Hannibal Does Not Return to Africa?

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.
And I would like to add that this plan was working to some extent. It was taking yim3 but Rome *was* on the ropes in 207 until Hamilcar was defeated. Hannibal's situation was by no means an impossible one and given the circumstances he carried out the best strategy possible to the utmost effectiveness. We shouldn't be shocked that Hannibal ultimately lost but that he came much closer to victory than he ever should have.
 
And I would like to add that this plan was working to some extent. It was taking yim3 but Rome *was* on the ropes in 207 until Hamilcar was defeated. Hannibal's situation was by no means an impossible one and given the circumstances he carried out the best strategy possible to the utmost effectiveness. We shouldn't be shocked that Hannibal ultimately lost but that he came much closer to victory than he ever should have.

Do you mean Hasdrubal? It might have been interesting if his letter had not fallen into Roman hands. There were other near misses for Hannibal, Tarentum where if he had managed to take the Citadel either in the first sneak attack or perhaps by preventing the resupply convoy and starving it out he might have bettered his logistics situation. Sicily after the defection of Syracuse might have been a smart area of operations for him being much nearer resupply from Carthage.

Yet each of Hannibal's chances leave him not one step away from victory but three or even four. Hasdrubal has to link up their armies and while the extra force is nice it does not by itself reverse the balance of power in Italy. Tarentum opens the way for Philip V of Macedon to attempt reinforcement but there is still a Roman fleet at Brundisium in the way. Sicily well that is a whole series of battles and no surety of success.

Yet maybe the best chance for Hannibal would have been to refuse his Senate's order and enforce the peace with Scipio though that would have required mounting a coup and possibly a stretch too far for Hannibal. Even then we have no guarantees given Roman vindictiveness.
 
Do you mean Hasdrubal?
This is becoming a real problem for me. Yes, thanks for correcting that.

It might have been interesting if his letter had not fallen into Roman hands. There were other near misses for Hannibal, Tarentum where if he had managed to take the Citadel either in the first sneak attack or perhaps by preventing the resupply convoy and starving it out he might have bettered his logistics situation. Sicily after the defection of Syracuse might have been a smart area of operations for him being much nearer resupply from Carthage.

Yet each of Hannibal's chances leave him not one step away from victory but three or even four. Hasdrubal has to link up their armies and while the extra force is nice it does not by itself reverse the balance of power in Italy. Tarentum opens the way for Philip V of Macedon to attempt reinforcement but there is still a Roman fleet at Brundisium in the way. Sicily well that is a whole series of battles and no surety of success.
Sure. But at the same time, it should be said that already by 207 IOTL Rome was actually experiencing something close to a manpower shortage (Latin allies refusing to send more recruits for example). Add a few changes, Rome losing the citadel of Tarentum, maybe the siege of Syracuse dragging on longer, or far less success by Scipio in Spain, and the situation for Rome by 207, already much closer to disaster than is popularly believed, is immeasurably more bleak. So having another sizable army march into Italy and one slip up-Hannibal being alerted to Nero's gamble for example, and another Roman army destroyed might be enough to force Rome to the negotiating table.
 
Sure. But at the same time, it should be said that already by 207 IOTL Rome was actually experiencing something close to a manpower shortage (Latin allies refusing to send more recruits for example). Add a few changes, Rome losing the citadel of Tarentum, maybe the siege of Syracuse dragging on longer, or far less success by Scipio in Spain, and the situation for Rome by 207, already much closer to disaster than is popularly believed, is immeasurably more bleak. So having another sizable army march into Italy and one slip up-Hannibal being alerted to Nero's gamble for example, and another Roman army destroyed might be enough to force Rome to the negotiating table.

Punic names are like that "Ha, Ha, Ha" scene from My Fair Lady and that ends with the Audrey Hepburn character setting the crib sheet on fire, so at least you aren't doing that badly.

I have tried looking into the manpower situation as best I am able and I think the bigger 'problem' was by 207 the Roman Commonwealth already had something north of 200,000 men in the field, this was not a case of the Beadle saying to Oliver Twist "You want more?" but instead the allies saying "you really don't want another wah-fer thin mint" to the Pythonesque glutton.

I am sceptical of Hannibal's ability at this stage to destroy another Roman army. Largely for reasons I have stated above. I also think that to beat Nero to the Mataurus is going to take a miracle or air lift. Nero's march was deliberately by a much smaller force which also took advantage of the fact it was moving through friendly territory so that it did not need to take supplies with it. Hannibal simply cannot move in force that quickly. To beat Nero and/or Livius to Hasdrubal Hannibal basically needs to get the letter.

That said we do need to recognise the stretch factor and that if Hannibal is focused on detaching or at least laying waste Roman allies he might bring matters to a relatively positive conclusion. Perhaps trading leaving Italy for a Roman withdrawal from Spain? I confess to being a little unclear as to Hannibal's goals, the closests to an existing out line would seem to be his treaty with Philip V of Macedon which appeared to envisage the complete conquest of Rome however that may have simply been bravado to encourage the Macedonian in and perhaps leave the Carthaginian an out on pay back.

I think that a Hannibal victory scenario really does rest on his goals. Hasdrubal would have improved his ability to continue to operate in Italy immensely as one of the limiting factors by 207 BC was that he had not the troops to keep both an effective enough field force sufficient to make the Romans wary and find garrisons to cover his widely scattered allies. Yet the problem of Hasdrubal's arrival is that it signals that Scipio is soon to be free to operate in another theatre too. Now Scipio was probably right the best place for him was Africa but even had he instead been brought back to Italy that adds yet another Roman army of experienced veterans to contend with.

That likely gives Hannibal a year to make the Romans think considering terms is a goodly notion and (critically) make them an offer they can accept before he ends up in the same slow spiral of encirclement that followed Cannae and the defections of Capua and Syracuse.
 
I think Hannibals end goal is something akin to relegating Rome to a central Italian power. Say Latium and Etruria. He might have entertained hopes of destroying Rome completely but I doubt it (that seems to be a distinctly Roman philosophy, utterly destroying States in one war rather than winning territory), but if he did he was likely quickly disabused of that notion.
 
Top