It is not to be expected that his Roman biographers would treat him impartially, but Polybius and Dio Cassius give the least biased accounts.

Against that cruelty so readily attributed to him by the Roman authors should be set the facts that he entered into agreement with Fabius for the return of prisoners and treated with respect the bodies of T. Sempronius (Consul 215) and L. Aemilius Paullus (216), the fallen enemy generals.

Of avarice, the other charge commonly laid against him, no direct evidence is found other than the practices necessary for a general to finance a war: indeed he spared Fabius' farm.

Much that was said against him (e.g., cannibalism by Polybius) might have taken rise from individual activities of his generals, but even this is uncertain. His physical bravery is well attested and his temperance and contience were praised. His power of leadership is implied in the lack of rioting and disharmony in that mixed body of men he commanded for so long, while his humane disposition is spoken for by the care he took for his elephants and horses as well as his men.

His treachery, that punica fides which the Romans detested, could from another point of view pass for resourcefulness in war and boldness in stratagem, and in assessing Roman judgements of him, the wide gulf between Roman and Carthaginian moral standards must be borne in mind. Of his wit and subtlety of speech many anecdotes remain. He spoke Greek and Latin fluently, but more personal information is absent from his biog-raphies.

He is shown in the only surviving portraits, the silver hexadrachms of Carthagena struck in 221, the year of his election as general, with a youthful, beardless and pleasant face.

He married Imilce of Castulo (a town on the Guadalquivir River) and their only son was born during the siege of Saguntum.

http://www.sssrd.auweb.com/3-3-3.htm