How could Carthage of won The 2nd Punic War?

[Falecius]

I would add that, were it not for the strategical and tactical genius of Hannibal, the Second Punic War would have been a completely unbalanced conflict right from the start.
His extraordinary ability, genius, and charisma made Rome threatened were in a normal situation the war should have ended with Carthage burnt to the ground by around 208 BC, or more likely surrendering way before. Remove Hannibal, and neither the Carthaginian army or navy were an even match for the Romans.
There might be some component of "great man" theory embedded in our sources in this, but all evidence I know points to overwhelming Roman superiority at this stage.
If anything, it is surprising that Carthage managed to get successes for so long against unfavorable odds IOTL.

With this, I am not saying that the Carthaginians had no competent leaders but Hannibal. They had. But Hannibal was not just competent, he was outstanding, and it was what Carthage needed at this point to have even a chance. He alone made possibly equal a match that had no otherwise anything but a foregone conclusion.

If you look for an even match, it is the FIRST Punic War. At that point, Carthage was approximately on an equal footing with the Romans. It had capable commanders, at least as capable as the Roman ones were if not more (Hamilcar was probably way better than any Roman consul he had to face, frex), naval supremacy, at least at the beginning, and was richer, at the beginning again. The Romans had already a larger and relatively more loyal power base, though, and that tipped the balance.
And no Carthaginian leader had the kind of lateral thinking to understand that the nature of Roman imperialism, an imperialism that never stopped after defeat, and could not stand any comparable power in its perceived sphere (it took Carrae, centuries later, to somehow mellow that feeling).
Neither did any Carthaginian leader understand that Romans had to be fought and defeated on their home turf, and even then, they had to be utterly and totally defeated beyond even hope of recovery or they would not even be defeated at all.
Hannibal understood this, but by his point, the odds were completely against him anyway.
To put it shortly, in the First Punic War the Carthaginians played by the rules. The Romans did not (nor they had done so in previous wars) and when Hannibal chose not to play by the rules himself, the picture had already changed.

 

[Falecius]

And by the way, what I posted does not mean Carthage was hopeless.
For example, again, as Monopolist noted, if the Spanish theatre had gone better at the right times (and it could), especially after Cannae, the balance would have been temporarily favorable to it, for a time possibly sufficient to bring Rome down.
What worked against them was the difficulty to understand the kind of total war the Romans were waging. The Romans were, quite literally, dead set to win, with "win" meaning "utterly and completely crush the enemy until its total unconditional surrender or destruction to the last fighting man".
And they had more manpower than anybody else in the Med by 218 BC. You couldn't just bleed them white before you had bled white yourself first.
It was possible to deny them most of their advantages denying them the offensive and stripping their subordinate allies, whose loyalties were still uncertain at this time, but only if you were able to protect them from reprisals, a task Hannibal's army was too little to perform.
The alternative was having Italic armies fighting the Romans for you, but the Italic cities and peoples had already been bled white,guess what, by the Romans using them in fighting the Carthaginians so, well, Hannibal had sort of a big problem. Reinforcements would have helped a lot. Having a substantial part of Central (and not just southern) Italy defect would have helped a lot.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I'll have to agree with what someone on the first page said, and say the war would have changed dramatically had Scipio been killed at Cannae for instance. When he arrived in Iberia, the situation was looking very bad for the Romans. If any ordinary Roman commander was sent there, the Carthaginians would have more than likely triumphed in Iberia IMO.

However, another way I can see the Carthaginians maybe not winning, but bringing the Romans to the negotiating table, would have been a Hannibalic victory at Zama. Hannibal nearly pulled that off too. The battle between the Romans and Hannibal's hardened veterans, was dead even, with Hannibal's veterans maybe even having a slight advantage. It was only when Massinissa's cavalry returned to the battlefield at just the right time, that the battle was lost for Hannibal and his veterans.

 

[Falecius]

I'll have to agree with what someone on the first page said, and say the war would have changed dramatically had Scipio been killed at Cannae for instance. When he arrived in Iberia, the situation was looking very bad for the Romans. If any ordinary Roman commander was sent there, the Carthaginians would have more than likely triumphed in Iberia IMO.

However, another way I can see the Carthaginians maybe not winning, but bringing the Romans to the negotiating table, would have been a Hannibalic victory at Zama. Hannibal nearly pulled that off too. The battle between the Romans and Hannibal's hardened veterans, was dead even, with Hannibal's veterans maybe even having a slight advantage. It was only when Massinissa's cavalry returned to the battlefield at just the right time, that the battle was lost for Hannibal and his veterans.

I think Zama is to late for bringing the Romans to negotiate. The overall balance at that point was favorable to them, Iberia was essentially lost for Carthage and while both powers had been bled white, Rome had far more manpower still.
While Hannibal winning at Zama could bring to a temporary stalemate, Rome was still able to mount yet another invasion of Africa, and Carthage was not in a shape to reciprocate having lost her Iberian bases and naval power.