This is my childhood dream match. I know a lot about both generals. Once in a while their tactics even matched. If they were pitted against one another with equal sized armys and arsenal. Who would come out victorious and why?

I'm afraid it is impossible to compare military leaders from different eras. General, the way how army is conducted, depends from various factors, including what kind of weapons and logistics are they using and what objectives must be completed. Both of leaders were masters of their own era. If You take away their original equipment and give them new, equal one, they first will need to use to it, learn capabilities of new equipment and best methods and ways to use it...

Moreover, a later leader will learn from an earlier one. It's like comparing scientists from different eras, one stands on the shoulders of the previous. Scipio learnt a lot from Hannibal and subsequently the Romans based a lot of their strategy and tactics from Hannibal (as indeed they had earlier copied the shipbuilding techniques of the Carthaginians)

Napoleons Cannons would have torn Hannibal's Army apart

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Napoleons Cannons would have torn Hannibal's Army apart

Interesting point. Although I'm changing the subject a bit, I have often wondered whether ancient/medieval weapons would have been superior to early 19th century weapons in practice.

First of all we have the cannons as you say whose purpose was partly to shock the enemy (like Hannibal's elephants) but most effective practical effect was to shower grapeshot or shrapnel on the enemy. However few infantry wore armour in the 19th century yet quite a few of Hannibal's men must have had armour protection which would have provided some protection against low velocity projectiles.

Secondly we have the effectiveness of the slow firing musket against the fast firing bow and arrow. Consider again the lack of armour in the 19th century.

Thirdly we have he effectiveness of 19th century cavalry against the phalanx type structure prevalent at the time of Hannibal.

I would guess that Hannibal would wait until a time when the cannon and muskets may be ineffective, do they work when raining? is range important in fog or the dark? how long does it take to set up cannon, what about guerrilla warfare?

I doubt if in a 'head to head' of technology the result would have been inevitable.

Originally Posted by perseus

First of all we have the cannons as you say whose purpose was partly to shock the enemy (like Hannibal's elephants) but most effective practical effect was to shower grapeshot or shrapnel on the enemy. However few infantry wore armour in the 19th century yet quite a few of Hannibal's men must have had armour protection which would have provided some protection against low velocity projectiles.

I'm afraid muzzle velocity for both musket and cannon canister projectiles would be large enough to penetrate Hannibal's time body armor. Moreover, canister projectile will chop the unprotected body parts of Hannibal's soldiers. It would be terrifying weapon and destruction.

Originally Posted by perseus

Secondly we have the effectiveness of the slow firing musket against the fast firing bow and arrow. Consider again the lack of armour in the 19th century.

What about effective distance of muskets and bow'n'arrow? What if muskets have significantly greater distance than bow'n'arrow?

Originally Posted by perseus

how long does it take to set up cannon, what about guerrilla warfare?

Did concept of organized guerilla warfare existed in time of Hannibal?

Originally Posted by Supostat

What about effective distance of muskets and bow'n'arrow? What if muskets have significantly greater distance than bow'n'arrow?

I understand that muskets where mainly used at an even a shorter range than the bow and arrow in practice, partly due to the poor accuracy, perhaps the velocity of the musket ball was insufficient at longer range.

With regard to armour, I am not saying that the shot wouldn't have been effective, just less effective than against unprotected troops

Originally Posted by Supostat

Did concept of organized guerilla warfare existed in time of Hannibal??

I'm not sure about Hannibal, but Sun Tzu argued that all warfare involves the employing of one's strength to exploit the weakness of the enemy. Sun Tzu gives several suggestions on how to defeat an enemy that is larger and better equipped than your own army.

Jewish resistance to foreign rule was expressed in the series of fierce guerrilla operations against the Romans in the 1st century AD led by the Zealot sect, this revolt was climaxed by the seizure of Masada and the massacre of the Roman garrison there in AD 66

The reason that Bowman went out of fashion was that it took years to train a decent bowman, yet some one could be trained to use a musket in a day.
Body Armour. well it had been up as useless from the 19th Century to just recently.
Muskets.....Although the fire rate was not very high with these, the short fall was made up by volley firing which could pour a large amount lead at a fair rate into a an advancing force, which they found very of putting.
Guerrilla Warfare....Well they would not have used cannons on this sort of thing as it is all about hit and run.

This discussion sounds a lot like what would I arm a high tech cyborg?
An equally high tech rapid firing firearm such as an automatic rifle with all the fancy bells and whistles, or a Samurai Sword?

Of course the more modern weapons are more useful. Or else who would be stupid enough to invest money into making them?
There are places where an older weapon could do better. i.e. if you were nose to nose with your enemy, a battleaxe would be more effective than a musket but if you were to go to war tomorrow and you had to pick one of the two, which would it be?

Actually both Generals are very similar, they were both expert tacticians that used maneuvering tactics to get the upper hand, and both Generals invented tactics they provided victory against a numerically superior enemy. They both tended to exploit their enemies overconfidence.

They were also both beaten by their own tactics used against them, by enemy leaders who acknowledged their military genius. And both enemies leaders (Rome and the UK) copied elements of both of these Generals Armies and incorporated them into their own, particularly of specialized units.

In other words both the British Army and the Roman Legions paid the ultimate hommage to their sworn enemies by copying them.

One final point, both leaders final defeat was by their own hand. Both leaders had so far over-extended themselves that their armies had simply become skeletons of their former selves and that they were simply beaten by exhaustion. Napoleon was permanently weakened by the Russian Campaign, and similarily Hannibal by his endless campaigns in Italy.