"Was Hannibal's grand strategy defective?" Topic

Interesting question and thread…

link

Armand

Hannibal need to lay siege to Rome to win, he had two opportunities to do so and chose not to each time. IN each opportunity there were pro's and con's and it would not of been easy, but it was the only way Hannibal was going to win.

Of course if Carthage had provided more support he may have won using another strategy.

Hannibal also badly miscalculated how much anger the Latin communities had towards Rome.

Ironically, 100 years later they'd all be fighting Rome in the Social War, but it seems like by 217 most Italians wanted *in* on Roman life, not an escape from it.

Of course, some did join in. Capua and the Samnites, and many southern cities. But it never seemed to stick, and it wasn't the total defection I think Carthage would've needed to overwhelm the Romans. Not to mention the fact that many of these "allies" hated each other and Carthage too.

The manpower reserves of Rome's allies are probably a huge reason it won; being able to constantly reconstitute destroyed legions was huge.

Thanks!

Armand

Hannibal also badly miscalculated how much anger the Latin communities had towards Rome.

Very true, that may have been Hannibal's strategy and it was not the war winning strategy he needed. Still, he managed to keep enough support to stick around for ~14 years in Italy against the might of Rome.

War is logistics, and Hannibal wasn't supported as the main theater with resources he needed.

Most confederations would have imploded under the string of defeats suffered by the Romans at the hands of Hannibal. It was a completely reasonable strategy but it ran up against an inexplicable set of circumstances.

Thanks also…

Armand

For what it's worth, I think Hannibal had no intention of taking Rome nor the logistic capacity to do it (as dantheman above). He attempted to provoke a decisive engagement on favourable ground and destroy the field army of his enemy such that they sued for peace on poor terms. He was defeated because the Romans wouldn't bite (the famous 'Fabian strategy'). Rome recovered territory in Sicily and Spain while Hannibal was chasing shadows up and down Italy. I try and exercise the same Fabian Strategy in reading posts on the Napoleonics board haha

Hannibal wanted to reset the clock to what it was before the first Punic War, put Rome back in its box and get Sicily back for Carthage. To do that he believed he needed to beat the Romans on their own ground, and turn their allies against them. It wasn't a bad plan, it just didn't really work, largely because Rome refused to be beaten and Hannibal didn't have the forces necessary to both besiege Rome and avoid being encircled and destroyed at the same time.

Any sensible nation would have called it quits after Cannae, unfortunately for Hannibal, the Romans weren't sensible.

I agree with Marcus, Regicide and Crazyivanov with the addition that Carthage should have given more support to Hannibal in Italy – success was not reinforced enough in this case and Metaurus was the turning point.

Many say Hannibal should have besieged Rome, but he didn't have the army or logistics to do so. When he later tried to recapture Capua he failed to take a smaller city.
His lack of support from Carthage was a massive issue. Hanno the Great blocked any reinforcements. This is the same stellar politician who disbanded the Carthaginian fleet in the First Punic War when Rome was in trouble and Hasdrubal Barca had the upper hand. He also mishandled negotiations with the returning mercenaries for their back pay which started the Mercenaries War which nearly destroyed Carthage.
Hanno the Great had a serious grudge against the Barcas and left Hannibal hanging when he needed the support.