2nd Punic War: What PLAUSIBLE ways would make Rome cry uncle?

What if Hannibal plays the role of Spartacus and free the slaves? If he provided arms and training there could be self perpetuating slave revolts from Spain to Italy. It's unlikely Rome would be able to invade North Africa with such a clear and present danger closer to home.

That would be a dangerous strategy for Hannibal as Carthage also had slaves. Once the idea of slave revolts gets planted, it might be hard to stop it spreading.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
So the only place the aqueducts would have been visible was at the 3 mile section of the Aqua Appia which was carried on arches. And that section was right next to Rome itself, and could have been defended by the Romans.


Couldn't this potentially have been a good way to lure the defenders out of the city?
 
All Hannibal needed was winter quarters in Latium proper.

So to defeat Rome completely he needs one of the Allied cities to switch sides. Every time the Romans try to maneuovre around the city, he intercepts and smashes them.

If he manages to do it, he could even clear the way for Hasdrubal to come and join him (the Romans would be forced to withdraw forces to combat the threat of a siege).

However, you need a city in Latium to switch sides first. The closest Hannibal got to that was Capua.
 
All Hannibal needed was winter quarters in Latium proper.

So to defeat Rome completely he needs one of the Allied cities to switch sides. Every time the Romans try to maneuovre around the city, he intercepts and smashes them.

If he manages to do it, he could even clear the way for Hasdrubal to come and join him (the Romans would be forced to withdraw forces to combat the threat of a siege).

However, you need a city in Latium to switch sides first. The closest Hannibal got to that was Capua.

There's the rub, isn't it? It would've taken ten Cannaes, if that, to break the bonds that bound the Latins to Rome-- a fatal miscalculation on Hannibal's part. Still, Hannibal did have a realistic, albeit very slim, chance in the aftermath of Cannae. If Philip could have crossed over, or if Hannibal had received reinforcements from Spain in time, Hannibal might have had sufficient manpower to invest Rome and protect his supply lines. However, both of those scenarios would lead to Rome's destruction. What I'm looking for here is what it would take for Rome to sue for peace. (If Rome were to be invested, I suspect Hannibal would have to storm Rome to win; starving out Rome doesn't seem very likely, given Hannibal's tenuous position in the middle of Latium.)
 
That would be a dangerous strategy for Hannibal as Carthage also had slaves. Once the idea of slave revolts gets planted, it might be hard to stop it spreading.

Cheers,
Nigel.
Well it wasn't as though slave revolts had a cross borders solidarity in those days. Slaves didn't have the education or self awareness to spread ideas like emancipation. I'm not aware of historical Roman slave revolt for example that caused revolts elsewhere. While Carthage would be taking a risk, it would be a calculated one given the existential threat from Rome.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
That would be a dangerous strategy for Hannibal as Carthage also had slaves. Once the idea of slave revolts gets planted, it might be hard to stop it spreading.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Cartago can live without slaves much easier than Rome, depending more on the Sea than on it's Hinterland and agriculture, although that started to change after the first war.

Hannibal never managed to get Romans allies and tributees in Italy to join him, despite some of them had suffered hardly from the Romans.
(Remember, Roman Citizenship wasn't granted to them yet, I think it happened when Lucius Gaius Ceasar (Gaius father) was consul.)
And he probably wouldn't have Gladiators, who made up the core of Spartacus' uprising.

A siege of Rome doesn't promise much success.
Hannibal wasn't prepared for it.
But if we consider that he spend 17 years in Italy, maybe if he besieged Rome with 2/3 of his forces while the Rest ravenged through Italy securing food for those besieging Rome?
 
Roman M.A.D.

Well it wasn't as though slave revolts had a cross borders solidarity in those days. Slaves didn't have the education or self awareness to spread ideas like emancipation. I'm not aware of historical Roman slave revolt for example that caused revolts elsewhere.

Are there any examples of any state at that time that encouraged a slave revolt in another state ? It doesn't seem to have been a strategy that occured to anyone, and given some of the tricks used by Hanibal you would have thought that it would have occured to him. Perhaps it was considered to be the equivalent of M.A.D. - something you could do, but would damage you as much as your oponents.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Are there any examples of any state at that time that encouraged a slave revolt in another state ? It doesn't seem to have been a strategy that occured to anyone, and given some of the tricks used by Hanibal you would have thought that it would have occured to him. Perhaps it was considered to be the equivalent of M.A.D. - something you could do, but would damage you as much as your oponents.

Cheers,
Nigel.
Slave revolts were rare in ancient Greece, and Rome had had no history of it by the time of the Second Punic War. If this strategy had occurred to Hannibal, he most likely dismissed the notion that rebellious slaves could be worthwhile military assets. It was only later that Roman slaves proved willing and able to carry out organized military actions against their masters.
 
How exactly would he go about destroying subterranean aqueducts? The amount of effort that would require... would probably be easier to use those diggers on the Roman walls.

He could always use the Mayan technique and poison the aqueducts. Feces, hemlock, anything like that. That could very well kill the Romans outright if Barca gets particularly.

And as much as I hate to remove Scipio (I'm a Scipione myself), he probably needs to die for Rome to fail.
 
Scipio's attack on New Carthage in Iberia fails and he is killed. With Rome apparently losing on all fronts of the war, an even more serious dip in moral takes root. Two or three of the unopposed Carthaginian armies in Iberia immediately move to reinforce Hannibal in Italy. With multiple armies in Italy, Hannibal can send one or two of them to besiege Rome or other major cities while a reserve field army can fend off any Roman attempts to relieve these sieges.

Hannibal can use this tactic to take ports in Southern Italy/Magna Graecia, opening him up for legitimate resupply. Or he can boldly attempt a siege of Rome with two armies and a reserve army to protect the siege. If the Roman field armies in Italy fail to break off this siege, the Romans will be forced to accept terms or face the destruction of their city. Knowing the Romans, they may choose their own slaughter over the shame of surrender.
 
Knowing the Romans, they may choose their own slaughter over the shame of surrender.
Sounds very Roman..... Hannibal would probably have to knock on the senators doors to get them to consider surrender. Afterall, what other nation at the time would have carried on after Cannae and Hannibal's other victories. So, getting Rome to actually surrender and sign peace terms is tricky. Honestly, I don't know how, but I do have to refresh my memory of this time period:eek:
 
Top