scipio africanus was certainly a good general but his defeat of hannibal at zamma (i think) was because HE had superior troops i have not read liddell hrt's account of the battle but am lead to believe it's slightly biased towards scipio hannibal did just about everything he could have to prevent defeat. Alexanders macedonion army was the most effective at the time but if any other general could have had the success he did why has nobody repeated his conquests? You could claim that any one of the generals listed here had the superior forces of the day at their disposal and so should all be as successful as Alexander [apart from maybe the mongol hordes] even the roman legions most definatley the pinnicle of ancient soldiers were all conqering.

I've still not managed to understand why people were so enamored with Ghengis Khan. Most certainly his conquests were impressive as hell, but let's face it, his army was markedly superior both tactically and logistically to everything he faces. His army was a shark among minnows. Of course he managed to beat everyone in his path. You will note that your description of Khan's superiority focuses on the greatness of his army without even one comment about his actualy skill in leadership. OK, the point about keeping up morale reflects on him, but I see nothing beyond that which reflects on him. He may have been an inspiring leader, but I give more credit to his troops than Khan himself for the success.

buzzard

The term greatest General is relative to which time and how people think. In Roman times, Scipio is above Hanniable for one simple reason. He won Zama and Hanniable lost. In other words, Hannible won or fought to a draw every single battle but lost the single battle that really counted in the second punic war. Rome won the war instead of Punic. Scipio conquered both Iberia and later on Nothern Africa for Rome while Hanniable while sucessful, gained Carthage nothing in terms of Land or provience. Yes Capua and a few cities rebeled against Rome but thoese where short lived. Hence to sum it up, the greatest general is relative on how you define them. If its pure fighting prowess, than, in the ancient west, neither Hannible or Scipio or Caesar even comes close and that honor will go to Marcus Claudius Marcellus of the Claudii gen. He is after all, the third and the only non legendary man in Rome to ever win the Spolia Opima at the Battle of Clastidium. (Spolia Opima meaning the richest spoiles, and requires the Consul to kill the head of the enemy army whose rank is equal to that of the consuls, usually a king, in single close range mortal combat). If greatest general in both military and politics, than Scipio, he knows how to captialize on his gains/victories, Casear did too, but the difference between the two being, Scipio was not assissainted for his political polices (he wasn't assassinated at all for that matter) Casear on the other hand, misjudged his political enemies and friends, and was eventaully killed. Scipio on the other hand, was able to retire and live a peacful life until he died. There were a few attempts to prosecute him, but they were either thwarted by himself, his popularity or his future son in law, Tiberious Gracchus the elder. My personal opinion being, a great general should be able to fight his wars, win battles for his country, win the war for his country and finally be able to retire after all is said and done without fear of prosecution and or assassination.

He self exiled himself, no one kicked him out of Rome the same reason he was never convicted on anything, he was way too popular. two tribunes tried to prosecute him but all other tribunes opposed as did the senate. Later accounts say that Scipio Africanus demanded that his body be burried away from his ungratful city which may or may not have been true what is true is that Scipio was never fined, jailed or exiled his is self exile vs Hannibles who was forced out of Carthage by the government, both died in 183 BCE.

I think you misunderstand what Hannibal was about, Killing the Romans was not just a JOB, but more a passion to do it on the field of battle was key, Scipio was probably a more rounded general, one who knew how fight a battle and to end the war