Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I finished reading Livy's account of the second Punic war,and I don't think that Hannibal came as close as a lot of people think. I would like to givemy opinion on what I believe are some possible misconceptions of the war. Theseare my opinions only, and I do realize that Livy was not present to see eventsin real time. Also, let me admit that I am entirely pro-Roman.
A) Hannibal "missed his chance" my not marching on Rome after Cannae.
Livy himself states as much repeatedly throughout thenarrative, and of course there is Gisco's famous reprimand. But the truth is,throughout the narrative, Hannibal struggles mightily with sieges, and I seen o evidence that he could have take taken Rome. Indeed, he does eventually does march on Rome and is, after some initial panic, ignored and has to go away.
After the siege ofSarguntum, which itself went fairly poorly, Hannibal never again obtains a classic Roman style breakthrough in a major siege (that I remember). Instead, thecities that he captured he did so though secret negotiation with an insider orblockage to starve the enemy out. Often he fails outright or abandons theproject, often bleeding himself or time, troops and resources in the project.
Saguntum- 219-218 The second Punic war almost didnot happen. The Siege of the Spanish city Sarguntum, though concaved byHannibal as the start of the war, was not the immediate and complete successthat he had hoped would announce his intentions to Rome. Instead, it carried onfor eight months and caused him a severe thigh wound.
Placentia 217 Sempronius, loser at Trebia, is able to partially redeem himself by drivingHannibal off of Placentia.
Nola- 216 Hannibal chased from Nola by Marcellus.
Capua 216 Hannibal's most important defection, it is a pure defection and there is no siege.
Casilinum - 216 Despite the use of elephants and appeals veterans of Trebia, Tresemine and Cannae, Hannibal could not take if by force in 216. Indeed, the Romans sally out to inflict a defeat. Hannibal retired for the winter and came back next the season to starve them out.
Nuceria- 216 Fails to take it by force several times, andhas to starve it out.
]Cumae-- 215 Hannibal failed to take Cumae from Gracchus with heavy losses.
Second Nola-215 Hannibal is again chased from Nola by Marcellus.
Third Nola - 214 Hannibal fails a third time to take the city from Marcellus.
Rhegium- 215 Hannibal fails to take it with "several days wasted."
Puteoli- 214 Hannibal abjectly fails to take town
Tarentum 212 Takes the city through a deal but cannot dislodge the Romans from the citadel
Rome 211 Hannibal marches on Rome, accomplishes nothing and gives up. Legendarily, hecomes to know that the property he is camped on his sold at a good price.
Capua 211 Hannibal cannot even break contravallation line of the Romans.
Placentia 207 Hasdrubal makes second failed attempt. Hannibal personally laments his difficulties in the town and his difficulties withsieges in general.
Conclusion- Hannibalhad no great ability at sieges, and unless he could have found a roman traitorto give up part of the wall, I see no evidence that he could have taken Romeany easier in 216 than in 211. Nor do Ithink that he could have starved them out as there were still forces in the field that were ableto be conjured pretty quickly, and Marcellus was out there, who gave Hannibal several bloody noses before being killed in an ambush.
B) Cartage foolishly failed to re-enforce Hannibal, and he might have onebut for lack of troops.
Hannibal himself seems responsible for this myth as, when recalled to defend Carthage from Scipio, he laments not being re-enforced properly. In my opinion,this is pure crying one Hannibal's part.
1) Hannibal is re-enforced by Carthage at the highest and lowest points of the war., both after Cannae, and twice in 214, when things are crashing down in Spain. The reason Hannibal does not benefit from these forces is that Rome does a superior job of cutting them off in Spain.
2) Carthage, unlike Rome, has no standing army, and can only supply so much in the way of mercenaries and money. What Hannibal is really lamenting (whether he knew it or not) is that Cartage has no system for creating soldiers like Rome
3) Hannibal had no end of re-enforcement. The Spanish and Gauls seemed to give him no end of troops. The Italian traitors and Liguarians also re-enforced him. He had a a real ally in Phillip of Madedon who both fought the Romans directly and provided quality phalangites, and a virtual ally in the Boii who. though not technically allied, inflicted a disaster on Rome when they least afford it. King Syphax both supplied Carthage and fought against Rome until the biter end.
4) Hannibal's real end seems to come when Claudius Nerobreaks orders to march against and destroy Hasdrubal as he marches into Italy.These kinds of insightful Roman efforts by Nero and the Scipio's to activelydeny Hannibal re-enforcements cannot be ignored.
Conclusion- Hannibal had no end of troops. It was, as noted above, his lack of ability to use themeffectively in a siege that beat him.
C) Hannibal only lost to Scipio because he could not obtain cavalry superiority
Wrong on several levels.
1) The Romans has long ago worked out a dragoon system toget massive infantry support in the cavalry battles. After 211, when Centurion Quintus Navius develops the tactic of light infantry riding piggypack and dismounting tosupport the cavalry, there is a viable tactic in place for dealing with cavalry superiority.
2) Scipio develops his own tactics to train as much cavalry as he likes, allowing allied cavalry to opt out as long as they give up their equipment and agree to train a Roman infantryman. This along with his activecourting of Numidian kinds, shows tha the was actively trying to obtain that superiority.
3) Hannibal, by contrasts seems at times unaware that his success is due to cavalry. He absurdly uses them as garrison troops, for which they are unfit, and Livy is able to call the day in 210, when, after killing 500 of them thus squandered at Salaphia, Cartage loses cavalry superiority for good.
4) All of that being said, with a little more patience andforethought, Hannibal could have had several thousand more cavalry..andinfantry, to work with. Syphax's son was still an active ally, and shortly afterZama, fought a truly disastrous battle of his own. Did Hannibal even bother to reach out of his ally? There are only two conclusions we can make: eitherHannibal just did not realize that he needed more cavalry, or he was a beatenman who no longer cared.
Conclusion- The cause of Hannibal's inferiority in cavalry was Hannibal. Whiles Rome did everythingto cultivate a superior cavalry, Hannibal allowed his arm of decision to fallin disrepair. In these circumstances, Hannibal's lack of cavalry is not anexcuse for his failure.
UBERCONCLUSION- Hannibal could not have won. He had no plan to or ability fortaking Rome, and the war would not have ended any other way. As the war grewon, he grew less interested, especially after the destruction of his brother.He was a beaten man years before it ended.
Last edited by cachibatches; 09-29-2014 at 03:23 AM..
Re: '....Hannibal didn't come as close as a lot of people think'....
You know perhaps in absolutely crushing and destroying the Roman state that I think is absolutely correct. But, in another sense, if perhaps a little luck came his way some tables could have been turned and he would have had Rome instead suing and negotiating terms for a peace between the two great powers. As it was, he did come away with decent peace terms from Scipio after Zama. Rome with Hannibal's defeat could now refrain from that anguishing lament when he'd be seen with his army just outside an Italian town, 'Hannibal ad portas! Hannibal ad portas!'....'Hannibal at the gates!!!' At times it has to be said Rome just squeaked by in those what 16 years Hannibal was roaming around the countryside.
In retrospect I've always thought Hannibal's indelible and furious hatred of Rome superseded everything that encompassed his approach to the Roman state. He was a man hell-bent on simply destroying her power in the Mediterranean. Political questions appeared to be way in the background and not on his agenda since arguably he only wanted military solutions. Unfortunately, the result of his foray into Italy has to be seen say as an incomplete and, at its end, a failed Carthaginian foreign policy.
All in all Carthage could have done well in pairing him with someone able to deal with the state political ramifications when conducting military campaigns. But really that could have been difficult as well since the Carthaginian 'parliament' had trouble dealing with Hannibal who was one of the most powerful and charismatic personalities of the ancient world. Really after Zama Roman spits were continually on fire celebrating a 'close run thing'...;-)...
Hannibal was not "economic", and Carthage was above all an economic power...
He could have taken Rome, but knowing Romans that would have been worse...
He was just a too cultured person to be capable of doing to Rome what Rome did to Carthage.
Hannibal was not "economic", and Carthage was above all an economic power...
He could have taken Rome, but knowing Romans that would have been worse...
He was just a too cultured person to be capable of doing to Rome what Rome did to Carthage.
That is where we disagree...based on Hannibal's record during sieges, including his belated siege of Rome, I do not think that he could have taken her.
As for why he was able to obtain a good peace with Scipio, I was very disappointed to find out that it was because the elections were coming, a couple of guys were lobbying to get Africa as their assignment, and Scipio was worried that his glory would be stolen.
According to Romans, he could have taken Rome....but that would amount to kicking a wasp hive. Rome was decentralized enough to withstand the blow....plus, he would have had to deploy lots of troops to control Rome...and pillage....
Hannibal did not like pillage, sackings, killing innocent people, he just wanted to teach Rome a lesson, not destroy Rome.
The Roman Empire could have been beaten by Hannibal.
Hannibal made a strategic error is assuming that more of the other Italian tribes would turn on Rome. While some areas did break from Rome and support Hannibal, most remained loyal to Rome. If Hannibal had been able to bring more areas of Italy over to his cause, he would had more access to local resources and potentially reinforcements, while depriving Rome of the same.
According to Romans, he could have taken Rome....but that would amount to kicking a wasp hive. Rome was decentralized enough to withstand the blow....plus, he would have had to deploy lots of troops to control Rome...and pillage.....
A) Overstated. Livy says that Hannibal "missed his chance." Not that it was s certain thing, only that he would have had a chance.
B) As I have carefully delineated, Livy is probably incorrect, since after the costly and grinding siege of Sarguntum, Hannibal never again achieves a classic breakthrough. If he could nto break through at Nola or Cassilinum, he certainly could not have broken through at Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miserere
Hannibal did not like pillage, sackings, killing innocent people, he just wanted to teach Rome a lesson, not destroy Rome.
Given the massive devastation he is documented to have committed against the countryside, I would re-consider this. Hannibal was ruthless, and would take friendship or devastation as it was most efficient to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
