^ I agree. Hannibal knew full and well how to use his victories. He managed to stay in Roman territory for 14 years, and had Carthage sent him an army (or if Macedons army would have made it there), then Rome would have been crushed.

There are those who say that Rome could have scraped up an army of hundreds of thousands of men to combatant Hannibal. For the battle of Cannae, they pulled out 80000 men... So I wonder, where are all the sources that Rome could have gotten ahold of 100000 men AFTER Cannae? And if they could, why didn't they? They shouldn't have attacked Hannibal with it, but kept it in reserve.

Hannibal had to few men. But had he recieved reinforcements, he could have, and would have, sacked Rome.

As for Hannibal being better than Alexander... No, I disagree. Yes, Hannibals techniques were brilliant. But most of the time they relied on his enemy just marching forward/advancing (At Cannae, the roman army marched forward, since they thought they were winning). Alexander manipulated his enemies army. At the battle of Gaugamela, he pulled their entire army to the side, opening up a hole in their army between him (and his companion cavalry) and Darius III.

Both were excellent commanders. But I say Alexander was just a tad bit better.