Should Hannibal have invaded Italy?

[ray245]

From what I can understand about the second Punic war( which is still relatively little), the odds are severely stacked against Hannibal.

To say that Hannibal should be able to win the war if he simply developed the will to siege Rome seems like an extremely naive view towards the whole issue.

Even after Cannae, Rome still have a few of its legions campaigning in Spain and fighting against Carthagian forces down there while the Carthaginian senate is still unwillingly to throw their full support behind Hannibal.

However, the question I am asking is, it is better for Hannibal to remain in Iberia and continue to secure that region for Carthage, or is it better for him to make a move towards Italy?

Is it really necessary for Hannibal to make a move and take the initiative before the Romans managed to make further gains into Iberia?


~edited to fix grammar mistake in thread title - Thanas.

[Knife]

Hmmm, should he have?

Yes.

Doesn't mean he did the bet he could have or should have while there. Even then, it is not like it went according to plan for him there any ways. He defeated the Romans and figured they'd surrender, but they did not. That was his strategic blunder.

All and all, though, it did two things. Kept a lot of focus on the Italian peninsula and probably bottled up a lot of Romans following his army around that were not in North Africa as a result. Two, it really pissed the Romans off, resulting in their... final solution at the end of the war.

Carthage would have probably still lost the war, and sooner, if Hannibal hadn't invaded Italy, but then again Rome may not have gone bat shit nuts and razed Carthage to the ground and salted the earth either at the end of the war. So, Hannibal did a good campaign in that it was a huge raid behind enemy lines, distracting and harassing the enemy. He did it so well, it changed the attitude of the enemy. Unfortunately, the enemy just was able to organize more and raise more troops to smash the enemy.

[TC Pilot]

However, the question I am asking is, it is better for Hannibal to remain in Iberia and continue to secure that region for Carthage, or is it better for him to make a move towards Italy?

Is it really necessary for Hannibal to make a move and take the initiative before the Romans managed to make further gains into Iberia?

Attacking Italy is certainly a better option than just sitting in Iberia, as there's at least the chance of scoring a decisive victory, whereas remaining in Iberia forfeits the initiative to the Romans, who could attack North Africa just as easily as Iberia.

Two, it really pissed the Romans off, resulting in their... final solution at the end of the war.

That's the Third Punic War, not the second.

[Serafina]

Seeing that the romans razed Carthage afterwards, it propably wasn't a very good idea - i guess they would not have done so without Hannibals invasion of Italy.

But other than that, the invasion was a pretty smart move.

[TC Pilot]

Seeing that the romans razed Carthage afterwards

Wrong war.

[Serafina]

Seeing that the romans razed Carthage afterwards

Wrong war.

Certainly. But wasn't the second punic war the one that tought the romans "total war"? Which then lead to the total destruction of Carthage?
At least thats the way i recall it - its just school knowledge, so i could be totally wrong.

[Straha]

Yes, Hannibal should have invaded Italy. Hannibal realized that the Roman confederation of cities was not as strong as it appeared, especially not in the South, and that if he invaded he could split cities from Rome. This would 1) deprive Rome of desperately needed manpower 2) provide Hannibal with allies in his fight against Rome and 3) give Rome a much more immediate problem than Iberia, Sicily or Carthage.

On the whole, the plan worked very well for Hannibal, but he never quite got the manpower necessary to finally overwhelm Rome. And that was his own fault because he crossed the Alps in the Winter and lost half his army in the process.

[TC Pilot]

Certainly. But wasn't the second punic war the one that tought the romans "total war"? Which then lead to the total destruction of Carthage?
At least thats the way i recall it - its just school knowledge, so i could be totally wrong.

No. What taught the Romans "total war" was the precedent of centuries of warfare. Razing cities, massacring the inhabitants, making an example of people, that's all standard practice in the ancient world. Aeneas was Trojan, remember?

[lord Martiya]

In the war, the only choice for Hannibal was attacking first with his army.
If he hadn't taken the initiative, sooner or later Rome would have found some reason to start the war and get rid of Hannibal (the Romans had even prepared a casus belli allying themselves with Saguntum, a city south of the river Ebro, when their treaty forbade the Carthaginians to expand north of Ebro so long Rome didn't expand south of the river. Hannibal reacted besieging and conquering Saguntum), attack and bottling his army in Hiberia and then attacking, and probably conquering, Carthage.
Doing as he did, he not only prevented the Romans from doing so but had nearly broken their hegemony on Italy, effectively claiming as allies the Gauls of Northern Italy, most of the Greek cities and the Samnites (who had nearly destroyed the Roman power less than one century earlier).
Had him managed to completely isolate the Romans or received some reinforcement, he could have attacked Rome with good chance of success.
But Carthage didn't sent reinforcements, the remaining peoples of Italy fought for Rome and the last army of Carthage in Spain was destroyed before it could join him, so when he bluffed an attack on Rome the Senate auctioned the land where he camped, and in the meantime the Roman armies stripped him of all of his allies.

[montypython]

Could the Carthaginians have managed to conquer Rome if they gave Hannibal the reinforcements he needed? Or would that not be enough to make the difference?

[Samuel]

Could the Carthaginians have managed to conquer Rome if they gave Hannibal the reinforcements he needed? Or would that not be enough to make the difference?

How would they send reinforcements? The Romans controlled the seas and when Hasdrubal tried overland they killed him.

[Marcus Aurelius]

How would they send reinforcements? The Romans controlled the seas and when Hasdrubal tried overland they killed him.

This brings us nicely to the strategic reason of the Carthagenian defeat in the Punic wars: after they lost the control of seas to the Romans during the first Punic War, they had very little hope of defeating Rome on their own. Hannibal came so close only because he was such an exceptionally good general.

[lord Martiya]

Could the Carthaginians have managed to conquer Rome if they gave Hannibal the reinforcements he needed? Or would that not be enough to make the difference?

IF they did and the reinforcements managed to join him. That or the Etruscans, the Umbri and the various peoples of the ancient Latium joined him, leaving Rome open and defenceless. Sadly for Hannibal, the nations surrounding Rome remained faithful to the Romans, and that was enough to enable them to recover from all the defeats against Hannibal.

[atg]

Could the Carthaginians have managed to conquer Rome if they gave Hannibal the reinforcements he needed? Or would that not be enough to make the difference?

How would they send reinforcements? The Romans controlled the seas and when Hasdrubal tried overland they killed him.

IIRC reinforcements did make it to Hannibal via the sea - just not enough to make a difference.

[Stark]

Why did Hannibal's politics fail? I'm not well informed on his political moves, but did he lay any groundwork of defection before he started out? Did he woo the cities? People often talk about him marching around winning battles, but it was all meaningless unless he could bust out backroom deals and he couldn't. Why not?

[TC Pilot]

Why did Hannibal's politics fail? I'm not well informed on his political moves, but did he lay any groundwork of defection before he started out? Did he woo the cities? People often talk about him marching around winning battles, but it was all meaningless unless he could bust out backroom deals and he couldn't. Why not?

The problem is that, despite all of Hannibal's victories, Rome still had a military with which to fight. Combined with centuries of cultivating relations with provincial elites, be it through intermarriage, enfranchisement, trade, or assimilation, there's still the threat of the righteous fury of the Roman legion to take into account. Think of the geographic situation. Would you, the leader of an Italian city, rather risk being in Carthage's bad graces, or Rome's?

That aside, several cities, particularly in the south, which was still very heavily Greek, did go over to the Carthaginians. But Hannibal hesitated after Cannae; taking Rome is an all-or-nothing thing for Hannibal, and it would hardly have been a cake-walk. That allowed Rome the time to recover from the disasterous results of the battle, meaning that if any more cities revolted, even if they wanted to, they did so at their own peril. I think the better question for the title of this thead is, should Hannibal have attacked Rome after Cannae?

[Samuel]

Yes. As long as Rome stood, he couldn't win. Not to mention that gaining allies isn't worth much if Rome can sack them when your back is turned- with one army you cannot be everywhere.

[Stark]

That was always the impression I had; after he missed his opportunity he tooled around basically achieving nothing. If his only chance of real victory was to defeat Rome directly, he should have at least cooked up a plan to do so, even if he didn't feel equal to it with the resources he had.

Again, if he realised this beforehand, he really should have prepared for more defections (or at least had an idea of the political situation) before he set out. If he was surprised by the lack of support in central Italy, he was either misled by politicians or fucking stupid.

[Bilbo]

Hannibal had no chance at all to seige Rome. The city was too large and Hannibal had no real seige forces with him. The cities he took in the south of Italy were generally gained through subversion. He would find some way to get the gates open from the inside.

If Hannibal had attempted to seige Rome he would have had to spread his forces very thinly. He would have risked his army being destroyed piecemeal by sallying Roman forces.

In the end it all came down to the simple fact that no matter what Hannibal did he could not convince enough people in Italy that he could defeat Rome. The few cities that he did take in one manner or another quickly learned that Hannibal could not defend them from reprisal by Rome. Also one has to note that even though Hannibal was able to survive Italy, for the last several years he was there he was constantly forced to retire his army to southern Italy.

[Stark]

Shouldn't he have known this before he set out? He can be the best general ever, but if he counted on something happening without engaging in peninsula-wide intruige to try to get people over the fence he just wasted his time.

[ray245]

That was always the impression I had; after he missed his opportunity he tooled around basically achieving nothing. If his only chance of real victory was to defeat Rome directly, he should have at least cooked up a plan to do so, even if he didn't feel equal to it with the resources he had.

Again, if he realised this beforehand, he really should have prepared for more defections (or at least had an idea of the political situation) before he set out. If he was surprised by the lack of support in central Italy, he was either misled by politicians or fucking stupid.

Even if the cities defected, they are simply replacing one overlord for a new overlord. I fail to see what did Hannibal has to offer that would make it so attractive for those city states to give up their allegiance with Rome, and give their allegiance to Carthage.

From what I've read, it seems that Hannibal has even less stuff to offer than Rome. I mean on one hand, Rome did give the its allies the rule of law, whereas Hannibal couldn't offer anything except for a change in their overlords.

[Serafina]

Shouldn't he have known this before he set out? He can be the best general ever, but if he counted on something happening without engaging in peninsula-wide intruige to try to get people over the fence he just wasted his time.

I think he wanted to beat the romans in the field, gaining victory by demoralizing them and utilizing diplomacy.
That's propably the reason why he hesitated after Cannae - after such a crushing victory, he waited for roman morale to collapse - which did not happen. Which propably left him without a real plan to conquer rome. And attempting such a difficult task without a real plan will make every smart person hesistate.

[Thanas]

No. What taught the Romans "total war" was the precedent of centuries of warfare. Razing cities, massacring the inhabitants, making an example of people, that's all standard practice in the ancient world. Aeneas was Trojan, remember?

According to legend.

That was always the impression I had; after he missed his opportunity he tooled around basically achieving nothing. If his only chance of real victory was to defeat Rome directly, he should have at least cooked up a plan to do so, even if he didn't feel equal to it with the resources he had.

Again, if he realised this beforehand, he really should have prepared for more defections (or at least had an idea of the political situation) before he set out. If he was surprised by the lack of support in central Italy, he was either misled by politicians or fucking stupid.

There is one crucial point missing in here - Hannibal almost succeded. Cannae is the worst point in roman history before 410AD. Had it not been for Cunctator, the senate might have made peace and Carthage would have been able to consolidate their gains on the Iberian peninsula.

His campaigns in the rest of Italy often get ignored because they "amounted to nothing". That is not true. Hannibal defeated roman army after roman army and took a lot of cities, therefore depriving the romans of a large portion of their military strength. In fact, the italian campaign after Cannae is where Hannibal really shines IMO - because although being quite outnumbered, he still managed to defeat many roman armies.

Shouldn't he have known this before he set out? He can be the best general ever, but if he counted on something happening without engaging in peninsula-wide intruige to try to get people over the fence he just wasted his time.

He engaged in widespread diplomacy and after Cannae, it did work for some time. The problem was that every other Carthaginean army failed. Syracuse, the third power on Sicily, was effectively neutralized. Carthaginean armies in Sicily and in Spain sucked up roman forces, but could not defeat them in the end.

The few cities that he did take in one manner or another quickly learned that Hannibal could not defend them from reprisal by Rome. Also one has to note that even though Hannibal was able to survive Italy, for the last several years he was there he was constantly forced to retire his army to southern Italy.

Which is not really that forced a decision considering it is the smart thing to do, for it brings him closer to cordoning of Sicily and finding allies within the greek cities of the peninsula.



As for whether he should have stayed in Spain, that would have achieved little compared to what he managed to do in Italy. It would have left Rome's center of power completely untouched, thereby allowing them the luxury to dictate the terms of engagement. Carthaginean politics also play a large role here - Hannibal sought to gain glory and prominence, which one generally does not manage to achieve by waging a defensive war.

[TC Pilot]

According to legend.

True, but that's not the point. Whether or not Aeneas existed, or whether or not even Troy existed, the Trojan War and its result would have been something the Romans would have been very familiar with.

[Thanas]

^That is a fair point. However, there are far better real-life examples. Alexander and his massacre of Thebes, or the devestation of Rome by the gauls, the samnite wars.... really, any of these are far better and closer examples. I do not think there is anything in ancient warfare that is not a "total" war. The distinction between soldiers and civilians only arrive in the Imperial times and only fully come to prominence during the cabinet wars of the 18th century.

As far as I can see, the more resistance an enemy offered, the greater the havoc wrecked on them seems to be an accurate rule of thumb for all people of that era.