Hannibal was an incompetent general

I wish I had more than 6000 characters to respond to all of sengejuri's rebuttals, but I'll do my best to consolidate my answers.My opponent says that I said citing historians is dishonest. I actually said using historians' bias to prove your argument is dishonest. Just because you think Polybius is objective doesn't mean he is. In fact Polybius's patron was Scipio Aemelianus, who was the relative of Paullus who lost the battle of Cannae. Therefore isn't it odd that it was the other consul, Varro, who took the majority of the blame for the defeat? So when a historian makes statements of opinion, like suggesting Hannibal was a genius, it doesn't really prove anything in your argument. Its just confirmation bias. I'm not saying you're being a dick for doing it hahaha. I just want to point it out because its a debate.My opponent suggests my hypothetical alternatives do not prove anything, however, this of course didn't stop him from suggesting his own hypotheticals like a storm destroying Hannibal's ships. There is a difference between and unlikely hypothetical such as a random storm, and a realistic option Hannibal could have chosen, like choosing to take a clear road instead of a swamp. Livy 22.2 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... As for Napoleon's invasion of Russia, I'm not sure what he is getting at here. Obviously Napoleon's invasion of Russia was way different from Hannibal's invasion of Italy. I don't even have the characters to go into this.My opponent has become confused by my argument. He thinks that an invasion across the Alps is the same as a naval invasion in north-western Italy. My opponent also does no good to suggest that Hannibal would not defeat the Roman army in Spain. If he suggests that Hannibal could not defeat the Roman army coming to Spain then everything he has debated in praise of Hannibal is not true anymore. In fact he might as well just hand me the victory if he wants to argue this.My opponent gives me an example of a storm destroying hundreds of ships in the First Punic War. Storms that could destroy ships were and still are rare occurrences in the Mediterranean, and, seeing as the Carthaginians were top notch sailors, I imagine that they would have no trouble sailing to Italy along the coast of France and avoiding any chance of storms.My opponent thinks that I'm calling the Roman generals morons, but I never said this. I actually said the Roman government was very inefficient in how it ran its army. I gave a good example of there being two generals who switched the role of general every day. He also rightly says that this by itself doesn't prove Hannibal was incompetent, however my opponent seems to be suggesting that this is my whole argument. Actually it is only a part of my argument. Scipio wasn't a brilliant general either. He had good strategies throughout his campaigns, however he did make some mistakes, but I won't get into those right now. Also my opponent seems to be likening Robert E Lee to Hannibal in some way. I'm not sure how, because the American Civil War and the 2nd Punic War are very different wars. I honestly know of no parallels in history that can match well enough to be called a parallel with the 2nd Punic War. A hypothetical parallel would be if Scipio decided to trek across the Sahara desert in order to 'sneak up' on the Carthaginians. Obviously there's no sense in this since the Romans could just travel there by boat. It would be an unnecessary and dangerous detour.Just because Robert E Lee was outnumbered doesn't mean his campaigns are like Hannibal's at all. Lee wasn't exactly brilliant either. When he tried to invade the North during the war he was always repelled. Even at the end of the war he made a huge mistake by charging his troops up a hill toward an entrenched Union army (Picket's Charge). There's no sense in allowing popular culture to dictate whether a general was really competent or not.My opponent thinks that I'm arguing that Hannibal was "an incompetent moron who was easily crushed." I have never indicated this at all. Hannibal was not the worst general of all time. He wasn't even a horrible general. A competent general needs to have average tactical abilities and average strategic abilities. Hannibal was an average tactician and a very poor strategist. These together make him an incompetent general. Incompetent enemies do not always get laughed at. Again let's not cloud the facts with popular culture and bias.When I said Hannibal sounds like a douche I was obviously just making a joke. But I do think anyone who considers themselves so highly as Hannibal did, he may well have really had a douchey personality haha. The historical evidence is here - http://www.livius.org...I believe I have not allowed the result of the war to determine whether or not Hannibal was an incompetent general. What I have done is shed some factual light on Hannibal's strategies during the war. Provoking an unnecessary war with a major power that has not threatened you is a bad strategy. Livy 21.10 (Hanno's Speech) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... Losing half of your veteran soldiers while doing no damage to your enemy is a bad strategy. Marching through marshes instead of taking a clear road is not good strategy. Livy 22.2 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...After his major victory, not regrouping in a safe place and preparing an attack on the capital is a bad strategy.Having your reinforcements cross the Alps and come to you through enemy territory is bad strategy.Practically all of Hannibal's strategies were poor. He had some decisive victories, but the tactics surrounding these engagements were average ambushes and flanking maneuvers.I want to say thank you very much for debating with me sengejuri. I really had a lot fun and I learned quite a lot about the 2nd Punic War. Thanks everyone for reading!Source: Livy's History of Rome