2007-01-20 18:33:15 · 15 answers · asked by Unknown 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
HANNIBAL SUFFERED FROM RESOURCE AND COOPERATION FROM HIS COUNTRY.HANNIBAL IS BETTER THAN CESAR IN WAR STRATEGY.HANNIBAL WAS A GENERAL HE HAD NO OTHER LIFE.CESAR WAS A STATESMAN, GENERAL WHAT NOT.
2007-01-21 02:54:38 · answer #1 · answered by ak 123 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal
2007-01-20 18:37:02 · answer #2 · answered by Haven17 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were both great, however I believe Hannibal was the slightly better general. He had to use strategy to win many of his victories due to the fact that he didn't have virtually unlimited manpower like Rome did, in fact many of his men were mercenaries and foreign allies. Hannibal was a brilliant tactician, the battle of Cannae is considered a masterpiece, and it was. Hannibal fought in the middle with his infantry which was lacking in quantity and quality, and led them threw a tactical retreat in order for his cavalry and spearman to later encircle the romans, nullifying their numbers advantage due to the tight quarters they were fighting in and being surrounded. Hannibal lacked in support from his home country, the elites in Carthage were fools. Caesar is great too, what he did at Alesia in Gaul is remarkable, building two walls around a city and fighting off probably at least a 120,000 Gaul's. He also beat Pompey with a starving depleted army with no food. Caesar did however have the power of the Roman army at it's best behind him, Hannibal had to use strategy because he didn't have a completely elite army, he had sections of elite fighters but not many. I say Hannibal.
2014-09-16 14:14:15 · answer #3 · answered by luke 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Julius Caesar
- does anyone remember Hannibal - compared to J. Caesar?
GOD bless us always.
2007-01-28 13:38:01 · answer #4 · answered by May I help You? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in the end Hannibal was defeated in battle and lost power. Julius Caesar had to be killed by his closest comrads to lose power, so I say Caesar.
2007-01-26 09:36:46 · answer #5 · answered by Grant H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I beleive Hannibal was better. He was a true innovator in the methods of warfare. Julius Caeser was a visionary on a grand scale but militarily he really just benefitted from inheriting a stronger military than any of his neighbors.
2007-01-20 23:47:28 · answer #6 · answered by baldisbeautiful 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Caesar directs from his seat while Hannibal leads physically.
2007-01-20 18:46:08 · answer #7 · answered by Del S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do like Napoleon's quote. yet Caesar became something yet an newbie. He fought incredibly previous due as youngster or early twentier (having been a definite priest forbade him protection stress preparation) at Mitylene and won the Corona Civilis. it truly is an incredibly intense honor. something larger than a Silver famous man or woman yet under the Congressional Medal. for deepest valor and management. Later he fought countless powerful campaigns in North West Spain and Portugal. So he wasn't that green. It became truly uncomplicated for a Roman to have the two a civil and protection stress occupation blended.
2016-12-14 08:03:15 · answer #8 · answered by condon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
judging by battlefield success
Caesar had many times as many troops as Hannibal, and won his battles by simply over powering the enemy. A good tactic, if you have the resources.
Hannibal on the other hand, was a great leader and tactician, he destroyed armies twice his size (at Cannae, an estimated 60,000 roman soldiers were destroyed in just a few hours). Time was ultimately Hannibals downfall, he didn't have the manpower to sustain his campaign in Italy forever, though it went on for many years.
2007-01-21 01:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would have to go with JC. Hannibal was great, but he was also impulsive and undisciplined when facing the toughest challenges.
2007-01-20 22:21:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋