Comparison smacks of stupidity and ignorance.

[iskander_32]

I know it been mentioned before but I really cant help but be amused by comparing our man to Hannibal Barca.Its really like comparing a world class football goalkeeper to a world record breaking decathlete.One is outstanding at one thing and the other is the ultimate all rounder.Hannibal was a brilliant open ground ambush merchant, nothing much more I stand to be corrected.Which fortifications did Hannibal take,how many guerilla uprisings did he crush, how many navies did he subdue,how many mountain strongholds did he take how many thousands of miles did he put under his rule the list is endless.Companions do I make a point or do I wrongly state, That Alexander did all these, He was a master tachtician,inovator,reconesance,politician, diplomat and even a philosopher.The vivtories Hannihab did take were never consolidated nor built on. All Hannibal knew how to dop was to ambush inept Roman commanders Will elitish horse afforders called cavalry.When Hannibal came against quility he was indeed found wanting.Alexanders quility would have found Hannibal wanting even more.RegardsKenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I thought it was high time someone responded to your post!I'm no great authority on Hannibal, so can't really respond properly. However, on the face of it, I don't disagree with your assessment. However, I do believe Hannibal should be credited for his ability in pitched battle - Cannae was a victory worthy of Alexander; and for his sheer chutzpah in his crossing of the Alps (surely as bad a journey, if not worse, than Alexander's crossing of the Hindu Kush).Two things, to me, make Hannibal found wanting (so to speak). First, had it been Alexander, would Scipio have won at Zama? (Remember that Hannibal himself said that, had he won Zama, he would have claimed top spot.) Second, Hannibal spent a good number of years wandering around Italy, without following up his victory at Cannae; so that, in the end, he really had no choice but to return to Africa (whether the Carthaginian senate had recalled him or not). I cannot believe that Alexander would have dithered so much and for so long - he would have been at the gates of Rome fast than you could say "Scipio's a cissy" ... and I doubt that Rome could have held out as long as Tyre did.Having said that, and what it all boils down to, is that the second Punic War was a good hundred years after Alexander's death - a lot changed in that time, and would a 3rd century Alexander have been the same as a 2nd century one?All the bestMarcus

[iskander_32]

MarcusThanks. I think what you say is exact what Hannibal lacked was the ability to consolodate and use a victory.I dont think the Romans would have reached Zama against Alexander, I belive he would have used his victories and gone straight for Romes throat.Ho woulnd have given the Romans chance to regroup Alexander never hung around and acted on the initialive.A great victory at Canea for Alexander would have just given him momentum for the final kill, he wouldnt have had to chase the Romans.The Romans would have to meet him as they did Hannibal but with each Alexander victory the chance for Rome to recover would get slimmer.I honestly believe that the conqeust of Itlay and Rome for Alexander would have been easier than the excesives and different kinds of warefare he met in the Persian empire.kenny

[marcus]

Yep, that's pretty much a good summary of my more haphazard post.I quite like "what if..." games - as you say, *if* Hannibal had consolidated his victory at Cannae, *if* he had marched on Rome, *if* etc etc. then there never would have been a battle at Zama, anyway.On the other hand, *if* Scipio had been 10 years older he would have held a higher command at Cannae and the Romans might have won... :-)All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Great topic, very good answers!Last season the History chi had two different specials on Hannibal one narrated by Italian historians and the other by novelist, which by the way, stunk. The historian describes Hannibal's study of one of Alexander's tactics (oblique) at Gaugamela, at Cannae when Hannibal created the gap and encircled the Roman legions. Hannibal did not organize the same hungry, well seasoned troops at Zama he had Cannae. Masinissa reinforced Scipio with 4000 Numidian horsemen and 6000 infantrymen. Scipio's Numidian cavalrymen led by Prince Masinissa were superior to the Carthaginian cavalry. Hannibal probably had 40,000 troops to Scipio's 30,000 but was outnumbered about 6100 to 4000 in cavalry. After his loss, he did his version of Darius until he died in disgrace by committing suicide. Hannibal's brother lost his head but died with honor.RegardsAndrew

[jan]

I just browsed through a book by Ross Leskie on Hannibal, which is possibly the worst effort ever done on the subject of Hannibal. The title of the book is Hannibal, and the author is quite British so I suspect many of you know of him. The general idea is that he uses Alexander as a way to outline and develop Hannibal. This is a carbon copy of Alexander's life, with the usual author's liberty of changing and altering the facts to suit his inability to create his own story. I can hardly believe it as he uses a white stallion in contrast to the black stallion, and he even uses a character based upon Roxanne. In other words, he is retelling the story of Alexander in the character of Hannibal, and the only real benefit is that I learned of a passage from the Iliad about Priam rolling in merde! I turned the book in already, it is so full of merde! Sorry about that, but stay away from Hannibal by Leskie if you can.

[marcus]

Hi Jan,That's quite funny - I enjoyed the Leckie book. I didn't really see any direct comparisons with Alexander in it - but it was a while ago that I read it, so I might be misremembering. I'm not sure that you're being fair about the horse, though - for all we know Hannibal did ride a pure white horse...The follow-up, "Scipio", is pretty good, too; but I wouldn't advise people to rush into reading the third in the series, "Carthage".All the bestMarcus