WI: Hannibal rebels against Carthage...

Hannibal was unable to take Italy while on Cathage's side. Why would this change if he went rogue?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Personally I think if he rebelled he should do so before Italy, and instead pull a Julius Caesar and conquer Gaul and add it to a controlled Iberia. Admittedly he'd have to also ensure he didn't get hit by both parties (oh the risks of rebellion) but a Barcid Gallo-Iberian Empire could well becomes a strong third player in the W.Med.
 
Attacking in Northern Mediterranean basin would be seen as a threat by the Senate, and would cause similar consequences than siege of Saguntum, except that this time not only Gallo-Greek cities would join but as well mediterranean federations (Elysces, Salyans, etc.) : Hannibal could kiss goodbye his Gaul mercenaries (celtic or not).

With, of course, the sill likely turmoil in a Carthagian Senate lead by Hanno II or another Africanist leader if Hanno is killed, already more or less romanizing IOTL.

I'd see more likely Hannibal building his own personnal kingdom in Spain, and ending being pressured by Romans, Carthage and Celtiberians at this point.
 
. . . a Barcid Gallo-Iberian Empire could well becomes a strong third player in the W.Med.
That's where it becomes very interesting!

Three large civilizations lasting long into the Christian era, maybe as long or longer than the eastern Roman Empire, which we also call the Byzatine Empire of course.

And maybe Hannibal is able to pull this off by offering some of the Roman confederates a better deal than the Romans? Of course, there's an implied threat, but this is the face-saving aspect which might enable him to pull it off.
 
Hannibal can't conquer Gaul. It would be suicide to invade the homeland of his army. It's that simple.

Hannibal could expand his realm in Hispania and secede from Carthaginian control. Doing this would actually probably signal the death knell for Barcid Spain, because the second they attack a Roman ally, like they did OTL, Rome invades Spain and the war goes largely the same as OTL except that the Romans never invade Africa.

Carthage, likewise, might last longer and end up like Egypt in the long run.
 
And conquers Italy for himself?

Actually, this is what originally happened.

Hannibal started the war against Rome without the approval of Carthage, thus he had mostly his own forces which he obtained by the wealth of Spain.

Carthage ssistem of Government did not allow for a centralization of the different provinces, so Spain's colonies were more akin to its own Kingdom which was affiliated to Carthage.

Hannibal thus invaded without the spport from Carthage and against its ordrs not to attack Rome.
 
against its ordrs not to attack Rome.
Not quite. Hannibal provoked the Romans yes-and when the Romans went to Carthage, the Carthaginians became fed up and practically dared the Roman emissary for Rome to declare war on them. Carthage, while not the instigator, certainly was not opposed to starting war with Rome.

All that said, none of these actions by Hannibal make sense-seceeding from Carthage is pointless considering he's already de facto independent while still having the support of Carthage. Rebelling against Carthage also doesn't make sense for the aforementioned reason.
 
Top