A Question my Professor Couldn't Answer..

[Danest]

The tactics of ambushing an army on the field are a lot different than attacking a walled city, that's what I always assumed.

[Ymarsakar]

The tactics of ambushing an army on the field are a lot different than attacking a walled city, that's what I always assumed.

Siege warfare removes all the tactical maneuverability and advantages Hannibal favored. Without those advantages, bad things can happen.

Hannibal may have been great, but the senate and people he served, were not.

When it came down to the 11th hour, mercenaries could not bolster the weak will of a rich and decadent population.

Rome also planted the seed of her destruction, when she allowed the Roman Senate to destroy Scipio Africanus because of jealousy, greed, and envy.

Any state that destroys their best while elevating the corrupt and tunnel visioned, will eventually be destroyed. Rome was saved by their legions, and in the end, it still was not enough with a corrupt Senate and bureacracy.

[Renegen]

What are you talking about, the Roman Empire survived for centuries and centuries after Scipio Africanus!

Or maybe you were talking about the Roman Republic which was on its downside? That was indeed inevitable.

[hellenes]

People always ignore one important factor: Hannibal's army wasnt a siege army his iberians and gauls despised ground work of sapping and general fortification works...
So he was almost like a mongol army in M2TW undefeated at open ground while weak at sieging...
Thats why Alexander was a faaar superior general...he would have burned Rome to the ground...

[antisocialmunky]

So he was almost like a mongol army in M2TW undefeated at open ground while weak at sieging...

Someone hasn't faced cannon elephants...

[TWFanatic]

People always ignore one important factor: Hannibal's army wasnt a siege army his iberians and gauls despised ground work of sapping and general fortification works...
So he was almost like a mongol army in M2TW undefeated at open ground while weak at sieging...
Thats why Alexander was a faaar superior general...he would have burned Rome to the ground...

That is a rather ignorant statement made with the benefit of hindsight. Hannibal virtually never made a mistake, with one fatal exception: making Rome his enemy. You don't win a war with Rome, you just can't beat the stubborn bastards. This statement could have easily been made without hindsight--Pyrrhus invaded Italy 65 years earlier with similar results.

But back to the original point. It is debatable who was the superior general (Alexander or Hannibal), but that discussion has no place here (although I should mention that Hannibal himself later declared Alexander to best general of all time, Pyrrhus second and himself third). It is highly improbable that any general under Hannibal's circumstances (even following Cannae) could have burned Rome to the ground. It was as if the war was decided before Hannibal killed a single Roman or even set foot in Italy. NOTHING would stop the expansion of Rome. I don't believe in fate, but it is clear to me here that there was simply nothing anyone could have done to win the second Punic War in Hannibal's shoes--unless Hanno and his buddies in the Council of One Hundred and Four would have committed all the resources of Carthage to the war and fully backed Hannibal. Then, and only then, could Hannibal perhaps have successfully taken Rome.

Btw, Hannibal was by no means weak at giving siege. You need only look to his success in Iberia to see that.

To address your first point, I think the main reason people ignore that Hannibal's Iberians and Gauls "despised [the] ground work of sapping and general fortification works" (never heard that before but that might make sense) is because, even were that true, there were far more pressing circumstances preventing Hannibal from attacking Rome. Most notably that he didn't have the siege equipment necessary to assault the city, the supplies for a long term siege, or the manpower necessary for either (a prolonged siege requires enough men to circumvent the besieged in order to cut them off entirely from supplies).

[Mindaros]

Hannibal failed because his strategy failed. According to his strategy, Hasdrubal was to follow him to Italy shortly after he had crossed the Alps, but the Romans kept Hasdrubal busy in Spain, and when he finally arrived - ten years later than planned - it was already too late. If the strategy had worked, Hannibal would have received the badly-needed reinforcements after Cannae.

Also, Carthage - that had in this respect gained an important ally of Syracuse - also attempted to create a sea route from Carthage to Italy to reinforce Hannibal, but this route never materialized.

[Ymarsakar]

The thing is, Hannibal was recalled from the Italian port of Croton(a) to Carthage with some of his veteran men. Now if Hannibal could be "recalled" back to Carthage via a sea route, why couldn't Carthage send reinforcements to Capua, when Hannibal still was holding it?

[Michiel de Ruyter]

That is a rather ignorant statement made with the benefit of hindsight. Hannibal virtually never made a mistake, with one fatal exception: making Rome his enemy. You don't win a war with Rome, you just can't beat the stubborn bastards. This statement could have easily been made without hindsight--Pyrrhus invaded Italy 65 years earlier with similar results.

Hannibal did not make the mistake. Rome was the enemy, and was hell bent on domination/destruction of the surrounding states. He was one of the first to see that.

As has been amply proved by the Roman policy towards Saguntum and the Roman seizure of Sardinia and Corsica. The latter was a gross violation of the treaties between Roma and Carthage) just as Roman interference in Carthaginian policies in Africa.

The former were encouraged by Rome to attack and harrass the Carthaginians (in retaliation of which Hannibal beseiged the city of Saguntum). There was only one reason for the Romans to ally themselves with Saguntum that had any whiff of rationality: Saguntum was to serve as a trigger for a new war against Carthage, in which Rome could seize more Carthaginian possessions. Which wasonly confirmed by the fact that when war broke out the Romans implemented immediately their pre-planned strategy.... the readiness and quickness of Hannibal's reaction and subsequent march towards Italy only caught them by surprise.

[TWFanatic]

I agree with most of your statements. To clarify on one, the entire city of Rome was by no means imperialist. Just as when Caesar was conquering Gaul, there were many more conservative senators in Rome who opposed expansion. It only takes one family or one man even to start a war, much as Hannibal did even though most of Carthage's Council of One Hundred and Four did not want war.

Which brings me to my second point. A man who swears eternal hatred of something at the age of nine is clearly hell-bent on its destruction. To claim that Rome initiated the Second Punic War is simply ridiculous, Hannibal wanted this war more than anything. The Barcid dynasty of military commanders had been preparing for this war since the last one ended.

Which brings me to my third point. Carthage after the First Punic War is in many ways comparable to Germany after the First World War. The allies, like Rome, were quite aggressive and unfair in their treatment of the Germans. The economic crisis they left behind allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, just as Hamilcar invaded Spain under the guise of needing money to pay the tribute to Rome (which made Rome happy and kept them out of the way).

I admire Hannibal for his virtues and ability. It is undeniable, however, that he initiated the Second Punic War. On the other hand, it may have never happened if Rome did not treat Carthage so unfairly and leave it in a state of economic shambles.

[hellenes]

That is a rather ignorant statement made with the benefit of hindsight. Hannibal virtually never made a mistake, with one fatal exception: making Rome his enemy. You don't win a war with Rome, you just can't beat the stubborn bastards. This statement could have easily been made without hindsight--Pyrrhus invaded Italy 65 years earlier with similar results.

But back to the original point. It is debatable who was the superior general (Alexander or Hannibal), but that discussion has no place here (although I should mention that Hannibal himself later declared Alexander to best general of all time, Pyrrhus second and himself third). It is highly improbable that any general under Hannibal's circumstances (even following Cannae) could have burned Rome to the ground. It was as if the war was decided before Hannibal killed a single Roman or even set foot in Italy. NOTHING would stop the expansion of Rome. I don't believe in fate, but it is clear to me here that there was simply nothing anyone could have done to win the second Punic War in Hannibal's shoes--unless Hanno and his buddies in the Council of One Hundred and Four would have committed all the resources of Carthage to the war and fully backed Hannibal. Then, and only then, could Hannibal perhaps have successfully taken Rome.

Btw, Hannibal was by no means weak at giving siege. You need only look to his success in Iberia to see that.

To address your first point, I think the main reason people ignore that Hannibal's Iberians and Gauls "despised [the] ground work of sapping and general fortification works" (never heard that before but that might make sense) is because, even were that true, there were far more pressing circumstances preventing Hannibal from attacking Rome. Most notably that he didn't have the siege equipment necessary to assault the city, the supplies for a long term siege, or the manpower necessary for either (a prolonged siege requires enough men to circumvent the besieged in order to cut them off entirely from supplies).

Hannibal lacked sieging tactics and artillery...you cant win a war without sieges espessially against rome....
Also we shouldnt forget the fact that the souther Italy's Greeks didnt like Karthaginians that much...with the whole fierce wars between Greeks and Karthaginians at Sicily...
Hannibal couldnt even dream taking Tyre or the Sogdian Rock...
The only way Hannibal could take cities was through prolonged siege encriclment which was impossible for Rome at that time...Also sapping was out of question for his army which makes him even weaker...

[CirdanDharix]

It is debatable who was the superior general (Alexander or Hannibal), but that discussion has no place here (although I should mention that Hannibal himself later declared Alexander to best general of all time, Pyrrhus second and himself third).

He also said that, had he beaten Scipio Africanus at Zama, he would have placed himself first--placing Scipio beyond all competition. But the whole episode is probably invented.

And why Karthaginian fleet never supported Philip V in his war? Makedonia was ally of them, and badly needed support of a fleet. If they joined effort with Philip's fleet (7 big ships and 100 lemboi) they will easily destroy small roman squadron in illyria and without it Macedonians would possibly push Romans from Greece.

Just as Keravnos said - Politics.

No. Rome did not have control of the seas, but she would have had the advantage in any major battle, due to her much larger fleet. At the start of the Second Punic War, there were sixty quinqueremes assigned to the Spanish theatre, one hundred and sixty in Sicily threatening Carthage directly, and twenty in the Adriatic. The Carthaginians did not have anywhere near this number of ships, especially since, by the time Carthage and Philip V made an alliance, the Carthaginian squadron in Spain had already been destroyed at the estuary of the Ebro (in 217BCE). The Carthaginians could boldly raid Italy, because they were better sailors than the Romans. They could even bring Hannibal some reinforcements in 215, and deploy Mago's army to Liguria in 204; and at last evacuate both Mago and Hannibal. But under no circumstances could they risk losing their African fleet in a hopeless battle against superior odds; and whenever the Carthaginian navy sailed in force, it was opposed by just such superior odds.

As to the Makedonians, their Adriatic fleet was of little consequence; Philip burned it himself rather than risk a naval battle. In fact, I'll go so far as to say the Makedones themselves were of little consequence. I'm sure alot of people on the forums will hate me for it, but the truth was that Makedonia and Greece were already on the verge of collapse. Despite all the exaltation of their military tradition, the Greeks and Makedones turned out to be complete pushovers when the Romans turned their attention to them (to the surprise of all invovled, Romans included). Hannibal prevented Makedonia from falling during the First Macedonian War, but during the Second Macedonian War and the Syrian War, the entire Hellenistic world demonstrated a rather disturbing willingness to become clients of Rome; and the vaunted phalanx-armies proved to be among the least troublesome enemies the Romans faced. Only Philip V obtained any successes with them against the Romans, and these were only minor engagements, fought in circumstances much to his favour, when he was trying to contain the Romain in Illyria/Epeiros.

[Chris1959]

The morning after Cannae Hannibal had acheived his objectives by the conventions of the day, Rome's army was destroyed after three humiliating defeats.

All that remained to do was wait for the Senate's envoys to discuss peace on his terms, sign the treaty go home start trade links with Rome again etc.

Trouble was Rome was playing a different game it was war to the death only one would survive. It was a little like Hitler after Dunkirk, how could the British not come to the negotiating table, Germany had won. And equally both had given much thought on how to deliver the final blow and so lacked the means when they needed them.