Parzival | 01 Aug 2014 9:55 a.m. PST |
Others have slighted Alexander for facing opponents he could defeat, while praising Hannibal for facing more tenuous odds. Yet is not the mark of a great general the quality of assuring victory from the start? If a general willingly enters a battle the outcome of which will not win him the war, but could well lose it, then I submit that general has made a serious strategic mistake. (I excuse battles brought by the enemy, yet still, the best general will not allow the enemy to bring a battle except at a time and place of the general's choosing.) The object of every action should be the progress towards ultimate victory; if the latter is unachieved, then the general has failed in his greatest duty, and his battles count for nothing. Hannibal fought battles that did not bring him victory. He failed in his duty. Alexander moved closer to victory with every clash of arms, and achieved it. He succeeded at every military level. Therefore, Alexander is undoubtably the better general, all other factors being equal. |
Marcus Brutus | 01 Aug 2014 10:42 a.m. PST |
The quality of the opponents of the two generals is very much part of the discussion. The Roman military machine was unquestionably a tougher opponent to face than the late Persian army. But more importantly 3rd century Rome was unquestionably a tougher political entity to face than 4th century Persia. The ability of Rome to continually put into the filed 20+ legions even after the defeat at Cannae is truly remarkable. Perhaps Hannibal's one great miscalculation was to underestimate Roman resources and staying power. Alexander faced nothing like this in his drive to conqueor Persia. But the question is rather a singular battle based on two historical armies. I like JJartist's summary. A toss up. |
Marcus Brutus | 01 Aug 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
Trebian, as I earlier posted one table top game proves nothing. Especially when your opponent is yourself. Your finally commentary shows your bias. |
Trebian | 01 Aug 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
Marcus, If you read the blog properly you'll see that I also don't think it proves anything I tagged the post "fantasy wargaming", – it was a response to the challenge to "go to your tables" as someone put it earlier in this thread. All that this thread proves is that, typically for TMP, we're better at talking about wargames than actually playing them. I take issue with your reference to my "bias". As you can see I've got Macedonian & Punic armies and I can add that I also own Republican Roman and Persian armies. I have a bookshelf with Arrian, Polybius etc etc, and also modern historical analyses for both generals and armies. I've been reading and wargaming the period for over 20 years. My handle "Trebian" is a reference to my interest in the battle of The Trebbia. (It just looks better with a single b) I'm not biased, I'm informed. Based on what I've read Alexander is a better & more successful general. There's a reason why we call him "the Great". Part of Hannibal's reputation is because the Romans had to build the man who humiliated them into something superhuman, – otherwise Rome itself would have been a joke. Which Roman historian is going to write that Rome was given the runaround by some lightweight? Your statement above about the relative strengths of the Roman and Persian armies and states is contentious to say the least. The Roman army is terribly unbalanced. It only defeats Hannibal when it acquires some proper cavalry. Put up against Darius' army at Gaugamela it is by no means guaranteed a win. In fact it'll probably lose, – surrounded and overwhelmed most likely (might be my next fantasy game). As for one game proving nothing, – I await other members' contribution to the sample size. However, using the method I have on other battles has given pretty good results, so there's no major holes in it, – apart from it is completely anachronistic. Trebian |
Marcus Brutus | 01 Aug 2014 1:08 p.m. PST |
Owning various armies Trebian proves nothing with respect to bias. "I'm not biased, I'm informed. Based on what I've read Alexander is a better & more successful general. There's a reason why we call him "the Great". Part of Hannibal's reputation is because the Romans had to build the man who humiliated them into something superhuman, – otherwise Rome itself would have been a joke. Which Roman historian is going to write that Rome was given the runaround by some lightweight?" You say that you're not biased. That seems patently absurb on several levels based on your above comments. We all carry biases in every facet of life. We bring certain expectations to outcomes. Do you find it all surprising that the game result follows your own natural bent? I don't. You introduce a non sequitur into your commentary. The discussion isn't about whether the Roman army at Cannae could have beaten the Persian army at Gaugamela and the answer to that question proves nothing with respect to whether Hannibal or Alexander emerges victorious in a fantasy matchup. But I would suggest that the Roman army of Punic War would have been a much more challenging adversary for Alexander than the Persians proved to be. Be that as it may, the political strength of mid Roman Republic was clearly superior to anything in the ancient world and was able to endure shocks that would have easily toppled other ancient states. This is not a contentious statement and I could quote many historians to this effect (H.H. Scullard comes to mind.) Persia at the time of Alexander's invasion was a house of cards riven by intrigue and revolt. Hannibal lost the war with Rome not because he was in any inferiour to Alexander as a battlefield leader but because of the political strength of Rome. That fact that he kept of the fight for 14 years proves his genius not his inferior strategic instincts (as you suggest on your forum.) |
warhorse | 01 Aug 2014 1:25 p.m. PST |
Thanks Trebian for the really good point on the Persian Army. They were up to that point the world's biggest and longest-lasting empire. You don't get that way using a crappy army. Hannibal would have been up against it but good at Gaugamela! As for the Roman army's ability to rebuild, Alexander dealt with similar problems in his campaigns. The Asians always had another army for him to fight, and the Afghan Campaign would have destroyed Hannibal. |
Marcus Brutus | 01 Aug 2014 2:22 p.m. PST |
Alexander faced nothing like what Rome could put into the field in the 2nd Punic War. Pyrrhus learned the hard way (Hannibal's second great captain) and Rome had advanced considerably in the 50 year span. |
SJDonovan | 01 Aug 2014 3:07 p.m. PST |
I think I can settle this. We're trying to decide who was the best general so we should take out irrelevancies like the quality of the troops they led, terrain and stuff like that and just have the two guys go head to head. I'm assigning a red D6 to Hannibal and a blue D6 to Alexander and I will leave it to the gods to decide. Hannibal rolls a 1! Alexander rolls a 2. So Alexander wins, but only just. To prove this wasn't a fluke and to iron out any statistical anomalies, I'll go best of three. Round 2: Hannibal rolls a 3. Alexander rolls a 5. Ouch! Things are looking grim for the plucky Carthaginian contender. But can Hannibal get a consolation win? Round 3: Hannibal rolls a 2. Alexander rolls a 2. We have a tie!. The only thing to do is to roll again. Round 3 (part two): Hannibal rolls a 3. Alexander rolls a 2. Hannibal makes the scoreline respectable. Well there we have it. Alexander is the winner by two to one. Pretty definitive I would say. But then, when you think about it, Hannibal won the last fight, which means Alexander lost in the end … |
Parzival | 01 Aug 2014 6:36 p.m. PST |
Alexander won an empire. At his death, it did not revert back to what it had been, but rather became something different, heavily infused with Greek thought and culture at every level, and under the initial control of Greek rulers. If Alexander the Great had lived a full lifetime, how much more might the ancient world have changed under him? Hannibal won nothing. The culture of Carthage and his forces left no real stamp on Rome, except as a bogeyman. Frankly, I see Hannibal's mucking about in Italy for so many years and gaining absolutely no strategic success as a gross failure of generalship. As a battlefield leader he was brilliant (but Scipio proved to be better), but when it came to changing his world to suit the political goals of his war, he achieved zilch. He lived, and left no mark except his legend. Both men made their names known, but only one changed his world. |
Sobieski | 01 Aug 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
Interesting argument there, Marshal Mark. I must consider the implications of the fact that I've listened to far more top-quality music than Bach did. Hooray! I'm a better composer. |
Bobgnar | 01 Aug 2014 8:16 p.m. PST |
Considering the troop types each army has and their experience with them, I give Alexander the edge. He has faced spears fighting the Greeks, elephants fighting the Indians, Light horse versus this scythians, Hannibal has never faced pikes, never faced collision cavalry, as are the companions, nor faced other spears. Alexander is not going to fall for the stratagems that Hannibal typically uses to beat the Romans. Hannibal defeated bad generals, but was in turn defeated by a good one. Alexander never lost. Moreover the bulk of his troops were citizens soldiers, while Hannibal's army was made up of mercenaries. |
Marcus Brutus | 01 Aug 2014 8:20 p.m. PST |
Let's not confuse Parzival skill with good fortune. Alexander was fortunate to be born the son of a very successful king and invading his natural enemy at the point of its greatest weakness. Hannibal had the misfortune of facing the most formidable foe of the ancient world. |
Trebian | 02 Aug 2014 2:56 a.m. PST |
Just realised I've been called "biased" by a contributor who uses a Roman sign on and whose argument is based upon the logic that the Romans are the best, Hannibal beat them, therefore Hannibal is best. This is the logic of Livy & Polybius and fits into the Roman narrative justifying why the couldn't beat an itinerant army wandering up and down Italy. As for my personal bias? Well, I think Alexander was a megolomaniac with serious problems and if I was of Persian/Easrern origin I'd resent him for what he did to a stable, vibrant, culture. He is also a military genius, but his reputation is partly secured by dying young. Hannibal has serious daddy issues and led his nation into a war they couldn't win, using up resources they could ill afford. And in the end he lost. This is a discussion going no where, but I'd just like to say that I don't just own the armies. I have read the books (as I said in an earlier post), and I own them because I'm interested in them, not because they looked good in an army list. |
Trebian | 02 Aug 2014 3:07 a.m. PST |
Besides, I thought this was about playing wargames. Is anyone else going to give it a go? I mean you could try this with DBA in an hour. |
Sobieski | 02 Aug 2014 4:04 a.m. PST |
Perhaps we need to wait until we die and go to Valhalla. Then we can go and pester the principals involved to do a rematch for us (me, I want to see Oda Nobunaga up against Frederick the Great). |
Socalwarhammer | 02 Aug 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
Just as a slightly humorous aside, I left this TMP page open on my computer and my wife read some of the comments- Her exact quote, "There are guys who actually spend time arguing about this stuff and you waste time reading the arguments?" Spoken like the wife of a true wargamer! |
Marcus Brutus | 02 Aug 2014 10:23 a.m. PST |
Am I to take it Socalwarhammer that your wife's point of view is that Hannibal is obviously superior to Alexander as a military leader and that there isn't really anything to argue about! :) |
Sobieski | 02 Aug 2014 7:15 p.m. PST |
My wife has every reason to favour Alexander, since it's my name too. |
warhorse | 02 Aug 2014 8:13 p.m. PST |
It's settled then. Alexander by a country mile. Or if that is your bent, by a whisker? Based on both complex gaming methodologies, and simple dice-offs as well. Ergo the gods have chosen their man! Perhaps that is, after all, why there were so many Alexandrias? |
Dave Crowell | 03 Aug 2014 2:51 p.m. PST |
Head to head in pitched battle I have to go with Hannibal and award the victory to Alexander. In a battle after even a brief campaign of maneuver things start to tip slightly more to favor the Barca. I think Alexander was the better field general, Hannibal was an excellent guerrilla leader on a grand scale, but he was no Alexander. |
Sobieski | 03 Aug 2014 5:49 p.m. PST |
So what about running Alexander against the other real greats – Scipio Africanus, Minamoto Yoshitsune, Ghenghiz Khan, Oda Nobunaga, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, me? |
Marcus Brutus | 04 Aug 2014 11:22 a.m. PST |
Alexander stands no chance against you Sobieski! :) My dream matchup has always been Scipio at Zama vs Alexander at The Granicus. While there may be debate about Alexander vs Hannibal I trust that we all agree that Scipio Africanus was superior to both and commanded the greatest field armies of the ancient world. |
Parzival | 04 Aug 2014 2:15 p.m. PST |
and commanded the greatest field armies of the ancient world. Uhm… no. Not to disparage Scipio Africanus and his army, but no, I don't think that's a given at all. But greatest at his particular time, well, that's an easy "yes." But at any given time, no, especially not if by "the ancient world" you reach all the way to the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD. That's a lot of time and a lot of armies, and generals. Are Scipio and his legions superior to Julius Caesar and his? Or Augustus? Or Trajan and Hadrian? Or Marcus Aurelius? Or Constantine the Great? Or Belisarius? Maybe, but also maybe not. And I'm not even touching on the great non-Romans of the day, as Parthia and the like. I'll also assume you're strictly thinking the "Classical" ancient world of the Mediterranean and vicinity. and not considering the armies in the Far East. Greater than the Qin or the Han dynasties? I dunno… better game 'em out! |
Trebian | 06 Aug 2014 9:56 a.m. PST |
"Scipio Africanus was superior to both and commanded the greatest field armies of the ancient world." Sheesh! And I got accused of being biased….. |
Marcus Brutus | 06 Aug 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
Hey Trebian, we weren't talking about Scipio at the time. At least I'll admit my bias. How about you?! :) |
davbenbak | 13 Aug 2014 10:14 a.m. PST |
OK here's how I'll give it a go using my Battles on a Budget rules. Each side gets 12 units. To represent Alexander's genius the table will be clear of terrain, a nice flat plain, with secure flanks of a river on one side and mountains on the other to eliminate hidden units and nasty flank surprises that Hannibal favors. Alexander will deploy first using his usual right side favored formation as follows: Prodromoi Light Cavalry trained unarmored melee Companions Formed Cavalry elite armored melee Hypapists Formed Infantry elite armored melee Phalanx X 4 Close order Inf. trained light armor pike Heavy Peltists Unformed Inf. mercenary light armor javelin/melee Thessalians Formed Cavalry veteran light armor melee Thracians Light Cavalry mercenary shielded javelin/melee Psiloi X 2 Light Infantry levy shielded javelin Hannibal now gets to deploy to best exploit his opponents formations. His units can be deployed in any manner using the following: Balearic slingers Light Inf. mercenary unarmored sling Lybian javelinmen Light Inf. levy unarmored javelin Numidian Cav X 2 Light Cav. mercenary shielded javelin/melee Spanish Cavalry Unformed Cav. trained light armor melee Gallic Cavalry Unformed Cav. veteran light armor melee Caetrati Unformed Inf. veteran shielded javelin/melee Scutari Unformed Inf. trained light armor melee Gallic Infantry Unformed Inf. trained light armor melee African foot Close order Inf. trained light armor melee Hannibal's Veterans Close order Inf. veteran armored melee Elephant Elephant no moral heavy armor melee |
sumerandakkad | 13 Aug 2014 11:47 a.m. PST |
Solution? Take it to the wargames table |
Marshal Mark | 13 Aug 2014 3:39 p.m. PST |
We've just played it tonight using the Sword & Spear rules. It was a convincing victory to Alexander (me). The Carthaginians couldn't stand up to the Macedonian Phalanx. I'll post a full report with pictures next week. |
davbenbak | 18 Aug 2014 7:55 a.m. PST |
AAR of Battle on a Budget was something of a draw when time was called. Hannibal went with a classic crescent formation in hopes a pulling off his famous double envelopment tactic. Some of the key match-ups were one unit of Numidian cavalry were able to rout both units of psiloi leaving the pike blocks in Alexander's center vulnerable to gradual erosion by skirmish fire from the Carthaginains. The elephants took a heavy toll on the Campanions who were only saved by the timely arrival of the hypapists. Things on the other flank went much worse for the Greeks when the Thracian cavalry was quickly routed and the Thessalians were force to face both the Spanish and Gaulic cavalry alone. The heavy peltists were of no help as they were involved in their own battle of attrition with the ceatrati they were facing. Alexander was unable to advance his pike formations in mass for fear of exposed flanks but he could not sit still and suffer the unabated fire of skirmish units either. He at last started to advance in a echelon with a refused flank on his left. Given enough time the pikes would have driven back the skirmish line and made contact. Also Alexander could have shifted some forces to support his other flank. By then Hannibal would surely have thought up a counter move of his own or simply withdrawn to fight or counter attack another day leaving a Pyrrhic victory for the Greeks. |
Adrian66 | 18 Aug 2014 9:59 a.m. PST |
It's been said a few times that Alexander never faced a good opponent. I'd say that Porus at the Hydaspes River was good enough to cause the Macedonian army to revolt (not wanting to fight them again) but also making Alexander offer Porus the satrap of the region. This is after a MACEDONIAN victory. Also, Alexander had fought all kinds of opponents (Greek hoplites, Persian immortals, Afghan guerrillas, Indian archers, elephants, etc) while Hannibal fought mainly Iberians, Celts and Romans. Does anyone know if he fought elephants in any significant from? As to the Hannibal vs Alexander debate consider who could have conquered who.
Alexander conquered nations by going to them and crushing them leaving them nothing to fight with. This left him with a secure tail from which he could resupply and to which he could retreat. He only had to worry about what was in front of him (theoretically anyway). Taking Carthage and ending the war would just have been another battle on a long list. Hannibal didn't conquer so much as persuade the nations he passed through not to interfere with him. This was based on his apparent strength and while he appeared strong he was relatively safe but if for a moment he looked weak (by losing a major battle or suffering heavy casualties), his so called allies would have attacked him. He would have as much luck taking Pela as he did Rome. Any battle between them would have been Pyrrhic to the extreme and very likely a draw in the short term but a bloody defeat for Hannibal in the long term. |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 26 Aug 2014 8:40 p.m. PST |
Played too many WRG Ancients games from 2nd to 6th edition. Carthaginians were my first army and won many games and tournaments with them, fact never lost. Beat Alexandrian armies like a drum. What does that prove? Nothing. I knew the rules better and knew my army better. Fun to play, but no help in answering this "what if question". Both sides already have drawn their conclusions and have provided evidence to support their case. Both sides draw their perfect scenario for how their general wins. Both sides are correct in their own ways and no one is going to change their opinion. Great question! |
Trebian | 28 Aug 2014 2:47 a.m. PST |
Ed, Some good points there. When I played it I did it as a solo game to smooth out the "who knows the rules best" problem and also used forces and tactics from the commanders' best known victories. Despite what some might say I'm not biased either way, although I do believe, from looking at the record of both, that Alexander has the more impressive body of work as a commander overall. Trebian |
markdienekes | 24 Sep 2014 1:42 p.m. PST |
I've time for both of them, but Hannibal faced the tougher task militarily and politically – those he beat early are often thought incompetent, but that is far from the truth. They both faced very different challenges, and both had great successes, sadly one faced a far more competent foe, able to raise and get armies to strategic locations far quicker than the Persians could, and faced a political situation far removed from the satrapies set up in Persia. I couldn't say who would win, both had very good armies. |
Gunfreak | 25 Sep 2014 2:43 a.m. PST |
Ok this is biased. But I'm a pikeman, I think it was superiour to the legions(just got unluckly) I don't think Hannibal could have taken them out. Also superiour Macedonian cav would have won the day. If we supose Cannae vs Gaugamela armies, the celts and spanish would have no chance against the pike, even if Hannibal used the same strategi, the macedonian pikes would be to drilled to "run into the trap" like the romns did, and as both cav flanks would be defeated by the macedonaian cav, it would be an easy match. |
Marcus Brutus | 25 Sep 2014 6:15 a.m. PST |
You lost me Gunfreak when you claim that the legions were just got lucky against pike. If that is so then the Romans were very, very lucky. There are better explanations than luck. Superior Macedonian cavalry? I don't think so. I can't see Macedonians winning both flanks in any match up with the Carthaginians. And hard to say what happens in the middle section. Alexander's pike is solid for sure but Hannibal's infantry by this point are battle hardened veterans and their performance against the Roman legions shows how tough they were. |
Gunfreak | 25 Sep 2014 6:51 a.m. PST |
They won Cannae not by the superiourity of infantry but by superior tactics and silly roman deoplyment. Hannibal never expected to win with his infantry, not only did he have like half of the romans infantry. But in the two previous battles, the roman infantry was man for man better then Hannibals hodge podge celts and spanish. The only soldiers that could match the legionary was the african infantry. And the romans in the 2nd punic wars was not close to Alexandxers soldiers. And yes Romans got lucky, they went to war against the Hellenic world after they had fought against eachother for 100+ years and were depleted. And even then at Magnesia when Selucids put up a propper fight(in a much smaller army they could have fielded a 100 years earlier) The pikes never got into the fight intill it was over. By the time the pikes got stuck in the Hellenic army had already lost both flanks and the battle was lost. |