Hannibal was an incompetent general

I will proceed with my final rebuttals and conclusion. First, I would like to address my opponent’s accusation that citing historians is dishonest. Why would we not appeal to the authority of historians? They are the experts who dedicate their entire lives to the study of their field. An argument is only made stronger when supported with published and peer reviewed historian opinions. The real dishonesty is pretending one knows more about historical events and military strategy than the experts who have actually done the research. I clearly established in Round 1 that sources were encouraged, so I should not be criticized for using them. Pro also complains about “confirmation bias,” yet no one is more biased than myself and my opponent, because we are deliberately arguing for a certain side in a competitive debate. Therefore, introducing the opinions of uninvolved historians only helps to dilute any bias our arguments may have. Contrary to what Pro claims, Polybius is actually known for being relatively objective, which is why I quote him so much. If that is not sufficient, I have also quoted some modern historians who have no reason to inflate Hannibal and make Romans who existed 2200 years ago look good. I believe this sufficiently disarms Pro's objections. My opponent claims to have proven Hannibal’s poor strategies by offering hypothetical alternatives. Unfortunately, hypothetical “could haves” and “would haves” do not prove anything. Pro builds a scenario where Hannibal “could have” defeated the Romans in Spain and “could have” captured their ships intact and then he “would have” captured ports where he “could have” built more ships and then Italy “would have” magically been dissolved. The only problem with this story is its lack of any historical facts or reason. Pro cannot prove any of these things would have gone according to plan for Hannibal. It all sounds good in theory, but I’m sure Napoleon’s invasion of Russia did too at the time. As for me, I'll stick with the careful analysis of historians who agree that invading Italy overland was the only realistic option. It is confusing that my opponent criticizes Hannibal’s Italian invasion, but then suggests that 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. ” So aside from wrongly assuming a swift Roman defeat in Spain, Pro ultimately advocates that Hannibal should have done exactly “as he did in reality”? This contradicts their entire argument! Pro dismisses the possibility of a Carthaginian fleet being destroyed by storms or the Roman navy. To this I submit the narrative of the First Punic War, where hundreds of ships and thousands of men on both sides were destroyed by rough storms and naval engagements [1]. Hannibal was surely familiar with this history, which made him rightfully cautious about the dangers of putting his army on ships. Carthaginians may have been well renowned sailors, but Rome had a far stronger navy - Hannibal was wise to avoid it. My opponent claims Hannibal was “transitively incompetent” because the Roman generals he defeated were even more incompetent. This is an argument of last resort. Since Pro cannot deny Hannibal’s many victories, he is trying to downplay them by saying the Roman generals were morons. Even if we pretend this was true, it still does not prove Hannibal was incompetent. Pro reveals the use of a double standard with their description of Scipio as Rome’s single competent leader. If Hannibal was incompetent, as Pro claims, and Scipio defeated him, why is Scipio’s victory the result of his brilliance while Hannibal’s many victories over similarly incompetent Romans don't count? Robert E. Lee’s genius is not blunted by the fact that his Union opponents were less skilled. The fact is that Hannibal crushed the Roman armies on their home turf for years without a reliable supply line - anyone must admit this is impressive. Pro misunderstands my argument about fear. I agree that it’s easy to inspire local fear by burning a few farms. Hannibal certainly did a bit more than that. Whatever temporary fear Hannibal could arouse would have been quickly forgotten if he was an incompetent moron who was easily crushed. Instead, Hannibal’s terror was so great that it burned in the memory of Rome to a legendary degree for centuries. Incompetent enemies get laughed at, they do not inspire a memory of terror that lasts for generations. Finally, Pro suggests Hannibal only went to war so he could brag for life and that he “sounds like a douche,” but gives no real historical evidence that this is true. To conclude, I remind the audience that my opponent and I agreed the final result of the war is not the only factor that determines competence. While Carthage did not win, the facts suggest they would have lost much faster in the hands of a less capable general than Hannibal. Like Robert E. Lee and Napoleon, who similarly suffered ultimate defeat and lived out their years in obscurity, Hannibal’s daring invasion and tactical brilliance earn him a place among history’s great generals. I congratulate Pro on a great and fun debate. Thanks for accepting the challenge. [1] Polybius, The Histories, Book I.