2nd Punic War Stalemate

WI The 2nd Punic War (218BC-201BC) somehow ends in some sort of stalemate. The Roman Republic and Carthage come to an agreement returning to status quo ante bellum.

How would the growth of Rome be effected by the presence of a major power bordering them so closely in the Mediterranean? How much would Rome be able to concentrate on other areas with a possible threat?

Would Rome conquer any of the areas it did in OTL such as Gaul, Greece, Hispania, etc?

Or would some sort of alliance grow between these two nations?

Would the collapse of the Republic and growth of the Roman Empire ever happen?
 
What, are you assuming Hannibal wins at Zama, or something?

The conquest of Hispania began when Scipio Africanus (I have forgotten his birth name) invaded DURING the Second Punic War, partially to deprive Carthage of that region's power and people. The Romans fought Carthage, in fact, in large part due to desire to dominate the Mediterranean. So they would seek to eliminate any and all potential threats before expanding into the Balkans or Gaul.

I hardly see an alliance between two civilizations who hate each other and fought two wars happening.
 
I'm not quite sure what the POD would be, but I was thinking either Hannibal wins a Phyrric victory at Zama. Crushes Roman army, but suffers casualties so severe that the war essentially stops.

Or maybe that Hannibal stands poised to take Rome at the same time that Scipio Africanus (or I guess just Scipio at this point)stands poised to take Carthage and the two powers enter negotiations to prevent either from happening.

If anyone can think of a better POD for what ends up happening, please let me know.
 
I'm not quite sure what the POD would be, but I was thinking either Hannibal wins a Phyrric victory at Zama. Crushes Roman army, but suffers casualties so severe that the war essentially stops.

Or maybe that Hannibal stands poised to take Rome at the same time that Scipio Africanus (or I guess just Scipio at this point)stands poised to take Carthage and the two powers enter negotiations to prevent either from happening.

If anyone can think of a better POD for what ends up happening, please let me know.

As far as that second point goes, while Scipio was in Hispania, Hannibal's army on the Italian peninsula was so weak that it was basically useless.

Remember, Rome had the first inklings of a navy at that point, and Carthage didn't have the logistical capability to reinforce Hannibal, which is why he was withdrawn. (to say nothing of Scipio kicking ass in Spain.)
 
You're right, I'd forgotten how small Hannibal's army was.

So I guess I will go with the Battle of Zama Pyrrhic victory for Hannibal. I guess this might give Rome control of the parts of Spain that Scipio took before the battle.

So if the Cartaginian victory leads to a Roman withdrawl from North Africa, but Carthage still remains as a significant power in the Mediterranian, how would the growth of Rome be effected?
 

Rockingham

Banned
Just a suggestion.... it would need a POD before the war perhaps.....
If Hannibal hadn't undertaken the gamble of passing through the alps(either because he dies, or settles for a different strategy, or any other reason), but a 2nd Punic war still happens....it could perhaps take on the character fo the first one.

The Carthaginians focus on Sicily, and the naval aspect of the war instead.... I'm not sure what the Carthaginian prospects are if they devote the bulk of their resources to the Naval conflict, but presuambly they would be able to repulse any Roman invasion Iberia at least. Assuming they failed at taking Sicily, the war could become a firm stale mate, with neither side able to make any progress....
 
I'd never considered a POD from before the war. I'm not sure how much more the naval capabilities of Carthage are compared to Rome

Aside from Hannibal's crazy insane march across the Alps to surprise Rome from the rear, what other options did Carthage have for war?

Basically, how viable is a naval assault on Sicily? Or are there any other options of attack? Or was the 2nd Punic War even inevitable?

And how would Rome respond? Would it launch a counter-offensive on Sicily, or would they focus on Carthaginian Spain as they eventually did OTL?
 
Didn't Hannibal end up becoming a naval commander for like, the Byzantines, or something?

I checked on the ultimate source of information, the all-knowing Wikipedia, and it says that after his exile he sort of hopped around the Eastern Mediterranian. Eventually he came to help the king of Bithynia against an ally of Rome. He won some sort of naval battle by hurling "cauldrons of snakes" into the enemy ships.

So I guess Hannibal did have at least some knowledge of naval warfare, I guess he could have made a pretty good Carthiginian naval commander of some sort. Carthage was a more naval power compared to Rome's more land-based army.
 
If you want a draw with naval power, first you have to change the start of the war.Rome started the war at a time when Carthage was not ready for war, they had basically no navy. If the Romans don't pretend that Hannibul had attacked north of the Elbo River. Well then the war would of either been avoid of more likely happened later. At that point maybe the Carthagian fleet would of been able to challenge Roman Naval supremacy and the war may of worked out more like the first Carthagian war, a stalemate.
 

Typo

Banned
Hannibal fled and became the advisor to Antiochus the great of Seleucid Kingdom afterwards.
 
Rome and Carthago had to fight for supremacy at one point; if the 2nd Punic war would have ended in a stalemate, that's what the 3rd Punic war would have been about (instead of being about Rome shooting fish in a barrel).
A POD could have been Hannibal at least trying to put Rome under siege - the whole Hamilcar family was bad at sieges, that's why Hannibal didn't try, but even an inconclusive siege might have forced Rome to accept a draw.
Still, the Romans would have been back at trying to finish off Carthage about a generation later.
In the end, I assume Rome still would do just that, they had more determination. So a draw would just have put off Rome's conquest of the mditerranean basin by a generation. Fundamentals would have stayed the same, but details might have changed, and the butterflies would make our present unrecognisable.
 
Stalemate? How about Hannibal wins?

Stalemate isn't the best Hannibal could have achieved. The Alps crossing wasn't so stupid-what hurt Hannibal with the crossing are these things: 1) His 'allied' guides abandoned him. 2) An early winter. 3) Attacks by mountain tribes. Supposing that winter didn't come early is enough to give Hannibal a larger force going into Italy. Instead of 26,000 men, Hannibal has more like 34,000, and quality men at that.

Another crucial point in his campaign is the attempt on Cumae and Nola. Hannibal had already demonstrated his complete superiority in the field; now he had to show Rome's allies that Rome couldn't necessarily protect them even behind their walls.

At Cumae his seige tower was burnt. With no allies in town offering to betray it to him, he moved on eventually to Nola. Some Nolans had approached him offering to betray the town, but when Hannibal showed up nothing happened. In 215 Hannibal went back to make preparations for an assault.

Here's where things really started to fall apart. Mago was to be sent to Italy with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry, but was sent instead to Spain. Carthage had just sent an army to Spain under Himilco, but upon hearing of Hasdrubal's defeat the Senate sent Mago there. So in addition to losing Mago, a senior commander, Hannibal was denied reinforcements at a crucial time. If Mago is sent to Italy as planned, he joins up with Hanno and his 17,000 Bruttians. Therefore there is no Battle of Calor River-the Roman army would have hidden in Beneventum rather than take on such a large force.

With this army Hannibal assaults Nola and takes the town. Marcellas either escapes with a small number of men or is killed in the fighting. Either way, Hannibal has now secured Capua's southern flank, made it easier for him to move troops back and forth between Bruttium and Campaignia, and encouraged towns that were sitting on the fence to throw in their lot with him.

From this point much could still happen, however, with the capture of Nola (which contained many who were friendly to him) Hannibal keeps the initiative and creates a difficult scenario for the Roman consuls to continue protecting the remaining Campaignian towns, including the port of Cumae.
 
Wasn't Hannibal not reinforced because political opponents back in Carthage wanted to deny him a victory over the Romans?

Furthermore, Carthage faced some challenges that the Romans didn't, mainly in the way that they recruited and operated their army. While the Romans used their own citizens as soldiers, Carthage was reliant upon mercenary forces for its army. Therefore, you had a much less motivated military, and much less cohesive military force.

Also, despite Hannibal's many victories over the Romans, he was unable to convince a large number of Roman-allied Italian cities to abandon Rome. This inability points to Rome's much firmer grip on its dependent territory (as opposed to Carthage, which lost Spain).

I tend to think that Rome was in a much better position vis a vis Carthage even in the event that the Romans "lost" the 2nd Punic War. What I mean by that is that Carthage couldn't achieve the same kind of game ending victory the Romans could. The best I think Carthage could achieve is a reversal of the 1st Punic War, getting all of Sicily, and maybe forcing Rome to give Spain back. But that won't put Rome down, it will just force Rome to do better next time.

Which brings me to my most interesting point. A Roman loss in the 2nd Punic War, one where they lose control of Sicily and Carthage maintains its Spanish territories, would probably force Rome to change its relationship with its Italian allies. In my wildest fantasies it forces Rome to form some kind of Italian federation, where the allied states have citizenship and get a certain number of Senate seats. This in turn will lead to a more inclusive "Italian Republic" that wins the 3rd Punic War against Carthage and dismantles Carthage's empire.

When Italy begins to expand into the Eastern Med, the tradition of granting citizenship and Senate seats to allied cities continues, and creates a true Federation, where Senators from across the Republic come to Rome. The Senate's role evolves into one much more concerned about the priorities of the wider Republic, while the plebes' assembly in Rome takes up governing the city itself.

So the effect of Rome losing the the 2nd Punic War? Enduring Republic.:)
 
Carthage was not only reliant on mercenaries but it often refused to pay them or only gave them a fraction of what they were promised/owed. Little wonder how the Romans convinced so many of them to either defect or disband.

Carthage was always the major threat in the west - the Gauls may have sacked Rome but the walls that protected the city were in place by the time Hannibal came sniffing around and made the city invulnerable. The Greeks were in pieces in the East and not much of a challenge whilst the heirs of Alexander were battling each other in the Middle East.

If you have a dove faction in the Senate which advocates and wins peace with Carthage for (more or less) status quo ante bellum, it will only be a matter of time like the hawks get their way and take the fight back to their North African rivals. Carthage's power was based in the city - Rome had the entire Italian peninsula to call upon plus whatever Greeks they could con (given the trading rivalry between the city states and Carthage) into helping out.

Probable outcome - Carthage taken by Rome, just a bit later. The Latin star was ascendent, the Phoenician one in decline. Only a complete and utter disaster (like the entire Roman army camped on the slopes of Mt Etna/Mt Vesuvius when it erupts) would prevent victory.

Furthermore, Carthage faced some challenges that the Romans didn't, mainly in the way that they recruited and operated their army. While the Romans used their own citizens as soldiers, Carthage was reliant upon mercenary forces for its army. Therefore, you had a much less motivated military, and much less cohesive military force.
 
[FONT=&quot] Scipio [later Africaus] was in two battles were the Romans were defeated, most noticeably Cannae. What if he was killed in one of them. Rome might not produce another leader of similar talent in time. Also it was his idea to attack Hannibal's position in Spain. Without him Fabius might be able to hold Hannibal in check but sooner or later the Romans are likely to get impatient or desperate and another defeat or two like Cannae could tip things over in terms of Latin allies deciding to no longer support Rome and the continued bloodbath.

That might give a limited victory that sees the Carthagians secured in Spain and possibly able to challenge the Romans at sea again. Rome, unless the Cathagians keep a careful watch on it is still likely to be very powerful and probably fatal threat.

The other option, although probably far more difficult to obtain, would be to somehow bring an end to the infighting in the Carthagian camp and get far more support from it to Hannibal. Even if funds to recruit more mercenaries.

Steve[/FONT]
 
Top