[lentulusgracchus]

Hannibal is another example of a general who produced victories against overwhelming odds(the romans), but in the end lost the war.

Hannibal was a tragedy and his ultimate defeat a folly. He was hung out to dry by the businessmen of Carthage, who, if they understood the stakes and the urgent necessity he was in, were all the more culpable for their refusal to send him the funds he needed to unravel the Roman alliance and co-optation system in Italy. Hannibal, having won four great unanswered victories, suddenly found himself in a bad jam because of the latent power of the Roman patronage system -- a political problem that required large applications of silver solvent, which the Carthaginians reneged, to their ultimate ruin. Polybius tells the story, if you want to look it up on one of the classical-history sites.

[sonofron]

"Hannibal, having won four great unanswered victories, suddenly found himself in a bad jam because of the latent power of the Roman patronage system -- a political problem that required large applications of silver solvent, which the Carthaginians reneged, to their ultimate ruin."

I would venture to say Hannibal's forces were the closest anyone evercame to defeating Rome. Of course he assumed the romans in Italy would greet him with open arms once he showed up and whiped a few legions. Yes, his backside was left open(no support from Carthage) and the romans countered with a direct attack on carthage. But History immortalizes Hannibal because he was the worst enemy the romans had, besides themselves. Unlike the germanic or gual tribes before and after him, he was aiming to occupy Rome and make it a province of carthage, instead of seeking to plunder the city and leave. I compared Lee and Hannibal only on a similarity in which the wars went for them(success through most of the war and defeat in the end) and why people remember how they were great generals, not their personal lives before or after the wars they fought. That is a totally different thing. The battles Lee won are enough to conclude he was the best general of the civil war on both sides.