So, was Hannibal the greatest general of all time, as Dr Hunt claims? I'm not qualified to judge, but we have some opinions at hand. Over at this page, we see 21 points of similarity listed between General George Patton and Hannibal. Patton studied Hannibal closely and learned from some of this mistakes. Military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge called Hannibal the "father of strategy." Napoleon not only studied Hannibal, but tried to prove himself his equal by taking an army over the alps. Napoleon's nemesis, the Duke of Wellington was also a fan of Hannibal. The be all, end all of internet sources, Wikipedia, calls Hannibal, "one of the most talented commanders in history."

The Ameerican military historian B. H. Liddell Hart is the author of one of the classic books on military strategy, called Strategy and first published between World War I and World War II (the current edition was published in 1954). Hart spends a chapter on "Roman Wars–Hannibal, Scipio and Caesar." In this chapter, he speaks approvingly of Hannibal's "indirectness" in attacking Italy via the alps (and "indirect warfare" is Hart's specialty). He also calls Hannibal one of the "Great Captains," although he considered Hannibal "abnormal" in that he was comfortable with unknown territories and tactics. Hart also said of Hannibal's victory at Cannae, "It might aptly be termed a collective tactical form of du-jitsu – which is essentially based on the indirect approach."

Of course, it's not just modern generals, either. Julius Caesar studied Hannibal, so did Justinian's general Belisarius. Plutarch thought highly of Hannibal as a general, but seems to have despised him as a Cartheginian. Livy spoke highly of Hannibal – but sought to balance his "enormous virtues" with "enormous vices." Polibius plays it straight, but you certainly catch a little admiration here and there.

Hannibal was more than a general, however. In addition to mastering strategy and tactics, bravery and combat skills, Hannibal was also a master of logistics. Somehow, he managed to feed tens of thousands of men for more than a dozen years in enemy territory. During all that time he received no help at all from Carthage. Hannibal was a diplomat; much of that dozen years was spent in cosy alliance with the people of southern Italy. His whole strategy, formed before he left Iberia, was that he would create new alliances and recruit new soldiers from the indigenous people of Italy. Hannibal was a populist, as was Hamilcar before him. He treated himself no better than his men; he allowed himself no better clothes, shelter or rations than his men got. He was quick to reward achievements and quick to punish transgressions. Hannibal was also a man of honor, especially towards opponents he admired. Plutarch tells us how Hannibal reacted when Marcellus (a Roman foe he deeply respected) was found dead, along with a number of other Roman notables (from this page, see paragraph 30):

Hannibal made very little account of the rest, but when he learned that Marcellus had fallen, he ran out to the place himself, and after standing by the dead body and surveying for a long time its strength and mien, he uttered no boastful speech, nor did he manifest his joy at the sight, as one might have done who had slain a bitter and troublesome foe; but after wondering at the unexpectedness of his end, he took off his signet-ring, indeed, but ordered the body to be honorably robed, suitably adorned, and burned. Then he collected the remains in a silver urn, placed a golden wreath upon it, and sent it back to his son.

So, greatest of all time? His career was longer than Alexander the Great's (and he certainly managed to die much better than Alexander), but he conquered far less territory. All of the "Great Captains" that would come later, Caesar, Belisarius, Napoleon, Wellington, and so on, were admirers of Hannibal. They studied and learned from him and could therefore be considered his students rather than his betters. Even Stormin' Norman, General Norman Swarzkopf, author of the famous "left hook" strategy of the Gulf War in 1991 was a fan of Hannibal and made frequent references to his work while overseeing Operation Desert Storm.

What do you think?

Update, added later: after writing this, I happened to read B. H. Liddell Hart's excellent biography of Scipio Africanus. In it, he goes to great lengths to show Scipio as the greatest general of all times. And he has a point, at least when it comes to those skills strictly required to win battles. Scipio never lost and he did beat Hannibal at Zama (although it was a near thing and I think Hannibal was at a great disadvantage in the green nature of the bulk of his troops). Scipio consistently showed excellent judgement and great tactical skill. I think Hart's case is pretty well made. That said, however, I would reply that Hannibal faced much, much greater difficulties off the battlefield. He had to plan his greater tactics so as to also supply his men. He had to recruit and train his own troops. His troops were greatly diverse (they even spoke several different languages) and had to be motivated solely through Hannibal's own aura of command. Hart notes that Scipio had to deal with politics arrayed against him in the senate, but I would note that Hannibal faced the same, but had silenced much of it by the skilled use of booty. I'm not sure even Hart totally believed his thesis. He was just justifiably mad that Scipio is so often slighted when it comes to lists of the Great Captains.

Note: this entry is part of a series called "Hannibal", which contains the following entries:
     Hannibal Studies
     The Punic Wars
     Hannibal and Rome
     Hannibal in the Alps
     Greatest General of All Time?