2006-11-23 09:52:03 · 10 answers · asked by Raygun 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
A seemingly impossible question to answer, however if we ignore the weapons difference and just look at the strategic/tactical abilities of both generals then one would have to opt for Hannibal.
To march an army from North Africa, through Spain, over the Pyrenees, over the Alps into Northern Italy and then campaign up and down the length of Italy for over twenty years, is some achievement. Just imagine the logistics involved.
Wellington, though a great commander, tended to fight defensive battles. In Spain he had support and supplies delivered by sea. When ever the French managed to concentrate enough troops in one place to offer battle, he would fight a defensive action then retreat into Portugal. Remember that throughout the Peninsula Campaign he never fought Napolean. His march through France from the South, prior to Napolean's first exile, was aided by the fact that his other European allies were invading France from the North East.
When he did eventually meet Napolean at Waterloo in 1815, he was facing a French army that had been cobbled together in a matter of weeks, had already fought one major action against the Prussians and had been on the march for two weeks already.
Despite these factors it was more a matter of luck that the allied army won at Waterloo.
You might like to know that in any Wargame recreation of Waterloo, the French invariably win!
2006-11-23 22:18:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hannibal easily. Only reason why Wellington was able to stop Napoleon was all the countries that were allied against the french. Hannibal on the other hand had was outnumbered all the time against the Romans. Won't matter if they had cannons because even then the romans had the huge advancement of technology and still lost. Hannibal had the will of his people something that wellington did not have. They were determined to take out the romans for revenge. If they were thrown in a cage match Hannibal would win easily. :)
2006-11-23 22:47:20 · answer #2 · answered by P-Funk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both with the weapons of the day, obviously Wellington.
What some previous respondants fail to mention is that Hannibal Barca actually lost in the end, whereas Wellington didnt! I think a tight defence always beats a wild attack!
Hannibal badly miscalculated logistically when crossing the alps, and although an audacious move, it was more a matter of luck that he got through them...with huge losses!
Also, as a previous contributor mentioned Napoleons army at Waterloo was cobbled together, true, but so was Wellingtons! Some of it had been disbanded, and a further portion sent to America, to stop the USA taking over Canada.
King Esarhaddon of Assyria would have whipped em both tho!
2006-11-24 11:39:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hannibal didn't win by numbers, he won by out thinking and maneuvering his foe. The dumb *** Romans learned the hard way that a thinking man beats the superior numbers. Hannibal would win. He studied Sun Tsu's works and practiced them, possibly the best general in history.
2006-11-23 18:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal hands down !
2006-11-24 08:55:30 · answer #5 · answered by Praxis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd buck the trend on here and go for the Iron Duke - the best improviser in the trade. Even if they weren't fighting in his time, I reckon he'd be able to adapt quickest to the ground, the troops and the conditions.
2006-11-23 19:48:36 · answer #6 · answered by Sairey G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal - sorry.
Bye
2006-11-23 17:54:13 · answer #7 · answered by Toto 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Chuck Norris.
2006-11-23 17:53:12 · answer #8 · answered by Izzy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal, no contest. Come on, the guy made someone swallow their own tongue just by talking to him!
2006-11-23 17:56:45 · answer #9 · answered by drummanmatthew 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wellington. Elephants are no match for cannon.
2006-11-23 17:54:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋