Hannibal was an incompetent general

My opponent says that Hannibal was an innovative general, and his example is the invasion through the Alps. An innovative strategy doesn't necessarily make a good strategy, and I have proved in the previous round how it was a poor strategy. My opponent also says this strategy was Hannibal's only way of defeating Rome. Hannibal had a huge army of veteran fighters. During his crossing of the Pyrenees, he left approximately 11000 well trained Iberians in Spain. If Hannibal had waited for the Romans to come to him, his huge army could have taken care of the approaching Romans, and then he could have taken those same ships the Romans used and sailed straight to Italy. Carthage had experience scuttling enemy ships in the past so this would not have posed a problem to a huge army of veterans. [1] Suggesting that storms off the coast of Italy would hinder Hannibal is unlikely seeing as the Romans had just come from Italy on ships, and the Carthaginians were well renown sailors. Also wasting valuable manpower and time finding and implementing solutions for things like elephants crossing rivers could have been avoided had Hannibal not crossed the Alps in the first place. This only serves to strengthen my argument in the previous round. My opponent says that the Romans would have threatened North Africa with their armies en route, however, Hannibal had prepared North Africa for an invasion [2], and obviously after Hannibal dispatched the Roman army in Spain he would journey to Italy and threaten Rome in the same fashion as he did in reality, which would have caused the Senate to recall their North African campaign. My opponent says that winning battles makes a good general; however, if the army Hannibal faced in Rome was also incompetently led then transitively Hannibal can still be an incompetant general. During the war, Rome was beleagered by government inefficiency. The battle of Cannae for instance was led by two Roman consuls who switched leadership positions every day. This kind of leadership is definitely not efficient at all. All Rome had to do was continue to ware Hannibal down, and send their large army to Spain under a single competent leader, capture key holdings there, and then begin to threaten North Africa. This is what Rome eventually did under Scipio, and what ultimately led to winning the war. My opponent says that competence comes through fear, but this is completely irrelevant. Just because an army pillages towns and springs ambushes, doesn't mean it has any bearing on strategic prowess. Any average army raiding a hometown should inspire fear, but that doesn't make what the army is doing a wise strategical move in general. My opponent has appealed to the 'authority' of historians. We can't allow their bias to cloud are judgement. They had to show Hannibal in a good light because of the victories he gained over Rome. Romans back then thought that they were always strategically competent, so they obviously had to think Hannibal was also strategically competent because Hannibal had defeated them in some battles. My opponent suggests that it would be too risky for Hannibal to return to North Africa to regroup and prepare for an attack on Rome. A rebuttal to this relies on past changes in strategy I recommended. If Hannibal had captured some of Rome’s ships in Spain, he would have a decent navy that would have helped him capture the ports that he was never actually able to capture. In these ports, Hannibal could have built more ships and would be able to make a relatively safe return journey to North Africa. Keep in mind that Hannibal had a sizable alliance built in Italy already. He had many major cities in southern Italy including the metropolis of Capua. There’s no way Rome could have captured these cities after their defeat at Cannae. My opponent says that Hannibal never wanted to capture the city of Rome, however this only concedes my point that Hannibal was a poor strategist. Capturing Rome should have been the key strategy in Hannibal’s mind. The Senate would have been neutered. The entirety of Italy would have been dissolved of Roman confederacy. Suggesting that the historians you sourced agree that Hannibal’s strategy was a good one is being dishonest. Historians should only be used in this debate for source material and not confirmation bias. My opponent says that he came within a hairs breadth of bringing Rome to its knees, and I would agree. However it was Hannibal himself who through tremendously poor strategy kept Carthage away from this victory. It seems as if Hannibal did what he did only so he could brag about it for the rest of his life. Honestly he sounds like a douche. haha My burden of proof relies on the fact that Hannibal was an average tactician on the battle field, and was a poor strategist in general. These coupled together draw Hannibal as an incompetent general. [1]Mommsen 1862, p. 15 [2]Livy book 21:21 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...