle_of_Cannae
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 23:11
Does it matter? I think the topic is talking about one particular battle that the two will fight not a campaign to see which leader's nation will survive longer... plus Turkey is closer to Greece than Egypt so wouldnt that make reinforcements more easier to get for Alexander? |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 02:14
|
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! ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 18:11
Nothing personal, but it was a joke, I think that you took it a little to literally.
Thanks for the link to that article Praetor! I started Livy's "the war with Hannibal". I got to his crossing over the alps and raids into Northern Italy, but after that I soon picked up Thuycides instead, so I never got around to Cannae.
...I think you're right, Kamikaze 738- the true test of the generals should be based on their abilities and not over territorial advantages. A flat field or steppe would be ideal for such a conflict, although that would be brilliant conditions for Alexander's Phalangists, so I reckon that perhaps some undulations in the ground would make this battle even for both sides - Alexander's phalanxes could be used, but not be at their prime, whilst Hannibals heavy infantry would likewise not be at their prime.
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 22:09
|
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? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 09:41
|
I believe that the light cavalry of Hannibals, such as the Numidians and missile troops, would be annihilated by the Spartan companion cavalry for the simple reason that Alexander would realise the grave threat that missile cavalry pose to his phalanxes. Infantry-wise, the Carthaginian heavy infantry would have an advantage over Alexander's hoplites because of their dexterity and because of the now obselete use of the Phalanx. The Phalanx would not be able to hold Hannibal's infantry for long enough for the cavalry to flank them. It looks like it would be a messy and complex battle for both commanders.
...Just one thing- I really think that we should leave Elephants out of the equation because A- they're a cliche and B- Hannibal didn't actually have that many, most of them died and he didn't utilise them for the majority of his Italian campagin.
I'm thinking... about 5'000 men each side - keep things relitivley small so that no general can get a decisive numerical advantage. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 13:21
|
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.
5,000 each, so along the lines of an army for rome total war. So are we thinking something along the lines of 3500 infantry and 1500 cavalry for each? For Alexander perhaps 1000 companions 500 light/auxiliary cavalry, the phalanx made up of say 2,000 men including the silver shields, with 750 hypaspistai and 750 light/auxiliary infantry. Maybe we could increase the numbers to something like 10,000 each? Or perhaps this battle could be considered the prelimiaries to war, a scouting party for each? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 06:15
|
Leave scouting parties - they complicate - I think that your estimate is good. One of the most important considerations for Alexander is, as you said, for him to get rid of the Numidian cavalry - If he doesn't in the first few hours of the battle, his Phalanx formations could be weakened so much that the Carthaginian heavy infantry could find a way to break them. In any case, Alexander's going to be a hard nut for Hannibal to crack, but Hannibal simply has more troop types to choose from. ------------- |
Posted By: IanZonja
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2018 at 10:00
|
The history of https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/inside-mind-hannibal-what-caused-him-become-rome-s-most-hated-man-007913 - 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 https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/how-ancient-horse-dung-bacteria-helping-locate-where-hannibal-crossed-alps-020796 - 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?
|
