Hannibal was the best general ever

Hannibal was the best general ever. Hands down. AKA any general, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon would have got fucked by this man's tactical genius. I can't even begin to explain how badly he fucked the Romans but he basically managed to ambush them ten different times resulting in the absolute but fuck that was Cannae, where 60k Roman troops got slaughtered.
We still remember the name Hannibal today as something associated with death and cannibalism. That's how much fear this Phoenician (Lebanese?) general instilled in the west.

Attached: Hannibal.jpg (1270x1994, 1.32M)

how do you propose he could've beat Alexander if Alexander didn't want to fight in a place not suited for the phalanx?

Attached: alexander_macedonian_empire.jpg (1920x918, 410.34K)

Hannibal lost . . . to Italians no less.

Attached: 808x550_cmsv2_ea1c2050-5014-549c-a4ff-cea442cc9841-3176122.jpg (808x550, 90.99K)

He would have just starved/outsmarted Alexander and in any pitched battle he would have outwitted him. Except Alexander is one of the top generals of all time too.

The Italians had an abundant of resources and Hannibal just had the men he brought with him from crossing the alps and recruiting from some Gauls. Buddy didn't get any reinforcements from his brothers because they weren't as competent as him (they lost battles in Spain). And Also Carthage didn't sent any reinforcements because they were greedy Jews.

Hannibal was a loser that provoked a war that started the beginning of the end of his entire civilization. His biggest claim to fame is killing a bunch levies and then not capitalize it.

Hannibal started a war and then proceeded to lose it. Great job.

alexander wasn't just one of the best generals, he also had one of the most experienced armies

yeah no
he lost like 20,000+ men in a single battle vs a roman like 2,000, and against an inferior general to caesar, alexander, hell even pyrrhus
he was brilliant but no empire builder

Hannibal was a battlefield genius, but he learned the hard way that wars involve more than pitched battles. Carthage's senate fucked him when he was in Italy, and he had no answer, no way to actually try to swing things in the favor of a decisive victory against Rome without getting Hasdrubal to back him up...which ended disastrously when Cladius Nero annihilated him at the Metaurus River.
Hannibal is nearly unmatched in history as an army leader, but it takes more than one army--and one commander--to win a war. That's why Alexander forged a (short-lived) empire and Hannibal and Carthage went down in flames. Unfortunately for Hannibal, you need more than tactical and military brilliance.

Hannibal devastated an 80 thousand strong Roman army with half the men, who were, have you, numidians (blacks), gauls (pre-French ppl), Iberians (pre-Spanish ppl), as well as his Lebanese fucks. This guy would maneuver them through incredible feats as if it were nothing.

And the beginning of the end of his civilization began with the first Punic war. There could only be one dominant power in the Mediterranean and both Carthage and Rome knew it. It was either killed or be killed and Carthage lost. Again, they were greedy middle-easterners, and they didn't supply Hannibal with reinforcements.

It's true. Inherited from his father who was also a bad ass general. Alexander was more moody and emotional and lucky than Hannibal though, who just straight up calculating and cheated in every single battle and won because Romans liked to play fair and square.

>because Romans liked to play fair and square.
they were just overtly eager and got enveloped and pincered

Yeah exactly. That's why he got fucked. Still the best general ever, in terms of battle ability. Because any user with some skill could conquer some gallic tribes with some trained Roman legions. It takes real skill and finesse to do what Hannibal did, win so many battles against odds stacked so much against you.

Awww too bad the Roman Boys rekt your shit up.

What a fucking perfect analogy for the culture wars.

Rome(right) vs carthage(left)

I hope it ends the same way too.

No it's true. Romans didn't like to scout as much because they considered it cowardly. And Hannibal took advantage of that. And also they didn't incorporate so many tricks like hiding men in forests or weird pincer maneuvers that Hannibal pulled with his cavalry

Hannibal was playing Rome Total War before it even existed

>implying Alexander would have ever let Hannibal dictate the battlefield.
Alexander would have crushed Hannibal, forefront and outright.

Long Term Strategy>Tactical Victories

Rome could afford to lose 60k soldiers and learn from it's mistakes because it had the proper financial backing, manpower, and infrastructure in place to continue waging war until it inevitably beat Carthage and inevitably annexed it.

Carthage got dicked down and he an heroed after having gay sex with men

Alexanders numbers are massively overstated. A british user pretty much proved that here recently. Afterall he got to write history.

Attached: Aleppo.jpg (760x475, 86.82K)

No way haha. Alexander literally killed one of his best friends when he was drunk because he started chirping him. He was way too emotional. Buddy was lucky he didn't die on the battlefield honestly. Always leading in first is brave but foolish. Hannibal would have taken advantage of that.