A Question my Professor Couldn't Answer..

Carthage still had the Western half of Sicily, at that time, I recall.

If Rome had any problems on the islands of Sardis and the other one, then Carthage's strategy should have been to get a seabase somewhere from which they could sail to Italy. Wars are not won on the defensive, as Scipio proved and so many other generals in history also.

But then the Carthaginian Senate and their poeni citizens didn't seem much motivated in winning wars outside Africa and Spain. Even without hannibal and scipio, the aggression of Rome outclassed that of Carthage. Carthage used mercenaries and then refused to pay them, thus precipitating the Mercenary War, which turned once usable troops into enemies.

Carthage did indeed seem like the quintessential bean counter Empire. Counting beans was more of a priority than creating and sustaining a matchless army in the field.

The Peace Dividend seen in America after the Cold War, for example.

In any case Hannibal's army proved itself perfectly capable of managing a siege in Souther Italy: it stormed and took the citadel of Taras IIRC.

But to my understanding, one reason why Hannibal would not 'simply' march on to Roma and try to take it/starve it out was the fact that either way to take Roma meant to risk his entire army (more so than in any field battle) at odds that would probably be worse than that of Cannae. Roma still had a large population + the survivors of Cannae, and its leaders were still there.

Recall that a similar well-defended city without much of a garrison held out & repeatedly destroyed an assault for a long time agains the well supplied & highly motivated & numerically faaar superior forces of the Romani (much more than Hannibal ever got) later on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carthage.

i gotta find the link to preview thread about Hannibal and Rome and stuff...

but I gotta go to work

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Recall that a similar well-defended city without much of a garrison held out & repeatedly destroyed an assault for a long time agains the well supplied & highly motivated & numerically faaar superior forces of the Romani (much more than Hannibal ever got) later on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carthage.

I can`t think you can compare that.
In the Third Punic War there was no big battle before the Siege of Carthago. The Citizens where at least theoretically a (Hoplite-)Militia, and the City itself was prepared for siege and hold out for 3 years.
Rome had lost his organized Army and there weren´t any (except the Weapons in temples, etc.) large Numbers of Weapons left to arm the whole population like they did in Carthago.

How to compare a well prepared City with a more or less fully armed Militia and a City which Army was crushed and de-organized, defended by former Criminals?

(Hope my English is good enough )

Originally Posted by -sKy-

How to compare a well prepared City with a more or less fully armed Militia and a City which Army was crushed and de-organized, defended by former Criminals?

Carthage was NOT "well prepared"! Carthaginians surrendered all their weapons to the insidious roman swindlers in vain hope to avoid the war, and were forced to produce it anew. Not to mention they lost a big battle to numidians recently, and the city itself iirc wasn't ready and well supplied either.