Should Hannibal have invaded Italy?

[Serafina]

I think we have a mixup between two meanings of "total war":

-Total war as in "total destruction of the enemy, including civilians" was certainly known in the antique, as Thanas pointed out.
-Total war as in "total mobilization of all assets for warfare" wasn't a known concept - it would have been meaningless, because they had no industrialized economy. Thats not to say that they did not have "war economies".

These two concepts are highly similar and are often inclusive. But Germany waged "total war" as of the first definiton in WWII. not "total war" as of the second definiton, while the allies did it the other way round. The lines were blurred, but you can distuingish between the two.

[lord Martiya]

That was always the impression I had; after he missed his opportunity he tooled around basically achieving nothing. If his only chance of real victory was to defeat Rome directly, he should have at least cooked up a plan to do so, even if he didn't feel equal to it with the resources he had.

Let imagine he directly besieged Rome after Cannae. Rome would have most probably repelled the first attack. Then, what would happen? Hannibal would have to deal with countless relief forces from Volsci, Marsi, Latins, Umbri and Etruscan, and slowly kill his soldiers one by one while keeping him stuck. The Roman forces blocked in the various colonies would be free from his possible appearance and roam free from Italy (if the then youngest one, Cremona and Placentia, managed to resist the Gauls for all the war while being in the middle of the Cisalpine Gaul, the other ones would have been much stronger), defeating his allies. Then he would have been surrounded with no ally. And he knew.

[ray245]

As for whether he should have stayed in Spain, that would have achieved little compared to what he managed to do in Italy. It would have left Rome's center of power completely untouched, thereby allowing them the luxury to dictate the terms of engagement. Carthaginean politics also play a large role here - Hannibal sought to gain glory and prominence, which one generally does not manage to achieve by waging a defensive war.

A quick question, then is there anything else he should have done instead to improve Carthage's situation?

[Thanas]

As for whether he should have stayed in Spain, that would have achieved little compared to what he managed to do in Italy. It would have left Rome's center of power completely untouched, thereby allowing them the luxury to dictate the terms of engagement. Carthaginean politics also play a large role here - Hannibal sought to gain glory and prominence, which one generally does not manage to achieve by waging a defensive war.

A quick question, then is there anything else he should have done instead to improve Carthage's situation?

Hmm. For example, he might have tried to consolidate more gains in Spain, but the romans were itching for a war. He might have tried to deal with the numidians first, but then he would have lost a great portion of his cavalry.

It really wasn't that bad of a plan - form alliances with the gauls, who hated Rome, then stir up the vassals....in theory, it had a good chance of success, providing Hannibal proved to be victorious in the field. So IMO he did the best he could.

Really, the only thing that would improve Carthage's situation would be naval supremacy (which would have been very hard to achieve) or the capture of Lilybaeum (which would require naval surpremacy for the supply of such a large army). Consider Carthage's strategic situation - they do not hold any of the large islands anymore, which is very bad when once tries to wage a naval war. They are up against an enemy who is superior in quantity and quality when it comes to ships and who can outproduce them 2:1 if need be.

Sure, there are always scenarios one can play through, but with the benefit of hindsight, I think he chose the course that would achieve the most.

[Kaiser Caesar]

It seems that a lot of the problems the Carthagenians suffered from came from the fact that the Romans could build a better and more numerous navy than they could. If Hannibal had made an effort to destroy's Rome's shipbuilding capabilities on the peninsula, how successful would he have been, and would it have made a difference?

[Thanas]

It seems that a lot of the problems the Carthagenians suffered from came from the fact that the Romans could build a better and more numerous navy than they could. If Hannibal had made an effort to destroy's Rome's shipbuilding capabilities on the peninsula, how successful would he have been, and would it have made a difference?

One has to look at the way the romans built ships. First, there was the shipbuilding done by the romans themselves. Pretty hard to destroy that without besieging rome and taking it. Then, there are the navies of the foederati. Then, there was the larger part of decentralized shipbuilding. For example, one (former greek) city in southern italy had to built 25 ships in any given year. In fact, some foederati were excempt from forming any infantry at all because they were fulfilling their obligation by contributing ships to the fleet. Those were mainly the merchant cities of southern Italy (one recognizes the genius of the romans once more - they used the talents of seafaring cities in order to make up for their own inexperience).

So, to summarize, Hannibal would have to
a) besiege Rome and take almost every other roman coastal colony
b) take the cities of Rome allies in southern italy.

The first is impossible. With the second, he had some success, but suffered setbacks agains the richer cities (Tarentum). These were also the most important when it came to the Roman Navy.

So there was no way Hannibal could ever destroy Roman shipbuilding. At best he could try to cripple it, but he failed in that when he failed to take Tarentum. Even if he had taken Tarentum, it would not have meant the end of Roman shipbuilding.

All in all, Roman shipbuilding was so decentralized that there was no chance of anyone destroying it with one stroke.

[Thanas]

Spam suppressed.

[Frank Hipper]

What evidence is there that Carthage built inferior ships to Rome?

[Thanas]

What evidence is there that Carthage built inferior ships to Rome?

None, but the romans were better trained and had better boarding tactics. Also, carthage suffered defeats against numerically inferior forces during the second punic war.

[Frank Hipper]

That's what I always thought, I was curious if there was something new in underwater archeology I hadn't heard about.

[hongi]

Could the Carthaginians have managed to conquer Rome if they gave Hannibal the reinforcements he needed? Or would that not be enough to make the difference?

Screw the reinforcements, things could have been very different if he had just retained a larger portion of the army he had first set out with. Hannibal had 46,000 men had when he crossed the Rhone (according to Polybius). He set out from Carthago Nova with almost 90,000 men. If he hadn't lost so many men due to battles, desertion and natural causes throughout the trek from Spain to the Alps, the extra numbers may have turned the war.

[Thanas]

But that scenario requires perfect and impossible conditions for crossing the alps.

[hongi]

Crossing the Alps when he did can't be helped. But the locals could have been handled better e.g. buying them off. Hasdrubal didn't get a scratch in 207 BC when he did the same thing.

There were places to plug the numbers elsewhere. Hannibal's march through southern Gaul was almost unopposed. He entered with 59,000, so Polybius records anyway (Histories 35.7). When he crossed the Rhone, he had 46,000, which is an inexplicable loss of 13,000 in between. Hoyos suggests desertion, which seems reasonable enough to me.

[Thanas]

Crossing the Alps when he did can't be helped. But the locals could have been handled better e.g. buying them off. Hasdrubal didn't get a scratch in 207 BC when he did the same thing.

Because they had already learned the folly of opposing the carthagineans then, as situation that was not there at the start. Didn't Hannibal try to buy them off?

There were places to plug the numbers elsewhere. Hannibal's march through southern Gaul was almost unopposed. He entered with 59,000, so Polybius records anyway (Histories 35.7). When he crossed the Rhone, he had 46,000, which is an inexplicable loss of 13,000 in between. Hoyos suggests desertion, which seems reasonable enough to me.

But if they deserted, how should he have prevented this?

[Bilbo]

One question that I have is how did Hannibal so easily make it back to Africa. Hannibal is pretty much stuck in Italy. He can travel fairly freely in the area, though he is forced to winter in the south. Carthage is unable to send him decent amounts of reinforcements due to Roman control of the sea, yet when Scipio threatens Carthage directly it seems Hannibal suddenly has no problem relocating his entire army to North Africa.

This makes requires several things.

1. No attempt by Roman forces to stop Carthaginian ships from coming to Italy to get Hannibal.

2. No attempt by Rome to attack Hannibal while he is on the coast waiting for ships or while boarding those ships.

3. No attempt by Rome to intercept the fleet of troop transports and end the war by sinking the ships with Hannibal and army on them.

Do we know anything about how this was pulled off so sucessfully?

[Thanas]

One question that I have is how did Hannibal so easily make it back to Africa. Hannibal is pretty much stuck in Italy. He can travel fairly freely in the area, though he is forced to winter in the south. Carthage is unable to send him decent amounts of reinforcements due to Roman control of the sea, yet when Scipio threatens Carthage directly it seems Hannibal suddenly has no problem relocating his entire army to North Africa.

This makes requires several things.

1. No attempt by Roman forces to stop Carthaginian ships from coming to Italy to get Hannibal.

2. No attempt by Rome to attack Hannibal while he is on the coast waiting for ships or while boarding those ships.

3. No attempt by Rome to intercept the fleet of troop transports and end the war by sinking the ships with Hannibal and army on them.

Do we know anything about how this was pulled off so sucessfully?

Easy - the same way carthaginean fleets were able to strike at roman coasts elsewhere. Without radar and a good signal system, it is pretty damm hard to find a fleet of ships unless you know where it is headed (like in the case of a siege or in the case of reinforcements).

[Bilbo]

One question that I have is how did Hannibal so easily make it back to Africa. Hannibal is pretty much stuck in Italy. He can travel fairly freely in the area, though he is forced to winter in the south. Carthage is unable to send him decent amounts of reinforcements due to Roman control of the sea, yet when Scipio threatens Carthage directly it seems Hannibal suddenly has no problem relocating his entire army to North Africa.

This makes requires several things.

1. No attempt by Roman forces to stop Carthaginian ships from coming to Italy to get Hannibal.

2. No attempt by Rome to attack Hannibal while he is on the coast waiting for ships or while boarding those ships.

3. No attempt by Rome to intercept the fleet of troop transports and end the war by sinking the ships with Hannibal and army on them.

Do we know anything about how this was pulled off so sucessfully?

Easy - the same way carthaginean fleets were able to strike at roman coasts elsewhere. Without radar and a good signal system, it is pretty damm hard to find a fleet of ships unless you know where it is headed (like in the case of a siege or in the case of reinforcements).

True I would just expect that the Romans were keeping a close enough eye on Hannibal and his army that seeing him load onto a fleet of transports would appear to a Roman general as the perfect time to attack. That is unless Hannibal was in control of one of the southern cities and actually loaded his fleet through a protected port.

[Thanas]

^which is exactly what happened.

[lord Martiya]

One question that I have is how did Hannibal so easily make it back to Africa. Hannibal is pretty much stuck in Italy. He can travel fairly freely in the area, though he is forced to winter in the south. Carthage is unable to send him decent amounts of reinforcements due to Roman control of the sea, yet when Scipio threatens Carthage directly it seems Hannibal suddenly has no problem relocating his entire army to North Africa.

This makes requires several things.

1. No attempt by Roman forces to stop Carthaginian ships from coming to Italy to get Hannibal.

2. No attempt by Rome to attack Hannibal while he is on the coast waiting for ships or while boarding those ships.

3. No attempt by Rome to intercept the fleet of troop transports and end the war by sinking the ships with Hannibal and army on them.

Do we know anything about how this was pulled off so sucessfully?

Easy - the same way carthaginean fleets were able to strike at roman coasts elsewhere. Without radar and a good signal system, it is pretty damm hard to find a fleet of ships unless you know where it is headed (like in the case of a siege or in the case of reinforcements).

True I would just expect that the Romans were keeping a close enough eye on Hannibal and his army that seeing him load onto a fleet of transports would appear to a Roman general as the perfect time to attack. That is unless Hannibal was in control of one of the southern cities and actually loaded his fleet through a protected port.

Like Savona, in the north, from where Mago (a general that attempted to reinforce Hannibal army) took sail to return to Carthage when Scipio attacked Africa? Or the Samnytes' coastal cities? Or the Greek cities who had rebelled against Rome and still resisted?

[hongi]

Because they had already learned the folly of opposing the carthagineans then, as situation that was not there at the start.

True. Although it had been almost a dozen years since the Alpine peoples last battled with the Carthaginians, let alone seen one. Do you think they could have remembered their lesson for that long? Or Hasdrubal's diplomatic efforts could have worked.

Didn't Hannibal try to buy them off?

Apparently not, I've checked Livy (relevant sections in Book 21, chapter 33 abouts), but there's nothing mentioned there about any attempt at paying them, whereas Hannibal paid off Gauls earlier. He may just pushed through because it was getting late in the season, and the chances were growing that the passes could be blocked. There's no obvious reason why the mountain peoples/Allobroges should have attacked Hannibal, so it seems like rather poor planning on his part. Livy even says that the entire army was almost destroyed in the mountain passes.

But if they deserted, how should he have prevented this?

Eh, good point. I'm not sure how he could have maintained army discipline.

Sure, there are always scenarios one can play through, but with the benefit of hindsight, I think he chose the course that would achieve the most.

What could Rome have done to end the war quicker? Why didn't they try attacking North Africa immediately?

[Thanas]

Didn't Hannibal try to buy them off?

Apparently not, I've checked Livy (relevant sections in Book 21, chapter 33 abouts), but there's nothing mentioned there about any attempt at paying them, whereas Hannibal paid off Gauls earlier. He may just pushed through because it was getting late in the season, and the chances were growing that the passes could be blocked. There's no obvious reason why the mountain peoples/Allobroges should have attacked Hannibal, so it seems like rather poor planning on his part. Livy even says that the entire army was almost destroyed in the mountain passes.

That is interesting. However, Livy is not the best sources. He always tries to connect victory in battle with virtous religious behaviour, for example. So Hannibal might very well have tried to bribe them.

Still, I'll have to concede this argument as arguing against a source is not good form if you have no better theory yourself and I am not that familiar with Livy.

What could Rome have done to end the war quicker? Why didn't they try attacking North Africa immediately?

Look at the strategic situation. The romans had to defend Lilybaeum against the carthagineans. Without that, they would lose their best fleet base in Sicily. Then you have a substantial carthaginean army in North Africa (remember that only after the numidians switched sides Scipio attacked) and you have to contend with the carthagineans in spain and Hannibal in Italy. I do not think the romans simply had the resources and it would have been too huge a risk at that point. Only with Sicily under roman control did they dare launch an invasion.

[lord Martiya]

What could Rome have done to end the war quicker? Why didn't they try attacking North Africa immediately?

Actually, they had tried to do so: a consular army under Tiberius Sempronius Longus was about attacking Africa and had actually captured Malta (then a Carthaginian fortress) before being recalled when the Senate found out Hannibal had crossed the Alps long before schedule and with a bigger force than expected. After Hannibal defeated BOTH consular armies at Trebia river, Rome had too many problems with his army, the Gauls, many Greek cities and the old Samnyte enemy rebelling, Carthaginian armies in Hiberia and Sardinia and the First Macedonian War to send another army in Africa. Only after retaking Sardinia, Sicily and most of the Greek Cities, giving a very bad blow to the Gaul insurrection and conquering Hiberia the Senate allowed Scipio to invade Africa, and only because he had managed to mold the legions defeated at Cannae, volunteers and Sicilian horsemen in a powerful army.

[Serafina]

What could Rome have done to end the war quicker? Why didn't they try attacking North Africa immediately?

Actually, they had tried to do so: a consular army under Tiberius Sempronius Longus was about attacking Africa and had actually captured Malta (then a Carthaginian fortress) before being recalled when the Senate found out Hannibal had crossed the Alps long before schedule and with a bigger force than expected. After Hannibal defeated BOTH consular armies at Trebia river, Rome had too many problems with his army, the Gauls, many Greek cities and the old Samnyte enemy rebelling, Carthaginian armies in Hiberia and Sardinia and the First Macedonian War to send another army in Africa. Only after retaking Sardinia, Sicily and most of the Greek Cities, giving a very bad blow to the Gaul insurrection and conquering Hiberia the Senate allowed Scipio to invade Africa, and only because he had managed to mold the legions defeated at Cannae, volunteers and Sicilian horsemen in a powerful army.

What would have happened if that had not happened - due to, say, Hannibal crossing the alps later?
Did they have a real chance to do substantial damage?

[mr friendly guy]

Seeing that the romans razed Carthage afterwards

Wrong war.

Certainly. But wasn't the second punic war the one that tought the romans "total war"? Which then lead to the total destruction of Carthage?
At least thats the way i recall it - its just school knowledge, so i could be totally wrong.

With my limited knowledge it seems unlikely given that Scipio Africananus spared Carthage. It was I think Plinus the Elder who kept on advocating Carthage's destruction even after it was no longer capable of mounting the challenge that Hannibal did. This would eventually lead to the third punic war and the eventual destruction of Carthage.

[lord Martiya]

What would have happened if that had not happened - due to, say, Hannibal crossing the alps later?
Did they have a real chance to do substantial damage?

Probably enough to get Hannibal recalled in Africa. If Hannibal managed to return (difficult, given Roman naval superiority and the fact Hannibal at that point still had no port or ally in Italy, but still possible), he would probably defeat Longus as he did at Trebia River. After that, I don't know.
Would the Carthaginian senate stuck him defending Carthage until Rome had conquered Hiberia and kicked their army out of Sardinia? Would he try and take the risk to return in Italy with a fleet? Would he return to Hiberia and fight the Romans there?