DBWI: Rome keeps fighting after the Battle of Cannae

The Romans, after the defeat of Cannae, signed a peace treaty on moderate terms (For the most part) with Hannibal. With this, it started the decline of Rome for many years before it could pull itself together. At the same time, it allow Carthage to take back it's place in the ancient world before the first war and become more.
 

Yuelang

Banned
Not quite ASB but borderline enough.

Hannibal continuously broke Roman army on the field and Philip of Macedon started supporting him with greek troops, elite cavalry, and of course Naval raids to Eastern Italy.

While Hannibal is the biggest factor that push Roman defeat, it would be Macedonians who end up occupying North Italy while Hannibal move to Spain to mop up Roman remnants there.

If Rome not negotiate peace Terms, expect instead of independence, South Italy would be incorporated into Carthaginian colony and the rest of Italy annexed into Macedonia.
 
The Macedonians aren't going to invade Italy. Philip V has way too many problems of his own. Really, the easiest way you can do this is have Hannibal not march up to the gates of Rome after Cannae, and brush aside the Roman army blocking his path. If he instead uses it as an opportunity to gather more allies in Italy away from Rome, then the Romans will probably decide to fight on. The decision was an incredibly close run thing IOTL, and it was only Hannibal's army camped outside the city, despite having no real chance of being able to take it, that pushed many Senators over the edge.
 
The notion that the BEST general of the time does NOT use its victory and throws it away is just stupid,. Hannibal was not only a shrewed general, he also was a damn good politican...

But If Rome fights oon, well could it win? probably not.

If it does, I bet the world would look much different in our times... As Carthago knew how to utilize the different nations it dominated to their best ability, I bet Rome with the focus on ROMANISATION would slow down technological advance.
 
Look, that's not how ancient warfare worked. Spreading from the wars of the Diadochi, where armies and culture were so similar that manoeuvre was King and breaking an army could destroy a kingdom, ancient warfare developed such that a city state would surrender if defeated in battle, especially one such as Vannae. There's no way any ancient state the size of Rome could maintain morale and fighting forces sufficient for a war after 60,000 of their troops are killed.

OOC: Rome was the only stand out to this IOTL - Cannae being the point at which it really shows its ability to recover and continue fighting. If they surrender I posit that historians will see ancient warfare as a pure continuum from the Diadochi....
 
OOC: You should rather move this DBWI to the ASB forum. Hannibal succeeding is only a bit more plausible than a successful Sealion or a victorious CSA.

Hannibal was a superb general and tactician, but an average strategist. How could he hope to beat Rome, that could field 250,000 men and 250,000 allies, himself having just 30,000 men and some elephants that died in the Alps?
Nobody would have surrendered in such a situation, the Romans did what every other power would have done in this situation: realizing that Hannibal could never siege Rome and continue the fighting until Hannibal is forced to retreat to defend his home city.
 
Top