Started By
Message

Hannibal Barca or Alexander the Great - who’s the better general?

Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:43 am
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:43 am
Alexander had more success but also had every advantage to lead him to that success. His army was fiercely loyal and probably the best fighting force of the time, going against the bloated and unorganized Persians. Still he accomplished every goal he set out to accomplished, conquered an insane amount of territory and built an insane amount of cities in such a short time frame, and never lost a battle.

Hannibal did eventually lose the 2nd Punic War. He was constantly at a disadvantage, way out numbered, commanding an army of mercenaries and Barbarian Gauls, had minimal support from his own government, and had no supply lines. Even still he decimated Roman army after Roman army, consistently outsmarted and out maneuvered them, and the battle of Cannae is maybe the most impressive victory in military history. When he finally lost at Zama it was due to the Carthaginian government failing him and forcing him to abandon Italy even though he was yet to lose a battle, then making him face an experienced Roman army with raw recruits of his own.

I’ll take Hannibal, his accomplishments are more impressive given the disadvantages he had to face.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124117 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:45 am to
quote:

and the battle of Cannae is maybe the most impressive victory in military history.



One of my favorites. I wrote a whole Point of View story from the vantage of three different members of the Roman army on that day.

I think I may give the edge to Alexander, based on what he accomplished
Posted by Rockbrc
Attic
Member since Nov 2015
7915 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:48 am to
Hannibal
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:48 am to
quote:

One of my favorites. I wrote a whole Point of View story from the vantage of three different members of the Roman army on that day.

I know, you actually emailed it to me years ago and I have students read parts of it
Posted by grizzlylongcut
Member since Sep 2021
9447 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:49 am to
Alexander is perhaps the greatest conqueror in world history. It's a toss up between him and Ghengis Khan.

I'll go with Alexander.
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:52 am to
quote:

Alexander is perhaps the greatest conqueror in world history. It's a toss up between him and Ghengis Khan.

While I agree with this, there is a decent argument that Alexander’s army could’ve done all of that without him
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
41179 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:53 am to
quote:

I’ll take Hannibal, his accomplishments are more impressive given the disadvantages he had to face.


Historians feel that a lot of Hannibal accomplishments are embellished by the Romans. The Romans did this to instill the thinking that if even Hannibal couldn't beat us, why would you even try.


Alexander the Great never lost and captured the known civilized world by the age of 33.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124117 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:55 am to
quote:

I know, you actually emailed it to me years ago and I have students read parts of it



I forgot about that! How did that all go? Any feedback from them!?
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
52969 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:55 am to
Admiral Rachel Levine is the greatest military leader of all time
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64524 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:56 am to
quote:

Hannibal Barca or Alexander the Great - who’s the better general?


quote:

Alexander had more success


quote:

Hannibal did eventually lose the 2nd Punic War.


You answered your own question.
Posted by BlackPawnMartyr
Houston, TX
Member since Dec 2010
15301 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:58 am to
Alexander, and the Persians were a force especially in the calvary.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 12:50 pm
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:02 pm to
quote:

Historians feel that a lot of Hannibal accomplishments are embellished by the Romans. The Romans did this to instill the thinking that if even Hannibal couldn't beat us, why would you even try.


Alexander the Great never lost and captured the known civilized world by the age of 33.


Alexander benefits from the greatest positive publicity of any general ever, so I’m not saying you’re wrong. But you can’t say Hannibal’s accomplishments are overblown and not Alexander’s
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

I forgot about that! How did that all go? Any feedback from them!?

They enjoy it in pieces. Hard to get a kid to sit there and read it in one sitting, but they definitely prefer it over a boring worksheet or slideshow. It’s very historically accurate as well.
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
41179 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:05 pm to
quote:

But you can’t say Hannibal’s accomplishments are overblown and not Alexander’s






well, one of them actually won and the other lost
Posted by jmon
Mandeville, LA
Member since Oct 2010
8410 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:05 pm to




Just kidding! I find this stuff fascinating!
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

well, one of them actually won and the other lost

Hannibal’s campaign was 18 years long and Alexander died 11 years into his and his empire immediately collapsed.

An early death was the greatest thing to ever happen to his legacy.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124117 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:11 pm to
quote:

They enjoy it in pieces. Hard to get a kid to sit there and read it in one sitting



I totally get that, especially these days.

I may revisit that idea some. Coupled with pictures, short video chunks maybe. Could be much more accessible.

quote:

It’s very historically accurate as well.


I did my damnedest on that end. Thanks for reminding me! Hell, I can do one on Alexander if you like.
Posted by Mr Happy
Member since May 2019
1036 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:20 pm to
Consider Hannibal vs George Washington. To win all your battles except for the last or to lose all of them but for the last. Who is the better general?

In tactics alone, I'd vote for Julius Caesar. He seemed to win every battle while being hugely outnumbered.
This post was edited on 2/23/23 at 1:27 pm
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
31910 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:20 pm to
I will always take any material I can get that’s engaging
Posted by DaleGribble
Bend, OR
Member since Sep 2014
6821 posts
Posted on 2/23/23 at 12:25 pm to
It's a tough call but I'd go with Alexander. Military leaders still study and follow the tactics that he employed on the battlefield.

Hannibal had no real plan for conquering and holding Rome. But he accomplished what he set out to do.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram