Should Hannibal have Marched on Rome after Cannae?

What should Hannibal have done?

  • Hannibal should've besieged Rome

    Votes: 25 26.3%
  • Hannibal should've marched on Rome to force surrender, but not siege it

    Votes: 47 49.5%
  • Hannibal took the best course of action IOTL

    Votes: 23 24.2%

  • Total voters
    95
No ancient ancient army went marching about the countryside with siege equipment. Ladders, batering rams, seige towers, mines, even catapults are all built in situ.

And no siege weapons were built without siege engineers, or at least some people with extensive knowledge over the siege warfare...and not bringing a lot of them was Hannibal's grave mistake.
 
Hannibal could cut off food and water from entering Rome, forcing a surrender by starvation. ;)

How exactly is Hannibal supposed to cut off water to the City? By damning the Tiber? Rome is a city of over one hundred thousand people, it would take an army far larger than Hannibal's to properly besiege it. Even if he devastated the countryside around Rome, Hannibal would not be able to force the city to surrender without an assault. Since all of Hannibal's battlefield success depended upon his superior ability to maneuver his light calvary and light infantry, it is doubtful he could have come up with some ingenious coup to defeat the Roman forces in the city. Like every other general of the time Hannibal would have been forced to advance into the city and fight block by block, much as the Romans were forced to do during their siege of Carthage during the Third Punic War.

A better plan, in my opinion would have been to seize Ostia (Rome's main port) and secure it so that the Carthaginians could reinforce Hannibal by sea. Kind of a long shot, but control of the Port would hinder Roman naval operations, and give the Carthaginian oligarchy the option of assisting their most skilled general, of course assuming they could be convinced to do so.
 
I think that at the very least, Hannibal should have been prepared to advance on Rome with the purpose on besieging it. This would probably force the Romans to sue for peace, that or a few months under siege. Not at least threatening to take the city was a grave mistake that cost Carthage the war and ultimately, it's existance.
 
OTL Hannibal has marched on Rome to force surrender, but the romans just ignored him.
Why should arriving there with half an army would change the thing?
 
He didn't have any siege equipment, which would have made actually taking the city very difficult, but he could probably have made it very difficult for the Romans to recover if he had marched.

See this:
No ancient ancient army went marching about the countryside with siege equipment. Ladders, batering rams, seige towers, mines, even catapults are all built in situ.

I think you mean that he needed engineers. The idea that the reason he couldn't march on Rome was because he didn't have siege equipment is an illusion, because no ancient armies dragged around siege towers and stuff for a campaign. Engineers, on the other hand, were lacking for Hannibal - however, he was expecting some reinforcements to help him out both with engineers and with numbers, both of which were lacking in Hannibal's army. Hasdrubal's failure to reach Hannibal was probably the key reason why Hannibal never did, and probably never could, successfully conquer Rome itself.

There is a way that more reinforcements would have arrived for Hannibal, but it would have required a POD (specifically, worse outcomes for the Romans) during the earlier course of the war. If Hasbdrubal Barca somehow had won at Dertosa, the Carthaginians would have sent the reinforcements (which in OTL were re-directed to Hispania following Habdrubal's defeat) to Italy. I'm not wholly convinced that Hannibal could have successfully marched on Rome, but there's also the psychological effect of the Hispanic campaign ending in a disaster for the Romans.

IMO, the situation after Drepana, while a terrible blow for Carthage, was still salvagable with a victory at Metaurus (hence the PoD for my TL). Otherwise, I agree fully.

A better plan, in my opinion would have been to seize Ostia (Rome's main port) and secure it so that the Carthaginians could reinforce Hannibal by sea. Kind of a long shot, but control of the Port would hinder Roman naval operations, and give the Carthaginian oligarchy the option of assisting their most skilled general, of course assuming they could be convinced to do so.
Bringing up Ostia is a good point. Ostia would be a huge blow to Rome if Hannibal were to attempt a long-term siege, and I agree that siezing it would have to be one of the first things he'd have to do.
 
Last edited:
OTL Hannibal has marched on Rome to force surrender, but the romans just ignored him.
Why should arriving there with half an army would change the thing?
I'd almost forgotten about that - but the reason is because the situation wasn't nearly so desperate for Rome when he did it (was it 215? I can't recall right now...). Even half of an exhausted Punic army could've been the final tipping point for Rome (though I don't think it would've been, but that's my opinion of course...).

EDIT: It was 211 BC apparently
 
Last edited:
What, no replies to the ramp?!?!

Anyone on here served in the Infantry? Or the Engineers?

How tall were Rome's walls of this time period. I don't need to know how thick the walls were, just how high.

Anyone?
 
What, no replies to the ramp?!?!

Anyone on here served in the Infantry? Or the Engineers?

How tall were Rome's walls of this time period. I don't need to know how thick the walls were, just how high.

Anyone?
The Servian wall was a little over thirty feet tall (ten meters)... making a dirt ramp three stories high and expecting it to be stable enough... it just doesn't seem (to me) to be the best option during a siege... such a ramp would have to take as long to build as your regular, and more effective, siege weapons, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Stephen

Banned
But ramps have been built up walls just as high historically havent they? Like up the cliffs of Masada.

Hanibals main problem was that the After those defeats the Romans became battle shy and shodowed him rather than fighting. To besiege Rome seems like a good way to me to provoke a relieving Roman Army into another large scale battle at which Hanibal excelled. Then throw all the dead bodies and camp waist into the tiber to poison Rome.
 
But ramps have been built up walls just as high historically havent they? Like up the cliffs of Masada.

Hanibals main problem was that the After those defeats the Romans became battle shy and shodowed him rather than fighting. To besiege Rome seems like a good way to me to provoke a relieving Roman Army into another large scale battle at which Hanibal excelled. Then throw all the dead bodies and camp waist into the tiber to poison Rome.
The actual ramp was smaller than the proposed ramp by a couple feet - the geology there was advantageous to making a ramp rather than dragging towers and stuff up there. Conventional siege weaponry, IMO, is more practical and more likely to work in the case of a siege on Rome. But I could just be being stubborn.
 
The Servian wall was a little over thirty feet tall (ten meters)... making a dirt ramp three stories high and expecting it to be stable enough... it just doesn't seem (to me) to be a viable option...

At last, a reply!:D

Yep, I had to research that myself. The article said that in places it was as high as 32 feet.

When I was in the Infantry, we had a worthless, dinky, little toy shovel called an 'entrenching tool'. With this, I dug a 6X3X5 foxhole. I also cut down a small sapling and broke it into small pieces to support the sandbags for the fighting positions overhead cover. After I had the sandbags positioned I covered the whole thing with sod cut from a nearby patch of grass as well as some evergreen shrubs. This took considerably less than 8 hours.

I think that a modern, pizza eating, car driving, Internet browsing man is not going to out work a man who was accustomed to manual labor over his entire life. So if I could move 90 cubic feet of dirt (plus all the other stuff), in less than 8 hours..... Lets just call it a very conservative 100 cubic feet a day and leave it at that.

Not knowing what the Romans are going to have in the way of long range missile weapons with which to harass the workers, lets say that we start the ramp 500 feet or so from the wall.

Lets assume a ramp of 50 foot height, and 500 feet length, and with sides that slope down at a sharp 45% angle. Lets say we want this ramp to be 30 feet wide at the top. So allowing for some variations, we get ~ 50X30X30=45,000 cubic feet for one such ramp. Add in the sloping sides and make it 90,000 cubic feet, and then lets just round it up to an even 100,000 cubic feet of dirt needed for this one ramp.

So, one man would need 1,000 days to be able to move this much dirt, and 1,00 men would need one day. This ignores tamping, harassing fire, counter-attacks, and stony ground that would have to have the dirt transported to the ramp from where it was being dug. I'm to lazy and tired to try and figure out any more detailed things I may have overlooked right now, and will save that for tomorrow.

On the other hand, the fact that this was not attempted in historic times suggests that either they didn't think of it, they didn't have the tools, or there was some good (and forgotten) reason that they couldn't have built a few dozen of these ramps over the course of a spring-summer in the first place.

Any thoughts?

P.S.
I know I am kinda rambling, but I just started a new semester and the shift to 6:00 AM start from a 3:00 PM start for the last 4 months is kicking my behind, but good. No pun intended.:D
 
Actually, I make the volume to be closer to 1.5 million cubic feet, so about 15,000 man-days to build using the 100 cubic feet per day criterion. But yes, the principle is the same. Add the time for transporting the dirt (which would be considerable) and facing the roadway with harder, more sturdy material, and it should still take no more than a month or so for 1,000 workers. Unless I am missing a game-breaker.
 
Some pretty nifty math work
(assuming your math work is right, because I'm too lazy to check...)

I've never really thought of a ramp before for an ancient siege; but, with that math, it seems like they should've been at least tried more. I'm still a little sceptical that it could be practical as you describe, because, as you said, nobody really ever did it in the ancient world. Perhaps because you leave your men just as if not more vulnerable to enemy missiles as ladders (coming up it to storm in and actually piling the dirt up to the wall)? I honestly don't know - I figured that such a ramp would take a bit longer then a couple days...
 
Actually, I make the volume to be closer to 1.5 million cubic feet, so about 15,000 man-days to build using the 100 cubic feet per day criterion. But yes, the principle is the same. Add the time for transporting the dirt (which would be considerable) and facing the roadway with harder, more sturdy material, and it should still take no more than a month or so for 1,000 workers. Unless I am missing a game-breaker.

I got that number too a while back, but then couldn't remember how I got it.:eek: It sucks changing from vampire schedule to living person schedule. Too tired to think straight.


(assuming your math work is right, because I'm too lazy to check...)

I've never really thought of a ramp before for an ancient siege; but, with that math, it seems like they should've been at least tried more. I'm still a little sceptical that it could be practical as you describe, because, as you said, nobody really ever did it in the ancient world. Perhaps because you leave your men just as if not more vulnerable to enemy missiles as ladders (coming up it to storm in and actually piling the dirt up to the wall)? I honestly don't know - I figured that such a ramp would take a bit longer then a couple days...

My brain is not happy with me for taking early morning classes this semester, and my sloppy math is probably it's way of telling me to goto bed. NOW!:D

I cannot think straight right now, so off to bed I go. Cya tomorrow guys, and I hope to read more on why ramps were not built, lol.
 
Actually, I make the volume to be closer to 1.5 million cubic feet, so about 15,000 man-days to build using the 100 cubic feet per day criterion. But yes, the principle is the same. Add the time for transporting the dirt (which would be considerable) and facing the roadway with harder, more sturdy material, and it should still take no more than a month or so for 1,000 workers. Unless I am missing a game-breaker.

The problem was not just the walls, but the thousands of Roman men waiting behind them. Rome had a population of around 250,000 at the time, and every free man among them (most of whom had some military background) would have fought the invaders. Hannibal had maybe 40-45,000 men after Cannae, and after scaling the walls he would have been deprived of the service of his redoubtable Baeleric slingers, and his Numidian light cavalry. Hannibal's army lacked the heavy shock troops necessary for storming a city, especially as his heaviest losses at Cannae had been amongst his Gaulish swordsmen.

Hannibal may have had in mind the fate of Pyhrus of Epirus, who was slaughtered along with his men in the narrow streets of Corinth. That could very well have been the fate of Hannibal if he had attempted an assault through the narrow alleys of Rome.
 
One last post before bed...

If I were Hannibal's advisor, I would have him sending folks to every city and asking if they were tired of Rome and her imperial demeanor, and would they like to send some men to attend the downfall and share in the loot? One share per man, divided up evenly to all those that came to Romes going away party.:cool:
 

Keenir

Banned
One last post before bed...

If I were Hannibal's advisor, I would have him sending folks to every city and asking if they were tired of Rome and her imperial demeanor, and would they like to send some men to attend the downfall and share in the loot? One share per man, divided up evenly to all those that came to Romes going away party.:cool:

I remember that Hannibal gained many allies of the Italian cities (who wanted to be free of the Roman yoke) in his wars on the penninsula...but I think by the time of Cannae, they were abandoning him, yes?
 
Top