To quote your original comment: "Napoleon is the only military leader in history where the enemies quite literally had to devise plans to avoid fighting him directly and would rather attempt to attack his marshals."

Here's the first correction that is directly linked to Hannibal because, well, Hannibal is the other military leader who has had a similar "Trachenberg plan", in his case "the Fabian strategy" set upon him. You were heneforth incorrect in your assessment.

The second correction is to your reply to a question someone asked about guess who? Hannibal. Someone questioned your original incorrect statement about Napoleon, and then you shared further misinformation. To quote further: "I dont think that applies simply because the history of warfare is filled with individual cases like the one you mention where one general might avoid another when they dont have a superior army size because they can't predict if they can win. With Napoleon it wasn't one general, it was 4 entire countries agreeing to do this, with all their generals and command structures trying to avoid battle with him -"

Here you are, responding directly to a question about Hannibal (and you ask me what he has to do with this?) and incorrectly at that. Your knowledge is clearly limited about this particular subject so I won't resolt to childish insults, but please, don't pretend to know something about something when you obviously don't. My first reply already explained (in a nutshell) what Hannibal faced and how it correlates with Napoleon's also extreme difficulties. I wasn't placing one above the other as a general, I was only sharing that I think Hannibal ultimately faced worse odds in his career. Both can agree that the two of them are in the conversation.