Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SwedishFish
Onto the seriousness, with the huge losses suffered by Roman forces, is it possible Hannibal could very well have marched on Rome and ended the war in Carthaginian favor?
Well to be honest, yes he could have indeed marched on Rome, but he couldn't very well have done much once he got there on account that he didn't have any siege equipment, nor anywhere near the numbers to invest the city. I think that his brother Mago or Hasdrubal, I can't remember which, was supposed to be bringing the siege equipment by sea, but was intercepted by the Romans. In such a case, I guess he didn't have sufficient engineers or patience to build new equipment. I think he was looking for a political settlement, something like terms or a conditional surrender from the Romans, figuring that a defeat such as Cannae would force such an outcome. Hannibal never really understood the determination of the Romans, a common mistake made by the likes of Napoleon and Hitler in underestimating the staying power of the Russians.
Never underestimate the power of faith in warfare. As Napoleon said "The moral is to the physical as is three to one."
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
I doubt he could have. It's not like Rome was defenseless: it was walled city with a strong garrison and Hannibal also had to face the survivors that quickly had gathered into a couple of legions. He would not have had the manpower to both invest and besiege Rome while dealing with gathering supplies in hostile territory.
By staying in southern Italy he could ensure that Roman allies would defect as a result of the battle. The problem was that the effect was not as big as he had hoped, so Rome did not become isolated.
CBR
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SwedishFish
1,792 years ago oppressed nation started fight for freedom.
With mercenary versus legion and hope versus Swords they fought 3 wars
Betrayed by nobles they did not surrender showing everyone how tough Hannibal can be
Gloria Victus- glory for the defeated
Cannae-1,792nd anniversery.
Happy 1,792nd anniversery everyone. Onto the seriousness, with the huge losses suffered by Roman forces, is it possible Hannibal could very well have marched on Rome and ended the war in Carthaginian favor?
it should be 2224 years ago.
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
I would hardly call Rome oppressed, especially when you consider that they were the ones who escalated the First Punic War.
And no, Hannibal would not have been capable of marching on Rome. His army would not have been able to ensure a steady supply line for long enough to allow him to capture it, and it is unlikely that he had enough men to take Rome by force (Though cutting the aqueducts would certainly help).
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
I would hardly call Rome oppressed, especially when you consider that they were the ones who escalated the First Punic War.
... and the second, and the third, and the gallic genocide. And what have the romans ever done for us? :wink:
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cutepuppy
... and the second, and the third, and the gallic genocide. And what have the romans ever done for us? :wink:
While the Romans did cause a large part of the Second Punic War, they didn't escalate it with the use of force. The Third Punic War is undeniable.
Re: Battle of Cannae 216 BC
Yep fISH - and thats why Hannibal is honorable mentioned. Same like Warsaw Rising.
Cannae was a great battle. But even after that victory Hannibal was not able to take Rome.
Romans very fast prepared defense in the city and overcomed panic into population.
Rome had strong garrison which could be supported by citizens whila Hannibal hadn't had too many men.
