Hannibal Does Not Return to Africa?

What if Hannibal Barca, when instead of being ordered to return from Italian to Africa to defend Carthage from Rome by the Carthaginian senate and doing so, ultimately being defeated at Zama, disregards his orders and stays in Italy? How would this change the flow of history as we know it? Does he still retain the ability to win against the ever more numerous Roman armies? Would Carthage be threatened with capture by the Roman forces?

Eager to hear your thoughts on this!
 
It's interesting, certainly. He was receiving so little support from Carthage that he was pretty much operating in his own orbit and the loss of Carthage itself would have changed much, materially. The troops in Italy by this point were far more loyal to him and/or opposed to Rome than loyal to Carthage itself...those that even knew Carthage at all,that is.

This had also been true of his father's army in Sicily, a fact I'm sure he was bitterly aware of. The sense I've always gotten was that he went home knowing it meant giving up all the advantages he'd built up, and probably losing, but doing it because, however little they backed him, backing Carthage was the 'right' move. And maybe being that kind of man helps explain how he kept that rag-tag collection of mostly unpaid mercenaries loyal and fighting hard for so long, so maybe not doing the 'right' thing loses him his credibility and therefore eventually his army.
 
It's interesting, certainly. He was receiving so little support from Carthage that he was pretty much operating in his own orbit and the loss of Carthage itself would have changed much, materially. The troops in Italy by this point were far more loyal to him and/or opposed to Rome than loyal to Carthage itself...those that even knew Carthage at all,that is.

This had also been true of his father's army in Sicily, a fact I'm sure he was bitterly aware of. The sense I've always gotten was that he went home knowing it meant giving up all the advantages he'd built up, and probably losing, but doing it because, however little they backed him, backing Carthage was the 'right' move. And maybe being that kind of man helps explain how he kept that rag-tag collection of mostly unpaid mercenaries loyal and fighting hard for so long, so maybe not doing the 'right' thing loses him his credibility and therefore eventually his army.

Interesting thoughts. The Barcas were a very loyal and honourable family OTL.

Would not returning to Carthage lose Hannibal his army? Perhaps, but where could the mercenaries go? Rome will only exact their vengeance upon them, and without unified leadership they can't hope to survive. Maybe his army would disperse if/once Hannibal gets defeated.
 
ultimately Hannibal was doomed not because of the lack of support from Home or the Roman army military might he was doomed for two main reasons he had no overall real plan if he would/could not attack Rome, other than looting what was he doing? the other is demographic the Roman Republics population at this point was growing explosively (this was the era before the small farmer was forced off the majority of the land in Italia/Latin states more men more armies) so quotes I remember reading about the period 'Roman armies appear as if from the very ground' or something like that
 
ultimately Hannibal was doomed not because of the lack of support from Home or the Roman army military might he was doomed for two main reasons he had no overall real plan if he would/could not attack Rome, other than looting what was he doing? the other is demographic the Roman Republics population at this point was growing explosively (this was the era before the small farmer was forced off the majority of the land in Italia/Latin states more men more armies) so quotes I remember reading about the period 'Roman armies appear as if from the very ground' or something like that

All of these are true, however, my question was more asking what if Hannibal decided to stay in Italy instead of returning to Carthage? Perhaps the Roman fleets blockades his way home? I know carthage was under negotiations for a peace with Rome, but were emboldened by Hannibal's return to Carthage and the capture of a Roman fleet with plenty of supplies. With Hannibal still in Italy would the Carthaginians accept peace, or would a rushed Roman attack against Hannibal in Italy, thought to be on his last legs, result in an even more spectacular victory for Hannibal!
 
The Carthaginians likely accept something similar to Scipios original terms before Hannibal returned. I forget what those terms were but IIRC they were more lenient than the final terms turned out to be.
 
The Carthaginians likely accept something similar to Scipios original terms before Hannibal returned. I forget what those terms were but IIRC they were more lenient than the final terms turned out to be.

The problem was that part of those terms was the immediate withdrawal of Hannibal and Mago and their armies. I suppose if Hannibal had refused orders the Punic senate could have tried ordering his own officers to arrest him and see if it stuck or perhaps withdraw as many elements loyal to the city of Carthage as possible and try persuading Rome they had done their best.
 
The Carthaginians likely accept something similar to Scipios original terms before Hannibal returned. I forget what those terms were but IIRC they were more lenient than the final terms turned out to be.

That's what I think too. How would Carthage develop from here on? I believe that Hannibal was quite the mastermind when it comes to economics and such as well.

The problem was that part of those terms was the immediate withdrawal of Hannibal and Mago and their armies. I suppose if Hannibal had refused orders the Punic senate could have tried ordering his own officers to arrest him and see if it stuck or perhaps withdraw as many elements loyal to the city of Carthage as possible and try persuading Rome they had done their best.

I think that the army if Hannibal is loyal to Hannibal. Would Rome wait to gather their forces and crush him in a battle impossible for him to win, or would they rush and send some nearby legions to do the deed, and possibly handing Hannibal a victory?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Does he still retain the ability to win against the ever more numerous Roman armies?

Hannibal was already pinned in southern Italy with little room for maneuver. The Romans remained hesitant, but in fact they had already won a victory over Hannibal, albeit an indecisive one, at the Battle of Numistro. By the time Scipio landed in northern Africa, Hannibal and his army were far from what they had been in the days of Cannae. Hannibal's days were numbered no matter what he did.
 
That's what I think too. How would Carthage develop from here on? I believe that Hannibal was quite the mastermind when it comes to economics and such as well.



I think that the army if Hannibal is loyal to Hannibal. Would Rome wait to gather their forces and crush him in a battle impossible for him to win, or would they rush and send some nearby legions to do the deed, and possibly handing Hannibal a victory?

As pointed out by Anaxagoras above the Romans had no need to stake all on a battle with Hannibal, though it is notable what happened when he was forced to confront a Roman army head on at Zama. Still if Hannibal does not return Scipio Africanus commences siege operations against Carthage itself. Maybe Carthage resists as well as in the Third Punic War but it still goes down inside about three years at best and without any hope of reinforcement and extra pay from that quarter the loyalty of Hannibal's army is going to be tested to say the least.
 
To be fair given how close Hannibal came to victory and given the circumstances that led to Rome's victory (chiefly the numidian cavalry) I think Rome would be smart to not fight Hannibal in Italy. While a defeat wouldn't really mean anything they are unlikely to defeat him in a pitched battle and could achieve his destruction through other means by this time.
 

Deleted member 97083

If the Carthaginians win the Battle of the Metaurus and Hasdrubal Barca's reinforcements are able to join up with Hannibal, then Rome is doomed.

After Metaurus however, there is no chance of a permanent Carthaginian comeback, only a mitigation of their defeat.
 

Towelie

Banned
If Hannibal does not return, what exactly prevents Scipio from sacking the cities of Africa and maybe being able to take Carthage itself? The local Carthaginian forces were no match for Scipio. It was Hannibal's mercenaries and veterans who made Zama a battle in which the Carthaginians had a chance.

And if Carthage itself falls, the terms are going to be a hell of a lot worse than what Scipio and the Senate initially agreed on.
 
If the Carthaginians win the Battle of the Metaurus and Hasdrubal Barca's reinforcements are able to join up with Hannibal, then Rome is doomed.

After Metaurus however, there is no chance of a permanent Carthaginian comeback, only a mitigation of their defeat.

A very easy PoD to make this happen is to have Hasdrubal's messenger not be captured. There's then good odds that Hasdrubal could well have met up - whether this would have been enough to actually swing the 2nd Punic War back into Carthaginian favour is debatable, but Hannibal with proper siege equipment would have been a significantly more dangerous prospect.

However, that's not the OP's question!

If Hannibal stays in Italy, he has a problem. Between himself and his brother Mago, the Romans are still going to struggle to actually kill him, but in all odds, Carthage would have had to sue for peace. This means an end to the reinforcements and supplies from Africa. The destruction of Roman Italy, barring Hannibal pulling off another Trebia/Trasimene/Cannae (although, considering he managed three of the bloody things, that's not impossible...) is now a remote possibility - indeed, one would assume Hannibal might have to retreat from Italy altogether. Perhaps withdraw back into Spain, or even go into Gaul? Or, for a real wild-card option, Phillip invites them to Macedonia!
 
There hadn't been much in the way of reinforcements and supplies from Carthage, though. Hannibal was essentially self-sustaining.
 
The problem is that Hannibal was a genius tactician and an expert in manoeuvre warfare. This means that he realised the only way that Carthaginian troops were going to beat Roman ones in anything other than overwhelming numbers was by disorganising them and the only way to do that was basically by ambush. All of Hannibal's really big victories over the Romans follow that pattern, Trebbia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae, the Silarus. Trebbia and Cannae are somewhat interesting in they are battlefield ambushes but they still relied on drawing the Romans into a trap and it is perhaps worth noting at Trebbia that a force of legionaries punched right through the Carthaginian host and escaped.

Yet even after Cannae Hannibal lacked the strength to take Naples, not Rome but Naples was too strong for him. This at a time when he had both destroyed roughly half the Roman legions in the field and the Romans were a lot less experienced. By 207 BC Roman troops and every grade of officer is likely to have fairly comprehensive experience as the Romans had been in the field a long time and rotated their legions about. It gets worse though as the Romans now had a lot more armies in the field than they possessed in 216 BC. So if Hannibal went north to aid his brother not merely would he have Nero and his army on his tail, even if they did not know his intent but he would be leaving his south Italian allies open to several other Roman armies.

However given Hannibal's towering reputation was by that stage his greatest weapon he could probably have sustained a conflict in Cisalpine Gaul and the northern Latin regions that Rome would have found gruelling.

As to operation outside Italy...after 207 BC Spain is no longer an option for Hannibal as that is now Scipio land. Philip V would love to Hannibal and his army as his own army was demonstrably a bit rubbish compared to the Romans having been routed by a single legion! However in Greece Hannibal can run amok to his heart's content for a long time before the Romans even need to think about doing something about him.

No option left Hannibal by 202 BC helps Carthage other than going back to Carthage and Hannibal was first and foremost a Punic Citizen.
 
Cannae is IMO the exact opposite of an ambush.

It's Hannibal's Gaugamela; the Romans intentionally chose to do battle in a place where they would be immune to any hidden forces, on terrain ideally suited for their formations, and with the largest force they'd ever deployed specifically to overcome his tactical genius by overwhelming numbers.

Everything Hannibal does there is done out in the open. It's a battle where his mind holds the only secret, and that secret was merely that he had by now understood exactly how legions fight, and he intended to use that against them. It ranks with Austerlitz IMO as the 'perfect' battle, and part of the reason I hold it so high is that it is so absent any element of tactical surprise other than sheer intellect coupled with the guts and command/control to see it through. It's basically a three-dimensional chess match, and he starts the game with half the pieces of the other player. It's pure unadulterated genius.

If you are defining an ambush as any kind of 'trap' including those of intellect, than I'd say most battles in history can be thus qualified to some degree, and I don't therefore see it as a limitation on any future engagements he might pursue.
 
If Hannibal does not return, what exactly prevents Scipio from sacking the cities of Africa and maybe being able to take Carthage itself? The local Carthaginian forces were no match for Scipio. It was Hannibal's mercenaries and veterans who made Zama a battle in which the Carthaginians had a chance.

And if Carthage itself falls, the terms are going to be a hell of a lot worse than what Scipio and the Senate initially agreed on.
What stops him is Carthage would agree to terms well before that happens.
 
ultimately Hannibal was doomed not because of the lack of support from Home or the Roman army military might he was doomed for two main reasons he had no overall real plan if he would/could not attack Rome, other than looting what was he doing? the other is demographic the Roman Republics population at this point was growing explosively (this was the era before the small farmer was forced off the majority of the land in Italia/Latin states more men more armies) so quotes I remember reading about the period 'Roman armies appear as if from the very ground' or something like that

I disagree with the notion that he had no plan, btw. He had an excellent plan that worked according to all understood conventions of the time. It's like Napoleon and Moscow; when the enemy does something so contrary to the norm, it's pretty harsh to say the plan was insufficient. If at Crecy the French suddenly launched tanks, I wouldn't say Edward's plan was less well conceived. Everything before Punic II would argue that at least after Cannae Rome sues for peace. But they didn't.

You can argue that after it became clear that Rome was doing the unprecedented he failed to come up with a viable alternative and I'd say that's accurate but I'm not sure what his viable options were. I think by then he was looking for better degrees of mutually accepted failure unless he could find another commander reckless enough to take him on again in full battle; ie Rome's conquest was likely off the table but he hoped that attrition and reducing the connective tissue between Rome and Mag. Grac. allies would at least lead to a peace better than Carthage had after Punic I. Or Carthage actually contributes something to the effort. So I can accept that he didn't really have a second plan, but his first was honestly brilliant, completely upsetting the existing center of balance that was inevitably leading to Carthage's extinction, and masterfully carried out, it's just that Rome was something new, and this was really the first time they'd shown this side. They'd agreed to unfavourable peace treaties several times in their past following losses to the Samnites, Gauls, etc. so it's not like Hannibal had any way of knowing Rome would behave as it did.
 
Cannae is IMO

It's Hannibal's Gaugamela;

Austerlitz .

The interesting thing to me is that I put forwards a testable claim and you respond with your opinion and appeals to Alexander III and Napoleon I.

The way to argue against my contention to find a battle where Hannibal was able to overcome a Roman army in direct assault. The ambush on Minicus at Gerontium which was much like Cannae hidden in plain sight failed for the simple reason Fabius Maximus turned up. In much the same way I describe Cannae as a battlefield ambush as it has the same elements of an ambush, troops from among Hannibal's weaker contingents bait the Roman infantry forwards while the cavalry eliminates its rivals and his high quality infantry is only employed against the disordered flanks of the Roman mass (no longer worth being called a formation by most accounts). However even at Cannae things would have likely been utterly different if the Romans had kept back a sufficient reserve.

For the point was the Romans did not need huge numbers to beat Hannibal, Fabius, Miniucius even, Marcellus, Nero all took on and beat Hannibal in open field. The Romans could win by attritional warfare...it is not elegant but a useful fall back to have in your strategy box. Hannibal was a genius in that he repeatedly managed to win battles against the Romans using inferior troops (except in the cavalry) and kept his army intact for the best part of two decades (though with declining efficiency).

However his plan did not succeed by "all understood conventions of the time"...it is worth noting that Scipio still had to possess the power to enforce his terms on Carthage after they had actually signed a peace. People already understood in this era a treaty was unlikely to hold unless both sides could enforce it and that a power was unlikely to give in to unfavourable terms if it had reason to believe it could fight for better ones.

As to the idea that Carthage lent Hannibal no aid...well that is a bit rich. Carthage's problem was that a certain general by the name of Hannibal Barca had abandoned his post in Spain leaving those valuable territories wide open to Roman attack. Meanwhile this guy called Hannibal Barca was trying to operate an army in southern Italy and needed resources which could only come past Sicily . Even so they did manage to send him money and troops and even elephants, worth thinking about how difficult it is to transport an elephant by sea and keep it in healthy enough condition to fight at the end of the voyage. They even sent troops to try and take advantage of Syracuse's switch in loyalties which if it had succeeded would have gone a long way towards opening a more viable supply line to Hannibal.
 
Top