Nice article. Now, Why didn't Hannibal take Rome then? He had all this power, the league of the Mediterranean...?
By the time he reached the city, he didn't have the men, supplies, or willpower to take the City of Rome. So while he gets a big shiny gold star for being the greatest general in history, which I don't argue, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It mentions in your article he sieged Rome, yes, but the romans ignored him for a reason. To an extent, Hannibal was so good that he was too good, like Wallenstein and Napoleon. The Roman's realized this and Stopped fighting him. They knew they couldn't beat him on the battlefield, so they attacked that which held him up, infrastructure. It notes in your article that His brother was attacked in reinforcing him. That was part of the plan laid down by Rome to deal with Hannibal. They attacked Iberia, they attacked the supply fleets, and more importantly, they attacked Carthage. Carthage was in shambles when he returned because of Roman sea attacks, which choked the city until it wasn't capable of defending itself. When this happened, Hannibal was Forced to return.
Also, between the second and third punic war, the League that Hannibal formed (Syracus, Greece, Macedon, ect.) All fell to the romans, one by one.
Was Hannibal Great? Yes. Was he good enough? No. This same thing happened to Napoleon 1900 years later. You cannot win a war by yourself. You can come close, but a great general is only as good as the nation that holds him up, supplies him, and reinforces him. If Hannibal had faced facts and become Roman, he would have conquered more area than Alexander the Great. Instead, he fought as a freedom fighter, and ultimately killed himself.
Hats off to you, you crazy Carthaginian, but horseshoes and hand grenades bro.