alternatehistory.com

I'll quote Livy, as he was in no doubt with what Hannibal should've done:

"Meanwhile, the victorious Hannibal was surrounded by his officers, offering their congratulations and urging him to take some rest during the remainder of the day and hte ensuing night, and to allow his tired troops to do the same; Maharbarl, however, the commander of his cavalry, was convinced that there was not a moment to be lost. 'Sir,' he said, 'if you want to know the true significance of this battle, let me tell you that within five days you will take your dinner, in triumph, on the Capitol. I will go first with my horsemen. The first knowledge of our coming will be the sights of us at the gates of Rome. You have but to follow.'

"To Hannibal, this seemed too sanguine a hope, a project too great to be, in the circumstances, wholly believable. 'I commend your zeal,' he said to Maharbal; 'but I need time to weigh the plan which you propose.' 'Assuredly,' Maharbal replied, 'no one man has been blessed with all God's gifts. You know, Hannibal, how to win a fight; you do not know how to use that victory.'

"It is generally believed that that day's delay was the salvation of the City and of the Empire."

So, are all of you in agreement with Livy? Your options are 1) Hannibal should've marched and stormed on Rome immediately, 2) Hannibal should've marched on Rome in an attempt to frighten Rome into surrender, but not actually besiege them, or 3) Hannibal took the best course of action in our timeline.

Personally, while I think there was a good chance that Rome would've surrendered if Hannibal had marched immediately upon it, I think that any siege of Rome at the time would've failed miserably - not because of the illusion that Hannibal couldn't get siege equipment, but because Rome still had plenty of armies that could relieve Rome, and they could put a solid garrison to defend the city with its walls. Plus, Cannae's a good 250 miles away from Rome, so it'd take some time to get there rather than just a couple days like Maharbal wants to do, especially with an exhausted army, but that's not the main point. An extended siege where Hannibal would likely have to storm the gates would likely fail, especially with repeated relief attempts by Rome and no Punic reinforcements for Hannibal. So I think that Hannibal was right in trying to get Rome's Italian allies to abandon Rome and join Hannibal; it's the safer, and was the more likely plan to work, IMVHO. So I'm with choice three.
Top