Was Hannibal the greatest general of all time?

>/pol/ gets triggered.

Because pointing out an ironic shit poster is a /po/ thing

ironic shitposting is still shitposting

No. If he was then he wouldn't have lost.

Also Scipio Africanus sends his regards :^)

First you must ask yourself. What is a shitpost?

Baby don't hurt me

Hannibal got BTFO by Scipio multiple times, so probably not.
Tactically it is probably Scipio, Hannibal or Alexander. Philip II might be up there also, now that I think about it. Khalid ibn al-Whalid deserves to be up there too.

Yeah but al-whalid wasnt black...

It is pointless speculation.

It is reasonable to compare like commanders in given eras.
But outside of that, how can we really compare Napoleon to Subotai to Scipio to Moltke the elder?

No, his strategy was good and almost worked. He just underestimated the Romans themselves. He was a good tactician and strategist but was unable to truly understand his enemy.

By innovation?

It's one thing to just take old ideas and do them properly, but the likes of napoleon invented entirely new tactics.

It's safe to assume whatever era he was in he would have innovated.

Otherwise yes it's a rather silly argument

>couldn't even finish the job and sack Rome
>kills himself like a bitch when the Romans come for him years later
Who's the black guy in your picture?

Pointing out that a Caucasoid Hamitic wasn't a Sub-Saharan African black man is /pol/ shit now?

>on the verge of raping Rome

>get beaten by a guerilla style Roman counter attack

>retreat and die like a bitch

Not even close.

>gurellia style Roman counter attack

>his strategy was good
A plan that won't work because it's born of a total inability to understand your foes is NOT a good plan.

The hellenic world already knew that Rome didn't give a shit about the rules, and that no number of field battles could break them-they learned this from watching phyruss try to break them.

Hannibal did not adapt wlel to Fabian tactics.

Thats because hannibal was dealing with generals who were not ready for the attack or were thrown in to position with a high amount of peole and told them to defend rome with hardly any experience.

Scipio was the first person who had any idea on fighting as he just came back from winning in spain. Scipio was literally the best of the romans

don't hurt me

Not that user, but Fabian tactics are a VERY far cry from guerilla warfare.

>Hannibal is a sub-saharan black African
gr8 b8 m8.

No arguments there.

From an absolute laymans perspective, though, it's an easy association to make.

Fabian also knew exactly what he was doing.

Even without Scipio,m the roman penned Hannibal in and confined him to doing nothing in nowhere, italy.

Hannibal is MASSIVELY overrated. He was a skilled leader of men, but otherwise relied largely on his enemy doing the same thing in every battle.

Once that change,d he was fucked. On top of that, he simply did not have a realistic plan to deal with rome.

Uh... No? Gonna go with Genghis Khan on this one.

WE WUZ CARTHAGE AND SHIT

Was hannibal really a cannibal?

was triggered before I realized it was a troll

hello am best

Happened to me too, so don't feel sad.

lmao at these salty ass cacs who cant deal wit da fact dat hannibal was a nigga guess what bitches carthage is in AFRICA you dumb ass crackas smdh

He wasn't white either so get that out of your head cunt.

The greatness of a general lies in his personal qualities, not in the quality of his troops.

Everything north of the Sahara and west of Pakistan is White by the American metric.

Dearborn is 90% White

Right? He was no tactician, but very lucky until he wasnt lmao

What did Hannibal do besides winning one meme battle?

Won a number of meme battles agaisnt a poorly led army of militia, including some impressive ambushes.

Won some battles in iberia as well.

He never lost a single battle in Italy despite being stuck there for over 18 years with hardly any reinforcements and Carthage cucking itself from fully supporting or endorsing him because the elders believed that would win them an alibi from Rome if the war failed.

He was also the first black man to march on italy

>hardly any reinforcements
He had reinforcements, user. An entire army of them.

Rome tricked him and killed them all before he could reach them.

...

*inhales deeply* WHY can't people just shut up and agree that Africa is a huge continent with many variations of people and types of blacks?! Not all blacks have the same features and neither do whites. They can vary as much as whites (see Ethiopians Somalians, Nigeria, and compare Italians, Greeks, Norse, Celts, Balkins). I just want this meme to die. Hannabil probably didn't look like a West African but he probably didn't look like a German either.
The way genetic variation(if you really understand genetics) works makes race a very nebulous concept. Not everything is Mendelian for fucks sake!
Fuck you all. REEE

That's retarded.

Phoenicians aren't black.

this mein freund

Ah yes, ADHD personified in ancient general form.

>north africans
>black
Come come on man

They actually dug up an old native american burial ground in tunisia dating to ~100 bc and all bodies were tested on and proven to be black

kill this meme reeee

>*inhales deeply*

Hannibal wasn't black.

Hannibal wasn't even an African.

Those were mercenaries hired out by his brother, not actual soldiers from Carthage.

>native american burial ground
>in tunisia

>They actually dug up an old native american burial ground in tunisia dating to ~100 bc

>not actual soldiers from Carthage.
Carthage did not HAVE actual soldiers, user. They didn't have them in the first war either. They could, at best, raise a militia for defense of the city. Carthage was a rich as fuck trade hub with a fairly small citizen population. A few serious defeats convinced them to pay others to die for them. If a man fought for carhage, he was almost certainly a paid mercenary of non-Phoenician ancestry.

The closest you get to "Carthaginian" soldiers are Libyan mercenaries, who were still very much mercenaries, and who WOULD turn on Carthage if sufficiently pissed off.

How do you not know this?

On top of this, rome controlled the sea in the second war. Carthage had essentially no way to send reinforcements, even if they'd somehow raised an army of citizens.

Anything sent by sea was going to, at best, suffer losses to attrition in transit and then be impossible to resupply on arrival. Its loss would also likely cause a demographic crisis.

Again, this is best case. As in hiding hundreds of ships from the romans best case.

Most likely, it gets intercepted attacked, and mauled.

At worst, it gets sunk by the roman fleet, or just flat out destroyed in a storm.

Go by land, and you're marching through iberia, which is full of nasty locals, and angry romans.

Then you get to try and get to italy while MORE locals attack you, and romans try to block and destroy your force

so, given all of these factors, how come Carthage was on the offensive?

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to wait until the Romans came to them and fight a defensive war in their home country?

Carthage was not, Hannibal was a renegade whose father fucked off to Spain to form his own country/army then got dragged Carthage into a war they did not want or need

They weren't. Hannibal was. Hannibal was a rich asshole with the money to hire a mercenary army, so he did. He then forced a war that he couldn't ever win, and hoped Carthage would save his ass by supporting him with resources they didn't have, to back an agenda that wasn't universally popular (or even their best option-the africa first camp was right in the end, not the barcids), even though they'd STILL lose even if they threw every ship, citizen, half-breed, and coin into the war unless the Latins and Etruscans abandoned rome (against their own self interest) in what would have been a comically stupid decision.

Hannibal was an idiot when it came to anything that wasn't city planning, or defeating the standard roman tactic of the day-or minor variations of it.

And that is why carthage is so thoroughly dead that nobody even mourns the loss of an entire culture.

This.

Is that really all you got from my rant?
Anyway, they are a different kind of white. Whites can vary is my point but this is also true of blacks.
Race is a nebulous concept though so even this variation is almost pointless considering all the intermarriage and migration while staying with others still moving in and out while all this "differentiation" was happening.
Some may have been more "Caucasian" in make up, others not but there is a whole lot of mixture there that makes them almost their own group. Gene pools are a thing and if you thing, it's just the frequency that each may be expressed. Then, there are also varying degrees(getting away from Mendelian genetics) If you think about it, making defined cut off points are pretty pointless if not a royal pain since we don't even completely understand everything about every gene and molecular biology yet.

shaka was better

Kek

Race is not at all "nebulous" concept. Your error is that you assume that "black" "white" and probably "yellow" and "red" are races, which is pants on head retarded. What you call black is conglomerate of many races many of which are not even particulary genetically simillar. What you see as "white" race is in reality many races that you put in the same bag because of the color of their skin which again is freaking retarded.

Hannibal wasn't white race, simple because white race is not real, but he was more like european people than he was south, west, east, middle african.

This is kind of what I mean though. Terms like White and Black or whatever are very huge umbrella terms that fail to keep in mind that. It even makes Asians seem like a non race(though this too is umbrella term) since they have pale skin. In reality, there are many different types of people that make up "white people" to varying degrees of genes expressed.
So I agree, terms that use color to describe race are retarded but that's a symptom of modern society. With that said, it shows that there are actually hundreds of races that are all interconnected in their gene pool anyway with varying phenotype frequencies AND degrees of their actual expression. I was simply speaking within those terms used by people in this thread to better relate to their argument.
Anyway, I'm just mad because this whole race debate hijacks the thread instead of just answering OP's question thanks to /pol/ tards and possibly some tumblrfags.

Yeah sure.
How about you give a source for those claims though.

trips proves pyrrhus best general