Peoples opinions on 'could hannibal of taken rome '

[cunobelinus]

what do people think on 'could of hannibal taken rome ' i dont think he could he had no support and the romans were still strong but people argue that he only did this because his father always told him that he should be coucious of the romans so i want other peoples opinions on this

[AggonyDuck]

Well the only real window for him to take Rome was after Cannae and even then it would had all come down to if the Romans wanted to fight or surrender. Knowing Roman nature I'd doubt that they would do that.

The problem that Hannibal had in taking Rome was the fact that his army had to keep itself mobile to sustain itself by foraging and he lacked secure supply lines and bases to besiege Rome.

Also I doubt that Hannibal could had taken Rome with an assault without immense preparations, which he again could not afford.

[cunobelinus]

thats what im saying he had no money or any type of support but i think he had the skill but not the money but i want too see if anyone has another opinion on it

[Kraxis]

I will say no...

He could not.
Rome was not defenceless, it was pretty well armed and protected. Sure it's legions were not ready for field battles, but defending from battlements would be significantly easier. And it wasn't as if the older veterans in Rome wouldn't have picked up their arms and hurried to the walls.

He would likely have faced similar number to his own by the time he got there. Not very good when they had the advantage of defences. And I think they had another field army trudging about in Cisalpine Gaul, not to talk about the troops in Hispania. Both of which would likely have come running as soon as Rome was put under siege.

Lastly, he didn't have the numbers to maintain a proper siege of a city of this size, especially not with similar cities around the region, which could possibly make his own foraging a problem.

I would say that he could maintain a few weeks of siege, then would have to break off when the Roman armies neared and his possibilities for foraging had diminished, partly due to local militias defending the forage.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I will say no...

He could not.
Rome was not defenceless, it was pretty well armed and protected. Sure it's legions were not ready for field battles, but defending from battlements would be significantly easier. And it wasn't as if the older veterans in Rome wouldn't have picked up their arms and hurried to the walls.

He would likely have faced similar number to his own by the time he got there. Not very good when they had the advantage of defences. And I think they had another field army trudging about in Cisalpine Gaul, not to talk about the troops in Hispania. Both of which would likely have come running as soon as Rome was put under siege.

Lastly, he didn't have the numbers to maintain a proper siege of a city of this size, especially not with similar cities around the region, which could possibly make his own foraging a problem.

I would say that he could maintain a few weeks of siege, then would have to break off when the Roman armies neared and his possibilities for foraging had diminished, partly due to local militias defending the forage.

Agreed:2thumbsup:

[matteus the inbred]

yes indeed, well summarised Kraxis. I think it's a testament to Hannibal's military skill that he didn't even try to properly besiege Rome, he knew it couldn't be done.
He needed a fleet to blockade Ostia too.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There was no way of getting through Rome's walls, and Rome had better ability to field new armies after defeats.

Maybe, in a very far-fetched scenario he could have succeeded. If Hasdrubal and Hannibal had had telephone contact, and Hannibal would have won at Cannae, then moved north to meet Hasdrubal, and join forces there instead of having Hasdrubal getting killed. Then they could march down to Rome slowly, while helping to install gallic rulers, garrisons and a clever constitution in every city along the way to keep them under gallic rule. They would then occupy a few fortified cities near Rome, and sending away or exterminating all locals in these cities. Then, once at Rome, they could have used something like the circumvallatio, or maybe just the castrum that Pyrrhus used not too long afterwards, to siege Rome safely, assuming he could either assault or naval blockade Ostia... With that method they could maybe have won, despite a smaller supply of men, ships and money. Probably not 100% impossible scenario, but unlikely (especially the telephone ~:)).

To give Hannibal the credit he deserves I don't doubt for a second that Hannibal would have been able to easily defeat Carthage if he had been on the roman side!

[cunobelinus]

any more opinions .I agree with the people above does anyone think he could have ?

[Geoffrey S]

No. Even after Cannae (with exhausted Carthaginian troops) the Romans had enough men and time to hold Rome and make an assault a near impossible prospect. Hannibal had far too few men to even actually surround the city, so he couldn't starve the place, and before long reinforcements would have arrived.

Only real chance he had was to hold the south and hope for reinforcements; that hope all but ended when Hasdrubal failed to reach him.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've always thought that Hannibal's stroke was one of the boldest efforts in history.

Elephants over the alps, attacking a powerful foe on their home ground, and beating the ... snot ... out of them at virtually every turn.

It should have worked. Against any number of political entities of the day it would have. How many other states Hannibal might have faced could have withstood the psychological blows he inflicted and fought on? How many other states would have folded, asked for terms, and paid handsomely to end the threat?

The resilience of the Roman Republic was amazing. For all its flaws, they had a flexibility and a core-strength that made them almost impossible to conquer -- no matter how often you defeated them.

[Duke Malcolm]

I thought it was Hannibal of Carthage...? Oh, "Could Hannibal have taken Rome?"

Bad grammar aside, no. Hannibal's army was too exhausted and depleted, especially after Cannae...