Ah, thanks.
Strength and Order wrote:Entwood wrote:
That he could not take Rome wasn't really his fault to be honest. The failure of the Carthaginians to back him up properly, his brothers defeat and the interception of the Messenger to Macadonia were all out of his personal control. There wasn't much more he could do than what he did already.
He was a master at the logistics, won battles that pretty much anyone else would have lost and singlehandedly redefined the usage of mercenaries. Hannibal is not just regarded as a great strategist and tactician, he was a great strategist and tactician, he merely failed on the political/diplomatic level (to a certain degree his own fault and to a certain degree just bad luck).
I'd rather doubt the simular status of, for example, Napoleon than i would doubt that status of Hannibal.
Some people only like the winners and Hannibal didn't win, therefor his grandeur must obviously be exaggerated.
It's a logic I understand, but don't approve of.
Honestly, i don't even want to understand that kind of logic as it simply ignores the whole story.