IIRC, Hannibal Monomachus,staff officer and friend of the great Hannibal, during the march from Spain to Italy, proposed cannibalism in order to supply the army, if Polybius is to be believed. Hannibal was unable to follow up on Monomachus' advice. What if Hannibal had adopted the practice large-scale? I apologize if this is probably more suited to the ASB forum, I chose to post it here first to see if this is even remotely plausible, and if it would seriously affect the outcome of the Second Punic War.
Hannibal the Cannibal
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
I'm honestly surprised Cannibal armies haven't been a thing considering how bad some armies' supply problems could get and some cultures not having much aversion to drinking from skulls and whatnot.
Well the main question here is why should Polybius be believed with regard to whether this actually happened? First it's important to understand what the purpose of this anecdote served for Polybius. So, here's the full passage:
I bolded the last sentence here, because it is important. Polybius admires Hannibal, and throughout the work spends a lot of time defending Hannibal's character from critics. The purpose of this passage was not to suggest that Hannibal had ever seriously considered cannibalism it is to set up Hannibal's character. Hannibal cannot abide by cruel acts such as cannibalism, but Hannibal's army did commit cruel acts while in Italy. Polybius is saying that the cruel acts, and Hannibal's reputation for them, were not because he was a cruel man, but because he had bad advice from advisors (this is a theme in Polybius, he deploys the same explanation for Hieronymus of Syracuse) such as Monomarchos and was often required to by necessity. Monomarchos, and presumably other advisors, are cruel but Haninbal is not, in contrast to what other Roman historians were saying. Polybius was likely responding to other accusations (that we see later in Varro and Livy but that likely existed in Polybius's time) that Hannibal's army had practiced cannibalism, because Hannibal was an excessively cruel man (as the traditional Roman story told it).
Greeks and Hellenized Phoenicians alike had a strong moral aversion to cannibalism, and Polybius actually relates a real instance of cannibalism by the mercenaries in the Mercenary War when Hamilcar sieged them at Prion. This episode is used to fully convince the Carthaginians of the inhumanity of the rebels, who are now no better than beasts, leading Hamilcar to refuse their eventual surrender and slaughter them all. So with that in mind, I don't think Hannibal would have actually have allowed his army to resort to cannibalism. However in the event that did happen, I'm not sure much would change since plenty of Roman accounts, already were accusing Hannibal's army of cannibalism.
I bolded the last sentence here, because it is important. Polybius admires Hannibal, and throughout the work spends a lot of time defending Hannibal's character from critics. The purpose of this passage was not to suggest that Hannibal had ever seriously considered cannibalism it is to set up Hannibal's character. Hannibal cannot abide by cruel acts such as cannibalism, but Hannibal's army did commit cruel acts while in Italy. Polybius is saying that the cruel acts, and Hannibal's reputation for them, were not because he was a cruel man, but because he had bad advice from advisors (this is a theme in Polybius, he deploys the same explanation for Hieronymus of Syracuse) such as Monomarchos and was often required to by necessity. Monomarchos, and presumably other advisors, are cruel but Haninbal is not, in contrast to what other Roman historians were saying. Polybius was likely responding to other accusations (that we see later in Varro and Livy but that likely existed in Polybius's time) that Hannibal's army had practiced cannibalism, because Hannibal was an excessively cruel man (as the traditional Roman story told it).
Greeks and Hellenized Phoenicians alike had a strong moral aversion to cannibalism, and Polybius actually relates a real instance of cannibalism by the mercenaries in the Mercenary War when Hamilcar sieged them at Prion. This episode is used to fully convince the Carthaginians of the inhumanity of the rebels, who are now no better than beasts, leading Hamilcar to refuse their eventual surrender and slaughter them all. So with that in mind, I don't think Hannibal would have actually have allowed his army to resort to cannibalism. However in the event that did happen, I'm not sure much would change since plenty of Roman accounts, already were accusing Hannibal's army of cannibalism.
I've never really heard about it outside of Papua New Guinea. Then again chroniclers might not record such a thing if its on their side.
Did that was a modest proposal? if anything romans would fear hannibal name if this now a literal open season on romans...
The cannibalism would presumably be of his own dead troops, in the exceptional circumstances of crossing the Alps. In any case, the Romans were already accusing Hannibal of cannibalism IOTL, which is why Polybius even bothers to relate this anecdote.