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.

 

[BAYLOR]

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

Hannibal would have talken Rome occupied it. and very likely eliminated all Rome's ruling elite and installed a new ruling class loyal to Carthage. That would ended any chance of Rome to rise again.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Hannibal would have taken Rome occupied it. and very likely eliminated all Rome's ruling elite and installed a new ruling class loyal to Carthage. That would ended any chance of Rome to rise again.

Hard to say that even the fall of Rome would have been decisive. I believe by the second Punic war Rome had control of the sea (perhaps why Hannibal was crossing the Alps in the first place). And as others have said, Rome had the ability to keep rising from one defeat after another (which is perhaps because they treated conquered territories relatively well, by ancient standards, and could recruit from them). Remember King Pyrrhus who defeated the early Romans three times. When his aides congratulated him the third time he remarked that his kingdom could not survive another such victory (hence the phrase 'Phyrric victory').

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one other such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

— Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus[2]

 

[Bowler1]

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.

I think PM is close to the mark here. That and Roman idenity, seeing themselves as seperate and better than those around them which early Rome had, means a sacking of the city in my oponion would have been a set back at best. Hanibal expected three victories and for Rome to then call it quits as was accepted norms for the time. Rome was never going to stop no matter how often Hanibal won battles, and Hanibal didn't try to take Rome by force or seige because he lacked numbers - troops were kept home and away from Hanibal for internal Cartaginian politics or simple security, most likley both. Regardless Hanibal couldn't take Rome so he didn't attack Rome, that man wasn't daft. This meant that the Roman elite remained, and they were not for turning no matter how often they were beaten as it was surival for them, being forced to fight on their home turf like Ukraine today. So with Rome the city safe, Rome was going to come out fighting. If you're smaller and weaker then you have to be more brutal to win and send a message to all the other powers watching. So Hanibal invading Italy with numbers lacking for total victory was sowing the seeds of Roman retrubution/revenage, which was duly meated out. The rest... is history....

Hanibal lacked that real knock down, all in to the end killer instinct to finish the job.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Rome was never going to stop no matter how often Hanibal won battles,

Yes this was a particularly Roman trait, but it was also because there was a big Roman state at this time. Even while Hannibal ranged across Italy trying to get a conclusion, Rome launched first an expedition with Scipio to attack Hannibal's territories in Spain, then after taking them focused on Carthage itself.

I feel that even if Hannibal had successfully invested Rome, the Romans would just have continued in the fight.

and Hanibal didn't try to take Rome by force or seige because he lacked numbers - troops were kept home and away from Hanibal for internal Cartaginian politics or simple security, most likley both.

I disagree - in a sense, numbers were probably an issue. Hannibal had huge problems getting reinforcements to his army. I believe his brother was killed trying to march a reinforcement army to Italy to help him, for example. He had exploited the Gauls in Northern Italy and recruited them when he arrived, but after that there was very lukewarm support from other peoples in Italy. I don't think he got further reinforcements from Carthage (Particularly when Carthage had to make the decision about sending men to defend against the successful Scipio, rather than give them to Hannibal, who wasn't really doing much...)

With regards to besieging Rome, two things. First sieging cities was notoriously difficult in those days. You either relied on subterfuge (i.e. bribe someone to open a gate), starve them out by just camping around the city (could take years) or if you had enough men and supplies build earthworks and other siege engines and just grind out an opening into the city. (Alexander the Great is interesting in this regard as he enthusiastically threw his army into sieges and was always successful - see Tyre, for example - But he approached it very much like the Romans would later ape.)

And here is the rub, Hannibal was effectively in enemy territory always and living off the land. I believe he just could not stay in a single place for a long time - supplies would run out. He just couldn't siege Rome long enough to take it.

Hanibal lacked that real knock down, all in to the end killer instinct to finish the job.

I think it was what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object - stalemate.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It was impractical for Carthage to capture and keep Rome. If Hannibal could have got into the city, he likely would have looted and razed it.

A successful campaign would result in a weakened Rome and buy the Carthaginians some time with peace treaties. The idea wasn't necessarily to 'conquer' or capture Rome, but to bring it to the negotiating table in a position where the terms dictated would benefit the Carthaginians.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Baylor, Hannibal lacked the siege capabilities of Alexander, and Rome was massive. It still had enough soldiers for defence, and keeping still would've been bad for the Carthaginian army in terms of both disease and gathering food.