Last edited:
Could Hannibal really have taken Rome? I just finished reading the book "Hannibal, one man against Rome" Here is my opinion on Hannibal. Although he is one of my favorite generals....him taking Rome is highly unlikely even if he listened to Mahabul.
Here are some questions and responses about the Hannibal case. I will answer them in my opinion feel free to judge.
"Hannibal cannot take Rome due to the lack of troops."
Hannibal lost about 10 percent of his army at Cannae...I'm not too sure how badly in shape they were to launch a successful siege right after the battle. But 45,000 men is still a good number. It may had been Hannibal's indecisiveness or genius. Sieges are very risky plus Rome could still raise troops from the Socii outside Italy.(Like they did after Cannae)
"Hannibal had no siege equipment"
Not very true since Hannibal launched multiple sieges Italy.(imedietley after Cannae)
"Rome had no troops after Cannae"
definitely wrong. Rome had a strong Navy still. A lot of troops stationed in Spain and Sicily plus hundreds of thousands of allied troops defending their homelands. Marcellus hearing the defeat at Cannae reinforced Rome with 15,000 Legionaires after Cannae plus not counting the Vigiles cops and Urban Cohorts.
Rome restored its numbers in a matter of weeks. By the battle of Nola(216 BC same year as Cannae) the Romans outnumbered Hannibal and defeated him at Nola, forcing him to go to other Italian cities.
"Could Hannibal launch a successful siege?"
I doubt it. Rome had some of the strongest walls compared to other cities Hannibal laid siege to. Not much use for his superior cavalry in those conditions.
Sieges takes days if not weeks. And Rome was able to replenish its numbers in a matter of weeks.
"Hannibal had no reinforcements"
Eh....half true. Hannibal had plenty of powerful Italian allies like from Capua and Tarantum. Hannibal did get reinforcements by Hanno but were intercepted at the Battle of Beneventum.
Also his brother was about to join him at his Italian campaign. the Romans faked on attacking Hannibal by making him believe them to make camp but attacked his brother and cut of his head at the Battle of Metaurus.
The victories of the Roman Navy at the Batte of Ebro River, Lilybeaum, and Cornus prevented the Carthaginians from having a mass logistical support to Italy. Plus land battles like the Battle of Cisa, and the Battle of Dertosa(this was before Cannae when Hannibal was still in the Alps) permentatley cut off Spain from Hannibal and set up a Roman allied support base in Northern Spain preventing Hannibal's brother from
supplying the Italian campaign.
Fabius' tactics was not just to not enage Hannibal but "engage Hannibal's armies when Hannibal was not there."
Hannibal just did not have the numbers not he was in control of the army.
Here are some questions and responses about the Hannibal case. I will answer them in my opinion feel free to judge.
"Hannibal cannot take Rome due to the lack of troops."
Hannibal lost about 10 percent of his army at Cannae...I'm not too sure how badly in shape they were to launch a successful siege right after the battle. But 45,000 men is still a good number. It may had been Hannibal's indecisiveness or genius. Sieges are very risky plus Rome could still raise troops from the Socii outside Italy.(Like they did after Cannae)
"Hannibal had no siege equipment"
Not very true since Hannibal launched multiple sieges Italy.(imedietley after Cannae)
"Rome had no troops after Cannae"
definitely wrong. Rome had a strong Navy still. A lot of troops stationed in Spain and Sicily plus hundreds of thousands of allied troops defending their homelands. Marcellus hearing the defeat at Cannae reinforced Rome with 15,000 Legionaires after Cannae plus not counting the Vigiles cops and Urban Cohorts.
Rome restored its numbers in a matter of weeks. By the battle of Nola(216 BC same year as Cannae) the Romans outnumbered Hannibal and defeated him at Nola, forcing him to go to other Italian cities.
"Could Hannibal launch a successful siege?"
I doubt it. Rome had some of the strongest walls compared to other cities Hannibal laid siege to. Not much use for his superior cavalry in those conditions.
Sieges takes days if not weeks. And Rome was able to replenish its numbers in a matter of weeks.
"Hannibal had no reinforcements"
Eh....half true. Hannibal had plenty of powerful Italian allies like from Capua and Tarantum. Hannibal did get reinforcements by Hanno but were intercepted at the Battle of Beneventum.
Also his brother was about to join him at his Italian campaign. the Romans faked on attacking Hannibal by making him believe them to make camp but attacked his brother and cut of his head at the Battle of Metaurus.
The victories of the Roman Navy at the Batte of Ebro River, Lilybeaum, and Cornus prevented the Carthaginians from having a mass logistical support to Italy. Plus land battles like the Battle of Cisa, and the Battle of Dertosa(this was before Cannae when Hannibal was still in the Alps) permentatley cut off Spain from Hannibal and set up a Roman allied support base in Northern Spain preventing Hannibal's brother from
supplying the Italian campaign.
Fabius' tactics was not just to not enage Hannibal but "engage Hannibal's armies when Hannibal was not there."
Hannibal just did not have the numbers not he was in control of the army.
