burmafrd;1461181 said:
Yo Scipio- he was not that good of a general. By that time Hannibal was like Napoleon late in his career; just not as good. Of course the fact that his army was not exactly the greatest either did not help. When you look at how really not so good Hannibal's army was, it shows just how bad the Roman generals that usually faced him were. Trying to remember- it was Hannibals brother (Hasbrudal?) that got ambushed with reinforcements that really saved Rome?
Hannibal was screwed at Zama. His veteran troops that he had led throughout his campaigns in Italy were mostly dead or lost and he only had a handful with him. His feared Numidian cavalry had gone over to the Romans in the hopes of being freed from Carthaginian domination (they simply traded it for Roman domination). All Hannibal had left to face Scipio was a handful of veterans, a bunch of raw recruits, and some elephants.
Scipio had dealt with elephants before and was able to open lanes within his ranks to allow them to pass through without doing much harm. Then he annihilated the levies while his cavalry drove the Carthaginian horsemen from the field. The Numidians came back to surround the Carthaginian veterans and basically wiped them out to a man.
Hannibal lived but was driven into exile by his own people and eventually killed himself as an old man in the Middle East.
I agree with you, Scipio was smart but mostly he got lucky. He never would have defeated Hannibal at his prime and with his army of veterans at his command. Hannibal was betrayed by his political enemies who pretty much left him out to dry in Italy. The guy was unbeatable for most of his career.