Measure Hannibal

[iskander_32]

Hi FolksWhenever I visit other military sites, its inevitable the name Hannibal barca comes up and comparisons made to our King, some even say hannibal the greatest general ever.I was in an interesting conversation with a wargaming Hannibal advocat who was convinced his man would have taken Alexander.I asked the guy how hannibal would have done it, my advisory said,, hannibal would have blocked passes, rivers, poisoned wells and rivers, fed Alexander false information,hit and run, cut Alexander off from behind and when Alexander was weak he would have anhialated the Macedonian.Im sure the guy must think Alexander incompetent and a fool, not the total genious in all types of tactics and warefare that we know he was,do we believe Alexander would fall for hannibals tricks or ambushes as the incompetentRoman generals did time and time again,till Scipio worked him out?I dont recall hannibal been that clever he used these tactics aginst the Romans, we can all accept Hannibal was a great general and winner off battles, but what he couldnt do that Alexander did well, was consolidate and use a victory, I think this was a vital component that also made Alexander a greater general the foresite and planning in every forseeable situation and the securing of his supply and communications.Hannibal never took care of his back, i reckomend you talk to some of these experts,they need a little education I feel.Regards Kenny

[aen]

Kenny,I sort of answered this one in a previous post. Have a look.One thing is certain. Hannibal would have been very circumspect indeed about trying it out on Alexander. The Carthaginian's greatest strength was his cavalry, and they were not tested properly by their Roman counterparts until Zama. Alexander's cavalry, on the other hand, was of an incomprably superior mould to what Hannibal usually encountered. Also his Cannae type tactics would have failed badly if employed against Alexander's various arms, attacking at an incline through one point. In fact, at Cannae, Hannibal met an army that was made up in large part of inexperienced and hastily gathered conscripts.Hannibal was a very thorough researcher of the opposing commander's mindset and temperament. I doubt he would have relished a showdown with our mutual pal, given that he preferred flighty hotheads, incompetents, or Delayers, none of which describes Alexander.It's interesting to note that in Scipio he met for the first and only time a highly serious professional. And we all know what happened at Zama, although (in Hannibal's favour) he'd probably lost his taste for it by then. His outbursts in Carthage's Senate/Assembly subsequently betray a genuine frustration with his own people more so than the Romans.

[aen]

Kenny,Do you have a web address for these people?I'm feeling beligerent, and could do with a good laugh.

[iskander_july]

EngusSure, points well stated and im sure very correct, We can all accept the success of Rome and the empire,much owed to massive resourses and the fower of the senate. Its fare to say the resourses were massive as the could field army after army.Its also fair to say that a proportion of the commander were indeed inept as the equivelant of a commisioned officer of fast eras in the British Army where the commander only became so by public standing or the positions of there prominent families.Hannibal as you said cleaned up against,equivelant aristocratic generals, although Rome hated aristocracy they were basically the equivelant, as were the cavalry upstanding Roman citizens who could afford to sit on a horse.I feel against these inept commander Alexander wouldnt really need to use,roos ambush or tactics his basic insight and the true proffesional, and thorough trained units would have crushed the Romans head on.Where as when you do come against anable thinking commander like Scipio, then the aptitude of a general Like Alexander Or Hannibal would indeed be tested, Hannibal faced the test and was found wanting.Of course we must admire Hannibal, but at the same time measure him as a whole, I have always said He could and did win victories, but without consolidation or any thought ho to use a victory, one of Alexanders gifts which made him not just the greatest commander on the field but also a fantastic organiser of,consolidation,logistics,reconesance and intelligence gathering.Were Alexander to have met the same Romans Hannibal did Im sure he would have made sure Rome wouldn't have recovered from the defeats,or made it near impossible for them to regroup, as it was Alexanders way to go straight for the heart and the kill im sure he would have mopped up then moved on Rome sooner than later, as military followers we probably agree that Alexander against Rome was one of Histories military ,what ifs and im sure we would all agree on the reasult.Once back from Persia with massive resourses and man power, and also ever inovating modifications to his forces and tactics, I believe Rome would have fallen very easily at that time, a century later with Roman developments maybe a little more difficult but the result the same.Engus the site where the views are is called;Ancient Tactics, the groep has 260 members and the have Hannibal as the greatest commander ans Alexander not in the top 5RegardsKenn

[beausefaless]

Greetings iskander & engus( Dr Pal I Presume?)It would be better to invite these self proclaimed scholars of Ancient Tactics to debunk Alexander's strategies compared to Hannibal in this forum. Just think of the pleasure we would all receive (healthy debate), I would compare to old Chinese proverb; "The lion disguised himself as a mouse to lure the snake." Alexander did the same before Issus when he felt and observed the right topical terrain to implement his battle strategy against Darius. Why not do the same.

[aen]

Kenny,
I still can't find the site - even with google. Any chance of a URL.Andrew, It's Aengus actually. Havent been around for a while, and can't use my old username as I've completely forgotten the password for it. Like the notion of a debate very much, although think it would be better to conduct it on their site not ours simply because I have a notion it would take up a lot of space and that much of it might be badly misinformed and tedious.

[beausefaless]

Greetings Aengus, Please forgive my fallaciousness (your name). I've come across these same type of individuals in other forums and they all have declined my challenge, their response would all be the same, a shepherd leading their flock into the valley of wolves. I've noticed an Ancient Tactical group in the Yahoo web site, http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientTactics/ but I'm not sure if this is the same group Kenny is referring too.

[Iskander_32]

Hi PeoplesThanks a lot for your posts and views on this topic, I realise im not as verse with as much detail as you guys but I feel I comprehend and know what I talk about, Andrew the site you have highlighted is the oneI refer to.Its very poular with 260 members ,but Aengus if you go there i am sure you will find interesting and some irritating posts, I feel it not important to challenge the view points of these people as they have there own opinions no matter how incorrect they maybe.Which is a little connected with this view point, I know we are all eagerly awaitintg the movie,with expectations, but the question for me is this.Will people come away knowing more about our king or just waiting for Collin farrels next movie, I do hope this opportunity isnt wasted and that the whole viewing people can get just a little understanding and insite to a person who we may claim the greatest, As Andrew once said the worlds first superstar and much much more.I would like people to wonder and be amazed by the wonder and what he did, and as a reply people like us can say that the events and achievements were actual facts, not in any way fantasy or made up.RegardsKenny