Why did Hannibal ultimately lose against the Romans?

Well, the Romans were quite capable of living at peace (insofar as any ancient state was ever really at peace) during the Imperial period.

But not during the Republican one. You'd be hard pressed to find a single year in whole timespan from the First Samnite War (343 BC) to 15 AD without consular or proconsular armies out campaigning. And in the rare happenstances it was the case, the Senate usually showed concern about potential complacency and set out to find some fight to pick (usually a fairly easy task; Rome was hardly ever short of enemies to pick a fight with).
The Roman Republican system was heavily geared toward war as the fundamental glue keeping the whole structure together, mainly because the Italic allies (and later on, the other allies as well) were paying their tributes in military levies, as opposed to taxes in money or specie as it often happened in most other contemporary empires. Moreover, the reward was mainly in land. This nurtured a self-sustaining cycle of expansion without equals in the Mediterranean world.
It took three major civil wars, interspersed with some minor ones, over the space of merely two generations, to change said system a fair bit. Even then, however, external expansion was absolutely key to Augustus' legitimacy and the process didn't really slow down until under Tiberius, in the aftermath of two major military crises combined; still, most emperors after Tiberius himself put some serious effort in conquest whenever given the opportunity for a century more. At that point, the army had long been a professional force and the civil wars had taught deep lessons, reinforced by the the crisis of 69 AD, so that the appetite for expansion was somewhat reduced; and by then, after all, there wasn't much worth conquering left outside the borders anyway; almost all the easy pickings would be taken by about the time of Trajan.
 
Carthage and the Greeks were used to fighting and making treaties, Rome was in the habit of fighting until its enemies were exhausted, after Cannae it was a more than reasonable expectation that Rome would negotiate, instead it just carried on plundering its manpower reserves for troops and wore out Hannibal, he was one general, Rome was a united city.

In the Pyrrhic War, Rome suffered several heavy defeats, but refused negotiations and kept fighting till their enemy gave up. In the second Punic War, Rome suffered several naval catastrophies and a disastrous failure when invading Africa. The lasted 24 years and no matter how bad things got the Romans refused to negotiate until they were dictating terms from a position of power. If Hannibal thought fighting and negotiating with the Romans would be just like doing it with the Greeks, then he was a fool. War with Rome meant war until one side was no longer capable of continuing the war.
 
It was mainly Rome fighting Hannibal than Carthage, until Rome struck back.

Hannibal was not in Sicily, or Iberia, or Illyria. Hannibal didn't fight in Africa until after the Romans invaded. Hannibal wasn't even the only Carthaginian general to invade Italy.
 
Carthage lost every battle where Hannibal wasn't avaliable to personally command,

Carthage lost every battle in Italy where Hannibal wasn't available to personally command, but they did have victories on other fronts.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
If Hannibal thought fighting and negotiating with the Romans would be just like doing it with the Greeks, then he was a fool. War with Rome meant war until one side was no longer capable of continuing the war.

It does not make him a fool, it makes Rome an outside context problem

Further, only the Pyrrhic wars had come close to actually threatening Rome itself, by the standards of the day (hell by the standards even of the Modern Day) you'd expect an empire that had seen most of its aristocracy and armies soundly beaten within a year and an army on its doorstep with its allies starting to desert to say hold on a second, lets talk about this.
 

trajen777

Banned
Hannibal lost because
1. Rome was a military based society – while Cartage was a mercantile empire. The majority of the Carthaginian army was mercenary with the Carthaginians citizens were business people.
2. Rome fought a total war while Carthage wanted both guns and butter. They fought it is a business transaction trying to minimize the costs.
3. When Hannibal needed reinforcements in Italy they were withheld because of costs. \
4. They fought to achieve a treaty while Rome fought for a war of annihilation.
5. Hannibal’s army was one based upon combined arms which focused upon maneuver and was heavily focused upon Calvary. All of Hannibal’s victories were dependent upon Calvary.
6. Rome had a far better infantry force for actions where Calvary cannot be used (sieges etc)
7. Hannibal did not have the ability and his forces were not structured for siege warfare
8. Carthage could not control the seas so Rome could concentrate dominate forces at key points (Spain – Africa – Sicily)
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
5. Hannibal’s army was one based upon combined arms which focused upon maneuver and was heavily focused upon Calvary. All of Hannibal’s victories were dependent upon Calvary.

Damn, if they were that bad at navigation no wonder they lost.
 
It does not make him a fool, it makes Rome an outside context problem.
Errr... What? That article specifically talks about military technical superiority. That's NOT what the Romans had. What they actually had was pigheaded stubbornness, as others have pointed out.
Damn, if they were that bad at navigation no wonder they lost.
Indeed. If all the Carthaginian armies were on a hill outside of Jerusalem, it WOULD make power projection difficult.
Btw, you use smileys when you say things like that.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Wiki has a better definition, and I was one of the people saying the Romans are pig headed and stubborn and would not surrender.

This is a problem that is "outside the context" as it is generally not considered until it occurs, and the capacity to actually conceive of or consider the OCP in the first place may not be possible or very limited (i.e., the majority of the group's population may not have the knowledge or ability to realize that the OCP can arise, or assume it is extremely unlikely)

In this case the Carthaginians were dealing with a culture very different to their own, it was not conceivable that even taken past the point where they themselves would surrender the Romans would not give up.
 
Top