Hannibal was an incompetent general

I will now give my rebuttals. To introduce their case, my opponent quotes verse 10 from Appian. It is interesting however that Pro fails to mention verse 9 of the same passage, in which Appian describes Hannibal as "a most profound military genius [1]. " My opponent may think that Hannibal was a blundering failure, but the author of their own source certainly does not. Siege of Saguntum My opponent cites Saguntum as an unnecessary engagement that began an ill-advised war. To understand the Second Punic War (Hannibal's), one must understand the First. The First Punic War was a very costly 24 year struggle over control of Sicily. Carthage eventually signed a treaty with Rome, but felt it was not totally defeated. After the war, Rome continued to embarrass Carthage by seizing Sardinia and increasing their war reparations [3]. Polybius tells us this was the real cause of the Hannibal's war, that Carthage felt it had not really lost the First Punic War and was just preparing for an opportunity to resume hostilities: "Unvanquished in spirit by the war for Sicily . . . [Hannibal's father] maintained his resolve and waited for an opportunity to strike. . . with the anger felt by all his compatriots at this last outrage [Sardinia and the reparations] . . . at once threw all his efforts into the conquest of Spain, with the object of using the resources thus obtained for the war against Rome. " So, we see that Saguntum was not an impulsive mistake but an intentional act of war resulting from years of calculation and preparation. Crossing the Alps My opponent suggests crossing the Alps was a mistake and that Hannibal could have won decisively by waiting for the Romans in Spain. Pro seems to overlook that there were two invasion fleets sent by Rome, one to Spain and one to Carthage. If Hannibal waited for the first fleet in Spain, the second (and much larger) invasion fleet would have landed unopposed on the shores of Carthage. This is exactly what Rome was hoping for. The only way for Hannibal to avoid this disaster was to divert both invasion fleets by invading Italy first, and it worked. The historian Michael Fronda confirms, "To wait to fight the Romans in Spain would mean risking a replay of the First Punic War, with the Romans . . . potentially able to send army after army against him. Hannibal"s best hope was to fight the war in Italy. [4]" Pro argues the crossing was an unnecessary waste of manpower. Quite the opposite, it was the only real chance Hannibal had of defeating Rome. Staying put in Spain would have invited disaster as stated above, and attempting to attack Italy from the sea invited destruction from storms and Rome's vastly superior navy. The fact that only half was lost, rather than the entire army, attests to Hannibal's competence! Polybius writes that Hannibal "conducted his plans with sound and practical sense" by performing detailed recons and interviews with local tribes to find the best routes. Polybius tells us that Hannibal's army faced total destruction numerous times at the hands of mountain tribes and weather, yet his brilliant leadership and competence averted every potential disaster. This is confirmed by Scipio's amazement that Hannibal's army survived the crossing at all, "when he heard that Hannibal was safe and was already besieging towns in Italy he was amazed. [5]" Furthermore, Hannibal knew he would lose troops in the crossing, which is why he made preparations to replenish his numbers afterward. He sent envoys to the Celts and secured their promises of support once he crossed into Italy. This indeed happened, as Polybius records, "they all [the Celts] came in at once and submitted to him. [6]" This displays more genius than miscalculation by Hannibal. Finally, if the crossing was such a crippling loss of manpower, how was Hannibal immediately able to begin laying siege to Roman towns and route the Roman army twice? Refusing to leave Italy My opponent suggests a strategy that makes no sense. Hannibal was destroying Roman armies and land almost at will. Why would he stop, completely evacuate Italy, return to Carthage in ships and risk being destroyed by Rome's superior navy, only to then get back on ships and return to Italy, all the while allowing Rome to regroup and strengthen its defenses? Historians agree that Hannibal never besieged Rome because he had no desire to destroy Rome. Rather, as had happened in the First Punic War, his goal was to defeat the Roman army and force them to the negotiating table, where he could get Rome to cede Sardinia and Sicily back to Carthage [7]. This explains why Hannibal kept crushing the Roman army and refused to leave Italy - he was waiting for the Romans to invite negotiations. If Hannibal can be faulted, it should be for his underestimation of Rome's stubbornness. Zama My opponent suggests that Hannibal performed poorly at the Battle of Zama. According to Polybius, Hannibal had "done in the battle all that was to be expected of a good and experienced general . . . he who had never been beaten before failed to secure the victory now, we must excuse him. [8]" Just as my opponent does not need to prove Hannibal was the worst general, I do not need to prove he was the best. Like every other commander in history, he made mistakes. But he was also calculating, audacious, tactically brilliant, and came within a hair's breadth of bringing Rome to its knees. While he may not have been the best, his many victories put him well above the level of incompetence. [1] . http://www.livius.org... [2] Polybius, The Histories, Book III. [3] Ibid. , Book I. [4] Fronda, Hannibal: Tactics, Strategy, and Geostrategy. (Blackwell Publishing, 2011). [5] Polybius, The Histories, Book III [6] Ibid. [7] Fronda, Hannibal: Tactics, Strategy, and Geostrategy. (Blackwell Publishing, 2011). [8] Polybius, The Histories, Book XV