1. Anybody Said,

   Hannibal, although a military tactical genius like Alexander, failed to secure his position in his homeland. Before Alexander left Greece, he made sure to secure his rear to prevent anyone from attacking him and forcing him to return. Hannibal, by contrast, stayed in Italy, while the Roman forces under Scipio were able to defeat the Carthaginian forces in Spain and ultimately invade Carthage, resulting in the recall Hannibal from Italy. This ended the 2nd Punic war.

   Also, Hannibal was unable to mount an assault on Rome itself, which would have achieved a victory before the Romans could launch a counter strike.
   References :

2. ammianus Said,

   Alexander never lost a battle or campaign,and achieved all his strategic objectives in a given campaign until his army refused to march any further east in 326 BC.

   Hannibal,although possessed of a tactical battlefield genius,was strategically weak.Although his passage of the Alps avoided the main Roman army positioned to block him,he lost half his army and all but of his elephants in achieving this.On arrival in Italy his forces were so weak that they required a period of rest and recuperation and the recruitment of local Gauls before being ready for further operations;had the Romans caught up with him then,Hannibal would be a mere footnote in history.He had no Plan B in Italy – having destroyed 3 Roman armies,Hannibal assumed Rome’s Italian allies would desert them and leave the city easy prey,but when this didn’t happen he had neither the wherewithal to assault Rome directly nor any idea of how to proceed afterwards.He stuck rigidly to Plan A,which hadn’t worked and therefore wasn’t likely too. Hannibal thus showed himself as strategically inflexible,something that Alexander could never be accused of.

   Alexander conquered a huge empire in 12 years;Hannibal meandered around an unconquered Italy for 13 years losing rather than gaining any territory,and achieved nothing of any substance after Cannae (216 BC).

   So,Alexander was much more succesful than Hannibal.However,it should be pointed out that Hannibal was fighting a much more formidable opponent in Rome than was alexander in Persia (Alexander’s uncle once remarked that he lost to the Romans because he was fighting men,whereas Alexander had triumphed over the Persians because he was fighting women).Nevertheless,Alexander was fighting a long way from home and went on to further victories and conquests after that of Persia going,in Greek terms,where no man had gone before.

   Alexanderw as more succesful than Hannibal because he was a great strategist as well as a great tactician; Hannibal was a master tactician on the battlefield,but an average (at best) strategist.
   References :

Add A Comment