A few years ago, I bought a copy of B.H. Warmington's Carthage at a used book shop here in Jerusalem. I've always wondered what might've happened if Hannibal had gone straight to Rome, after his mercenaries routed the Roman legions at Cannae, and either tried to storm the city or lay siege to it.
Warmington says that Hannibal correctly understood that to crush Rome, Carthage had to beat the legions in Italy & that no amount of beating the legions in Spain, Gaul or Africa could substitute for this. So Hannibal gave Publius Cornelius Scipio the slip & crossed the Alps (forcing Rome to cancel its projected invasion of Africa) in late September 218 BCE. He beat the legions at the Trebia River in December & then went into winter quarters at Bologna. He issued proclamations to the Italians that he would restore to them the liberties that Rome had taken away; Warmington says that the winning over of Italian support was crucial to Hannibal's plans. In the spring of 217 BCE, Hannibal crushed the legions again at Lake Trasmiene. He campaigned in central Italy & spent the 217/216 BCE winter in Apulia. In August 216 BCE, he smashed the legions again at Cannae, where the Romans lost 25,000 killed & 10,000 captured. Sources report that at least one of his senior officers urged Hannibal to march on Rome immediately. Hannibal declined (Warmington says that he was correct given his failure to take any smaller towns) & the rest, as they say, is history. But let's suppose that Hannibal listened to this officer & led his army (mostly mercenaries) to the walls of Rome. He had no siege equipment & what remained of the once proud Carthaginian navy was in no position to bring him any. That would leave him two options: attempt to storm the city while the abject shock of Cannae was still painfully fresh or attempt to weaken in by starvation (with the option of attempting to storm it after hunger had begun to take its toll). Placing Rome under siege might have tempted/forced the divided Senate to recall Cnaeus Scipio (Pubius Cornelius's brother) & his two legions from Spain; Hannibal would have probably welcomed the chance to trounce two of Rome's few remaining veteran legions. Placing Rome under siege might also have persuaded more Italian tribes & cities to desert Rome & go over to Carthage, especially in light of the generous privileges that Hannibal was offering (which the Italians were hesitant to take up because they knew that if Carthage then lost, Rome would bust heads). Had Hannibal taken Rome, the Roman state would have been finished, Hannibal knew that Carthage & Rome were in a war of annihilation. Would we then have seen a Punic-speaking Carthaginian Empire in the western Mediterranean (and then northward into Gaul) instead of a Latin-speaking Roman one? Would a victorious Carthage have joined the then Hellenistic state system as another major power alongside Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt & the Seleucid kingdom, or tried to expand eastward? Please feel free to disscuss?
Warmington says that Hannibal correctly understood that to crush Rome, Carthage had to beat the legions in Italy & that no amount of beating the legions in Spain, Gaul or Africa could substitute for this. So Hannibal gave Publius Cornelius Scipio the slip & crossed the Alps (forcing Rome to cancel its projected invasion of Africa) in late September 218 BCE. He beat the legions at the Trebia River in December & then went into winter quarters at Bologna. He issued proclamations to the Italians that he would restore to them the liberties that Rome had taken away; Warmington says that the winning over of Italian support was crucial to Hannibal's plans. In the spring of 217 BCE, Hannibal crushed the legions again at Lake Trasmiene. He campaigned in central Italy & spent the 217/216 BCE winter in Apulia. In August 216 BCE, he smashed the legions again at Cannae, where the Romans lost 25,000 killed & 10,000 captured. Sources report that at least one of his senior officers urged Hannibal to march on Rome immediately. Hannibal declined (Warmington says that he was correct given his failure to take any smaller towns) & the rest, as they say, is history. But let's suppose that Hannibal listened to this officer & led his army (mostly mercenaries) to the walls of Rome. He had no siege equipment & what remained of the once proud Carthaginian navy was in no position to bring him any. That would leave him two options: attempt to storm the city while the abject shock of Cannae was still painfully fresh or attempt to weaken in by starvation (with the option of attempting to storm it after hunger had begun to take its toll). Placing Rome under siege might have tempted/forced the divided Senate to recall Cnaeus Scipio (Pubius Cornelius's brother) & his two legions from Spain; Hannibal would have probably welcomed the chance to trounce two of Rome's few remaining veteran legions. Placing Rome under siege might also have persuaded more Italian tribes & cities to desert Rome & go over to Carthage, especially in light of the generous privileges that Hannibal was offering (which the Italians were hesitant to take up because they knew that if Carthage then lost, Rome would bust heads). Had Hannibal taken Rome, the Roman state would have been finished, Hannibal knew that Carthage & Rome were in a war of annihilation. Would we then have seen a Punic-speaking Carthaginian Empire in the western Mediterranean (and then northward into Gaul) instead of a Latin-speaking Roman one? Would a victorious Carthage have joined the then Hellenistic state system as another major power alongside Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt & the Seleucid kingdom, or tried to expand eastward? Please feel free to disscuss?