Which ancient general was a better Alexander the great or Hannibal? - General

[U]Alexander The Great[/U] Alexander The great The king of Macedon at the age of 16 launched his empire across three continents Europe,Africa,and Asia.From Macedon to the Indus Valley His empire stretched. Not once was there resistance or defeat in his years of conquering. In fact the people of Egypt gave him the region believing he was some kind of god. After 17 years of expanding his empire he died at the age of 33, his empire being divided by his generals. Alexander was a flanking General Which means whenever he was in battle he would order his men to attack at the advancing armies at the sides. His main weapon of long distance was the basilica which was a large mounted crossbow.He was one of the first of his time to use this. [U]Hannibal[/U] When Hannibal was a child he was sworn to a hatred of Rome. During the Punic wars He led his army over the Alps ending up with 38,000 infantrymen,8,000 cavalry and 37 War elephants. He had an opportunity to capture Rome but instead headed south to conquer a fishing city in hopes of reinforcements to arrive(wich never came) The city was surrounded and he eventually escaped. one of his many strange tactics to evade Roman capture was he tied torches to the horns of thousands of bulls at night lighted them and eventually directed them to attack the Roman ranks which eventually broke off and fled. Hannibal was eventually killed in Syria. In a twist of events he drank poison instead of being captured by the Romans. Unfortunately this Carthaginian generals home land was destroyed and plowed with salt so that no plants would grow there and also so no buildings would be constructed here again Rules. .Stay on topic . no nudity .no conversations about random things .if more information is needed just ask.

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;33239702] . no nudity [/QUOTE] Dammit.

Neither

I don't know which ancient general was a better alexander the great or hannibal. I don't think that's an appropriate trait to describe someone with

Is this your Veteran's Day homework, mister?

I think this is homework. This is basically compare and contrast Hannibal and Alexander the Great.

Do your own homework A**hole

Alexander the Great, because he has an Iron Maiden song.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;33240451]Alexander the Great, because he has an Iron Maiden song.[/QUOTE] Pardon me but this thread is for non-bronies only. Garry's request and rules. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling / Stupid" - Asaratha))[/highlight]

OH OH! PICK ME! PICK ME! General Nikolai Vatutin [editline]11th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;33240469]Pardon me but this thread is for non-bronies only. Garry's request and rules.[/QUOTE] Yeah, get out you horse humping penis cancer attracting weirdo.

If I had to break it down, Alexander the Great was the better strategist, while Hannibal was the better tactician. The distinction between the two being strategy is the overall success of your war aims and tactics is how you use your forces in individual battles. Alexander the Great fought all the way to India probably would have gone further if he hadn't died, Hannibal fucked the Romans over in each sucessive battle for about 5 years and then was completely muted but Fabius Maximus and Scipio Africanus.

Just going by achievements, Alexander made quite an empire and only lost because of attrition, he made it to India for fucks sake. Hannibal was great but he did get taken down by a change in tactics later on and he never really had everything. But the battle of Cannae, holy shit. The battle of Issus has nothing on slaughtering 45,000 of the best soldiers around even after being outnumbered. Gotta give him that.

Hannibal knew how to achieve victory, but did not know how to use it. Alexander was a god walking among mere mortals.

I'll add one more general to the equation... Sun Tzu

Short answer is Alexander achieved more success over all and conquered vast expanses of land in his lifetime, something that took even the Roman Empire as a whole much longer to do.

-snip-

Surprised only one Person Mentioned Sun Tzu Edit Just noticed it was a week old...

Um, I highly doubt he had the opportunity to capture Rome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he crossed the Alps in the dead of winter and lost almost all of his men and had one elephant left.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;33358837]Um, I highly doubt he had the opportunity to capture Rome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he crossed the Alps in the dead of winter and lost almost all of his men and had one elephant left.[/QUOTE] He had more than one elephant left, but did lose a substantial amount of men. Estimates suggest that he lost half of his men at the most however, and he did have a chance to capture Rome, but did not want to bunker into a siege at the moment he would have been able to. In reality though Hannibal was an incredibly effective general who time after time subdued the Romans in battle. They simply could not win for the longest time. For a very good period of time the Roman strategy was literally to avoid fighting Hannibal in open battle at all cost. I'd say he was a very good general. But, I'd say Alexander was superior, in both the realm of his accomplishments and success, and the ingenuity of his tactics as well. Tactically hannibal and alexander are both geniuses, but Alexander proves his worth strategically and based on his accomplishments.

Hannibal Lecterrrr j/k Alexander was a better civil leader, so he was a better general in the modern sense where top COs are expected to do diplomacy see... Petraeus, McChrystal

Alexander the Great, hands down. I think the Greek intro in Rome: Total War put it best when the narrator said [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LXRqS2CL54"]"He took a Greek army to the far Indus, there was nothing left to conquer. The world was his."[/URL]

Lets see... Hannibal made it to Rome's gates and ruled Carthage during it's golden age. Alexander literally lead the conquest of the entire known world. Gonna go with Alexander.