A Question my Professor Couldn't Answer..

[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.

[-sKy-]

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 )

[Michiel de Ruyter]

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.

They were opposed to Julius Caesar campaigning in Gaul, as his successes there posed a serious threat to the political constellation in Rome, with Caesar becoming the most dominant power. Many senators were very eager to campaign, quite often with disastrous results (Marius got his prestige by cleaning up the mess made by others in Numidia, Crassus defeat is legendary). Posts that offered great potential for booty were highly sought after all throughout the Republic. And this went on right until the struggle for power between Marc Anthony and Augustus...

Only by the end of the first century BC was Rome running into the limits of expansion. The effort needed was unlikely to be returned by the rewards. But even then the fiction of conquest was an integral part of the mystique of the emperors for centuries. In fact, conquest (or the fiction thereof), either before they became emperor or while emperor was often essential for them remaining in power. Mind you Hadrian was scolded for abandoning territory and abstaining from 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.

True, and partially for the same reason (political rivalries vs the Barcid family). War with Rome was inevitable (as continuous Roman provocation since the end of the first war had proved). And Hannibal decided to try and fight the war on his terms, as any smart general should.

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.

And here you are falling completely for the propaganda by Livy and Polybius (I am not even certain if the latter reports that particular story). Mind you, Romans always needed justification/explanation for their wars. Rarely, if ever Roman historians admit Roman agression. Throughout the existence of the empire, Rome NEVER officially started wars, but always reacted in defense (at least according to their POV) to attacks, pleas of help by allies or vialotions of political treaties. Caesar's exaplanations for the Gallic wars are a prime example. An oath promising implacable hatred would be a perfectly suitable exaplanation for the actions of Hannibal, who earned a legendary status among Romans (similar constructions do turn up elsewhere as well, IIRC ie Arminius, Julius Civilis, maybe Mithridates. IICR Alexander the Great swore an oath as well!). In Roman eyes, it would even be a legitimate partial explanation for his successes and his endurance!
Hannibal became such a mythical figure, that he is one of the few, if not only, enemy of Rome who was presented in Livy with any positive connotation.


I will not deny that Hannibal was willing to fight Rome, but the Romans were clearly responsible for the Second Punic War. The only logical/rational explanation for the treaty with Saguntum was to act as a trigger for a war with Carthage. Rome actively encouraged Saguntum to attack the Carthaginian holdings in Spain, and in reaction it was besieged. Saguntum clearly was south of the Ebro (so in the Carthaginian sphere of influence), and to my knowledge the Carthaginioans adhered to that line until war broke out.

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.

[Lgk]

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.

[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.

[CirdanDharix]

Not really. Hannibal didn't wait around to see if the Senate would offer peace terms--he did send an envoy to gauge the Senate's intentions, by offering to sell back the Roman prisoners (the Socii had, as per Hannibal's usual practice, been set free, after being told that Carthage meant to free Italy from the Roman oppressors, not enslave her to a new master); but when the Senators refused to pruchase the prisoners' freedom, on the grounds that, being defeated, they had disgraced Rome, the Carthaginians realised there would be no peace just yet. In any case, after resoundingly defeating the Romans, Hannibal had already moved on to the third phase of his plan: gaining the support of Rome's erstwhile allies and laying the foundations of an Italic federation that would hemm Rome into the Latium.