Why did Hannibal chose the Alps using a northern route?

[Dromikaites]

We know that Hannibal chose to avoid the Roman consular army of Publius Cornelius Scipio and crossed the Alps most likely through the pass Mont Genevre. He had more troops to fight Scipio then than at Cannae (when he faced 2 Consular armies, at double strenght, which was 4 times more people than Scipio had in Gaul).

Why do you think he chose the Mont Genevre route instead of following the easier one, by the Mediteranean sea (Nice, San Remo)?

[PatWest]

I would think it was to avoid the Roman Army in the passes all together. His advantage would be lost in the tight confines and elevations of a pass. To properly use cavalry and elephants requires more open and level ground. Fighting in the mountain passes would greatly favor heavy infantry which is of course the Romans strong suit.

[Turnus]

Possibly for a greater element of suprise and to avoid Roman reinforcements along the coast, although his crossing of the Alps further inland and not using the pass across the Maritime Alps was a huge stategical error on Hannibal's part, losing 36,000 men and many horses, pack-animals, and elephants (compare this to Hasdrubal's swift crossing of the Alps, which was probably via the Maritime route), and allowing Scipio to send a large force to Spain (instead of crushing him completely and allowing a proper consolidation of a Carthaginian Spain).

[VandalCarthage]

I'd say it was because he knew a peace with Rome could only be negotiated at the gates of Rome, and likely felt that restricting his forces to land would allow him to bypass the traditional necessities of conquest: holding strategic routes and cities, which would have meant engaging the legions in Sicily, garrisoning it, and continuing on doing the same upward. He also probably felt that engaging from the North would put Italy into a pincer, himself, the Gauls and the Macedons sweeping down from the North, and his reinforcements attacking in the South with the aid of Hiero/Hieronymus in Syracuse.

[Turnus]

I'd say it was because he knew a peace with Rome could only be negotiated at the gates of Rome, and likely felt that restricting his forces to land would allow him to bypass the traditional necessities of conquest: holding strategic routes and cities, which would have meant engaging the legions in Sicily, garrisoning it, and continuing on doing the same upward. He also probably felt that engaging from the North would put Italy into a pincer, himself, the Gauls and the Macedons sweeping down from the North, and his reinforcements attacking in the South with the aid of Hiero/Hieronymus in Syracuse.

I think the question is more "Why did Hannibal cross the Alps using an inland pass rather than that across the Maritime Alps?" than simply "Why did Hannibal march across the Alps?"

[MoROmeTe]

You can find some very interesting ideas about all of the Punic Wars here www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/and you will find, in there somewhere, why he crossed the Alps where he did. I know I did a while ago...

[Son of the Empire]

Hannibal had a special gift, which consisted of attacking the enemy when/where they least expected it,, And Rome alsp had a greater navy power than Carthage at the time Hannibal unleashed his campain towards Italy. In other words, he didn't take the chance of beeing sunk by the romans on his way to Italy,, another reason is that the Barcas owned regions in southern Spain, Nova Carthage or Carthegena, which assured him of getting reinforsments before the critical part if the campain.

Hannibal knew that the romans were strong at the sea, and therefore avoided it, in short...smart huh!

If you want more information, just ask,,

[VandalCarthage]

I think the question is more "Why did Hannibal cross the Alps using an inland pass rather than that across the Maritime Alps?" than simply "Why did Hannibal march across the Alps?"

Futz, you're right Embarassing.

Well, the reason he probably took the Northerly route was to avoid armies in the South, and the city of Massila in particular, which Carthage had fought a brief war with some time ago.

[Shawkhan]

...The only reason I can think of for Hannibal refusing battle to the Romans at Massilia is that he didn't want to spend the winter in Gaul. The delay of even a few more weeks would have made it impossible to cross the Alps due to weather. As it is he lost close to half his army in the mountains, mostly due to the treachery of the Gauls.
...In retrospect, he might have been better off if he spent more time in Gaul anyway, gathering supplies and Gallic allies. This may well have been a crucial mistake on his part.

[Dromikaites]

...The only reason I can think of for Hannibal refusing battle to the Romans at Massilia is that he didn't want to spend the winter in Gaul. The delay of even a few more weeks would have made it impossible to cross the Alps due to weather. As it is he lost close to half his army in the mountains, mostly due to the treachery of the Gauls.
...In retrospect, he might have been better off if he spent more time in Gaul anyway, gathering supplies and Gallic allies. This may well have been a crucial mistake on his part.

Well, he could have tried to follow the Maritime Alps route (Nice - San Remo) after defeating the Romans, then move to the Po river valley, like Napoleon Bonaparte did in his first Italian campaign.

Crossing the Alps through the pass Mont Genevre puzzles me also because his brother Hasdrubal made the same choice. Hannibal for sure wasn't stupid. So there is something that we fail to understand till now, which would explain the choice made by both of the Barca brothers. Probably there was something so evident at that time that Polybius didn't think it was worth mentioning in his book. So it is up to us now to find out what it was. This is why I initiated this thread: combine our knowledge and ideas and discover what has really happened.

[Slaxx Hatmen]

We know that Hannibal chose to avoid the Roman consular army of Publius Cornelius Scipio and crossed the Alps most likely through the pass Mont Genevre.

Its' called the Shipka pass man.

[VandalCarthage]

Mont Genevre was one of the four operable routes at the time celt, and I believe the one he took, though there is some controversy between Livy and Polybius - Polybius being the more reliable of the two.

...The only reason I can think of for Hannibal refusing battle to the Romans at Massilia is that he didn't want to spend the winter in Gaul. The delay of even a few more weeks would have made it impossible to cross the Alps due to weather. As it is he lost close to half his army in the mountains, mostly due to the treachery of the Gauls.

Fighting the Romans there was too great a risk, as his men would have been drastically reduced before the end of winter, and a loss to the Romans would have irrevocably hindered his cause with the gauls there.

[Turnus]

Crossing the Alps through the pass Mont Genevre puzzles me also because his brother Hasdrubal made the same choice.

Not necessarily. Both Hannibal and the Romans were surprised by the speed that Hasdrubal had crossed the Alps (with no large loss of his army as in his brother's case), the former, of course, having actually done so himself. Livy's explanation for this is rather ridiculous (that Hannibal's crossing, about ten years earlier, had made the Alpine paths easier to traverse), and it is much more likely that he used a different, more efficient, pass through the Alps (and his conscription of Ligurians for his army suggests that across the Maritime Alps).

Hannibal for sure wasn't stupid.

I suppose not, from the evidence, but Sempronius, Flaminius, Minucius, Varro, and Fulvius were not particularly 'stupid' either (as they held positions of authority). I don't see how it is impossible for this particular crossing of the Alps to be a huge mistake by Hannibal, or is it that, even if there is evidence to suggest otherwise, we must forever see this failed general as some sort of military genius, greater than all others in the Second Punic War (and by some, of all time), and therefore make excuses for his errors?

[Erik]

I think the awnser is that Hannibal wanted Italian Gauls to join his army before he attacked the Romans.
The goal of his campaign was to trigger a revolt against the Romans on the Italian peninsula, he didn't think he could face the Romans alone.
Many people hated the Romans but not many dared to attack them.
His plan was to unite everybody who hated the Romans and attack them together.

He avoided the Roman army in "France", why would he walk straight into them by taking the coastal route?
This would not make any sense because it would be harder to face the Romans on their own terrain, especially since they were waiting for him and he didn't know the terrain.

So he took a route that would catch the Romans off-guard.
By doing so he suffered some losses but probably not as many as he would by facing the dugged-in Romans.
And it allowed him to recruit more allies.
And when he did face the Romans he could choose the terrain, and we all know what happened next....

After recruiting additional men among the friendly Insubres, a Gallic people of northern Italy, to compensate for the loss of about 15,000 men during the long march, Hannibal subjugated the Taurini, a tribe hostile to the Insubres. He then forced into alliance with himself all the Ligurian and Celtic tribes on the upper course of the Po River. His troop strength was raised to about 40,000.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

[Son of the Empire]

Damn,, I actually read the question wrong,, that has to be new record...

Anyways,, the reason Hannibal took the northern route instead of the southern could be in fear of an Roman sea-assault,, either directly on him, or behind his line. This could mean that his supply line/wagon was destroyed, or even worst, he was pinned between two roman armies. He also allied with many Gaul tribes and mountain tribes when he took the nothern route, if this were luck or intensional, there is no source on...

[Turnus]

I think the awnser is that Hannibal wanted Italian Gauls to join his army before he attacked the Romans.

He would have had to pass through Cisalpine Gaul even if he took the pass across the Maritime Alps, and a defeat of the Romans before he arrived there would have been even greater inspiration for the Gauls to side with him.

He avoided the Roman army in "France", why would he walk straight into them by taking the coastal route?

So that he could crush the army (which was less than half the size of his) and prevent the Romans from marching straight into Spain, not to mention he would have most likely have had less losses crossing the shorter, Maritime, route.

By doing so he suffered some losses but probably not as many as he would by facing the dugged-in Romans.

You think he would have lost more than 36,000 men (a reliable number of those lost in the Alps as it supposedly comes from Hannibal himself) fighting an army of around 25,000 (against his 59,000)? Judging from his early battles in Italy, this is extremely difficult to imagine.

And it allowed him to recruit more allies.

As I said, arriving in Cisalpine Gaul with already a victory against the Romans would allow this even more than his historical strategy.

[Dromikaites]

Damn,, I actually read the question wrong,, that has to be new record...

Anyways,, the reason Hannibal took the northern route instead of the southern could be in fear of an Roman sea-assault,, either directly on him, or behind his line. This could mean that his supply line/wagon was destroyed, or even worst, he was pinned between two roman armies. He also allied with many Gaul tribes and mountain tribes when he took the nothern route, if this were luck or intensional, there is no source on...

At Canae Hannibal had less people than before crossing the Alps and he defeated two consular armies at double strenght. Near Massalia he would have had to fight only one consular army. A consular army was made of 2 legions of 4,200 men each plus an equal number of Roman allies. So near Massalia/Marseille he had about 50,000 against 16,800 enemy troops while at Cannae some 38,000 Carthaginians defeated 67,200 Romans (beacuse each of the consular armies had twice as much soldiers than the norm).
What I want to say for now is that Hannibal at Massalia had enough troops to beat the Romans, so there seems to be no need to avoid them.

Now let's assume something very plausible, that is Hannibal knew he had the Romans in front of him but didn't know if there was one or both consular armies. Either case, he still had enough troops to defeat them. Destroying both consular armies near Massalia would have left Rome in a very dificult position. Of course the Romans would have still enough resources left but:
1) The news of Hannibal's victory would have reached Cisalpine Gaul and the Italian allies of Rome at a moment when Rome was quite vulnerable, deprived of any substantial troops, as it would have been. So a victory near Massalia would have been extremly important politically, as Turnus had already pointed out.
2) The Maritime Alps route would have been much safer than Mont Genevre: the territory had been already "pacified" by Rome, so it would have been more likely that the Gaulish tribes join Hannibal instead of resisting his advance. And after crushing 2 armies, the Romans would not have had the time to raise new troops to block his way.
The logical conclusion seem to be Hannibal should have engaged the Romans and continue via the Maritime Alps.

Another possibility was that suggested by Son of the Empire: Hannibal did't want to be caught between 2 Roman armies. Indeed, avoiding Publius Cornelius Scipio and heading for the Maritime Alps would have been risky. But Hannibal had enough troops to defeat Scipio before taking the shoreline route. Let's see how strong oposition he could have met after defeating Scipio.
We know that at the time Tiberius Sempronius Longus, the other consul, was in Sicily. We also know that after failing to meet with Hannibal, Publius Corenlius Scipio gave his consular army to Cnaeus Scipio and sent him to Spain, then returned to Italy to recruit 2 more legions (and probably an equal number of allies). So, in either case, after defeating Scipio near Massalia, Hannibal would have had to face another consular army (either the one brought from Sicily or a new one raised in haste).

This being established, we need now to consider if the narrow Maritime Alps route would have been easy for the Romans to defend with a consular army. On paper the answer seems to be yes. But we know that the Gauls revolted before Hannibal's arrival proper to Italy. So it would have been risky for a Roman general to try to block Hannibal's advance through the Maritime Alps because of the risk of being caught between the Carthaginians and the Gauls. And the Romans knew very well that Cisalpine Gaul was a dangerous area for them. Once Scipio realised Hannibal took his army to Mont Genevre, he went back to Italy to wait for him there, but he didn't wait at the exit from the pass. That would have been an advantageous position for the Roman army: narrow and difficult terrain, negating the advantage of the Carthaginian cavalry. The only reason for not doing that was that the Romans would have risked to be caught between Hannibal and the Gauls. Conclusion: there was no real possibility for a Roman army to interdict passage through the Maritime Alps.

The logical conclusion is again that Hannibal should have taken the Maritime Alps route. Yet he decided not to. Any other ideas why not?

[JAN]

The whole purpose of Hannibal's campaign was to carry the war into Italy where defeats of Roman armies would have the greatest effect on Rome and Rome's Italian allies who would hopefully defect to the Carthaginian cause.

The coastal route into Italy was the route the Romans expected Hannibal to take and conversly Hannibal did not want to become involved in any fighting before Italy. Therefore Hannibal intended to take the Northern route (Via Domitia) of the two ancient routes from the Rhone into Italy. Taking the route the Romans did not expect would also have a greater effect on the Roman's morale. He did not do this after his scouting forces ran into Scipio's cavalry who were operating out of Massilia but chose to follow the Rhone North to make an even more Northerly crossing of the Alps. Livy states that Hannibal considered fighting Scipio on the Rhone but this meant he would be delayed and have to cross the passes in even worse weather, also, Hannibal had left the bulk of his baggage train behind and was largely foraging for food supplies so he could not allow his army to stay in any one place for more than a few days.

JAN.

[VandalCarthage]

At Canae Hannibal had less people than before crossing the Alps and he defeated two consular armies at double strenght. Near Massalia he would have had to fight only one consular army. A consular army was made of 2 legions of 4,200 men each plus an equal number of Roman allies. So near Massalia/Marseille he had about 50,000 against 16,800 enemy troops while at Cannae some 38,000 Carthaginians defeated 67,200 Romans (beacuse each of the consular armies had twice as much soldiers than the norm).
What I want to say for now is that Hannibal at Massalia had enough troops to beat the Romans, so there seems to be no need to avoid them.

True, but you're missing the point. He didn't want to descend from the from the mountains into the plains any later then spring, and that's exactly when he did. His rapid movement kept the Gauls in any given area from organizing against him if that was their perogative, and it seems enormously plausible that he would wish to enter the land of his avowed allies in a time of good season.

[Dromikaites]

True, but you're missing the point. He didn't want to descend from the from the mountains into the plains any later then spring, and that's exactly when he did. His rapid movement kept the Gauls in any given area from organizing against him if that was their perogative, and it seems enormously plausible that he would wish to enter the land of his avowed allies in a time of good season.

Except that if you want to arrive in the Po valley in spring using the coastal route, you can still do so after defeating Scipio near Massalia. You simply spend more time in Transalpine Gaul (France). But you do this having the benefit of a victory, which is likely to bring you even more support from the French Gauls. Not to mention that Massalia can join your side or you have plenty of time to besiege it...