As I am writing my Honours thesis on him I was very tempted to go for Africanus but ultimately I think Hannibal is the better of the two generals. I don't think Africanus could have survived as long in Africa as Hannibal did in Italy without his fleet to provide supplies and reinforcements. He also was rather fortunate in the fractured nature of Numidian politics at the time, whereas Hannibal had to work much harder to tear away Roman allies.
Quote Originally Posted by Ricdog View Post
Why isen't he? His campaigns and battles show skills that can easily be said to outshine Alexander's, Khan's, and even Hannibal's.
Dyrrachium stands as the most obvious counter-example. He was exceptionally fortunate to not be completely destroyed there, and it shows that his overall grasp of strategy, as distinct from the tactical element which was a master of, was lacking. Further, his failure to secure enough ships for the Meditteranean war even after Pharsalus (as we can deduce by the sheer difficulties he had in getting into Africa, including not being able to tell his supply ships where there was a safe port to land at because he couldn't guarantee them one) shows that as far as strategic planning goes he was left wanting.
Quote Originally Posted by Ricdog View Post
Only Napoleon with his amazing victories, great military knowledge, and equally impressive administrative skills can be considered Caesar's equal.
The esteemed military historian Liddel Hart once wrote a book entitled A Greater Than Napoleon. It was about Africanus.