Who was the greatest war tactician,Alexander the great against the Persians,Hannibal against the Romans,?

Question

Leonidas the Spartan against the persians,or somebody else?

Answer 1

Not Leonidas. No imagination there. Boy, that's a tough choice between Alexander and Hannibal. Those would be my top two in the recorded history of warfare. Alexander may get the nod because of the variety of enemies he defeated in his meteoric career. Alexander beat the Persians but also took walled cities and defeated a large army in India which had war elephants. Hannibal just had to beat the Roman legions in three main battles on the Italian peninsula.
[By the way Hannibal had very limited use of his elephants. Only about 29 survived the Alps in 218 BC - and all but one of them died within one year - so Hannibal had no elephant support at his superb victory at Cannae in 216 BC.]
Alexander also had amazing logistics to move ~50,000 men across Asia Minor finding food, water, and forage for the animals, but that is not really tactics as you asked.
Good Question! My vote - Alexander.

Answer 2

Alexander was a risk taker yes he was a brilliant commander one of the best and he never lost a battle but he never fought anyone like Hannibal, Hannibal was the best defencive tactician in the world and he was taking on the most professional army in the world at that time and often numbered, had the two ever met on the battle field Hannibal would have beaten Alexander a good defence will beat an unplanned rushed offence and Hannibal was the best

Answer 3

Hannibal, he fought an enemy that was militarily superior to the ones Alexander and Leonidas fought.
He fought in Italy for 17 years and never lost a battle, the country of Italy is not very wide and not much room for maneuvering. He was always out-numbered.
Hannibal's tactics at the battles Cannae, Trebia, and Lake Trasimine are still taught to military students today.
General Norman Shwarzkopf said he used Hannibal's Cannae tactics to defeat the Iraq Army in the Persian Gulf War.

Answer 4

Hannibal was the better tactician as he was able to use an inferior army compared the roman opponent and still gain victory. Although, as Hasrabul said, "Haninbal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it" referring to his inability to capture Rome. Both were fantastic commanders of men and Hannibal was able to control an army with a multitude of different languages. Alexander was able to travel a further distance and is remembered by the city Alexandria but Hannibal was the better tactician.

Answer 5

Hannibal without a doubt, to take an army of Carthaginians and mercenaries and knock ten bells out of the most efficient army in the then world at that time has to be some major tactician , in fact some of his methods were still being used a thousand years later

Answer 6

I think its difficult to flat out compare these people although i feel that a few more should be added in the form of Caeser and Wellington.
However, between Alexander and Hannibal I personally feel that Alexander has the edge purely because of the huge distances he travelled and the sheer logistics of doing so. Although Hannibals feat of crossing the alps with an army was impressive it was no more so than some of the obstacles alexander had to pass in his time. Ultimately, Alexander is one of the few 'Undefeated' generals ever to exist.

Answer 7

Clearly Alexander. Hannibal fell to the Romans after early victories. Alexander never lost a battle, and fought a variety of armies.

Answer 8

I would actually look towards Alexander, Kublai Khan, John Churchill (Marlbourgh), Napolean, Clauswitz, Moltke, Zhukov and Slim in the order of date for great tacticians with the forces at there control. Hannibal was a one hit wonder who tried something different.

Answer 9

Definitely Alexander. Alexander had to fight for his heritage after the death of his father, and his consistent military strategy resulted in his conquering of the majority of the known ancient world. Hannibal had an off-the-wall idea, which enabled him to achieve a spectacular victory, but he was unable to sustain his progress against the might of Rome, and he was soon defeated.

Answer 10

I would say Hannibal, because he was not a king and had minimal support from home. He was also fighting a disciplined opponent and not a gigantic mob like the oriental armies.