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

[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.