Hannibal and Carthage Defeat Rome In The Second Punic War

[BAYLOR]

Not so sure. Rome was immensely resilient. It came back after Cannae, after all.

Such was Hannibal'a hatred of Rome he very likely would have done the equivalent of the Versailles treaty on Rome to keep them weak.

 

[thaddeus6th]

But that would've required Roman surrender. They didn't surrender after Cannae, I can't see them doing it after a defeat in Africa.

 

[BAYLOR]

But that would've required Roman surrender. They didn't surrender after Cannae, I can't see them doing it after a defeat in Africa.

If Hannibal had been able to convince Rome allies to side with him after Cannae , wouldn't have given him a free had to do what ever he wanted to Rome? With No more allied troops to worry about . All he had to really do was take city and capture whats left of the Roman senate . They would have no choice but to surrender.

 

[thaddeus6th]

He convinced some. He had the city (though not the military-held port) of Tarentum, and others whose name I forget.

A victory in Africa would not, I think, have shaken Rome after they forced him from Italy and had retaken Sicily and conquered Iberia.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Carthage could win as many battles as it liked, it would never win the war. The Carthaginian leaders would not have trusted Hannibal with an army big enough to do so, for fear he may decide to take power for himself. The best outcome they could hope for was a number of significant victories followed by appropriate tribute until Rome regrouped.

 

[thaddeus6th]

The army's size wasn't the issue, so much as the great politico-military resilience of Rome.

I think a victory *was* possible, but very unlikely. Excepting Hannibal, Carthage wasn't overflowing with great military leaders/ Hasdrubal was good, but immediately got killed by Nero. It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would've happened if the brothers had met up.

 

[BAYLOR]

One of the key figures at the Destruction of the city Carthage was Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus the younger who along with is brother Gaius had not very pleasant ending when they tried to bring about land reform that would benefit the plebeian class in Rome.

 

[svalbard]

If Hannibal had been able to convince Rome allies to side with him after Cannae , wouldn't have given him a free had to do what ever he wanted to Rome? With No more allied troops to worry about . All he had to really do was take city and capture whats left of the Roman senate . They would have no choice but to surrender.

True. Even later Rome suffered calamitous defeats. At Arusio they lost somewhere in the region of 40,000 men to a coalition of Germanic tribes. It was, as has being pointed out, their political system plus their amazing ability to throw up remarkable leaders in times of crisis that enabled Rome to survive and thrive.

 

[thaddeus6th]

At Arausio they practically threw the men away. The oafish commanders fell out and attacked a much larger force separately (and this after the Cimbri had beaten the Romans [with the Romans the aggressors...] several times). Marius was a very capable chap.

I agree that Rome's political system was strong but this declined in the imperial era due to the might is right approach and failure of Augustus to lay down a legal basis for being/becoming emperor (the donative was also ruinous).

 

[BAYLOR]

At Arausio they practically threw the men away. The oafish commanders fell out and attacked a much larger force separately (and this after the Cimbri had beaten the Romans [with the Romans the aggressors...] several times). Marius was a very capable chap.

I agree that Rome's political system was strong but this declined in the imperial era due to the might is right approach and failure of Augustus to lay down a legal basis for being/becoming emperor (the donative was also ruinous).

Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian were two of the worst calamities in Roman history.

 

[thaddeus6th]

That's a legitimate, though very debatable, perspective.

I suppose it depends whether the view is taken that the Republic was effectively finished, or whether it could've been restored (for what it's worth, I think the Republic had a great deal more resilience and flexibility than the Empire, but I'm not sure whether the drift towards political dynasties and armies becoming loyal to generals rather than the state could've been averted).

If the former view is taken, the two chaps did a largely decent job (cocking up a legal basis for changing emperor beyond death and/or civil war, of course) of keeping the whole state intact.

 

[svalbard]

Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian were two of the worst calamities in Roman history.

That statement is worthy of it's own thread. I think Octavian was the ruler that Rome needed at that time. He brought stability after decades of upheaval. The Republic had being in it's deaththrows for a century before him.

 

[BAYLOR]

That statement is worthy of it's own thread. I think Octavian was the ruler that Rome needed at that time. He brought stability after decades of upheaval. The Republic had being in it's deaththrows for a century before him.

He was a ruthless, selfish pig , he stupidly destroyed what was left of the rule of law rule that remained in Rome and ruled as an autocrat , a very fateful and ultimately fatal precedent . The problem is that things were stable so long as he was alive to run them, unfortunately everyone dies . His other big mistake was the vile Tiberius as his successor which indirectly put bounders like Calligula and later down the line Nero on the throne.

 

[BAYLOR]

One wonders what the world would have been like had Rome not prevailed against Carthage.