2007-02-08 01:19:07 · 10 answers · asked by MORTİCİA 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Me ofcourse Hannibal.
But Alexander was good too.
2007-02-08 01:24:15 · answer #1 · answered by hanibal 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Alexander may have been the better strategist (certainly the most successful), but Hannibal was by far the better tactician of the two. Keep in mind Alexander was a monarch and Hannibal was serving the republic of Carthage. Carthage refused to provide Hannibal with the support he needed to succeed in his Italian campaign.
2007-02-08 22:18:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Alexander
2007-02-08 09:22:13 · answer #3 · answered by selena d 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What is the question? I'd go for Alexander anyway.
Hannibal did his best, though. With all those elephants, the huge army across the Alps - you can't take that away from him. He lost still.
But to the victor goes the crown. And certainly, Alexander was a winning general in his time, though he died young.
2007-02-08 09:27:39 · answer #4 · answered by Benvenuto 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alexander was one of the greatest people who ever lived. Hannibal, while also great, doesn't measure up to the achievements of Alexander.
2007-02-08 09:22:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal may not have conquered as much as Alexander, but he did have the elephants.
Go Hannibal!
2007-02-08 09:44:42 · answer #6 · answered by pikachu is love. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Alexander, he never lost. Hannibal did.
2007-02-08 09:29:16 · answer #7 · answered by 2Bs 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By your short question I imagine you mean to ask which one was the greatest strategist. because its the only field in which they fully coincide.
Alexander the Great was a conqueror of new lands.
Hannibal only tried to punish Rome for past damages done to Carthage.
Alexander was successful and never lost a chance to nail down his enemy at the most convenient moment.
Hannibal was not able to draw the war to a conclusion.
After the battle of "Cannae" in in which he destroyed a huge roman army, he should have tried to conquer Rome as she lay helpless, but he did not. Permitting Rome to regroup.
We shall never know his reasons for not attacking, but one of his principal generals due to this decision told him : " You know how to win a battle but do not know how to win a war" This shows there was a possibility of conquering Rome.
He lost his chance and finally chased by the Romans had to commit suicide so not to fall in their hands.
So for this, I would vote for "Alexander the Great" as a greater strategist, he knew that when the enemy is down you have to make the kill.
2007-02-08 10:35:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hannibal because he had great transportation.
2007-02-08 10:08:21 · answer #9 · answered by tankbuff, 19 violations so far 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alexander, all the way.
The real one, not that sorry-*** immitation in Stone's movie.
2007-02-08 09:22:25 · answer #10 · answered by tamara_cyan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋