Is this true?

[Africanvs]

"… Hannibal recognized his own limitations..."

This is definitely true. He knew he couldn't take Rome and relied upon an unreal objective. That objective was to cause the Romans to seek terms after relieving them of all of their allies. He underestimated Roman tenacity however, as well as the loyalty of many of those allies.

...He sent his brother Mago back to the Carthaginian Senate to advance this new policy. Feeling that ultimate victory could not be assured by doubling his forces in Italy, Hannibal argued that a new strategy held greater hope of success. Essentially, he proposed that the whole of Carthaginian strength should be employed in extending the war to new areas to produce the encirclement of Italy. All the while, he would continue to prosecute the war in Italy, gaining such cities as he could, until Rome was willing to sue for peace...

This I doubt, Hannibal clearly wanted more troops. The fact that he couldn't get them kept him confined to southern Italy while the Romans simply contained him and recaptured city after city that had gone over to Hannibal. The fact that he tried to join forces with his brother Hasdrubal is evidence that he wanted to fight in Italy as well. Hannibal was forced to replace his losses with Italian and Gallic mercenaries. There were two main parties in Carthage, the Barcids (war party) and the peace party led by Hanno. Hannibal never had the full backing of Carthage when he started the 2nd Punic war by attacking Suguntum. Hanno the great and the peace party did stop Hannibal from receiving reinforcements after Cannae, opting instead to reinforce Spain. After the loss of the first war, having been relieved of most of their fleet, Spain was their main source of money in the form precious metal mines.

Carthage was to influence the Romans from the periphery by pushing the Romans out of Spain, by establishing themselves in Sicily, and by attempting to gain an ally in the King of Macedonia.” [West Point Manual, p. 74.]

Mago did go to Liguria to try to find allies but failed, and Hannibal also failed to get any material help from Phillip of Macedon. They were looking for allies wherever they could find them. Sicily was lost to Carthage, after Scipio Africanus Major campaigned in Spain, Spain was lost as well which removed a key source of Carthaginian troops, the destruction of Hasdrubal and his army killed Hannibal's chance of reinforcements, Scipio's alliance with the Numidians denied carthage their source of cavalry, and Scipio's invasion of Africa (not fully backed by the Roman Senate: they gave him no money, he had to raise an army with his own funds) caused Hannibal to be recalled and then defeated.

Final words: No matter how good of a general Hannibal was, he didn't have the full backing of Carthage, and although Rome could not defeat him in battle in Italy, he did not have the resources to end the war, which caused a stalemate. Rome however, had immense pools of manpower and were able to fight in Spain, Macedon, and keep Hannibal more or less conained all at the same time. Hannibal and Carthage simply underestimated the Roman character, resources, and simple refusal to admit defeat. Another thing to keep in mind is that our two primary sources for most of this are Polybius (a pro-Roman Greek) and Livy whose primary source ws probably Polybius. The Carthaginians didn't really leave us any information about their side of things.

Hope this helps.

[keravnos]

didn't really leave us any information about their side of things.

One small note. We don't know if Carthagenians left anything, as Romans were quick to destroy anything that wasn't pro-Roman.

We don't have any account of Alexander's campaign in full but for Arrian, a Roman governor of Anatolia in 2nd cent. CE
We don't have any account of Hannibal but for Polybius, a Pro Roman Greek.
We don't have any account of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem but for Josephus, a Hebrew who many have accused as Pro Roman, but without whom, we would have no knowledge whatsoever of that time.

What I am trying to say is that whenever we read history of that time, we must remember that we are looking it through a Roman perspective, as it is Roman history we are reading.

If we are to take it one step further, I think that Roman state put those who wrote against it in a form of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

For example, we don't have any account of the Bar Kochba rebellion, nothing as accurate as the accounts of Josephus for the earlier Hebrew rebellion.

[Africanvs]

We don't have any account of Alexander's campaign in full but for Arrian, a Roman governor of Anatolia in 2nd cent. CE.

Aside from Arrian there is also Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, and Diodorus of Sicily, but the campaigns of Alexander didn't involve Rome so it would make sense that they would not have any self-inerest to be biased. Besides, Arrian and the others based their writings on those of Cleitarchus and Ptolemy, who based his writings on Callisthenes, primary sources that are now lost to us.

We don't have any account of Hannibal but for Polybius, a Pro Roman Greek. We don't have any account of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem but for Josephus, a Hebrew who many have accused as Pro Roman, but without whom, we would have no knowledge whatsoever of that time.

On these points I agree with you. All of these sources involve Rome and since Rome dominated the world at that time, anyone casting Rome in a negative light would have been considered un-patriotic and their works would not likely have survived. It kind of makes one wonder. The worst thing that could be done to a people was to attempt to erase them from memory, leaving only whatever tale the victor wished to tell of them. For example, we know little of Carthage and Troy because their conquerors simply erased those cities from the earth as best as they could.

[Macilrille]

Erik Christiansen. docent, dr.phil. Aarhus University, writes in his "Roman History" that had we not had Polybius we would have been left with a skewed picture of Hannibal, for Roman writers portrays him as the most faithless and nefarious of all faithless and nefarious Phoenicans, which according to the Romans were all Phoenicans. I have great respect for EC, he was competent and BTW fun to have as teacher and guide on our Roman trip when we wrote our Bachelor's (which was in Roman history), he is less competent now, having gone old and had a stroke, but I will take his word for this with what I have read of Polybius, he liked the Romans (despite being one of the hostages of KH in Rome AFAICR) and he was connected to the Scipii, but he was not a Roman propagandist like others were. He seems to give Carthage and Hannibal some credit.

Edited to add that I just read Polybius and he has lots of good things to say about Hannibal's skill, though he maintains that Scipio matched him (I suspect it was close indeed). So in that respect he was not just another Roman propagandist.

[Zarax]

So, how do you think the west point manual drove to that kind of conclusions?
I never managed to read polybius or livy in full so I'm wondering how much of primary sources and how much extrapolation there is in such an assumption...

[Macilrille]

Everybody interprets history from their own viewpoint. The West Point writers were likely not historians but officers, and probably interpreted history from their own, IE from their own strategic viewpoint.

Some has made the transfer, David Glantz most prominently AFAIK, but there are others on H-War.

[Africanvs]

Erik Christiansen. docent, dr.phil. Aarhus University, writes in his "Roman History" that had we not had Polybius we would have been left with a skewed picture of Hannibal, for Roman writers portrays him as the most faithless and nefarious of all faithless and nefarious Phoenicans, which according to the Romans were all Phoenicans. I have great respect for EC, he was competent and BTW fun to have as teacher and guide on our Roman trip when we wrote our Bachelor's (which was in Roman history), he is less competent now, having gone old and had a stroke, but I will take his word for this with what I have read of Polybius, he liked the Romans (despite being one of the hostages of KH in Rome AFAICR) and he was connected to the Scipii, but he was not a Roman propagandist like others were. He seems to give Carthage and Hannibal some credit.

Edited to add that I just read Polybius and he has lots of good things to say about Hannibal's skill, though he maintains that Scipio matched him (I suspect it was close indeed). So in that respect he was not just another Roman propagandist.

I didn't say Polybius was a Roman propagandist, I said he was a pro-Roman Greek. This can be seen most clearly in his writings about Rome's war with Macedonia. I do agree that he said many good things about Hannibal, but this is normal in Roman histories. It is important that adversaries are strong, otherwise there is no glory in defeating them. At any rate, I believe that Polybius, although he embelishes at times, is a great source for this time period. I only mentioned the lack of a Carthaginian source because the claims made by the manual are contradictory to our sources.

So, how do you think the west point manual drove to that kind of conclusions?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I do have a theory. As Macilrille said, the writers of the manual were most likely military officers. Modern military officers regard Hannibal as one of the greatest generals who has ever lived. For those who love Hannibal, it is easier to say that he was not cornered in Italy and all but defeated, but that it was all part of some grand strategem. This takes the blame away from Hannibal and places it on the Carthaginian Oligarchy, Mago, and faithless allies. The one thing we do know for sure, is that Carthage was defeated, and that includes Hannibal.

[Fluvius Camillus]

".... and by attempting to gain an ally in the King of Macedonia.” [West Point Manual, p. 74.]...

During the war carthage did achieve to get Macedonia as an ally after Cannae, this resulted in the first Macedonian war, although Rome itself did not sent troops, Rome was allied with the states in Hellas, who bore the blunt of the war.

All other info is mentioned already by others I think.