This argument has been cropping up maybe once a week recently. I would recommend you scroll through the reddit, there are so many questions posted so frequently here repeated questions will likely be ignored by most historians.

Just a copy and paste of an answer I previously gave. I find the whole "but Hannibal never took Rome" argument as a frustrating misunderstanding of warfare of the period.

Hannibal's plan was never to attack Rome itself. He did not bring the forces to do so and none of his troop movements indicate that was his plan.

Rome had conquered Italy within that generation, it took just 70 years for them to go from masters of Latium to masters of the whole peninsula. Typically when a city was conquered they became subservient to the master city, it's why we refer to these empires by the city names. This often meant when the master city suffered a serious defeat the subservient cities would grasp the chance to throw off the shackles and become independant again. When Darius of Persia was defeated in Greece, for example, he had to race back to Persia to put down a series of rebellions.

Hannibal thinks he just needs to defeat Rome in battle show the other cities they dont need to bow and then they will declare their independence. Rome would then loose the bulk of their manpower and face enemies on their doorstep in Italy again.

Unfortunately for Hannibal, Rome was something new. With the remarkable clarity of thought the Romans seemed to possess they had set up a ladder scale of subjection, one that rewarded loyalty.

If we look at the march of Hannibal's army, he's basically touring the peninsula trying to get cities to defect but the only major city to do so is the recent Roman conquest of Capua.

There are a lot of people who charge Hannibal with not taking Rome or not knowing what to do with a victory. It's total rubbish, Hannibal's strategy was sound, he genuinely got the better of Rome. He was defeated by something he couldn't have predicted and was totally new. It would be unfair to hold that against him.