WI: Hannibal Sacks Rome

I'd assume the clearest PoD is Hasdrubal's messengers not being captured, so no Battle of the Metaurus, the brothers successfully unify without Rome noticing, and then defeating each separated Roman army?

Carthage wasn't looking to sack and salt Rome, and long-term the only way to keep Rome down would be the local Italian allies remaining loyal. The most likely scenario is a third Punic War a generation or two down the line, and Rome winning that second rematch.
 
Please edit the title. I'm not complaining, but it really seems like you're proposing a scenario where Hannibal is teabagging the Eternal City. :D

I'm dying of laughter on the inside, I promise :)
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
What if Hannibal the Conqueror manages to march on and destroy the Roman Republic?

Hannibal had 30,000 men after Cannae. The Romans could levy up to 500,000 if they had wanted to. Now explain me how he is going to besiege Rome with his 30,000 soldiers and defend against attacks from inside and outside the city? And this over 3 years (this is how long the Romans took to capture Carthage)?

Hannibal knew that he was too weak to conquer and sack Rome. Carthage had an army of professional, Rome of conscripted soldiers. Rome could at any time use more soldiers than Hannibal. Hannibal couldn't hope for reinforcements, since Rome controlled the sea. The Romans could use their soldiers directly since they fought on their own soil. Hannibal could have built siege engines, but I doubt he would have been able to reach Rome.
 
Hannibal knew that he was too weak to conquer and sack Rome. Carthage had an army of professional, Rome of conscripted soldiers. Rome could at any time use more soldiers than Hannibal. Hannibal couldn't hope for reinforcements, since Rome controlled the sea. The Romans could use their soldiers directly since they fought on their own soil. Hannibal could have built siege engines, but I doubt he would have been able to reach Rome.

If I recall correctly Rome's grip on a lot of Italy at that time was pretty tenuous. And if I'm not mistaken Rome never beat Hannibal on Italian soil. Of course a rush for Rome would have been a great risk but if he could pull it off it may be enough to sway a greater number of the Italian states to Carthages side and keep the Romans too distracted to cause problems in Iberia and North Africa. And maybe even wear them down enough to eventually defeat them.

Hannibal's grand strategy was pretty stupid. And its not like he had many options. The one he took OTL lead to Carthage's fall. The other option would probably be even less likely to succeed; but at least a rush for Rome would play to Hannibal's strengths as a tactician.
 
As explained above, marching on Rome would not lead to victory. Hannibal has to be more succesful in convincing the italian socii to join him. Without the socii he had no chance at all. And Hannibal knew that. Hannibal could never win militarily, just politically.

Afterwards he might siege Rome. But by all means he has to burn the city down, enslave all inhabitants and build a punic colony on the ashes. Because the Romans are not known for giving up. Longterm he has to keep the italians loyal in his federation. If not, something similar to Rome would rise from the ashes and march again. And of course he has to convince the senate of Carthago, that all these measures are mandatory in order to survive.

How likely is all this to happen?
 
Have Carthage win the First Punic War first. Have Carthage with naval supremacy. The Second Punic War therefore is not for Carthage a desperate campaign with atrociously long LOCs and supply lines. Rome's coastline is vulnerable, and the Carthaginians have much greater flexibility.

However, unless the Carthaginians can:

a) have a massive presence on Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica,

AND

b) get over their own political problems (especially in terms of venality compared to Rome's being totally united),

They lose every time. They'd need a post-Pearl Harbor level of mobilization, which outside of the Romans themselves and any people threatened by annihilation, isn't going to happen in Ancient Times.

EDIT: Good points all by Agricola. BTW, did you really get all the way to Cape Wrath?:D
 
BTW, did you really get all the way to Cape Wrath?:D

Actually, I would have gone further. Some fishermen on the northern islands told us, that there is more land in the Northwest. Perhaps the legendary Thule? However, Domitian this moron called me back. He said, that there is nothing worthful northwest of Caledonia. :mad:
 
If I recall correctly Rome's grip on a lot of Italy at that time was pretty tenuous.

A rush to Rome is virtual suicide. There were still other Roman armies in the field after Cannae, and when you add to that whatever forces Rome could muster in the city, Hannibal is going to be effectively hemmed in by 3 Roman armies and starved out at the very least.

Now prior to Metaurus is a different story. Say Nero never learns of Hasdrubal's whereabouts. Hannibal receives the message, leaves a skeleton force as a diversion, and forche marches his army north to crush the Roman army facing Hasdrubal. Now he wheels back and smashes the Roman army facing his force. With the one two punch comes the knockout blow. He marches on Rome, defeats another Roman force mustered, and the Romans sue for peace. They have to sue for peace in this scenario-there's just no way after losing 3 Roman armies (well 4, since the army facing Hannibal was effectively 2 armies) in quick succession that they aren't going to sue for peace. Their Italian allies would almost certianly desert them at that point, and by this time anyway, even the Latin allies were simply refusing to send troops because their manpower had been completely decimated by over a decade of war. The peace would look something like in Monopolist's timeline, with most of the Italian and Greek states in the south gaining independence.
 
What if Hannibal the Conqueror manages to march on and destroy the Roman Republic?

A question would be, if Rome is destroyed effectively, who follow into the footsteps as leader of Italy (I think the Tiber river is very important ). What would the cItalic tribes , who allied with Hannibal, be. Would a Samnite -nation emerge successfully as a replacement for Rome ? ( they would avoid beeing later destroyed and genocided by Sulla in the Social War). How would the Celts fare in Italy, would tehy expand , and what would happen to the Greek colonies ?
 
Last edited:
Did anyone OTL ever successfully defend Rome?

The only one ever to try standing a siege in Walls of Servius Tullius was Octavius, against Cinna and Marius, and he lost. If you look at the civil wars of Roman Republic and of Empire, everyone who marched at Rome captured the city unless they were defeated in a field battle. Sulla in his first march on Rome took the city at march, then Sulla´s return, Caesar´s march on Rome, Octavius´ march on Rome in August 43 BC... No one I knew of ever stood siege in Rome till Alarich in 408 - and these were Walls of Aurelian already!
 
Top