Why did Hannibal ultimately lose against the Romans?

tenthring

Banned
Hannibals locak Italian support was split between the north and south of Italy. As such, he could never recruit one killer army. Even after cannae he was outnumbered in Italy. Detailed figures show just how huge romes manpower advantage was during the war.
 
Hannibal didn't immediately march on Rome after Cannae because his army was exhausted and he didn't have the necessary siege equipment. The Senate in Carthage was filled with enemies of his family, the Barcids, and Hannibal had conducted most of the war by himself. It was mainly Rome fighting Hannibal than Carthage, until Rome struck back.

My impression is that Rome hardly had any army left and that Hannibal did not even have to siege Rome, but could attack it and win an easy victory.
 
Hannibal lost because his brother lost at Metaurus. Simple as that-if the Carthaginians win there, they win the war.

But what if Hannibal had attacked Rome just after Cannea or if the Senate had send reinforcements. If he had attacked Rome, it would have been an easy victory, as Rome hardly had any army left. And why did the Senate not send reinforcements? Sure, he had enemies in the Senate, but did they really prefer a Roman victory?
 
But what if Hannibal had attacked Rome just after Cannea or if the Senate had send reinforcements. If he had attacked Rome, it would have been an easy victory, as Rome hardly had any army left. And why did the Senate not send reinforcements? Sure, he had enemies in the Senate, but did they really prefer a Roman victory?
Your post has two misconceptions there.

Marcellus' army was still in the south, and noticeably in the opposite direction of Rome, and Fabius was raising even further armies to continue to put pressure on Hannibal. Second of all even without an army, Rome still had huge walls that Hannibal wasn't able to deal with.

As for the Senate, Carthage DID send reinforcements. That was Hanno's job to go collect the reinforcements and Hasdrubal was sent to Iberia to take care of things there and bring more troops, while further reinforcements were sent to relieve Syracuse and Macedon was enlisted to join Carthage in their war. The fact the Roman navy was superior meant that the attempt to relieve Syracuse was defeated, and Macedon lost their fleet. Hanno was defeated and his army got massacred. Hasdrubal was busy fighting the Scipios and Africanius in Iberia. And then Numidians decided to directly invade Carthage in Africa.

The Senate didn't exactly have much else avaliable to send him after all that (the fact that Hasdrubal decided to hang around in Iberia for a few years can't be blamed on the Senate). If they did, it would have to go through either Iberia or the Roman fleet.
 
He had no navy. I was taught that in the First Punic War the Carthaginians had the navy and the Romans had the army. That in the Second Punic War circumstances were reversed (not disrespecting the Roman legions of course).
 
In the end Rome was fighting a fundamentally different war from Hannibal. In the classical era war was 'fight a battle or two, maybe besiege a place. Winner gets some concessions from the enemy.' Rinse repeat. With Rome, it was closer to 'We die before we even consider giving an inch. And we will do our damndest to drag you to hell with us.' And that raw endurance in the face of insane setback basically exhausted the Carthaginian powerbase to death.
 
But what if Hannibal had attacked Rome just after Cannea or if the Senate had send reinforcements. If he had attacked Rome, it would have been an easy victory, as Rome hardly had any army left. And why did the Senate not send reinforcements? Sure, he had enemies in the Senate, but did they really prefer a Roman victory?
Not at all. Rome had a couple legions in the city and there was another force marching around somewhere in Italy I believe. Had he sieged Rome, he would have been trapped. The Servian Walls were impressive, and Hannibal, while great at every other form of warfare, proved himself to be mediocre when it came to sieges-he probably knew his limitations and he recognized the key to beating Rome lied in detaching their Italian allies.

Now, that's not to say marching on Rome won't work. It might work to get the Romans to agree to a peace (a close run thing after Cannae that they narrowly rejected) but it's unlikely and I don't think Hannibal is going to risk complete annihilation in the hopes that Rome might come around.

Now after Metaurus is a different story. If the Roman army at Metaurus is crushed, then Hannibal will learn the army in front of him is seriously weakened (and under the commander of a subbordinate not an actual general) and so will easily crush it. Roman manpower was at a breaking point at this time (Latin allies were starting to refuse to send troops because they had no more to send), and Rome will throw in the towell at that point-or if not at that point then Hannibal has a clear route to march on Rome, maybe defeat another field force along the way, and Rome will capitulate.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
My impression is that Rome hardly had any army left and that Hannibal did not even have to siege Rome, but could attack it and win an easy victory.

Taking a city is never easy, especially in pre-modern times. Look at the trouble Rome had actually taking Carthage in the third war, and that "should" have been a cakewalk.


I had actually forgotten that there were actual Roman soldiers in that battle and figured that it was only mercenaries.

However I think its still the exception that proves the rule as the battle relied heavily on having the 3 to 1 advantage, and on bribing the Celtic mercenaries with a large amount of treasure and fortune. That's especially questionable when at the same time Hannibal was stuck in Italy and desperately trying to raise war funds.

And again, that is a single example, in almost 20 years of warfare. That's not exactly a record of success.

Because the Romans basically refused to fight a pitched battle, the Fabian strategy worked and by denying Hannibal a battle they slowly bled him to death. In Spain the Romans were fortunate enough to have there very own genius commander and veteran troops.


In the end Rome was fighting a fundamentally different war from Hannibal. In the classical era war was 'fight a battle or two, maybe besiege a place. Winner gets some concessions from the enemy.' Rinse repeat. With Rome, it was closer to 'We die before we even consider giving an inch. And we will do our damndest to drag you to hell with us.' And that raw endurance in the face of insane setback basically exhausted the Carthaginian powerbase to death.

Yep
 
So comparing possible Carthaginian child sacrifice, to definite Roman sacrifice plus the huge scale of the gladiatorial death factory, I would say that the Roman system was worse. (I wonder how the Empire-wide Roman Games compares to the Aztec sacrificial rites in numbers of deaths?)

Actually most gladiatorial matches were mock-ups, not unlike modern wrestling matches. Gladiators being expensive to train and to maintain.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Actually most gladiatorial matches were mock-ups, not unlike modern wrestling matches. Gladiators being expensive to train and to maintain.

In the early years yes, but as spectacle took over it usually resolved to dumping a bunch of blokes in the arena and letting em hit each other until the claret flowed.

Took a couple of centuries to get to that point though.
 
Because of the wealth and phenomenal social solidarity of Rome and her Allies (most of which by population stayed loyal, unlike the Carthaginian allies). This is a society that maintains a field force of around 200k in Italy, fleet of 30k and around 150-200k in expeditionary forces for a period of half a generation.

In context that means every time Hannibal is beating up or fending off a consular army sized formation the other 9 in Italy are doing unpleasant things to his allies, italian or otherwise.

Compare that with Africanus Blitz through Barcid Spain.

All in all there seems to be something very unattractive to contemporaries about Carthage compared to Rome. People are not willing to move beyond a very local loyalty to help her.
 
Not directly related, but I always thought that the wrong side won that war. I think it was John Keegan who said that the only comparable ancient Empire to that of the Romans, in terms of sheer ruthless brutality, was that of the Assyrians. He said that while the Classical world was far from peaceful, the Romans in particular seemed to have a pathological need to destroy at least one city and enslave its inhabitants, every single year. A record that only the Assyrians before them, and the Mongols after them, came close to matching.

Of course the Romans gave a negative account of the Carthaginian state and society, but I cannot help but think that this is almost entirely Roman propaganda and self-justification for their own atrocities.

Well, the Romans were quite capable of living at peace (insofar as any ancient state was ever really at peace) during the Imperial period. Then again, they might just have gotten bored of slaughtering other peoples by that time. :p

As for the Carthaginian thing, the Romans were quite capable of invading places without accusing their inhabitants of human sacrifice. Plus the sacrifice thing is attested in Greek sources as well as Roman, as are various other cruelties (I would not want to be an unsuccessful Carthaginian general :eek:). Also, there have been archaeological finds of infant bones mixed in with those of what are clearly sacrificial animals. All in all, then, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that the Carthaginians were pretty cruel, even by the standards of the ancient world.
 
Maybe that Carthaginians traveled on an elephant's back and Romans on the winner's bandwagon.

IIRC the Carthaginians were quite tough on their subjects, imposing heavy tribute and garrisons and forcing them to demolish their city walls. Roman rule seems to have been relatively benign by comparison, corrupt governors like Verres notwithstanding.
 
Not at all. Rome had a couple legions in the city and there was another force marching around somewhere in Italy I believe. Had he sieged Rome, he would have been trapped. The Servian Walls were impressive, and Hannibal, while great at every other form of warfare, proved himself to be mediocre when it came to sieges-he probably knew his limitations and he recognized the key to beating Rome lied in detaching their Italian allies.

Now, that's not to say marching on Rome won't work. It might work to get the Romans to agree to a peace (a close run thing after Cannae that they narrowly rejected) but it's unlikely and I don't think Hannibal is going to risk complete annihilation in the hopes that Rome might come around.
Military speaking, it's not like marching south after Cannae was a bad plan. The defection of Capua and Tarentum, and other Italic groups doubled the size of Hannibal's operating army. Plus he was expecting reinforcements to come by sea. If he tried to attack Rome instead he loses those troops because Marcellus is going around crucifying everyone and burning everything down. And then he still doesn't have a plan for breaking through the walls.
 
Because the Romans basically refused to fight a pitched battle, the Fabian strategy worked and by denying Hannibal a battle they slowly bled him to death. In Spain the Romans were fortunate enough to have there very own genius commander and veteran troops.
The plan of the Fabian strategy was much more intricate than simply avoiding Hannibal. The Romans were more than willing to fight, just as long as Hannibal wasn't personally in command. The idea was being able to defeat Carthage without having to actually defeat Hannibal. That's why there was the campaigns in Iberia and Sicily (Roman victories), the naval campaigns to block African reinforcements (Roman victories), Metaurus to block off Hannibal's reinforcements from the north (decisive Roman victory), or even attacking Hanno when Hannibal wasn't able to personally supervise him (another Roman victory). Even invading Africa itself when Hannibal wasn't looking (Roman victory even when Hannibal himself joined the fight).

Since Carthage's army had apparently become a one man show with Hannibal doing all the work, the Fabian strategy was more than willing to fight the rest of Carthage's second stringers.
 
Wasn't Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, not arriving with re-enforcement's and equipment so the ultimate cause of defeat for Hannibal?
 
Because the Romans basically refused to fight a pitched battle, the Fabian strategy worked and by denying Hannibal a battle they slowly bled him to death. In Spain the Romans were fortunate enough to have there very own genius commander and veteran troops.
Which simply isn't true. The Roman's were far more scrupulous about fighting Hannibal and far more cautious after Cannae but on a few occasions Roman armies were still defeated in the field by Hannibal well after Cannae. Here are some of Hannibal's victories after Cannae:

-First Battle of Capua (212)
-Second Battle of Herdonia, where a Roman field army was annhilated (210)
-Battle of Numistro (210)
-Battle of Canusium (209)
-He ambushed and killed Marcellus and Venusia (208)

There were several more encounters as well, including 3 times at Nola and another couple times at Capua and once at Grumentum prior to Metaurus.



Military speaking, it's not like marching south after Cannae was a bad plan. The defection of Capua and Tarentum, and other Italic groups doubled the size of Hannibal's operating army. Plus he was expecting reinforcements to come by sea. If he tried to attack Rome instead he loses those troops because Marcellus is going around crucifying everyone and burning everything down. And then he still doesn't have a plan for breaking through the walls.
Agreed.
Wasn't Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, not arriving with re-enforcement's and equipment so the ultimate cause of defeat for Hannibal?
He did. And was defeated at Metaurus. If Metaurus is either avoided or a decisive Punic victory, then the war is pretty much over for Rome.
 
Top