Alexander the Great was antiquity\'s greatest commander

[M.H. White]

This is very good stuff to think about. For me the question is wether the "greatness" of a commander can/should be judged in a more technical way only or in the light of everything known and related about his time or in the light we feel about him and his time.

Unfortunately every scholar being a human with a partly predefined view of the world is biased so objective statements are not possible but that's not bad as far as the terms of the statements are clear.

So speaking with my feelings about what polititians and commanders should rather do, Hannibal, Alexander, Caesar and all the other unscrupulous great men who forced people and murdered their way through history for their or their countries "good cause" should be send to jail. They were no great men indeed compared with many of the boring politicians, scientists and businessmen who quietly did a lot more for the development of a (more or less) more human world.

When I take into account the limited view f.e. of Hannibal facing a cruel and mighty opponent, unable to tie up to a developed supernational legal system and living in a time where war, enslaving and killing people was seen as normal or even positive, I cannot blame him for the trial to deal with Rome the way he did. And technically he did well considering his limited sources.

I'd caution you very strongly against applying modern morals on the ancient world. Things modern sensibilities might find abhorrent were things they found neccessary. You can't fairly say men who led armies were murderers and criminals. They were a product of their time: its what elite men were expected to do, and the men we're talking about here were celebrated for doing it better than anyone else. Also, most of these generals were politicians as well.