>>2063620
>Strange. Hannibal probably could have swept through Rome but instead his army fell apart not so long after winning this epic battle.
I assure you that is not the case. Hannibal was up against a man considered to be the greatest general in history; Scipio Africanus.
Scipio is very important to know if you're looking into the Punic wars. He changed the playing field in battle completely.
"His main achievements were during the Second Punic War where he is best known for defeating Hannibal at the final battle at Zama in 202 BC, one of the feats that earned him the agnomen Africanus. Prior to this battle (near modern Zama, Tunisia) Scipio also conquered Carthage's holdings in the Iberian peninsula, culminating in the Battle of Ilipa (near Alcalá del Río, Spain) in 206 BC against Hannibal's brother Mago Barca."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus
>Could it be that Hannibal, the god damn military GENIUS that he was, thought of a better more ambitious plan for his people?
He was forced back to the drawing board by a superior military tactician. I'm sure his plans weren't to retire and be a statesman. A military genius knows when to change strategies.
As they say, "When in Rome…".
And look what happened to Scipio Africanus in his later years;
"In his later years, he was tried for bribery and treason, unfounded charges that were only meant to discredit him before the public. Disillusioned by the ingratitude of his peers, Scipio left Rome and withdrew from public life."
That's no way to treat a man considered THE greatest general in history. Do you think maybe Hannibal was out for revenge over the only man that ever defeated him on the battlefield? Maybe…just maybe…
Do you find it strange that TO THIS VERY DAY Scipio's role in the downfall of Hannibal is still downplayed? Almost as if Hannibal did win in the end…