Pyrrhus or Hannibal?

St Leo · November 16, 2003, 15:07

WW2 is böring.

Was Pyrrhus of Epirus or Hannibal of Carthage a better general?

Al B. Sure! · November 16, 2003, 15:11

Pyrrhus was actually successful but at a huge cost. Hannibal was successful with few casaulties but ultimately lost.

Zopperoni · November 16, 2003, 15:13

Hannibal is the one who came up with the strategy to defeat the largest Roman army ever assembled.

Space05us · November 16, 2003, 15:40

Sparkatus was bester.

BeBro · November 16, 2003, 15:43

Even better as Spartacus?

Provost Harrison · November 16, 2003, 15:51

Hasdrubal?

laurentius · November 16, 2003, 17:31

Well not everyone could bring elephants over the alps (alive)

Wernazuma III · November 16, 2003, 17:34

Who'd favor Pyrrhos? I mean, he was surely not as bad as his reputation, but compared to the military genius of Hannibal...

Now, come on, you who voted for Pyrrhos: Why?

Immortal Wombat · November 16, 2003, 17:38

I thought most of Hannibal's elephants died in the Alps. And that the ones that did make it down were pretty lame in battle, getting scared and trampling pretty much randomly.

It was a good idea though, even if it did fail. I blame the wimpy Sicilians.

Wernazuma III · November 16, 2003, 17:48

The elephants were for nothing, not even in regular battle, not after crossing snowy mountains IMHO after the enemy got used to them. They were, safe the psychological effect on the enemy, more a threat for the own troops. A lame weapon.
Hannibal never had the intent to use the elephants as his "secret weapon" in Italy, he just happened to have some with him.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 18:21

I'm sure panag will come and say Hannibal was a horrible general since he lost

.

Wernazuma III · November 16, 2003, 18:25

Hannibal bad.

Lost the war.

...have a nice day!

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 18:27

Good impression indeed

.

Ned · November 16, 2003, 19:16

Actually, Hannibal was good, but Scipio was better than both Hannibal and Pyrrhus. Or is this a contest limited to non Roman generals?

DanS · November 16, 2003, 20:48

Hannibal would be considered the greatest general ever, if he had spent one less day following up his overwhelming victory at Cannae and had sacked Rome.

The Alps don't enter much into the equation.

Easthaven I · November 16, 2003, 21:32

He did not have the seige material to take out Rome nor was that his intention by invading Italy.

And niether Scipio nor Pyhrrus were better than Hannibal. Hannibal was a military genius, who lost because of luck, the odds, and Carthaginian politicians...and a very competent Roman commander who learned from his successful enemy rather than his fellow Roman failures.

Kuciwalker · November 16, 2003, 22:16

Quote:

Now, come on, you who voted for Pyrrhos: Why?

Because it is as much a law as the second law of thermodynamics that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an option in an OTF poll to get zero votes

DanS · November 17, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

He did not have the seige material to take out Rome nor was that his intention by invading Italy.

Rome was undefended immediately after Cannae. If he would have marched on Rome immediately, rather than taking his time, Rome would have fallen without a fight.

What was his intention?

Easthaven I · November 17, 2003, 00:45

I believe Rome still maintained a garrison and I'm sure they could have called up another legion or force of defence. Hannibal simply didn't have siege equipment, and sieges just wasn't his cup of tea.

His intention was to spank the Romans around so much as to woo Rome's allies, which he did but not to the extent he expected. He underestimated the alliances and the states' reluctance to abandon Rome. Though, some did join Hannibal, and were punished by Rome for it later. After the first Punic War, a treaty was established on favorable terms for Rome, leaving Carthage a crappy deal. Hannibal I believe was aiming to get Rome's allies on his side and thus do to Rome what was done to Carthage. He wanted Carthage back on top as the superpower of the Mediterranean. He wanted to defeat Rome without besieging the city. But of course, Rome's stubborness proved to survive defeat after defeat, and waited out the Hurricane of Hannibal.

However, I agree with you. I also think he should have marched on Rome immediately after the slaughter at Cannae. His army arriving at the gates of the great city itself would have, I think, persuaded the senate to sue for peace and Hannibal could have settled terms favorable to Carthage. But he didn't, and survivors gathered from the defeat of Cannae to a force of 10,000 and I believe Varro sent word back to Rome on his army regrouping which gave some hope back to Rome.

During that interval where there was no hope, I believe Hannibal should have marched on Rome. Maharbal thought so, too, after the battle when he told Hannibal, "You know how to win a victory Hannibal, but you do not know how to use one..."

Panag · November 17, 2003, 07:27

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
WW2 is böring.

Was Pyrrhus of Epirus or Hannibal of Carthage a better general?

hi ,

now we are talking

the good old fashion way ,

, hard choice actually , .....

have a nice day

Panag · November 17, 2003, 07:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm sure panag will come and say Hannibal was a horrible general since he lost

.

and one can bet that you will always write such bullocks , .......

you have no idea whatsoever how an other person thinks , ......

Drake Tungsten · November 17, 2003, 07:45

Ouch. Imran wasn't asked to "have a nice day".

Panag · November 17, 2003, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Ouch. Imran wasn't asked to "have a nice day".

hi ,

is that needed for people who post on apolyton that is btw a site where people are not hated based on race , color , religion , country etc , ...... " i hate Israelis " , ...... well such people who hate people just cause they happen to come from that place ( hate based on zip crap nada nothing ) should indeed not have a nice day , why , cause people who hate have the hate to keep themselfs occupied , .....

and can we now get back to topic please , ......

have a nice day

alva · November 17, 2003, 08:03

Quote:

Well not everyone could bring elephants over the alps (alive)

He should have used upside down squirels...
-

Quote:

Actually, Hannibal was good, but Scipio was better than both Hannibal and Pyrrhus. Or is this a contest limited to non Roman generals?

Am I the only one getting the feeling this could gone for a while?
I say tacticus was the best, hey afterall,he wrote the book, ahhaaah.

Al B. Sure! · November 17, 2003, 14:43

i did not vote but Pyrrhus is very much a legitimate choice in this poll as he actually was successful whereas Hannibal lost at Zama and thus, lost the war. his successes in battle came to nothing.

then again, Rome did conquer the same southern italy that Pyrrhus was defending, but only after Pyrrhus gave up after repeated "Pyrrhic victories"

Panag · November 18, 2003, 05:24

hi ,

, has anyone ever heard of leonidas , ......

btw , hannibal did more then just the alps , okay he got more or the less famous with it , .....

btw , on bbc the have a show that lets police officers play ancient battles on screen , kind like civ , but bigger , ....

have a nice day

laurentius · November 18, 2003, 05:42

Leonidas was a hero, if he would have been anything equal to Hannibal he would have taken the longer route around black sea and across the Caucasus to attack the persians from behind

Sikander · November 19, 2003, 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Hasdrubal?

Good General, but lost his head when they got to Italy.

Space05us · November 19, 2003, 05:00

I still say sparkatus was bestest

Ned · November 19, 2003, 05:03

Scipio was better "strategically" and Hannibal's equal "tactically."