For those of you who claim Scipio "may" be a Great general let me assure all of you he he meets the criteria of the Greats two fold. He was adaptable, flexible and he out generaled the Carthaginians in every encounter. Hannibal by contrast was a great general in a tactical sense, but what should have been his finest hour after Cannae was outdone by what could arguably have been Rome's finest hour, that is its defience of him. He consistantly underestimated the Roman resolve. And what did he accomplish 215BC to 202BC, NOTHING!! He failed to adapt, he didn't have an alternative plan!! He was held in check until the Carthaginians were uterly defeated in Spain, was powerless to stop Scipio's invasion of Africa, and allowed himself to be manouvered into an unfavourable position by Scipio, then he himself was uterly defeated. Scipio was by far the better general for all the reasons described. Hannibal is overestimated and Scipio is underestimated.