User blog comment:Guitarcar/Boudica vs Hannibal/@comment-32516697-20180808150419

Laqy's "Scourge of Rome vs. Minor Annoyance of Rome" Non-Edges

I know the battle isn't finished yet, but it doesn't need to be for me to give my opinion on the man who's going to win. That man, of course, is Hannibal Barca. Here's why.

Hannibal was a master of tactics. Regardless of the scenario, during his Italian campaign, he was always capable of coming up with strategies that saw entire Roman armies wiped off the face of the Earth. Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae are all perfect example of what Hannibal could do to an unsuspecting army.

Boudica was not a tactician in any sense of the word. Each of her victories against the Romans relied on a combination of overwhelming force and psychological warfare, rather than formations and maneuvers and the like. The moment she faced off against Paulinus, an experienced commander who knew what he was doing, her entire army was crushed, despite outnumbering the Romans by 20 to 1.

Both warriors lost to Rome in the end, but look out how long it took. Hannibal ravaged Italy for years, and it took the Fabian strategy, the Battle of Metaurus, and Scipio's efforts in Spain and Africa for him to even withdraw. Boudica's revolt destroyed several cities, but was ended by Paulinus before the year was out.

I could discuss weapons and armour, but I don't need to. By making this an army-on-army battle, you've put Hannibal in his element, and Hannibal was a much, much more successful commander. He has experience, his troops are better trained, and he absolutely curbstomps in all things tactics. Boudica would have an easier time fighting a brick wall.