Should Hannibal invaded Italy?

[ray243]

Even though Hannibal achieved considerable success in Italy, we must not forget that there are numerous battles being fought in Spain as well.

Even when Rome was defeated at Cannae, its armies is still campaigning in Spain.

So I have to ask, instead of invading Italy, should Hannibal focus on securing Spain for Cartage? Would Carthage as a nation survive better if they manage to dominate over the Spanish region as opposed to expand their Empire into Italy?

[slaptast!ck]

there's a lot fo 'should have dones' in the Hannibal story.

but the most important thing you have to remember about Hannibal is that he hated and loathed Rome. for him it was personal. he wanted revenge. in fact you could say it was his mission in life.

so, I don't think 'should have' comes into it. he was absolutely compelled by hate and pride to do everything he possibly could to make Rome suffer.

[Gurkhal]

I don't see how he could've stayed in Spain. He if he had then Rome would just swarm him with troops more or less unlimited. He had to distance Rome and her allies from each other. I Spain he would just be able to stand and kick what they threw at him, and hope the Romans wouldn't simply go for Africa.

[ray243]

there's a lot fo 'should have dones' in the Hannibal story.

but the most important thing you have to remember about Hannibal is that he hated and loathed Rome. for him it was personal. he wanted revenge. in fact you could say it was his mission in life.

so, I don't think 'should have' comes into it. he was absolutely compelled by hate and pride to do everything he possibly could to make Rome suffer.

It's not about how Hannibal would think like, it's about if you are in Hannibal's shoes, and not complied by hatred against Rome to a huge extend, what would be the most logical action to do.

As it turned out, no. He hoped to pull off what Cortes did so well in Mexico, becoming a beacon for Rome's bullied neighbours to rally to. They didn't. It's not clear why, at least as far as I've read. Perhaps they knew something of Roman resolve, or perhaps the brutality and cruelty for which the Carthaginians were so famed (and their admirers dismiss, perhaps rightfully, as Roman propaganda) turned people against Hannibal's cause.

On the other hand, if he hadn't, it's doubtful we would have heard of him.

So what? For all we know, Carthage as a state might even exist till today, for us to remember him. Carthaginian historian might even come across Hannibal's memoirs, and spread it around the world for us to know who he is( and a person that might have saved Carthage in a completely boring manner.)

[hellheaven1987]

Na, the very fact that he started a war unnecessary before stable Carthage power in Iberia suggests Hannibal was not a good strategist.

[Mangalore]

Na, the very fact that he started a war unnecessary before stable Carthage power in Iberia suggests Hannibal was not a good strategist.

Given that any further consolidation of power meant conflict with Rome and Rome was starting to contest any further expansion of Carthage (Saguntum is not north of the Ebro, thus Rome got involved over a city not protected by that treaty) this seems hardly the case. Given the timeframe Spain was as stabilized as the Barca family could ever hope for for the next generations it seems to me not quite right.

Hannibal's move to attack Italy brought havoc to the Roman strategy of attacking Spain and Africa at the same time. So with the threat to Africa offset and Spain covered by substantial forces the game plan worked very well.

One has to consider that prior to the second Punic war one cannot really anticipate from faraway that the Romans would be so fanatic that they would continue war after having lost some 150 000 men to one general alone. I think it's post Cannae where Hannibal saw his strategy unravel because he thought more allies would desert Rome (though quite alot indeed did) and he thought Rome would be hanging in the ropes and likely sue for peace.

Overall without hatred for Rome I'd be content with the silver and tin in Spain. However it is questionable how long Rome would allow me to enjoy it...

[Blarni]

As it turned out, no. He hoped to pull off what Cortes did so well in Mexico, becoming a beacon for Rome's bullied neighbours to rally to. They didn't. It's not clear why, at least as far as I've read. Perhaps they knew something of Roman resolve, or perhaps the brutality and cruelty for which the Carthaginians were so famed (and their admirers dismiss, perhaps rightfully, as Roman propaganda) turned people against Hannibal's cause.

On the other hand, if he hadn't, it's doubtful we would have heard of him.

[Iskender-bey]

This is like saying "Should Alexander have stayed in Macedon to conquer the Persian Empire?"

Hannibal had been securing Iberia for years. He conquered more than half of it and the tribes had been pacified at the Tagus, this being one of his most brilliant battlefield actions.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Yes, Hannibal would have won against almost any other state that Rome if events went as they did. It was Rome's subborness to not surrender that made Hannibal lose, most other nations would have admitted defeat.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Italy should have been invaded however his invasion approach was flawed and he made the wrong decisions during the campaign.
He should have used a much more bigger army, establishing a fast transport ship that could easily transport troops from Africa or Spain, and finally he should have stroke Rome when he had the chance(if slim) after Cannae.

[Nik]

He should have used a much more bigger army

How did you know he had to funds to raise a bigger army?
How many of them would have perished on the march from spain to italy?

establishing a fast transport ship that could easily transport troops from Africa or Spain

Remember Rome had the supremacy of the seas in the second punic wars, a fleet of transport ships would have ended as driftwood trying to run the blockade.

and finally he should have stroke Rome when he had the chance(if slim) after Cannae.

AFAIK Hannibal suffered heavy losses himself at Cannae, he had no secure base to wage a campaign to besiege rome, and conventional wisdom would have called for Rome to sue for peace anyways, so it's hard to fault his judgement, especially from armchair strategist like us.

[Claudius Gothicus]

How did you know he had to funds to raise a bigger army?
How many of them would have perished on the march from spain to italy?

He also started too damn early, so he had to rush for the Alps and ed up big time. I know the Saguntum issue was going to explode sooner or later but he prepared badly, and didn't planned logistics very well, he trusted he grossly underestimated the Italian allies allegiances and didn't establish a secure route.

Remember Rome had the supremacy of the seas in the second punic wars, a fleet of transport ships would have ended as driftwood trying to run the blockade.

Carthage still had a fleet and Hannibal had his personal fleet anchored in Nova Carthage, even if the romans had naval superiority he ruled out the option very early.

AFAIK Hannibal suffered heavy losses himself at Cannae, he had no secure base to wage a campaign to besiege rome, and conventional wisdom would have called for Rome to sue for peace anyways, so it's hard to fault his judgement, especially from armchair strategist like us.

(If slim), yeah I know but he's only real chance was right there and he wasted it.

[pannonian]

(If slim), yeah I know but he's only real chance was right there and he wasted it.

Unless an approach panicked Rome into seeking terms, Hannibal would still have to take the city. Saguntum took several months to take, so Rome would surely lasted at least that long. Remember that much of the Roman citizenry lived in Roman colonies away from Rome itself, so while Hannibal parked himself in front of Rome's walls, thus depriving himself of his biggest advantages of manoeuvrability and choice of ground, another Roman army or ten could have been raised and sent to besiege him in turn. By this point, it was clear that Hannibal himself was by far the greatest threat to Rome's survival, little though they could do about it in the OTL, so if they get such an opportunity, I'd imagine the Romans would gladly drop all other commitments for the time being, and crush the Carthaginian before resuming their activities elsewhere in Italy.

[Iskender-bey]

Taking 52,000 men over the Alps should have been a logistical disaster. Taking more would have been a logistical disaster! Those cannibalistic druids would have been enjoying young Mediterranean flesh for months!

[wearenemesis]

Taking Rome after Cannae wasn't possible.

He had about 50k men at Cannae at the start. 5k died and like 10k were wounded afterwards iirc. On top of that Rome has walls no? Hannibal has no siege equipment, no reinforcements and no supplies from Carthage. He has to get everything from the countryside. So while he's sitting around trying to regroup his army in terms of manpower and supplies the Romans, while having their capital under siege still has the majority of Northern Italy to rebuild their armies and lift the siege.

As shown in the later battles of Italy (one in particular Hannibal fought like 2 or 3 sieges to a tie?) the Romans infantry beat the Carthagianian Infantry back because of its superiority. Hannibal's cavalry superiority means jack in a siege operation.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Taking Rome after Cannae wasn't possible.

He had about 50k men at Cannae at the start. 5k died and like 10k were wounded afterwards iirc. On top of that Rome has walls no? Hannibal has no siege equipment, no reinforcements and no supplies from Carthage. He has to get everything from the countryside. So while he's sitting around trying to regroup his army in terms of manpower and supplies the Romans, while having their capital under siege still has the majority of Northern Italy to rebuild their armies and lift the siege.

+ Rep, good analysis

Plus Hannibal had no way of feeding his army while they were sieging Rome. Hannibal would have had to spread his army out further and further as time went on to supply it, and would probably have been defeated by the Romans in a rather short period of time. Also if he did make it to winter, his army probably would have dwindled in numbers greatly.

[Nik]

He also started too damn early, so he had to rush for the Alps and ed up big time. I know the Saguntum issue was going to explode sooner or later but he prepared badly, and didn't planned logistics very well, he trusted he grossly underestimated the Italian allies allegiances and didn't establish a secure route.

Hannibal had to rush to the Alps in order to keep the initiative from the romans. They controlled the greek cities in southern gaul, and the "easy" approaches along the coast into italy. The last thing he wanted to be was sidelined somewhere between the rhone and the the alps, far away from spain, italy and africa at the same time.
Hannibal took a great risk, but realistically, it was the only possibility to get to italy in time to play a role in the war.
Going along the coast would have meant besieging city after city, (taking months at a time), because the last thing you want is a string of garrisoned ports directly in your back.

Carthage still had a fleet and Hannibal had his personal fleet anchored in Nova Carthage, even if the romans had naval superiority he ruled out the option very early.

Because the record of the carthagian fleet wasn't really a sterling one, stemming back to the first punic war, something to be vindicated later in the war (lilybaeum, Ebro river). Going by see would have been an ever higher gamble than taking the land route, as his army would have been at the mercy of the victor of any naval engagement, without being able to react or maneuver (transport ships beeing slower than war galleys).

yeah I know but he's only real chance was right there and he wasted it.

Thats hindsight knowledge we have now, at the time, pursuing a peace treaty or breaking up the italian league would have seemed the far more effective course.

Taking a step back, and trying to put yourself in Hannibals place, you have the following situation:
You hold iberia as a personal fiefdom, with the other base of power being carthage itself. You have a moderate fleet and a very experienced professional army at your command in iberia, and strong allies in africa.
Rome itself has proven itself as master of the seas, and has near unlimited reserves of infantry manpower, and has a history of breaking treaties with you if the opportuinity arises.
Now, rome breakes the treaties again and directly claims protectorship over a city in your sphere of influence. War is imminent, either sooner or later. If later, the romans will do everything to weaken your position in iberia, gaining cities as allies and rousing the tribes against you.
To wait in peace is therefore not an option.
If war breaks out, what are your options?
1. Wait and see in Iberia. As a consequence, the romans start their warmachine, and after a short time can control the seas and launch concurrent invasion of africa and iberia.
2. Reinforce Africa. Fine, you loose iberia in the short run, and whitout the iberain ressources and recruiting grounds, the war in the long run.
3. Fight your way up the meditarrean coast. You take the greek allies of rome on the coast, thereby denying rome its bases and establishing a secure line of communications. But sieges take time, especially in antiquity, so rome is free to attack iberia and africa, and can easily reinforce the cities still ahead of you, right up the the passes leading into italy.
4. Take half of your army, and in forced march, circumvent the consular army in souther gaul, push through mountain passes not controlled by rome, and threaten the roman heartland. The romans have to react to this threat, and you can try to demolish the roman confederacy, the very center of their warmachine. As experience teaches you, allies often rebell if the hegemon is weakend (as in the case of the delian league in the peloponnesian war), giving you the possibility to crush the roman warmaking ability in one decisive campaign.

What would you choose?

IMHO Hannibals two greatest errors were underestimating the roman resolve and unconditional will to victory (something quit unusual for the antiquity way of fighting wars), and overestimating the grudges of the roman allies against their master.

[tzentri]

IMHO Hannibals two greatest errors were underestimating the roman resolve and unconditional will to victory (something quit unusual for the antiquity way of fighting wars), and overestimating the grudges of the roman allies against their master.

I'd say that he had one hand of fate dealt against his favor more than any of the above two errors.
Support from the 'homeland'. When he sparked off the 2nd war, his government half supported him politically. By the time he was in Italy and asking for substantial reinforcements to undo the losses from Trebbia to Cannae, the Suffete in Carthage were fractured thanks to Hanno, who moreso aimed at undermining the Barcid family than having peaceful relations with Rome. And Philip of Macedon's alliance wasn't able to do much either.

Had Hannibal at least been backed 100% by the government in Africa, the stretch of time from 216 to his departure in 203 might have been drastically different (< this is important. Some may point to inept Carthaginian navy in numbers to ship Hannibal the resources, such as siege equipment, needed. However, the fact that Mago himself was able to raise 14,000 troops and sailed, unimpeded, from Minorca to Genua in 205 shows that Roman command of the sea was not complete enough to halt Carthage as previously thought. To support that even, is shown that Carthage did send Mago an additional 7,000 men after his arrival). Evidence of that was simply the fact that he WAS able to stay in enemy land undefeated tactically or strategically. True, that might have been due to the attrition policy reenacted. Though, even at that, it points to him being dangerous enough for the Romans to pursue a strategy not signature to anything before or after him. Not many can equal that claim, and that says a lot.

[Ahlerich]

i think the real question about hannibal is if he should have focused on taking roman cities or maybe even rome herself instead of just fighting rome on the field..

[Tiberius Tosi]

i think the real question about hannibal is if he should have focused on taking roman cities or maybe even rome herself instead of just fighting rome on the field..

He tried, but his army lacked the capability to take cities. The ony city that really fell for a considerable time was Capua, and Rome punished them to such a degree that it made a good example of them. Taking Rome itself was really out of the question, it was too well defended and would have taken far too long to siege, and Hannibal's army probably would have disappeared. It took Rome 3 years to take Carthage, imagine how long it would take Hannibal to take Rome.