Alexander the Great and Hannibal Barca: A comparison
Often when Alexander the Great and Hannibal are compared, authors conclude that the Macedonian conqueror was superior to the Carthaginian commander, despite the fact that Alexander never fought or defeated an organized war machine comparable to that of the Romans. The major victories of Alexander were achieved against armies led by a king whose nerve failed and who escaped from the battlefield the moment he felt personally in danger (with the consequent rout of his army, which turned and fled as well). It is inconceivable to imagine a Roman army whose Consul or commanding officer would suddenly turn and run when endangered. Roman discipline and pride (or arrogance) would not allow such cowardice, and the Roman soldiers knew that the punishment would have been swift and brutal. Additionally, when the Roman legions eventually fought against the Macedonian phalanx, victory went to the former.
Notice also that Alexander’s comportment in battle was irresponsible and exposed the most important element of his army, namely himself, to unnecessary danger. His habit of charging across the battlefield at the head of his companion cavalry, while courageous (or rather, foolhardy), resulted in his being repeatedly wounded, not mortally out of sheer luck. It could be argued that victories depending primarily on luck can hardly be regarded as brilliant. Compare this with the clock like precision of the double envelopment and annihilation of the mightiest Roman army at Cannae, an operation that left little, if anything, to luck and continues to be studied in military academies across the world even today.
In terms of personal temperament, Alexander was basically a megalomaniac who fought for personal glory and aggrandizement, while Hannibal was a patriot who engaged in war to defend his homeland and liberate the oppressed. So why would Alexander be considered the superior of the two great generals?
The answer, of course, is that Alexander the Great was never defeated (although recent studies have put in doubt his alleged victories against the armies of India), while Hannibal, despite his initial victories in Spain, followed by his 16 years of campaigning undefeated in Italy (accumulating a score of important victories despite being cut off from his supply lines and receiving almost no reinforcements from Carthage), suffered a single and final defeat, at the so-called Battle of Zama. Modern research, though, has pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the pro-Roman account of the alleged battle, which certainly could not have taken place as described by Polybius and other propagandistic sources. (See my article “The Trouble With Zama: Paradox, Smoke and Mirrors in an Ancient Battlefield,” accessible online from the History Herald.)
Furthermore, archaeological research dating the construction of the famed military port of ancient Carthage to some time AFTER the end of the Second Punic War renders the peace treaty described in the sources as clearly false, which puts the very historicity of the battle in doubt (the argument being brilliantly developed in the book HANNIBAL BARCA: L’HISTOIRE VERITABLE ET LE MENSONGE DE ZAMA, by Abdelaziz Belkhodja). It is clear from all the available evidence that the claim that Hannibal was defeated by the Romans at Zama is nothing more than a propagandistic fiction composed after the destruction of Carthage (and its libraries and historical records) in 146 BCE. Polybius seems to have changed history to favor his friends and patrons in the Scipionic/Aemilian family, while Livy, the other main source, acknowledged that his purpose in writing his “Ab Urbe Condita” was to instill patriotism in the youth of the time of Augustus, and freely distorts and invents material to accomplish his end. (See my article “Hannibal: Challenging the Classical Record,” also in the History Herald.)
In conclusion, the claim that Alexander was the greater of the two generals because he was never defeated while Hannibal lost at Zama, is incorrect. With both great commanders undefeated, there is little doubt that Hannibal stands as the superior of the two, in terms of his battle successes, the quality of the enemies he defeated, and the motivations and temperament behind his military victories.
Literature:
Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander. Penguin Classics, 1976.
Belkhodja, A. Hannibal Barca: L’histoire veritable et le mensonge de Zama. Tunis: Apollonia, 2011, 2014.
Livy (F. G. Moore, translator). History of Rome: Books 28-30 (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949.
Polybius (W. R. Paton, translator). The Histories Vol. IV (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.
© 2017 by Yozan Mosig
- Hannibal: Victories of the Great Hero from Ancient Carthage - December 19, 2018
- Alexander the Great and Hannibal Barca: A comparison - March 9, 2017
- A Note on Hannibal’s Losses During the Crossing of the Alps - July 18, 2016
Explain to me what exactly did Hannibal do that were more impressive than Alexander
This must be some sort of a joke. Whoever wrote this article put zero effort into doing research on the Macedonian Military and conflating it with later phalanx that fought against Rome whose quality in no sense matches the military might of Alexander’s army. The first time Rome fought against phalanx was against pyrhuss whose large portion of the army was shipwrecked and had to raise new troops from Tarentum to fill his ranks. He was outnumbered and yet managed to defeat the Roman legionaries inflicting more damage. Now compare that to Alexander who used combined arm troops. Heavy cavalry mixed with light troops like paronians, crack javline, Cretan archers, horse archers, slingers, Agrianis, peltast,Thessalians, hypaspits,phalanx. All the best trying to overcome this combined arm force with outdated Manipal system. And what recent study that suggests Alexander lost in India are you referring to? I’ll be happy throughly tear any sort of non sensical argument to threads. Have you read the account of any of the major battles of Alexander. Darius fled at the last moment when he could virtually do nothing. At Guagamela he even levelled terrain for his advantage had numerical superiority in cavalry hired Greek mercenary, sychted chariots, cavalry from all around the empire from Bactrian to salad horse archers. At Guagamela it was right wing that fled which led to Alexander exploiting the gap after which the king fled and the left wing didn’t flee until after Alexander had to cut the chase and return to help parmenion’s wing in which a heavy cavalry battle ensure. So what are you yapping about? Except for Granicus and mallai I can’t think of any major engagement where Alexander was severely injured. Except for raids with light troops in central Asia. You conveniently left out the many well planned and executed battle tactics of Alexander. At Granicus he made a major but weird improvement in oblique movement by havingh the enemy’s center fall to the level ground to save their left flank which resulted in center being routed. At guagemela he created a almost hollow square formation to stop any sort of encirclememt and masterfully using false gap to his advantage. Hannibal wasn’t the only one to use double envelopement. Alexander at the battle of arigaeum divided his forces into three parts drawing enemy to attack his center and his hidden flank encircling the enemy. Alexander was the first general to use siege artillery as field artillery. Defeated the horse archers with mostly lighter troops and auxillaries. At hydadpes brilliantly used pincer to encircle the enemy. So yeah Alexander stands toe to toe with Hannibal
This must be some sort of a joke. Whoever wrote this article put zero effort into doing research on the Macedonian Military and conflating it with later phalanx that fought against Rome whose quality in no sense matches the military might of Alexander’s army. The first time Rome fought against phalanx was against pyrhuss whose large portion of the army was shipwrecked and had to raise new troops from Tarentum to fill his ranks. He was outnumbered and yet managed to defeat the Roman legionaries inflicting more damage. Now compare that to Alexander who used combined arm troops. Heavy cavalry mixed with light troops like paronians, crack javline, Cretan archers, horse archers, slingers, Agrianis, peltast,Thessalians, hypaspits,phalanx. All the best trying to overcome this combined arm force with outdated Manipal system. And what recent study that suggests Alexander lost in India are you referring to? I’ll be happy to throughly tear any sort of non sensical argument to shreads. Have you read the account of any of the major battles of Alexander. Darius fled at the last moment when he could virtually do nothing. At Guagamela he even levelled terrain for his advantage had numerical superiority in cavalry hired Greek mercenary, sychted chariots, cavalry from all around the empire from Bactrian to sakas horse archers. At Guagamela it was right wing that fled which led to Alexander exploiting the gap after which the king fled and the left wing didn’t flee until after Alexander had to cut the chase and return to help parmenion’s wing in which a heavy cavalry battle ensure. So what are you yapping about? Except for Granicus and mallai I can’t think of any major engagement where Alexander was severely injured. Except for raids with light troops in central Asia. You conveniently left out the many well planned and executed battle tactics of Alexander. At Granicus he made a major but weird improvement in oblique movement by havingh the enemy’s center fall to the level ground to save their left flank which resulted in center being routed. At guagemela he created a almost hollow square formation to stop any sort of encirclememt and masterfully using false gap to his advantage. Hannibal wasn’t the only one to use double envelopement. Alexander at the battle of arigaeum divided his forces into three parts drawing enemy to attack his center and his hidden flank encircling the enemy. Alexander was the first general to use siege artillery as field artillery. Defeated the horse archers with mostly lighter troops and auxillaries. At hydadpes brilliantly used pincer to encircle the enemy. So yeah Alexander stands toe to toe with Hannibal
@Rishav, you seem very angry. Are you ok hon?
He’s right though.
I agree with this article, and think Hannibal was greater general than Alexander.
I believe Hannibal is a better general of the two. Alexander was daring and brash. Both were great but I do believe Hannibal was more gifted. Hannibal, Napoleon, and Alexander are the 3 best generals to date.