Julius Caesar vs. Hannibal Barcus

[Sheariliik]

Lets say somehow Juluis Caesar met Hannibal Barca as he is traveling through Gaul who would win?

I would say Julius Caesar since the Romans had a larger army than the Carthaginian's and Hannibal lost most of his major battles whereas Caesar lost few.

what do you think NSG who would win?

[Sunny Marionette]

One on One, Hannibal. One hundred percent.

[Ragnarsdomr]

The Germans once they overrun the remnants of both armies, obviously. What, you thought you could leave them unwatched and hope for the best?

[Acrainia]

Hannibal was a superior general by far, but the Romans had long ago adapted their military doctrine to greatly reduce the effectiveness of many of the tactics Hannibal used to win his greatest victories. Not to mention the quality of Caesars legions was much better than the legions Hannibal was used to fighting.

I think Hannibal would win, but it would be a close one.

[Tekania]

Armies? Why bring armies into it... HISTORICAL CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH!

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Lets say somehow Juluis Caesar met Hannibal Barca as he is traveling through Gaul who would win?

I would say Julius Caesar since the Romans had a larger army than the Carthaginian's and Hannibal lost most of his major battles whereas Caesar lost few.

what do you think NSG who would win?

Actually, Hannibal WON most of his major battles, and with a significantly smaller army than the Romans. It was only really at the Battle of Zama that he lost and that's when things went downhill.

However, it's not a very fair match, as Caesar not only had a larger army, but had a century and half of technology upgrading done and lots of military reforms, some of which were made in response to the tactics used by Hannibal. Not to mention, Caesar would know that Hannibal was a wild card, and would know what to expect.

However, if we're only going by their prowess and capacity for military brilliance, Hannibal would win every single time. If you could take the skill of the two and represent them as mountains, Hannibal would be Olympus Mons while Caesar would be Mt. St. Helena. Hannibal was the greatest general of all time, proven by his skill with logistics, morale, and ingenuity. The man has no equal, and especially not Caesar, who, while talented, was not anywhere near the level of Hannibal.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Caesar was a better politician, but Hannibal was the better military leader.

Hands down.

[Conserative Morality]

Caesar would win, hands down. Hannibal was brilliant, to be sure, but was in no way Caesar's equal.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Caesar would win, hands down. Hannibal was brilliant, to be sure, but was in no way Caesar's equal.

Caesar had a much, much better starting position than Hannibal did, considering the Aedui, the Arveni, the Sequani and the Suebi were already busy killing each other while Hannibal was dealing with a consolidated, strong Rome.

[Arcturus Novus]

Hannibal. He was an excellent warrior from what I understand.

[Venolia]

Hannibal was truly an idiot and a terrible general. I would say Caesar would win and he probably would.

[Astrolinium]

It's Barca. With an A.
And Hannibal would win if all other things were equal.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Hannibal was truly an idiot and a terrible general. I would say Caesar would win and he probably would.

What makes Hannibal an idiot? The guy almost defeated an army of 800 000 in total with an army that varied between 20 000 and 40 000.

[Conserative Morality]

Hannibal was truly an idiot and a terrible general. I would say Caesar would win and he probably would.

Hannibal wasn't an idiot; Caesar is simply better. Caesar was a cunning general who knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses of his enemies and adjust for his own weaknesses. Not to mention the personal loyalty he inspired in his men.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Hannibal was truly an idiot and a terrible general. I would say Caesar would win and he probably would.

Hannibal wasn't an idiot; Caesar is simply better. Caesar was a cunning general who knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses of his enemies and adjust for his own weaknesses. Not to mention the personal loyalty he inspired in his men.

Isn't that exactly what Hannibal did? Considering most of Hannibal's troops were Cisalpine Gauls, Magna Graecians, Balearians, Celtiberians, Numidians and Libyans, but with very, very few actual Carthaginians besides his seconds in command like Gisgo or Mago, I'd say he inspired a deep amount of respect, and unlike Caesar, wasn't self-serving about it. For all his army, he kept reminding them that Hannibal himself was beholden to Carthage, and it was not "Hannibal's Army".

He succesfully used the strengths of his troops while making the best of his weaknesses, much like you claim Caesar did, and did it while malarial and blind in one eye as a result, as well as being under-supplied, harassed by a larger army, and dealing with a significant anti-Barcid faction at home (which is ultimately what did him in)

[Alien Space Bats]

Caesar was lucky, but lucky in the sort of way that people are who make their own luck. He had a talent for knowing what was going to happen next and anticipating it that would have made it very, very difficult for Hannibal to beat him.

Caesar's army was also better, not just technologically but organizationally. Both men were equally inspirational and just as capable of improvisation. Some of Hannibal's achievements were Herculean, but part of that was because Hannibal had to overcome the motley mess that was the Carthaginian Army.

So I pick Caesar.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Caesar was lucky, but lucky in the sort of way that people are who make their own luck. He had a talent for knowing what was going to happen next and anticipating it that would have made it very, very difficult for Hannibal to beat him.

Caesar's army was also better, not just technologically but organizationally. Both men were equally inspirational and just as capable of improvisation. Some of Hannibal's achievements were Herculean, but part of that was because Hannibal had to overcome the motley mess that was the Carthaginian Army.

So I pick Caesar.

I think the biggest problem with a "Caesar versus Hannibal" fight is that Caesar would, being born after Hannibal, know Hannibal's tactics.

[Conserative Morality]

Isn't that exactly what Hannibal did? Considering most of Hannibal's troops were Cisalpine Gauls, Magna Graecians, Balearians, Celtiberians, Numidians and Libyans, but with very, very few actual Carthaginians besides his seconds in command like Gisgo or Mago, I'd say he inspired a deep amount of respect, and unlike Caesar, wasn't self-serving about it. For all his army, he kept reminding them that Hannibal himself was beholden to Carthage, and it was not "Hannibal's Army".

He succesfully used the strengths of his troops while making the best of his weaknesses, much like you claim Caesar did, and did it while malarial and blind in one eye as a result, as well as being under-supplied, harassed by a larger army, and dealing with a significant anti-Barcid faction at home (which is ultimately what did him in)

What ultimately did Hannibal in was an inability to use his enemies weaknesses against them. He could out-think any conventional strategist of his time, save perhaps Scipio, but he could not beat the unconventional tactics of Fabius Maximus. Caesar, on the other hand, was ridiculously flexible in his strategies, and put every aspect of the Roman military machine to the test.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Isn't that exactly what Hannibal did? Considering most of Hannibal's troops were Cisalpine Gauls, Magna Graecians, Balearians, Celtiberians, Numidians and Libyans, but with very, very few actual Carthaginians besides his seconds in command like Gisgo or Mago, I'd say he inspired a deep amount of respect, and unlike Caesar, wasn't self-serving about it. For all his army, he kept reminding them that Hannibal himself was beholden to Carthage, and it was not "Hannibal's Army".

He succesfully used the strengths of his troops while making the best of his weaknesses, much like you claim Caesar did, and did it while malarial and blind in one eye as a result, as well as being under-supplied, harassed by a larger army, and dealing with a significant anti-Barcid faction at home (which is ultimately what did him in)

What ultimately did Hannibal in was an inability to use his enemies weaknesses against them. He could out-think any conventional strategist of his time, save perhaps Scipio, but he could not beat the unconventional tactics of Fabius Maximus. Caesar, on the other hand, was ridiculously flexible in his strategies, and put every aspect of the Roman military machine to the test.

I always feel Fabius Maximus did more to win the Second Punic War than Scipio as he was the only person in the entire Senate to realise Hannibal's march to Rome was to draw the Roman army away from the Apulian cities. However, I would argue that it wasn't inflexibility that did Hannibal in, but the communication error between his brother Hasdrubal and him where Hasdrubal and Hannibal accidentally ended up near opposite coasts and the Romans just so happened to find Hasdrubal's army. If Hannibal and Hasdrubal successfully united their armies, Hannibal surely would have won.

[Sheariliik]

Lets say somehow Juluis Caesar met Hannibal Barca as he is traveling through Gaul who would win?

I would say Julius Caesar since the Romans had a larger army than the Carthaginian's and Hannibal lost most of his major battles whereas Caesar lost few.

what do you think NSG who would win?

Actually, Hannibal WON most of his major battles, and with a significantly smaller army than the Romans. It was only really at the Battle of Zama that he lost and that's when things went downhill.

However, it's not a very fair match, as Caesar not only had a larger army, but had a century and half of technology upgrading done and lots of military reforms, some of which were made in response to the tactics used by Hannibal. Not to mention, Caesar would know that Hannibal was a wild card, and would know what to expect.

However, if we're only going by their prowess and capacity for military brilliance, Hannibal would win every single time. If you could take the skill of the two and represent them as mountains, Hannibal would be Olympus Mons while Caesar would be Mt. St. Helena. Hannibal was the greatest general of all time, proven by his skill with logistics, morale, and ingenuity. The man has no equal, and especially not Caesar, who, while talented, was not anywhere near the level of Hannibal.

thanks for pointing that out

[New England and The Maritimes]

Pyrrhus Aeacidae.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Pyrrhus Aeacidae.

Nice.

[Sidhae]

Hannibal. Caesar wasn't really that brilliant, considering he was dealing with tribes of barbarians, courageous but technologically inferior and unorganized, while Hannibal owned a sophisticated and numerically-superior enemy multiple times.

Of course, as mentioned before, Caesar would have the advantage of Marian Reform, which made Roman armies considerably more efficient, and he, like Hannibal's enemies, could prevail through political scheming rather than head-to-head battle, in which Hannibal had no rival in Antiquity (except perhaps for Alexander).

[Genivaria]

Would it really be fair to give Caesar the army he had? As has already been mentioned, many reforms had been made since the time of Hannibal.
Give Caesar an army of Hastati, Principe, and Triarii as well as Velite instead of his Legionary's.
And make it that neither had ever heard of each other.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Hannibal. Caesar wasn't really that brilliant, considering he was dealing with tribes of barbarians, courageous but technologically inferior and unorganized, while Hannibal owned a sophisticated and numerically-superior enemy multiple times.

Of course, as mentioned before, Caesar would have the advantage of Marian Reform, which made Roman armies considerably more efficient, and he, like Hannibal's enemies, could prevail through political scheming rather than head-to-head battle, in which Hannibal had no rival in Antiquity (except perhaps for Alexander).

I wouldn't call the Gauls barbarians in any sense. Most Roman technology was actually based on that of the Gauls.