Opinion on this magnificent bastard?

>>81131
A great military general who definitely deserves top 10. Too bad he was at a disadvatage at Zama.

>>81131
Arguably the single best general in human history. Lost
the war because of political infighting and the incompetence of Carthaginian nobility.

File: hannibal.jpg (340KB, 800x356px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 800x356px

>posting a fake depiction of Hannibal

File: 1440102717847.png (322KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 546x700px

>>81743

>>81131
In an ironic twist of events, Hannibal is the man who made Rome an empire. In his famed battles he went around kicking Roman asses so hard that it served as a wake up call to Rome that campaigns need goals and battles need tactics. Victory by overwhelming numbers was not a sure thing, and the flaws of the manipular system were exploited at Cannae. Hannibal's campaign defeat despite military victory showed how contingent goals are necessary- Hannibal had expected to win the war by demoralizing Rome's allies, but the Romans were resilient. He also gave Rome the push to change their political power structure to become more autocratic, Scipio's position as permanent general consul was not quite legal and a step towards later dictatorships, but also allowed for the necessary control to win the war. The notion of honorable fighting also goes out the window, as Hannibal showed up ambush and deceiving tactics produce wins and that honorable pitched battles aren't going to be fought be all opponents- Scipio even turned this around on the Carthaginians at the battle of Utica, burning their camp and routing Carthage's army without a battle.

In contrast, Persian and successor states didn't seem to get these types of lessons. Right after the 2nd Punic war the Roman-Seleucid war illustrates this point. Rome wins easily at Magnesia even with Hannibal advising the Seleucids, their superior numbers and home ground. Persia just keeps relying on massive shows of force and regularly is defeated by smaller forces.

>>81790
Jokes are horrific, aren't they?

>>83078
Well said.

>>81743
>>81790
Both of you fuck off.

>>83078
Absolutly this. Hamninal could win battles but can't have a victory count for something.

File: Idonno.jpg (28KB, 335x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 335x333px

>>81743
Are you telling me that this shit-tier painting of the bastard son of samuel l jackson and james earl jones is a better representation of hannibal than a bust of him made during his lifetime?

>>81131
>Opinion
Greatest emperor of Carthage ever.

>>83192
not necessarily his fault. Given Carthage's naval and manpower weakness versus Rome and her allies, Hannibal's plan of shattering the Roman alliance system was the only reasonable plan for defeating Roman.

But with the central Italian allies and Roman colonists staying loyal to Roman, and Carthage's other generals proving unable to defeat Rome in other theatre's later on in the war, its hard to say what he could have done.

Shame he didn't win, a Punic West is far more preferably than the Latin barbarians.

Even as their Ba'al Hadad requires blood of children.
Oh well.

>>83192
Erm, that's Pyrrhus you're talking about innit?

He was very creative and daring, but most of his success was due to complete roman incompetence.

>>87494
*Roman

>>87276
>emperor
Here's your reply

The other thing that is rarely brought up about Hannibal is that he prepared to invade Rome, and broke the treaty from the first Punic war by escalating border tensions to a full siege. I think he is usually made out to be a brilliant underdog, but he has no moral high ground for his unjust war and in terms of manpower Carthage is on par with Rome.

tl;dr: Carthago delenda est