Hannibal Vs Alexander

[Guest skirite]

What do people think about a comparison between Phillip II's influence on the development of Alexander's military career and Hamilcar Barca's influence on Hannibal's military career? Regarding training in tactics, motivation (Hannibal's hate for Rome?), the army given them. Thanks

 

Skirite

[barca]

What do people think about a comparison between Phillip II's influence on the development of Alexander's military career and Hamilcar Barca's influence on Hannibal's military career? Regarding training in tactics, motivation (Hannibal's hate for Rome?), the army given them. Thanks

 

Skirite

 

Here are my brief observations.

 

Alothough we know quite a lot about Hannibal's battlefield strategy and tactics, we know surprisingly little about the exact makeup of his army. For example there is no consesnsus on whether his african infantry were arrayed in phalanx or a more loose legionesce formation. His infantry was very mobile, able to change direction, and surprise the Romans. Contrary to popular belief, a well organized phalanx formation is capable of rapid maneuvering and change of direction. Alexander's phalanx was capable of assuming various formations (see legion vs. traditional phalanx).

 

The decisive Roman victories over the Macedonian Phalanx formations occurred only after the lessons taught to them by Hannibal. Prior to the Second Punic War the Roman Legions were not as maneuverable, and they were easily outflanked by a clever opponent. Scipio learned how to outflank his opponents by studying Hannibal's victories over the Romans. Subsequent leaders like Flamminius were able to carry on this more versatile and maneuverable version of the legion.

 

I would have to say that one of the big differences between Alexander and Hannibal was that Alexander was almost always leading from the front. More daring and risky, but it worked for him. Maybe it worked because the Eastern opponents were more likely to run away before the battle became too intense. Would it have worked against the Romans? Pyrrhus tried it and it didn't work too well. Hannibal was content to stay behind the front lines so he could survey the entire battlefield and make changes as needed. I would consider Hannibal's approach more conservative. Was it better? Who knows? Different strokes (stocks vs bonds).