Who would make the best commander?

To be fair alot of historians say Hannibal couldn't have taken Rome had he moved on it right after Cannae. Goldsworthy points out the city had a strong garrison, good physical defences and plenty of time to prepare before Hannibal's battle weary army could reach the city. Hannibal wasn't well equipped to take properly defended cities, when even a minor town closed its gates to him he just ravaged the countryside and his only notable success in Tarentum was won by treachery. I reckon Hannibal had the right idea in occupying southern Italy and allowing his troops time to recover, it was a strategy that would have succeeded had the Romans continued their strategy of seeking battle whenever possible. As it was, thanks to the prudent hands of such men as Fabius Maximus and Marcellus, Rome managed to narrowly recover and fight on.