4 ms·

Yeah totally inflated It's not like he accomplished a double envelopment of a superior force, a feat yet to be matched. Not like his victories were victories of

Yeah totally inflated It's not like he accomplished a double envelopment of a superior force, a feat yet to be matched. Not like his victories were victories of annihilation. Not like he pierced the Roman heartland through the Alps without the endless steamroll of replacement troops that Napoleon had. Not like he brought Rome to its knees in a 16 year long campaign without so much as a resupply from Carthage. Alexander was clearly superior, never mind that Persians had absolutely no counter to the Sarissa. Never mind that the Sarissa was so overpowered that he literally just forced marched into every battle and won anyway.

stcredzero 8y ago
Yeah totally inflated. It's not like he accomplished a double envelopment of a superior force, a feat yet to be matched Then isn't it more the shame that he couldn't accomplish his strategic aims? Not like he pierced the Roman heartland through the Alps without the endless steamroll of replacement troops that Napoleon had. So he set himself up for failure at the outset, but we admire him for the genius of his small scale moves. Amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. Both Hannibal and Napoleon had key failures in this regard. Alexander was clearly superior He was clearly superior, in his ability to capitalize on tactical superiority to achieve strategic aims.
- dingoegret 8y ago
  Yes its a shame he didn't simply walk up to Rome's walls after Cannae and simply breath in its direction. In the end Hannibal defeated himself through his reluctance to claim his prize. Nothing small scale about crossing the alps, battle trasimene, zama, trebia and cannae. The maneuvers through the Italian countryside that forced the Romans to develop fabian tactics. They figured the only way to counter Hannibal was to simply not fight him. Managing an multiethnic army of north africans, iberians and gauls with little to no supply lines, no national unity or loyalties and leading them from one victory to the next means Hannibal's charisma on top his strategic genius must have been nothing short of legendary. Alexander has no feats to speak of. No examples of how he turned battles around. No proof of his strategic ability. The truth is you cant produce any. Non of Alexander's fans today can explain why he's a great general. Indeed, an army of Sarissa wielding phalanxes leaves little room for strategic ability. Its literally an army that you smash against the opposing army. The end.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    Remember that Hannibal was actually defeated in a set battle on his own home soil at the battle of Carthage. In regards to Alexander, his battles were not just having the phalanx roll through his enemies. Often the decisive point in those battles was Alexander exploiting an opportunity that opened up with his personally lead cavalry. In addition, he could think outside the box. At the battle of Jaxartes he defeated the Scythians by having his troops cross a river while using catapults agains the archers on the other bank. This is the first know use of artillery in a manner like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes In addition, as Rome would demonstrate, phalanxes were best on very flat even terrain and lost a lot of their advantages when they were not on such terrain. Alexander, however, was able too o win major battles on sorts of terrain, even when he should have been at a disadvantage.
    - dingoegret 8y ago
      The problem with the battle of Zama is that it was a head on pitched battle where both Scipio and Hannibal had very little input in how it actually played out. Hannibal was pressured by politics to not abandon any ground. Alexander philes like to invent all sorts of glorious calvary charges for Alexander, but he won his victories off the point end of the Sarrisa. If we look at how the Phalanx worked, it becomes clear that operating it does not require a highly skilled driver. A rapidly advancing wall of pikeman. Opposing formations were pinned, encircled and routed. The spear wall was the anvil against which the hammer of the Hellenic calvary could smash. It was simple and effective and inflexible. Terrain is not a major factor in almost any historical battle from antiquity. You underestimate just how wide ground can be for that scale of battle. Even in mountainous terrain. While rough terrain did play its part for the Romans fighting against Philip. The Phalangites at Cynoscephalae were actually just beaten by a much more versatile and effective formation. The Maniple System the Romans devised of checkboard like spear units could engage the Phalanx wall directly. The so-called 'phalanx with joints' could not only attack the Phalanx from the front, but it could break up its ranks and then the Gladius goes to do its work. This is repeated again and again in history. Technological and material superiority will often lead to victories. Who knew an army of untouchable horse archers would be unstoppable in three continents? Who knew thousands of next generation tanks would break through the most heavily fortified militarized defense of its time? Many Generals have taken advantage of their side's superiority in strength and earned their place in history. But it was Hannibal who was handed every conceivable disadvantage and turned the impossible into not only victories but flawless victories in so-called battles of annihilation. That is why he is the father of military strategy and the greatest general in history.

stcredzero 8y ago

Yeah totally inflated. It's not like he accomplished a double envelopment of a superior force, a feat yet to be matched Then isn't it more the shame that he couldn't accomplish his strategic aims? Not like he pierced the Roman heartland through the Alps without the endless steamroll of replacement troops that Napoleon had. So he set himself up for failure at the outset, but we admire him for the genius of his small scale moves. Amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. Both Hannibal and Napoleon had key failures in this regard. Alexander was clearly superior He was clearly superior, in his ability to capitalize on tactical superiority to achieve strategic aims.

dingoegret 8y ago
Yes its a shame he didn't simply walk up to Rome's walls after Cannae and simply breath in its direction. In the end Hannibal defeated himself through his reluctance to claim his prize. Nothing small scale about crossing the alps, battle trasimene, zama, trebia and cannae. The maneuvers through the Italian countryside that forced the Romans to develop fabian tactics. They figured the only way to counter Hannibal was to simply not fight him. Managing an multiethnic army of north africans, iberians and gauls with little to no supply lines, no national unity or loyalties and leading them from one victory to the next means Hannibal's charisma on top his strategic genius must have been nothing short of legendary. Alexander has no feats to speak of. No examples of how he turned battles around. No proof of his strategic ability. The truth is you cant produce any. Non of Alexander's fans today can explain why he's a great general. Indeed, an army of Sarissa wielding phalanxes leaves little room for strategic ability. Its literally an army that you smash against the opposing army. The end.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  Remember that Hannibal was actually defeated in a set battle on his own home soil at the battle of Carthage. In regards to Alexander, his battles were not just having the phalanx roll through his enemies. Often the decisive point in those battles was Alexander exploiting an opportunity that opened up with his personally lead cavalry. In addition, he could think outside the box. At the battle of Jaxartes he defeated the Scythians by having his troops cross a river while using catapults agains the archers on the other bank. This is the first know use of artillery in a manner like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes In addition, as Rome would demonstrate, phalanxes were best on very flat even terrain and lost a lot of their advantages when they were not on such terrain. Alexander, however, was able too o win major battles on sorts of terrain, even when he should have been at a disadvantage.
  - dingoegret 8y ago
    The problem with the battle of Zama is that it was a head on pitched battle where both Scipio and Hannibal had very little input in how it actually played out. Hannibal was pressured by politics to not abandon any ground. Alexander philes like to invent all sorts of glorious calvary charges for Alexander, but he won his victories off the point end of the Sarrisa. If we look at how the Phalanx worked, it becomes clear that operating it does not require a highly skilled driver. A rapidly advancing wall of pikeman. Opposing formations were pinned, encircled and routed. The spear wall was the anvil against which the hammer of the Hellenic calvary could smash. It was simple and effective and inflexible. Terrain is not a major factor in almost any historical battle from antiquity. You underestimate just how wide ground can be for that scale of battle. Even in mountainous terrain. While rough terrain did play its part for the Romans fighting against Philip. The Phalangites at Cynoscephalae were actually just beaten by a much more versatile and effective formation. The Maniple System the Romans devised of checkboard like spear units could engage the Phalanx wall directly. The so-called 'phalanx with joints' could not only attack the Phalanx from the front, but it could break up its ranks and then the Gladius goes to do its work. This is repeated again and again in history. Technological and material superiority will often lead to victories. Who knew an army of untouchable horse archers would be unstoppable in three continents? Who knew thousands of next generation tanks would break through the most heavily fortified militarized defense of its time? Many Generals have taken advantage of their side's superiority in strength and earned their place in history. But it was Hannibal who was handed every conceivable disadvantage and turned the impossible into not only victories but flawless victories in so-called battles of annihilation. That is why he is the father of military strategy and the greatest general in history.