Hannibal after cannae

Many people think Hannibal should have marched on Rome after cannae. They say this proved hannibal did not know how to use a victory. This is false. He knew what he was doing. He was 250 miles from Rome. Rome still had a size able garrison, and could repulse any attack made by hannibal. A siege was not practical due to lack of supply for Hannibal to stay in one place for a prolonged time. Plus the other roman forces would doubtless try to break the siege and bring in supplies. The question is though, would the Romans still be willing to fight after Hannibal moved towards Rome at their greatest moment of weakness(in 211 Rome was back on her feet) or would she sue for peace. That is one of the biggest unanswered questions in history.


It is important to remember that hannibals goal was not to destroy Rome . He never had any intention to destroy Rome as an independent state, just to humiliate her and regain carthages lost prestige and to remove the restrictions Rome set on her. His moves after cannae were good in their own right, as most of Italy, even campania defected to him, and his manpower and supply problems were gone. However, by this time the Romans regained their strength at an amazingly rapid pace, to the point where they destroyed his newfound allies one by one.


The biggest question is, would the Romans have fought had Hannibal shown himself outside the eternal city after cannae in 216

One of Hannibal's advisors said to him, "you may know how to win a battle but you don't know how to win a war". Hannibal didn't have any equipment to take the city, but the plan wasn't to siege the city. The advisor reasoned that if Hannibal marched on Rome the city would simply surrender. While the chance of success probably wan't that high it was much better than what Hannibal was doing.

The story of hannibals advisors telling him that is most likely false. The story also included the advisor saying that they cold reach Rome in 5 days which not even the cavalry could do. It was only mentioned by Livy, who is unreliable at best. IMO the Romans would not have surrendered. Pyrrhus had the same problem with rome being too stubborn. Hannibal did send people to negotiate peace terms after cannae and the Romans refused to see them. I think hannibals greatest chance was taking the port at tarentum from which he could get men and supplies from Carthage.

Rome most likely would have fought. I mean, no self respecting Roman would allow Carthaginians to sack the capital without putting up at least some kind of defense.

I agree with sly, because:
1) Hannibal didn't have the siege equipment
2) He was in an enemy territory in which his enemy could quickly rebuild their armies and resupply, thus threatening any siege
However, look at what happened anyway, with Hannibal not marching on Rome. Hannibal lost. Another thing about waiting out was Hannibal had to live off the land, a tactic which was being fought by Fabius Maximus. Rome had the massive naval advantage. Expecting supplies from Carthage via sea was hoping for a lot.

Ultimately when overlooking Hannibal's campaign he almost no chance of victory. While he may have been able to score victories in Italy there were a lot of other factors that didn't go in Hannibals favor. There was spain where the Romans enjoyed much success, with a few setbacks, and even if Hannibal managed to get a port for supplies from Carthage the Romans still have the larger navy and can easily sink any supply ships from reaching Italy. Then there was the manpower which the Romans had a much larger pool as compared to Hannibal who was reliant on mercenaries, which isn't good in the longrun.

Hannibal's army was just to small. You need a lot of men to take a city like Rome. The only chance of victory the Carthaginians had was the combination of Hannibal's army and the one of his brother. But he got slaughtered in the Alps so at that moment victory was impossible.

Not to mention quite a large portion of Hannibal's army consisted of local German mercenaries with very shaky loyalty.

I think that even if Rome was sacked the Romans still wouldn't surrender.

Most of his forces were Gauls from the ciscalpine region, who showed that they had immense loyalty to Hannibal. Even when hannibal was at his weakest point, he suffered very few desertions.

Most of his army was not mercenaries but Gauls from the ciscalpine region who willingly joined him, levies from his conquests in Spain, Italian allies who defected to him, and libyan and numidians.

The idea was never to sack rome. It is that of he showed up outside Rome would the Ronan's due for peace. He never wanted to destroy Rome as an independent state just regain carthages power and glory and remove the restrictions placed on her. Rhe debate narrowly passed a referendum to not seek peace with hannibals emissaries he sent to Rome after cabbage and it remains a mystery if they might have had he shown himself outside Rome right after cannae. Carthage had did that after the defeat at Zama when scipio threatened the city itself in 204.

At best Carthage gets back Corsica, Sardina, and and keep their Spainish colonies but I don't see Rome being conquered or giving up Sicily

That's really all Hannibal wanted. And at that point I think the suracusans might have declared support for Carthage and revolted on their own accord like Sardinia did after the first punic war.

Well Sicily actually did revolt during the second punic war but all that did was solidify Roman control of the island

Yeah but if it revolted simultanously with Hannibal approaching on rome, it might have convinced the Romans to sue for peace.

I don't think Rome would have given up without a fight. There's just no way.

It certainly would be interesting to see how the Mediterranean world would be if Rome and Carthage had been forced to co-exist

That is absolutely false. Rome was prepared to give Apulia to Carthage and Sardinia and Sciliy.

Again false. Carthage's leaders sent troops to Northern Italy which were commanded by Hanno (Hannibal's brother or was it Hasdrubal) which were easily cut down by the Romans.

why didn't they

The Romans were not prepared to give the Carthaginians dogcrap. Hannibal sent one of his subordinates to Rome to negotiate peace and the Romans refused to let him in, according to polybius who is virtually our only reliable source.

Rome DID have a massive naval advantage. In the first pubic war the Romans gained complete mastery of the seas. The Carthaginians were never Able to regain that dominance or anywhere close to it.

Thanks for giving me something to post out of context!!!