What if Carthage had taken Rome...

[joey6131986]

What if Hannibal had taken Rome before the Romans sent men through Spain to take North Africa. If they would have conquered Rome, would there have been a Roman Empire? If not, how much do you think the Carthaginian Empire would expand from there if at all?
Hannibal requested reinforcements sometime during his campaign, if Carthage would have sent him men, do you think he would have even been strong enough to crush the Roman Republic?
Just a hypothetical question

[Mediolanicus]

And one impossible to answer.

[emperor77]

Taking a city is one thing, holding on to it is another. I don't think romans would've let him hold it for long.

[Auto-Nabishtam]

Taking a city is one thing, holding on to it is another. I don't think romans would've let him hold it for long.

Agreed

[Dunadd]

To do that he'd have to have got the Carthaginian senate to agree to send a huge contingent of reinforcements by sea - which would have risked the Romans sinking the ships they were on before they ever arrived - or else (as someone already said) got Hasdrubal's forces into Italy.

The other problem with either of these would be that since the Romans still had a large manpower reserve they could have invaded Spain and/or Africa even more easily than they eventually did.

It's a good question though - and some of the other posters might well be right that if Hannibal had been massively reinforced then it might well have led to more Italian allies defecting from Rome to him and reaching the critical mass at which Rome had to surrender or be defeated, whether or not he'd besieged and taken Rome immediately.

[ajsc50]

romans after cannae were in a very very weak position, but hannibal didnt have the siege material to attack rome, it would take several months, taking Sagunto by him in the early years of punic wars were very difficult, to build siege weapons. Rome has the 2 legione urbanae, the triunviri and all the civilians to take part of defence and do not forget many of them were veterans (in fact they will became evocatii if a siege happen) , maybe 20 thousand strong force? and 40 thousand from hannibal were in no position (2 x 1 is not good for a siege), betrayal were not a possibility, and Rome can call the 2 legions in Iberia, the legion in sicily, the legion in north fightind gauls and ligurians, the legion in corsica and he legion in illyria plus the remaining allied forces they still have in italy. Taking Rome were never be an option,it would never happen, and if it did, it will be a very decimate battle for punics, after that, Hannibal maybe count with 25 thousand men and beign in Rome probably cause the just called romans reinforcements armies anihilate him by siege the same Rome, and betrayal in that scenario will be an option indeed to enter the city, no doubt siege, take, hold and retake Rome would be the bloodiest battle in the ancient world.

[carbonem vestigium]

The thing is Hannibal never intended to take Rome. The idea was that the Roman Republic would fall apart after a major battle in which they lost. He could never have taken Rome for more reasons than are mentioned above, and had he tried and failed even with minimal loss the war would be over. In hindsight knowing what did happen we might say it wouldn't have been a bad idea to try. It is just possible the city would have surrendered just at the sight of his army after Cannae. The Romans had very few troops trained and ready to go (and I believe the legion in sicily spoken of was Flaminius who was destroyed at Lake Trasimene after coming up to assist Scipio.) Almost everything they had went down at Cannae. But even for that he could not have taken the city because the terrain did not favor him, his equipment did not favor him, the Roman navy was still unbeaten and he didn't have enough men. If there was some better coordination they might have gotten the Macedonians in and that could have changed the dynamic.

As far as I can tell, short of the Macedonians landing 40,000 highly trained professional troops to aid Hannibal, the only chance would have been if the northern allies had broken away like the south. That kind of pressure might have been sufficient to cause the Romans to surrender.

Had that happened its always possible Rome could have arisen again, but this would not mean the creation of a Carthaginian empire. Expansion was not a Carthaginian thing and they were not a conquering people, with the exception of personages such as Hannibal or his father. They would probably have taken what they had won, Hannibal, having served his purpose might have become a great leader of his people, as he did after Zama, and who knows then how he might reorganize things. He probably could not have created a militarily reorganized Carthage with the political games involved, but what you would have seen would not have been a semitic empire in Italy or Gaul. More than likely it would be the increase of Hellenistic empires and hegemony in the west.

[sirfiggin]

The reasons Hannibal never took Rome were twofold;

Firstly, he never had more than 40,000 or so men in Italy, particularly after Cannae, in other words he never had the manpower to put the city under siege, let alone hold it, consider that over the course of the war Rome could raise about 10 legions at any time and it's obvious why Hannibal couldn't take Rome, think also that many of the citizens were quite capable fighters, and fighting to defend their city would make them doubly dangerous.

Secondly, it was never Hannibal's intention from the start to take Rome, he wanted to cause dissent among the allies by showing them mercy if he captured them, but he underestimated how much the allies and Rome were in friendship, so only a few broke away and he had to defend them from Rome as well, bleeding his resources further.

Hannibal could only have dreamt of taking Rome if his brother Hasdrubal had met him, rather than die at the Metaurus River, that was the decisive battle in the whole War, since it denied Hannibal the reinforcements he desperately needed.

[AugustusC]

The Romans were a completely different kettle of fish than the average joes back then. You have to understand the romans had a spartan like mentality, although not engaging an enemy or retreating was acceptable to the Romans if a soldier was deemed to of retreated through cowadice or self preservation he may aswell forfeit his citizenship and go into exile.

There are many instances in Roman history where civilian armies sprang up to defend the state. True most of the time these were due to a bit of denari that could be earned through minor brigandry but it happened while hannibal was in Italy. Their armies massacred after Cannae and private citizens create an army to face hannibal after their military suffered such a major defeat . . .that was Rome!

but back to your question could hannibal of done it with the proper resources? yes in my opinion its possible , could he have kept it afterward ? anyone who gives an answer would be specualting. . so you have to look at their history. The Gauls sacked Rome as you probably know but what many ppl dont know is that elder senators instead of retreating to the citadel stayed in their private residence in their purple togas at their greeting areas wating for the gauls to arrive. Thats the mentality that your dealing with. It wasnt ( in my opinion ) Romes army that was its greatest strength, it was their unwillingness to yield either through hardship,fortune,civil strife or mere bribery.Athens could of been Rome but why didnt it work? the idea of civic duty wasnt as deeply routed in the Athenian citizen as it was in the Roman citizen. Why did carthage lose, for exactly the same reason.

My 2 cents

[joey6131986]

Thanks, interesting answers. In the second Punic War, Hannibal's army 'pwned' a few legions, yet Rome kept throwing men at him and copying their tactics in order to win. Imo the Romans were very practical, but without honor. So, even if Hannibal would have taken Rome, they would have likely found a dirty way to get it back since they have the "never give up and stubborn" mentality Sparta had.
thanks

[Cyclops]

Rome had a durable political set-up that favoured expasion, so defeat might have just been a speedhump.

Carthage had a stable trade empire but the sort of imperial conquests hannibal and his family undetook in Spain was a new thing and deeply divisive. I suspect Carthaginian conquests in Italy would not have been durable, whereas Rome might well have rebounded from being conquered. Would oner more defeat have led to Rome's demise? Perhaps, but like the Soviets in WW2 they held firm against the whirlwind and prevailed with numbers.

Remember Rome held most of Italy despite a constant diet of defeat. A handful of defeats in Spain and North Africa cost Carthage her allies and territories very quickly.

Its possible a triumphant Hannibal could've remade Carthage from a trading republic into a centralised military empire capable of holding fast to the conquests he made, but I doubt it. He was a genius to do as much as he did.

[silenthunter09]

you mean speedbump right,cause lol what is a speedhump??????

[delra]

I think they'd fall apart very quickly after overstretching like that. That's how it goes, sometimes some empires are simply destined to go down.

[medievaldude]

One things for sure if hannibal conquered the roman republic the Greeks would live longer than with romans conquering Carthage. anyways the romans i don't appreciate had won in the end. Hannibal's choice to get to Italy may be the major fault too guys. Maybe ally With Epirus and concentrate with two fronts would make the romans go on the defense and their main priority Rome. Now this is Guess i came up with but in reality this would be hard.

All i have to say One birds rises out of the whole flock but must fall in the end.

[bobbin]

Maybe ally With Epirus and concentrate with two fronts would make the romans go on the defense and their main priority Rome. Now this is Guess i came up with but in reality this would be hard.

This was exactly what he did, except Makedon was the ally as Epieros was pretty insignificant by then. The problem was that Makedon wasn't really up to the task either.

[Celtichugs123]

All very good points friends!

Assing to the remark about Hannibal showing mercy to Rome's Italic allies, this is very true. But, however, if Carthage had taken Rome and Latium a few years down the line the Pheonician/Carthage leading figures/parties and Goverment would have shown no favour toward Italic peoples (Imo ofcourse ) and the Italian peoples would have risen up against them somwhere down line. As, the Italian people were given much rights and freedom under Roman rule (perhaps some tribes less than others and later than some). Either way, it was Romes tolarance of it's Italic naighbours that gave her her Allies, I deem.

Sorry if I had gone off topic a tad there!

[cenkiss]

I don't think carthage could have created an empire for itself.Considering it was mostly using mercenaries and did not have a sense of imperialism.

[Princess Cadance]

I don't think he would have tried to take Rome,but had he met up with Hasdrubal as planned he probally could've defeated the last large Roman armies in Italy itself.The Senate seeing there vulnerability would have surrounded and Carthage and it's allies would have greatly profitted.Then perhaps the Third Punic War could've played out the same way.But with Rome as the loser.

[Archaalen]

Rome only survived thanks to the skill of Fabius at avoiding direct confrontation with Hannibal, knowing how skilled he was at playing the overly-aggressive men who typically led Rome's armies for fools and leading them into traps. The only way I see Hannibal winning the war was if Fabius had not been given the dictaorship and been able to impose this strategy on Rome's headstrong politicians. Had he not, Rome would have bungled into a third major defeat before Hannibal had even gotten to southern Italy and the killing fields of Cannae. The trauma inflicted upon Rome by an additional defeat might have been enough either to push the popular assemblies to sue for peace or to encourage enough of the allied cities to break away, thus destroying Roman control of the Italian peninsula. Either way, Roman victory in the Second Punic War was not in any way inevitable.

As to the question of the effects of such a defeat on Carthage and Rome, that depends a great deal on the nature of the peace concluded between the two of them. I do not see Rome pausing for very long in their attempts at conquest unless held back by other Italians, perhaps the Samnites for example. Carthage, while already an imperial power of the first order, was not prepared for any sort of long-term occupation of any part of Italy. Even if Carthage were to win, they and Rome would end up fighting more wars with each other, and neither one would have emerged as dominant so rapidly as Rome did in the aftermath of the Punic Wars as they did occur. The path to Roman defeat would have been a path without a single dominant power in the Mediterranean of the same pervasiveness as the Roman Empire of Augustus and his successors. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is up for interpretation.

[avenging angel]

You said it. Hannibals weakness is that he was playing by the old rules and Fabius was made dictator. Between these two things, Carthage was doomed. Dont forget, the romans, especially never gave up quite so easily. Im sure that even if there were defeats like cannae, it would have taken a long time for rome to finally submit.. If carthage had won... who knows? I guess perhaps the Persians may of been the strong one.