No mention of Pompey the Great?

Pompey the Great? Who was he? Just kidding! Yes, like Africanus Pompey was a vastly underated general. But unlike Africanus, Pompey got involved in politics and lost out against a master politician. To be fair to Pompey it seems his independence of command was compromised somewhat in that he had a lot of members of Rome's political class trying to improve on his generalship and his army was not one dedicated to the professionalism Caesar's army was but was a bit amateurish. Africanus spent his last days as an exile in Italy. Africanus had been accused of a secret dealing with Antiochus the Great wherein Africanus, it was alleged, had received a bribe in return for using his influence to Antiochus' benefit. Africanus had accompanied his brother Lucius to Asia in the war with Antiochus when Lucius was consul. Hannibal was with Antiochus in the capacity of an advisor by the way. Most people did not believe it but a trial was held and Africanus elected to, according to Roman custom, forego the trial's conclusion by agreeing to leave Rome permanently.

I think judging the greatest general in the ancient world is that of who can defeat a the well disciplined Legions of Rome. My vote would be to Hannibal, he defeated numerous Roman armies and even fought them outnumbered in Cannae.

I wouldn't put Ceaser all that high above Scipio. Ceaser started with a finely tuned army and fought against poorly organised and armed opponents while in gaul. Later he show that he had indeed learned a great deal when he turned against Pompey. Scipio went to spain with very little support other than moral support, from Rome. Defeated not only the Carthegins there but started subjecting the local tribes as well. Pompey was no Hannibal

I believe Hannibal went into the war with the advantage of a background which prepared him for the war. Hannibal's father was Hamilcar Barca who had been the outstanding Carthaginian general of the Sicilian War 265 BC - 241 BC. After that war ended, there was an incident where when Carthage was embroiled in a civil war, Rome suddenly demanded Carthage turn over Sardinia and Corsica. This embittered Hamilcar Barca and the story is that he made his son Hannibal put his hand on an altar and swear never to be a friend of Rome. Later, Hamilcar lead the Carthagian move into silver rich Spain. There, Hannibal grew up under first his father's guidance and then his uncle Hasdrubal's guidance as military commanders in Spain. I understand that Hannibal's army had been established by his father and then led by his uncle before Hannibal became its commanding general. On the other hand, I believe Scipio had been 17 years old when Hannibal crossed the Alps into Italy and Scipio's father commanded an army in northern Italy then because he was consul for that year. Scipio's father had drawn the lot for a march to Spain and the other consul draw had drawn the lot for North Africa (Which plan was aborted as soon as the Romans learned Hannibal was coming to them). At the battle of Cannae, Rome's army was a relatively inexperienced citizen army fighting a much more experienced and highly professional core force under Hannibal. IIRC, Hannibal's army consisted then of around 10,000 horse and around 35,000 foot where Rome's mostly infantry army was around 80,000 (two double strength consular armies combined into one order of battle). It is my opinion many would say and have said this greater balance between cavalry and infantry on the part of Hannibal's army constituted a substantial advantage.

I thought Scipio's father died while fighting Hannibal in Italy?? In regards to a previous comment what kind of cavalry did the two sides use. Lance or missle cavalry during this period? My understanding was when Scipio went to Africa most or a large part of his cavalry came from the local tribes. I might be wrong in both cases, it has been long time since I read the details of the punic wars.

About the battle on the Ticinus in northern Italy. The two armies did not join in battle but light elements of both did. The story I read about Africanus' father was that the two were there. The father instructed his attendants to guard the son during the fight. The father got isolated amongst Hannibal's, I believe Numidian, cavalry . The son bolted on his horse going to the father with the attendants/body guard following him. The father was rescued although seriously wounded. The Roman army then retreated quickly over the Po River to hilly country to the south of the river and encamped. The other consul arrived at he encampment with his army and assumed command of both consular armies on the grounds that Africanus' father was incapacitated. The battle on the Trebia River occurred near by and left Hannibal free to set up winter quarters in the Po valley and to recruit the Gauls who lived there. I believe both the Roman and Numidian cavalry used lances. When Africanus went to Africa he had with him a Numidian ally with cavalry. I forget his name right off but he had been deprived of the Numidian throne by a usurper (Syphax) who was backed by Carthage. But IIRC Africanus raised and trained Roman cavalry when he was making preparations in Sicily. There is a story that Africanus sent out an invitation to all the Sicilian gentlemen (young men of noble birth) to join his invasion force. When they showed up, Africanus gave any who wished to do so, permission to return home on condition they leave their horse and equipment with him. In this way, Africanus acquired for his cavalry horses, armor and weapons the hostile Roman Senate would not trouble itself to supply him.

There is no way that what your saying is true. If anyone was a great general. Marcus Arealius was the greatest general of all time.

I think that if you want to know who was the greatest ancient general you have to put them all on a level playing field. If we take julius ceasars legions as the the roman legionnaire at his best,or Alexanders army as he entered asia who would have done best?; Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Ghengis Khan or somebody else? Personally i doubt anyone would have bettered alexander in asia,but i dont think he would have been any more succesful than Julius. Hannabal was certainlly the best 'captain' as he had an amazing grasp of 'tactics' but no idea of 'politics' unlike Julius,Alexander and Ghengis who were all 'kings' aswell as 'generals' and they knew what to do with their victories. Scipio was a good general , close on the heels of Hannibal but i have to rate the other three higher as there is more to 'war' and being 'the general' than just winning a battle,and its the likes of Alexander and Ghengis Khan that truly set the course of history. That said if i wanted a 'captain' in the field it would be Hannibal.

I think Alexander would have to be the popular bet when it comes to ancient commanders. However, one might ask whether it was Alexander or was it his army and the military science of Greco-Macedonia which was so successful. In other words, could his father or any number of his generals have done the same with the same army? Caesar was successful but he doesn't appear to have faced a first rate army. Although Pompey was possibly a superior general, his leadership was challenged by those in his own party and his force did not consist of hardened veterans. In other words, was the reason Caesar won the civil war his generalship or the experience, skill, loyalty and determination of his army? To repeat, Africanus' first assignment had him take over an army that had been badly mauled in Spain when both its generals, Africanus' father and his uncle, had been killed. He was in his mid-twenties and had no general officer experience. And yet, he went on to win every battle against a power which, at least at the war's beginning, had shown itself to be militarily superior.