Does Macnaghten's British invasion of Afghanistan in 1842 compare with Hannibal's invasion of Rome?

Macnaghten was dead by 1842, lelwa, put down like the gluttonous pig that he was.

OP is probably thinking of the 1842 Kabul Expedition under Major-general George Pollock of the British Indian Army- or the “Company” Army, if you choose to swallow the fiction that the East India Company actually ruled anything.

As for comparisons with Hannibal…

Well- both campaigns were disasters though I'm pretty sure old Hannibal didn't treat his mercenaries half as badly as Pollock treated his Indian troops- thousands of whom either died from exposure and lack of supplies or were enslaved by the Afghans as the retreating British 'forgot' to inform them of the retreat. Hannibal also had a plan- subvert Roman allies and take Rome- though it fell apart quickly. The British Army had none, save some vague urge to murder-rape across Afghanistan to take the revenge against the Afghans for shanking the last bunch of Tommys who'd come to murder-rape across Afghanistan.

Now the British had advantages- such as their surfeit of Artillery which let them take town after town with little resistance, but Hannibal never had to deal with a full-blown jihad with Peacefuls pouring in from as far as Turkey, lelwa.

Now the British did try to make it a religious war of sorts as well- especially with their trick with the Gates of Somnath- but turned out that their silly Hindu sepoys had the irritating habit of dying when ordered to march 30 miles a day for weeks in bitter cold without any food. Hannibal, klutz and tyrant that he was, never had such high expectations of his men.

Anyway, all this is a moot point since old Macnaghten was dead anyway.