Hannibal was probably the best general in the ancient world, its manoeuvering and enveloping tactic were amazing, and even at Zama, where all the odds were against him, he almost turned the side of the battle with ANOTHER completely innovative tactic.
Publio Cornelio Scipio considered him as a master, and made further innovation to Hannibal's tactic, but in the end Hannibal countered his own tactic!
Isn't this the mark of a GREAT general? Sure it is.
For all the people who say "he was a bad strategos" i say: if he was such a bad strategos, how the hell could he survive so long, almost alone in the heart of Rome's hearthland, turning many and many cities and local tribes by his side? Sure he lost in the end, but only because Carthage was unable tu support him properly, and because Rome's sheer power was simply too much to be defeated by a state who relies mostly on mercenaries for wars.
But it was NOT greek, otherwise i would not like him XD
Bookmarks