WI: Hannibal pulled a Cannae at Zama

[Chimera0205]

What if at the battle of Zama Hannibal managed to pull of a Cannae like victory that leaves most if not all of Scipios army dead including the general himself. Can cathage make a comeback and win or atleast get far more favorable surrender terms. Maybe even a return to status quo?

 

[James Beil]

I doubt it. By the time of Zama, the Carthaginian colonies in Hispania are ceded and with them has gone a large proportion of the Carthaginian war machine - the Republic was brilliant at continually producing new soldiers, and even with the loss of Scipio's army at 40,000 men, Rome has the ability to continue to prosecute a war.

The numidians are still to be contended with, though a complete destruction of Scipio's army leaves their position precarious. If the political will to prosecute the war disappears with Scipio's death, the Senate might accept status quo ante bellum while their attention is turned elsewhere, but Carthage herself was broken in the second war. One potential avenue runs like this:

The Senate, following the death of Scipio, elect a more conservative consul to fill his place, and cannot form a majority in favour of continuing to prosecute the war. Agreeing a white peace, the Carthaginians are left to make war on the numidians, and after a series of engagements the eastern numidians concede defeat, while the western numidians side with the Carthaginians and form a de facto vassal state. Between the gains made from the peace deal with the numidians, and the capture of goods and arms at Zama, Carthage is able to form a respectable military, which convinces Rome to look elsewhere for military campaigns, leading them into Illyria first.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What if at the battle of Zama Hannibal managed to pull of a Cannae like victory that leaves most if not all of Scipios army dead including the general himself. Can cathage make a comeback and win or atleast get far more favorable surrender terms. Maybe even a return to status quo?

No. If you knock out Scipio's army, the Senate will just send another. Carthage by the time of the 3rd Punic War is too weak to hold off the Romans forever; it's a question of how slow they lose

 

[Sertorius126]

In all realism, the best Hannibal could strive for in that situation was a tactical victory. But all considerations aside, a status quo ante quem is probably the most likely outcome if Hannibal had pulled another Cannae.

 

[Chimera0205]

No. If you knock out Scipio's army, the Senate will just send another. Carthage by the time of the 3rd Punic War is too weak to hold off the Romans forever; it's a question of how slow they lose

Battle of Zama wasnt the third it was the final battle of the Second

 

[alexmilman]

What if at the battle of Zama Hannibal managed to pull of a Cannae like victory that leaves most if not all of Scipios army dead including the general himself. Can cathage make a comeback and win or atleast get far more favorable surrender terms. Maybe even a return to status quo?

IIRC, the better terms had been offered and even more or less agreed upon before Hannibal returned and forced Carthaginians to repudiate them. After this, and Zama, Scipio had all the formal reasons not to trust Carthage again.

 

[wcv215]

the Senate might accept status quo ante bellum w

Nope. Spain is Roman and will stay that way.

 

[dandan_noodles]

No. If you knock out Scipio's army, the Senate will just send another. Carthage by the time of the 3rd Punic War is too weak to hold off the Romans forever; it's a question of how slow they lose

Scipio's deployment to Africa was very unpopular in Rome, especially with i.e. Fabiusand his catastrophic defeat would probably discredit invasions of Africa for the forseeable future.

 

[TRH]

Scipio's deployment to Africa was very unpopular in Rome, especially with i.e. Fabiusand his catastrophic defeat would probably discredit invasions of Africa for the forseeable future.

It would also remind people of the last Punic War, which also had a Roman expedition to Africa end with the army destroyed. Still, with Spain taken and Hannibal out of Italy, the war would be pretty much over anyways.

 

[LSCatilina]

What if at the battle of Zama Hannibal managed to pull of a Cannae like victory that leaves most if not all of Scipios army dead including the general himself. Can cathage make a comeback and win or atleast get far more favorable surrender terms. Maybe even a return to status quo?

The army raised by Carthaginians at Zama was not on par with the forces raised during most of the Second Punic War : barely trained elephants, Gaulish and Italian merceneries raised years ago, limited supplies (Carthaginians had to hijack a Romann ship) and frenshly recruited citizens.
On the other side, Sicipio had semi-professional armies and relatively well supplied, and critically had access to better cavalry forces.

Eventually, Hannibal relied on his tactical skills advantage, but what happened is the same thing than during late Napoleonic Wars, namely that no matter how good you are your ennemies are going to learn your tricks and send them back to you with prejudice. Scipio did pulled a Cannae on Hannibal IOT, and the Barcid general couldn't do much about it, loosing 2/3 of his army.

Not that the battle wasn't "winnable" in the sense of forcing a tactical stalemate allowing a better position to negociate peace terms (which at this point, was bound to happen), but both tactical and strategical crushing victory, with Romans having the logistical edge, and with Carthage quickly loosing support of African cities such as Utica, was out of reach.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Not that the battle wasn't "winnable" in the sense of forcing a tactical stalemate allowing a better position to negociate peace terms (which at this point, was bound to happen), but both tactical and strategical crushing victory, with Romans having the logistical edge, and with Carthage quickly loosing support of African cities such as Utica, was out of reach.

I mean, the immediate response to this is 'look at this gigantic list of historical battles convincingly won against the odds'. Sure, the opposite list is longer, but this is Hannibal we're dealing with here. Moreover, you can't ignore the role of luck, fog, and friction of the battlefield; this isn't some video game that can just calculate the result based on some arbitrary quantification of the value of forces involved.

 

[LSCatilina]

I mean, the immediate response to this is 'look at this gigantic list of historical battles convincingly won against the odds'. Sure, the opposite list is longer, but this is Hannibal we're dealing with here. Moreover, you can't ignore the role of luck, fog, and friction of the battlefield; this isn't some video game that can just calculate the result based on some arbitrary quantification of the value of forces involved.

"Some fitting changes doesn't mean random consequences" could be another response to be honest. And tactical skills are always to be put into some strategical context, as, to use your video game example (which is kind of patronizing, to be honest, even if you didn't mean it this way) doesn't give automatic victory points.

Could Hannibal have acted and reacted differently t during he battle, and used more efficiently the army he and Carthage managed to gather? Probably. I think it's less due to fog or luck (or rather, the little details and perception shifts that it covers) even if it might.
In spite of the strategical and tactical issues he had to deal with, there's nothing impossible to have. But turning an utterly crushing defeat into an complete victory out of this air?

Taking back the comparison with Waterloo, both Hannibal and Napoleon had to deal with opponents having the logistical edge and having learning the same tricks they used against them before (just because he's Hannibal doesn't mean he was immune to this : Sicipio basically pulled a Cannae at him IOTL) while they had to deal with a poor geopolitical and political situation, and having to lead into battle what they could scrap, mixing veterans and fresh meat (and in the case of elephants, too fresh meat).

Tactical skills and friction works on a structural ground, which definitely didn't favoured Carthaginian : maybe with the fitting changes (let's say Hannibal elects against using elephants), they could have not only limited damages but pulled a tactical stalemate, they would have still to manage Numidians, Romans in Africa and not enough ressources to really continue a lot longer. That the city tried to come to terms with Rome before Zama does point the political limits there : it's why I think the best outcome would be a stalemate or tactical victory allowing for better terms. And not "arbitrary quantification of the value of forces instead"

 

[Coluber]

I suspect that Carthage would be slightly stronger than it was at the beginning of the Third Punic War if Scipio lost Zama. Hannibal was already out of Italy and Spain was taken. Carthage would be limited to North Africa.

 

[dandan_noodles]

"Some fitting changes doesn't mean random consequences" could be another response to be honest. And tactical skills are always to be put into some strategical context, as, to use your video game example (which is kind of patronizing, to be honest, even if you didn't mean it this way) doesn't give automatic victory points.

Could Hannibal have acted and reacted differently t during he battle, and used more efficiently the army he and Carthage managed to gather? Probably. I think it's less due to fog or luck (or rather, the little details and perception shifts that it covers) even if it might.
In spite of the strategical and tactical issues he had to deal with, there's nothing impossible to have. But turning an utterly crushing defeat into an complete victory out of this air?

Taking back the comparison with Waterloo, both Hannibal and Napoleon had to deal with opponents having the logistical edge and having learning the same tricks they used against them before (just because he's Hannibal doesn't mean he was immune to this : Sicipio basically pulled a Cannae at him IOTL) while they had to deal with a poor geopolitical and political situation, and having to lead into battle what they could scrap, mixing veterans and fresh meat (and in the case of elephants, too fresh meat).

Tactical skills and friction works on a structural ground, which definitely didn't favoured Carthaginian : maybe with the fitting changes (let's say Hannibal elects against using elephants), they could have not only limited damages but pulled a tactical stalemate, they would have still to manage Numidians, Romans in Africa and not enough ressources to really continue a lot longer. That the city tried to come to terms with Rome before Zama does point the political limits there : it's why I think the best outcome would be a stalemate or tactical victory allowing for better terms. And not "arbitrary quantification of the value of forces instead"

And the fact that they rescinded those terms once the situation changed points to a different set of possibilities.

You brought up Waterloo, let's look at Dresden for comparison. Napoleon was outnumbered almost 2-1, had inferior cavalry, and was fighting an army organized along the lines he had established. He had recently lost almost his entire army in Russia, and needed hundreds of thousands of men to stay deployed in Spain. The weather favored the allies, nullifying the firepower of the Imperial infantry against their superior cavalry. It was the perfect situation for the allies to utterly crush him, and yet, just the opposite happened. They lost 4x as many men, many of them captured by the French cavalry, and were driven from the field. That was a battle that came down to the tactical skills of the opposing commanders more than any other factor. It would be the easiest thing in the world for a TL to turn that into a crushing allied victory.

More to the point, Hannibal has a numerical advantage here. We know what he can pull off from a position of marked inferiority; here he has near-parity. Moreover, Hannibal did not derive his advantage from any revolutionary changes in the art of war that his enemies can simply adopt like Napoleon did, but rather from the timeless art of command. He did not rely on new tricks whose effect evaporated when his enemies adopted them. Insofar as he did rely on stratagem, the Romans totally fell for it at Zama, forfeiting their cavalry advantage for most of the battle, but rather than proactively taking advantage of it, Hannibal sat and let himself be attacked, his first two lines getting thrown into disorder as a result.

So you're essentially arguing that one of the greatest generals in history can't use his numerical superiority to take advantage of his enemy's monumental blunder and win a decisive victory.

 

[alexmilman]

"Some fitting changes doesn't mean random consequences" could be another response to be honest. And tactical skills are always to be put into some strategical context, as, to use your video game example (which is kind of patronizing, to be honest, even if you didn't mean it this way) doesn't give automatic victory points.

Could Hannibal have acted and reacted differently t during he battle, and used more efficiently the army he and Carthage managed to gather? Probably. I think it's less due to fog or luck (or rather, the little details and perception shifts that it covers) even if it might.
In spite of the strategical and tactical issues he had to deal with, there's nothing impossible to have. But turning an utterly crushing defeat into an complete victory out of this air?

Taking back the comparison with Waterloo, both Hannibal and Napoleon had to deal with opponents having the logistical edge and having learning the same tricks they used against them before (just because he's Hannibal doesn't mean he was immune to this : Sicipio basically pulled a Cannae at him IOTL) while they had to deal with a poor geopolitical and political situation, and having to lead into battle what they could scrap, mixing veterans and fresh meat (and in the case of elephants, too fresh meat).

Tactical skills and friction works on a structural ground, which definitely didn't favoured Carthaginian : maybe with the fitting changes (let's say Hannibal elects against using elephants), they could have not only limited damages but pulled a tactical stalemate, they would have still to manage Numidians, Romans in Africa and not enough ressources to really continue a lot longer. That the city tried to come to terms with Rome before Zama does point the political limits there : it's why I think the best outcome would be a stalemate or tactical victory allowing for better terms. And not "arbitrary quantification of the value of forces instead"

It probably safe to assume that there was a non-zero chance of Hannibal's battlefield victory (just as there was a non-zero chance for Napoleon to win at Waterloo). Let's say, Roman and Numidian cavalry returned too late and Hannibal is getting lucky to defeat the Roman infantry with whatever is left of his own infantry (I saw an argument that his veterans were fresh while the Romans had been exhausted but this looked as a wishful thinking ignoring the probable numeric odds because it seems that the 1st and 2nd lines of Carthage infantry suffered terrible losses and how many veterans did he have?).

What kind of victory would it be? In the best (for Hannibal) realistic case the Romans retreat to their camp and later the cavalry joins them. Chances for the 2nd Cannae were zero both because the Romans did not oblige him by having a narrow front and because he did not have a tool necessary for completing encirclement, cavalry. So he is winning a bloody but indecisive victory (with a lot of Carthage citizens being killed) but still in a bad operational position due to enemy's advantage in cavalry.

What's next is anybody's guess because a lot would depend upon Senate's willingness to send reinforcements to Africa, position of the vassals of Carthage, etc. Seems that at best Carthage may expect to get a somewhat better terms.

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

Hannibal actually came very close to winning at Zama, but the sudden return of Massinissa's Numidians sealed his fate. However, even if he manages to win at Zama, the best he can hope for is a white peace with Rome. I say this as a die-hard Carthage fanatic: long before Zama, Carthage was already losing the war. As a matter of fact, Scipio is pretty overrated. Even though he defeated Hannibal on the field at Zama, Carthage was screwed even before then. The REAL unsung hero of the Punic Wars is Claudius Nero, who ambushed and destroyed Hasdrubal Barca at the Metaurus river, who was bringing reinforcements for Hannibal. Had he reached Hannibal, Rome would be sacked, and the rest of her Socii either destroyed or defected to Hannibal. If Hannibal won at Zama, the Senate wouldn't simply through another army at Africa, because now after both Regulus and Scipio, invading the Carthaginian heartland seemed to be a terrible idea. All they'd do is sign a peace treaty on Roman terms, then wait for Hannibal and his surviving vets to grow old and die, and they might not even have to mount a bloody siege of Carthage, and simply peacefully annex the nation.

 

[Sertorius126]

Hannibal actually came very close to winning at Zama, but the sudden return of Massinissa's Numidians sealed his fate. However, even if he manages to win at Zama, the best he can hope for is a white peace with Rome. I say this as a die-hard Carthage fanatic: long before Zama, Carthage was already losing the war. As a matter of fact, Scipio is pretty overrated. Even though he defeated Hannibal on the field at Zama, Carthage was screwed even before then. The REAL unsung hero of the Punic Wars is Claudius Nero, who ambushed and destroyed Hasdrubal Barca at the Metaurus river, who was bringing reinforcements for Hannibal. Had he reached Hannibal, Rome would be sacked, and the rest of her Socii either destroyed or defected to Hannibal. If Hannibal won at Zama, the Senate wouldn't simply through another army at Africa, because now after both Regulus and Scipio, invading the Carthaginian heartland seemed to be a terrible idea. All they'd do is sign a peace treaty on Roman terms, then wait for Hannibal and his surviving vets to grow old and die, and they might not even have to mount a bloody siege of Carthage, and simply peacefully annex the nation.

You don’t give Scipio enough credit. His campaign in Spain was as masterful as Hannibal’s was in Italy. He was outnumbered three to one, all tribes had seemingly defected to the Carthaginians, Rome had no safe stronghold there and all that was left of the Roman army first sent there was a small contingent led by a tribune. And yet, he completely reversed the situation and built the groundwork for what would be the two provinces of Hispanics by solid military work and careful and attentive diplomacy with the tribes. And all that in about 4 years.

Same thing in Africa. The Carthaginians still had enough strenght to fight even after their losses in Spain and Italy, especially considering that they had Syphax on their side. Scipio took great care in training his armies so that they could execute complicated maneuvers, another fact much underrated about him, but he still landed in Africa while being outnumbered by the Punics. And yet, he still managed to outsmart his opponents, defeat them and establish a foothold for his campaign at Zama.

Props to Nero for his speed and efficiency, he saved Rome a lot of trouble, but considering that Hannibal was now basically stuck in Southernmost Italy, and that Rome had properly recovered, and brought to size, most of the allies that had defected during the war, Hannibal joining his forces with Hasdrubal wouldn’t have led to such the disastrous outcome you described. The Latin allies didn’t waver in their allegiance after Cannae, they surely wouldn’t when Rome was at least gaining the upper hand. Scipio would settle things in Spain, go back to Italy and lend further numbers and tactical support against Hannibal.

 

[alexmilman]

You don’t give Scipio enough credit. His campaign in Spain was as masterful as Hannibal’s was in Italy. He was outnumbered three to one, all tribes had seemingly defected to the Carthaginians, Rome had no safe stronghold there and all that was left of the Roman army first sent there was a small contingent led by a tribune. And yet, he completely reversed the situation and built the groundwork for what would be the two provinces of Hispanics by solid military work and careful and attentive diplomacy with the tribes. And all that in about 4 years.

Same thing in Africa. The Carthaginians still had enough strenght to fight even after their losses in Spain and Italy, especially considering that they had Syphax on their side. Scipio took great care in training his armies so that they could execute complicated maneuvers, another fact much underrated about him, but he still landed in Africa while being outnumbered by the Punics. And yet, he still managed to outsmart his opponents, defeat them and establish a foothold for his campaign at Zama.

Props to Nero for his speed and efficiency, he saved Rome a lot of trouble, but considering that Hannibal was now basically stuck in Southernmost Italy, and that Rome had properly recovered, and brought to size, most of the allies that had defected during the war, Hannibal joining his forces with Hasdrubal wouldn’t have led to such the disastrous outcome you described. The Latin allies didn’t waver in their allegiance after Cannae, they surely wouldn’t when Rome was at least gaining the upper hand. Scipio would settle things in Spain, go back to Italy and lend further numbers and tactical support against Hannibal.

It seems to be an overlooked fact but Hadsrubal was going to Italy as a result of being defeated by Scipio in Hispania where at Baecula Scipio used the double envelopment by the cavalry. With other Carthage generals in Hispania being defeated this base was lost and Hadsrubal's march was a desperate attempt to save whatever is possible (judging by performance of his troops at Metaurus, quality of his army leftovers was not too good). Of course, the reinforcements would help Hannibal but they would hardly change situation in Italy dramatically: he was politically isolated and the Romans were way too strong for him to sack the Rome or to gain an upper hand.

 

[Max Sinister]

Also, Hannibal fought on his home turf, and presumably, the Romans didn't have good maps. Shouldn't that count as an advantage for him?

 

[Sertorius126]

Also, Hannibal fought on his home turf, and presumably, the Romans didn't have good maps. Shouldn't that count as an advantage for him?

Indeed. Scipio’s only real advantage rested on the quality of his army, since there were only a couple thousands of Hannibal’s veterans still with him, the rest of the Punic army was made of urban militia and troops provided by allies.