RoyalGovnaWatts

Who was truly the better general?

Jake10

Hannibal. Scipio learned from him and eventually found weaknesses, but he had many more resources. With even numbers and weapons, Hannibal would have still beaten him.

RoyalGovnaWatts

I concure. Hannibal got the short end of the stick

gaius valerius

You can't really say how a battle between them in say 216 BCE at Cannae would have turned out, Zama can hardly be seen as representative. Fact is both men were the top generals of their time, and both were gifted with political talent as well. I simply choose Hannibal for his more lenghty palmares.

Thessalonian

My vote goes to Hannibal too.

Belisarius

Scipio was the better general by far. With comparable resources against comparable odds, Scipio succeeded where Hannibal failed.

markdienekes

Though I have much time for both, I still feel Hannibal is the better general - but only just - in particular, Scipio wasn't superior in besieging for a start - his years in Africa trying to capture Utica proves just how difficult it was - something Hannibal gets heavy criticism for in Italy. Scipio's Spanish campaign was conducted brilliantly, but there are many errors in his African campaign that people seem to ignore which muddy the waters a bit in my opinion.

The very fact that Hannibal's general's in Spain gave up the most important city there without much of a fight really shows you how different it was for both generals in conducting their campaigns. While the Romans were quite unified in their plans and movements of armies, Spain was a whole different exercise. For a start, Carthaginian power hadn't been there for all that long, and those rebellious spirits caused problems for the Carthaginians so they had to constantly split their forces to quell rebellion - while Rome had a fairly decent standing with most of it's allies, and those that did join Hannibal were more interested in themselves rather than providing Hannibal with aid.

Anyhow, if I find some spare time I'll go into a lot more detail later!

Davidius

Hannibal as he had much more interference from the politicians back home and still managed to achieve his goals. Scipio had a firm mandate, established aims, safe supply lines and better equipment. Go Hannibal!

Mandate of Heaven

In many ways, Cannae was a much greater victory than Zama, yet Hannibal couldn't make Cannae as decisive a turning point as Zama. Or should it be credited to Roman determination?

markdienekes

To be honest, Zama wasn't all that decisive a turning point - had Hannibal won it they would have still lost the war, just prolonged it a bit... it was a foregone conclusion even Hannibal was aware of - hence his attempt to reason with Scipio before the battle.