Hannibal Does Not Hesitate

I am far from an expert on ancient history (I like 19tha nd 20th century history the most) but during my readings for my latin class, I've come to think of what would happen if Hannibal did not hesitate in his invasion of Roman Italy. After a long march into Italy, Hannibal won a brilliant victory with his outnumbered force (many died on the way). At Cannae 216 BC, perhaps 70,000 Romans died in battle against his army. After the battle, there was virtualy nothing between Hannibal's army and the Rome itself. Hannibal made a critical mistake however. While his calvary commander, Maharbal wanted to invade the city, Hannibal was convinced his men needed a rest. Mahabal is even quoted as saying, "You know how to win Hannibal, but you do not know how to use your victory." Hannibal stalled and the Romans got smart and never engaged him in pitched battle where he excelled but instead focused on isolating him and cuting off his supply lines. Eventually, the Romans organized a counterattack against Carthage itself. Hannibal had to leave Italy to defend his city. He lost, and killed himself later to avoid falling into Roman hands. In the third Punic War, the Romans raze Carthage to the ground.

The obvious POD that occurred to me is what if Hannibal let his calvary commander scout out the capital's defenses and then quickly prepared to assault the city. Could he have taken Rome? And if he did manage to capture the city, could he hold onto it? Since I don't know all that much about this period, are there other Roman armies out there that could take the city back? Would a Roman insurgency develop within the city and possibly otherthrow Hannibal's occupation? Is an insurgency even possible or likely in that time period?

Now for the broader question. Assuming that Carthage were able to totally conquer Roman civilization, what would the new timeline probably look like if you extropolated out further into the future?

Didn't the Romans leave a few legions of veterans to defend Rome?
From what I know , Hannibal's main problem were supplies. He didn't recieve any from Carthage , so he had to rely on what he could find in enemy territory.
Also , he didn't have any siege equipment , and , in OTL , the major roman cities managed to repell his attacks in 215 and 211.
So , I don't think that he could have conquered Rome . He would have needed reinforcements , supplies and siege weapons to succed , but he didn't recieve any of this.

Even if Hannibal's troops had managed to capture Rome , I think they would had been forced to withdraw sooner or later because of the lack of support from Carthage.

That's sounds historically correct. Hannibal's army numbered over a hundred thousand before he crossed the Alps. After he arrived, he only had about 26,000, so he did not have adequate troop levels or seige weapons to sustain an seige. If Carthage were really concerned, did they have the economic capability to sustain a full scale invasion and occupation of Rome and her nearby cities? Just wondering if such a scenario is even economically possible. How long would it take to send reinforcements?

Greetings,

One of the main problems in this scenario is the political makeup of the Carthaginian Council of 100. There were two major factions, Pro-Barca and Anti-Barca. The Pro-Barca faction controlled the Army and all territory in Spain and the anti-Barca faction controlled the Navy and all of the African territories.
Hannibal invaded Rome off his own back, using the finances of the Spanish territory and his own family, several nobvles and military leaders within Carthage supported him and actually allowed him to get to where he was. If you want a successful invasion of Italy and to take Rome the POD that you want is having all of Carthage behind Hannibal. With the full amount of resources against Rome only then may they be able to achieve it, although this is still doubtful.
If the Carthaginian Council came to side with Hannibal after Tresimene and Hannibal was still victorious at Cannae, he may have been able to assault Rome. Two invasions of Italy would force the Romans to split their forces. A series of troop landings in BRVTTIVM and CVMAE would force the Romans to actually drop the tactic of not facing the Carthaginians in battle. The Celts would have also been more inclined to join the Carthaginian forces as the coffers from Carthage and the victories would have been able to pay for more.

The only way that the Carthaginians could have defeated the Roamns would have been to take Rome though. The only way that they would have been able to do this was with the war machines of Archimedes, which he built for the defence of Syracuse. All the Carthaginians have to do is transport them down the Tiber to Rome.

Although, even if all of this goes to plan Rome would just end up doing a Carthage (3rd Punic war) in about a century. Carthage would have got complacent unless they have rulers like Hannibal or his father. They would have just made the Roman Empire a lot smaller and develop later. although they may have had a lot of different types of seige machines.

Regards,

Khib Yusa

Well , Hannibal's brother , Hasdrubal tried to reach him and reinforce his army , but his forces were ambushed and defeated in 207 at the Metaurus river , by the Romans led by Gaius Nero. Hasdrubal was killed during the battle.
I don't know if the carthaginians could have supplied Hannibal's army from the sea , because their fleet had been defeated by the Roman one in the first punic war.
Also , the leaders of Carthage were afraid that Hannibal would become too popular and overthrow them.
The problem with Carthage was that it had to hire mercenaries , which were expensive and unreliable. Rome , in contrast , had a proffesional army of citizen soldiers , much better equipped and motivated than the armies of Carthage.

I heard that after Hanibal at Cannes defeated a First Roman Army, A second Army was raised from the latin cities, and by freeing Captured Soldiers [win- or it is -back to the slave pits]. If Hanibal doesn't wait, Rome doesn't have time to do this. Rome gets Besiged. after a while Hanibal has to leave in Search of supplies, and the seige is raised. and the next several years are close to OTL

Except

In 300 bc something, the Celts took and sacked Rome, Rome spent the next 700 years trying to ensure that it never happened again

Now, Rome [city] has been attacked again. It has not made the concessions to the other Latin Cities, it did OTL to raise the Second Army. So After the Seige is raised,rome comes outmuch more militarily agressive. It destroys Cartage in the Second War, [No need for a third] and turns Conqisidor.

By 50 bc it controlls all of ATL, and Caesar [?Analogue?] is making a name Fighting the Germani. there is still the corruption that comes with all this growth, In 45 BC Caesar Marches on Rome and takes the purple. the problems remain and in the late 100 ADs the empire falls, spliting into several smaller units. Evenually Hispania, gets it act together and reconquers the Empire.

So in the end Cathage's Daughter wins the pot.

Immediately after Cannae the Romans armed the penal troops and set them to defend the walls of the city. Most of them were debtors so at least some would have been familiar with arms and tactics as they were previously citizen soldiers.

Hannibal had no seige equipment and since he did not even bother to construct any in Italy, presumably no engineers accompained his army. After the capture of Naples and other cities of Magna Gracia he would have had access to military engineers but as a class they probably prefered Rome.

Roman political genius defeated Hannibal, not their military prowess. Rome had access to vast quantities of manpower and of supplies while Hannibal lived hand to mouth. It is the classic Roman scenario of losing the battles but winning the war.