# Hannibal and Carthage Defeat Rome In The Second Punic War



## BAYLOR (Feb 8, 2015)

In 216 B C  at Cannae,  Carthaginian general Hannibal with a much smaller army surrounded and destroys a much larger Army which put him in a position to win the the second Punic war. But due to lack of material support from Carthage and Hannibal's inability to capitalize  on his victory  Rome was able to turn the tables on him.  In the end, it came down to the battle Zama in 202 BC in which Hannibal was beaten by Scripco Africanus .    But suppose there had been a different outcome? what if Hannibal had been ale to capitalize on on his victory at Cannae ? What if he had been able decisively knock out Rome? How do you think history would have unfolded Rome out of the picture ?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 8, 2015)

Rome was too organised to have been knocked out - it survived the Celtic invasion the previous century, and would have survived occupation by Hannibal.

Hannibal's problem is that his entire strategy relied too much on support from the Gauls, whose infighting made them notoriously unreliable.

Additionally, while Rome dealt with its Latin allies in a horribly arrogant manner, those same allies still coveted Roman privileges - something Hannibal could not offer.

So, one way or another Hannibal was doomed to marching up and down Italy, with nothing to show for it. The only question was whether he could have taken Rome itself or not.

While the delay after Cannae looks like a strategic mistake, IMO it simply shows that Hannibal understood the limitations of his campaign - he just did not have enough support in Italia to hold the City, even if he had marched on it.

This is especially when you consider how astonishingly fast the Romans were able to rebuild their legions, despite the catastrophic losses at Cannae.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 9, 2015)

Setting aside if Carthage truly could have conquered Rome properly - I'm with Brian in this one, in that there were a lot of factors that essentially ensured Carthage was going to lose no matter what - there is a problem speculating what a victorious Carthage, if there had been one, would have done. 

This is because Rome eventually stamped out brutally the Carthaginian civilisation and very effectively Romanised all of it's people. Hence there are very few primary sources of what was going on in the Carthaginian side - every contemporary source comes from outside, as far as I am aware (and usually from the Romans themselves - example: the claims of child sacrifice in Carthaginian society/religion is IMO quite suspect.)  Would it have spurred them onto a Rome-like empire or would they have been content to control the Italian states loosely, deal with and allow a strong gaul/celtic North and focus on getting rich on trade? Or something else. 

I think any outcome we come out with will seems as likely as another, give our lack of knowledge. 

One thought though - if there had never existed a strong Empire that was stable for hundreds and hundreds of years and stretched from the moors of Northern England to the Sahara, the Atlantic ocean to the banks of the Euphrates, essentially allowing the transport of trade, people and ideas...would that fledgling religion Christianity have had the opportunity to spread beyond the middle East? I believe it wouldn't have - Christianity became successful when it converted, bit by bit the Roman civilisation. I think it would have a had a much harder time converting a hodge-podge of states (if that's the scenario we have )


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 9, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> Setting aside if Carthage truly could have conquered Rome properly - I'm with Brian in this one, in that there were a lot of factors that essentially ensured Carthage was going to lose no matter what - there is a problem speculating what a victorious Carthage, if there had been one, would have done.
> 
> This is because Rome eventually stamped out brutally the Carthaginian civilisation and very effectively Romanised all of it's people. Hence there are very few primary sources of what was going on in the Carthaginian side - every contemporary source comes from outside, as far as I am aware (and usually from the Romans themselves - example: the claims of child sacrifice in Carthaginian society/religion is IMO quite suspect.)  Would it have spurred them onto a Rome-like empire or would they have been content to control the Italian states loosely, deal with and allow a strong gaul/celtic North and focus on getting rich on trade? Or something else.
> 
> ...




Third Punic War 149 to 146 BC .  Instigated by one of history greatest criminals Cato the Elder .


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 9, 2015)

The sad part of the Third Punic Wars was that Carthage was no longer any kind of threat at that point. The war totally unnecessary, they were beaten, broken and done.  Yes Im know the Carthaginians were not nice people, not at all. They worshiped  Baal and sacrificed children to him,  among their numerous sins. But then again, the Romans were not whole lot better.   When they took Carthage they killed most of the population , enslaved the rest, razed the city and salted the ground.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 9, 2015)

My (totally unqualified) view:

The Carthaginians were essentially traders and descended from the Phoenicians ( hence the word Punic). They weren't geared up for the kind of empire Rome was building and much of their army was made up of mercenaries. Once Rome negated Carthaginian sea-power with the invention of the Corvus, the writing was on the wall for Carthage.

The Romans effectively hamstrung themselves with the elected Consul system (who often worked at odds with each other). I think if Rome had appointed a permanent military commander based purely on merit rather than politics, Carthage wouldn't have lasted as long as it did (but then again, that commander may well have seized power for himself).


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 9, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> My (totally unqualified) view:
> 
> The Carthaginians were essentially traders and descended from the Phoenicians ( hence the word Punic). They weren't geared up for the kind of empire Rome was building and much of their army was made up of mercenaries. Once Rome negated Carthaginian sea-power with the invention of the Corvus, the writing was on the wall for Carthage.
> 
> The Romans effectively hamstrung themselves with the elected Consul system (who often worked at odds with each other). I think if Rome had appointed a permanent military commander based purely on merit rather than politics, Carthage wouldn't have lasted as long as it did (but then again, that commander may well have seized power for himself).




Ultimately , that did happen to Rome.   Caesar and Augustus and  a number few others went that route.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 10, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Ultimately , that did happen to Rome.   Caesar and Augustus and  a number few others went that route.



True. And Rome became the ancient superpower we all know today because of it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 8, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> True. And Rome became the ancient superpower we all know today because of it.



In the End a similar fate befell Rome . In 410 AD  The Visigoths lead by a man named Alaric sacked and badly damaged Rome. But at least the city of Rome is still with us.


----------



## svalbard (Mar 8, 2015)

Rome struggled on for another 60 or so years after that. It could be argued that the loss of the North African provinces to the Visigoths was the real death blow to the Western Roman Empire. 

It still produced strong commanders periodically in the few decades after 410. Constantius in the 420s did a lot to stabilize the Empire and the Magistar Militum Aetius defeated Attila the Hun in Gaul.


----------



## Anne Spackman (Mar 24, 2015)

I cannot even imagine what would have happened if Hannibal had defeated Scipio Africanus and then sacked Rome.... perhaps, though, even if Hannibal had won the battle of Zama, he still wouldn't have been able to destroy Rome itself.  I can't even envision what might have been but it is a tremendously interesting question.  Would there have been a Roman Empire?


----------



## svalbard (Mar 27, 2015)

Would the ideals of Democracy survived? Although a Greek idea, Rome in it's Republic years did much to give a voice to the masses. A lot of it was stage managed by the rich and powerful, no different from today really I suppose.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 27, 2015)

Worth mentioning 'democracy' didn't survive all that much longer in Rome in any case. A century later Rome was having a stratified political system with dynasties much like the US has with Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs, and less than a century after that Milo and Clodius were running with gangs of thugs.

If Rome had fallen then, they would not have conquered Macedon or Greece (Philip V was Hannibal's ally). I wonder if that might've helped democracy. 

Plus, Rome was designed on a triangle system, with democracy through elections, but aristocracy through the senate and monarchy (well, diarchy) through the consuls.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 28, 2015)

Anne Spackman said:


> I cannot even imagine what would have happened if Hannibal had defeated Scipio Africanus and then sacked Rome.... perhaps, though, even if Hannibal had won the battle of Zama, he still wouldn't have been able to destroy Rome itself.  I can't even envision what might have been but it is a tremendously interesting question.  Would there have been a Roman Empire?



If Rome survived , it would have been severely weakened and diminished in size.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 29, 2015)

Not so sure. Rome was immensely resilient. It came back after Cannae, after all.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 29, 2015)

And after the Gaul sacked the city in the 4th century BC.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 29, 2015)

And even although it lost a physical empire at ~ September 4th 476 CE *, it still has a 'spiritual' Empire in the form of the Vatican and Catholicism to this day and is thus still globally important. That would make a good two and half thousand years of resilience.


---------------

* I'm just taking Gibbon's point when the Western Empire fell.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 29, 2015)

Boo hiss to CE!

Seriously, though, it's a ridiculous renaming of a system. Lindy Beige's video on it was spot on. Pretending the Christian calendar isn't the Christian calendar is daft beyond words.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 29, 2015)

thaddeus6th said:


> Boo hiss to CE!
> 
> Seriously, though, it's a ridiculous renaming of a system. Lindy Beige's video on it was spot on. Pretending the Christian calendar isn't the Christian calendar is daft beyond words.



I'm not Christian, plus its not even aligned to Christ's birth exactly (4 BC is one of the dates I've read are likely). However I fully admit that it's the event that the system is tied to 

I could use some non-Christian dating scheme, but then that would invariably led to confusion. I'll just continue to use my secular notation, thank you.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 29, 2015)

It's true that Jesus was born 4-6BC. But the system is still based on when he was supposed to have been born.

I'm also not a Christian, but I don't like revisionism when it seems to be for a political reason. Anyway, it's a free country.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 29, 2015)

thaddeus6th said:


> Not so sure. Rome was immensely resilient. It came back after Cannae, after all.



Such was Hannibal'a hatred of Rome he very likely would have done the equivalent of the Versailles treaty on Rome to keep them weak.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 29, 2015)

But that would've required Roman surrender. They didn't surrender after Cannae, I can't see them doing it after a defeat in Africa.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 29, 2015)

thaddeus6th said:


> But that would've required Roman surrender. They didn't surrender after Cannae, I can't see them doing it after a defeat in Africa.



If Hannibal had been able to convince Rome allies to side with him after Cannae , wouldn't have given him a free had to do what ever he wanted to Rome? With No more allied troops to worry about . All he had to really do was take city and capture whats left of the Roman senate . They would have no choice but to surrender.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 29, 2015)

He convinced some. He had the city (though not the military-held port) of Tarentum, and others whose name I forget.

A victory in Africa would not, I think, have shaken Rome after they forced him from Italy and had retaken Sicily and conquered Iberia.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Mar 31, 2015)

Carthage could win as many battles as it liked, it would never win the war.  The Carthaginian leaders would not have trusted Hannibal with an army big enough to do so, for fear he may decide to take power for himself. The best outcome they could hope for was a number of significant victories followed by appropriate tribute until Rome regrouped.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 31, 2015)

The army's size wasn't the issue, so much as the great politico-military resilience of Rome.

I think a victory *was* possible, but very unlikely. Excepting Hannibal, Carthage wasn't overflowing with great military leaders/ Hasdrubal was good, but immediately got killed by Nero. It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would've happened if the brothers had met up.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 27, 2015)

One of the key figures at the Destruction  of the city Carthage was  Tiberius Sempronius  Gracchus the younger who along with is brother Gaius had not very pleasant ending when they tried to bring about land reform that would benefit the plebeian class in Rome.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 27, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> If Hannibal had been able to convince Rome allies to side with him after Cannae , wouldn't have given him a free had to do what ever he wanted to Rome? With No more allied troops to worry about . All he had to really do was take city and capture whats left of the Roman senate . They would have no choice but to surrender.



True. Even later Rome suffered calamitous defeats. At Arusio they lost somewhere in the region of 40,000 men to a coalition of Germanic tribes. It was, as has being pointed out, their political system plus their amazing ability to throw up remarkable leaders in times of crisis that enabled Rome to survive and thrive.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 27, 2015)

At Arausio they practically threw the men away. The oafish commanders fell out and attacked a much larger force separately (and this after the Cimbri had beaten the Romans [with the Romans the aggressors...] several times). Marius was a very capable chap. 

I agree that Rome's political system was strong but this declined in the imperial era due to the might is right approach and failure of Augustus to lay down a legal basis for being/becoming emperor (the donative was also ruinous).


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 27, 2015)

thaddeus6th said:


> At Arausio they practically threw the men away. The oafish commanders fell out and attacked a much larger force separately (and this after the Cimbri had beaten the Romans [with the Romans the aggressors...] several times). Marius was a very capable chap.
> 
> I agree that Rome's political system was strong but this declined in the imperial era due to the might is right approach and failure of Augustus to lay down a legal basis for being/becoming emperor (the donative was also ruinous).



Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian were two of the worst calamities in Roman history.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 27, 2015)

That's a legitimate, though very debatable, perspective.

I suppose it depends whether the view is taken that the Republic was effectively finished, or whether it could've been restored (for what it's worth, I think the Republic had a great deal more resilience and flexibility than the Empire, but I'm not sure whether the drift towards political dynasties and armies becoming loyal to generals rather than the state could've been averted).

If the former view is taken, the two chaps did a largely decent job (cocking up a legal basis for changing emperor beyond death and/or civil war, of course) of keeping the whole state intact.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 27, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian were two of the worst calamities in Roman history.



That statement is worthy of it's own thread. I think Octavian was the ruler that Rome needed at that time. He brought stability after decades of upheaval. The Republic had being in it's deaththrows for a century before him.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 27, 2015)

svalbard said:


> That statement is worthy of it's own thread. I think Octavian was the ruler that Rome needed at that time. He brought stability after decades of upheaval. The Republic had being in it's deaththrows for a century before him.



He was a ruthless, selfish pig , he stupidly destroyed what was left of the rule of law rule that remained in Rome and ruled as an autocrat , a very fateful and ultimately fatal precedent . The problem is that things were stable so long as he was alive to run them, unfortunately everyone dies .  His other big mistake was the vile Tiberius as his successor which indirectly put bounders like Calligula  and later down the line Nero on the throne.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 31, 2016)

One wonders what the world would have been like had Rome not prevailed against Carthage.


----------

