WI: Hannibal Wins at Zama?

[SlyDessertFox]

Ok so let's say for a second Hannibal wins at Zama. IOTL, the battle between the infantry was very close, the Romans having tired from fighting Hannibal's weaker troops, and then bogged down in a slogging stalemate with his veterans until Massinissa returned with his cavalry to hit the Carthaginians from behind.

So let's say Hannibal uses his elephants more effectively, and/or Massinissa doesn't return in time to finish the Carthaginians off. Scipio's army is crushed.

What now? This would be the second time (the first being in the first punic war) that the Romans were near ultimate victory and invaded North Africa and were crushed. I don't really think the Romans have much stomach to try again, having never defeated Hannibal in battle and having failed epicly twice in two invasions of North Africa.

I also can't see the Carthaginians winning. Maybe a peace treaty that allows Carthage to keep it's North Africa holdings but abandon Spain? Maybe they have to pay an indemnity akin to that of the first punic war?

Also, I can see a Third Punic War arising when one of the big Iberian revolts against Rome inevitably pops up. Maybe they call on Carthage for support and a Hannibal esque figure comes to help them?

 

[hasdrubal barca]

“ The son of Publius Scipio, meanwhile had enjoyed great success with his father and uncle’s remaining forces in Spain, and would meet and defeat Hannibal himself in Africa at Zama in 202 BCE, winning the legendary name ‘Africanus’ for the feat. Supposedly the two met off the battlefield in the Greek City of Ephesus, years later. Plutarch’s account has Hannibal and Scipio walking along and discussing great leaders of their own history. Hannibal ranked Alexander first, Pyrrhus second and himself third. ’And if you had beaten me’ asked Scipio, ‘I would have ranked myself first’ replied Hannibal”
Source
Battles of the Ancient World: From Kadesh to Catalaunian Field 1285BCE- AD 451

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Alternatively what if the Carthaginian army in North Africa is able to crush Scipio when he arrives? This would allow Hannibal to remain in Italy.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

“ The son of Publius Scipio, meanwhile had enjoyed great success with his father and uncle’s remaining forces in Spain, and would meet and defeat Hannibal himself in Africa at Zama in 202 BCE, winning the legendary name ‘Africanus’ for the feat. Supposedly the two met off the battlefield in the Greek City of Ephesus, years later. Plutarch’s account has Hannibal and Scipio walking along and discussing great leaders of their own history. Hannibal ranked Alexander first, Pyrrhus second and himself third. ’And if you had beaten me’ asked Scipio, ‘I would have ranked myself first’ replied Hannibal”
Source
Battles of the Ancient World: From Kadesh to Catalaunian Field 1285BCE- AD 451

Ok?.......

 

[girld22]

Interesting idea make a TL please ?

 

[Elfwine]

These are the Romans that put up with far more devastating things than a two failed invasions decades apart.

I think it's almost inevitable that they try again, and Hannibal no longer has much of a veteran army to work with.

 

[RGB]

These are the Romans that put up with far more devastating things than a two failed invasions decades apart.

I think it's almost inevitable that they try again, and Hannibal no longer has much of a veteran army to work with.

This more or less. They would do what the Romans did best - throw more bodies at it.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

There was significant opposition to the invasion in the first place. Scipio had to go through great pains to actually get the Senate to approve of the invasion and he had to procure the supplies and men himself for the most part (hence why his troops had a large contingent of the men who ran away at Cannae who had been placed in Sicily). The whole thing was practically done by himself. If they were extremely reluctant to lend their support to an invasion in the first place, what makes you think they will invade again? Confining Carthage to North Africa and exacting a large tribute while preventing them from building a navy would seem to be a sufficient enough peace treaty for Rome.

 

[Elfwine]

There was significant opposition to the invasion in the first place. Scipio had to go through great pains to actually get the Senate to approve of the invasion and he had to procure the supplies and men himself for the most part (hence why his troops had a large contingent of the men who ran away at Cannae who had been placed in Sicily). The whole thing was practically done by himself. If they were extremely reluctant to lend their support to an invasion in the first place, what makes you think they will invade again? Confining Carthage to North Africa and exacting a large tribute while preventing them from building a navy would seem to be a sufficient enough peace treaty for Rome.

"Carthago delenda est."

 

[SlyDessertFox]

"Carthago delenda est."

Cato hasn't rose to prominence yet. You have to wait for the Second Macedonian War before he gains fame. And besides, even with him saying that at the end of every speech, they waited for the indemnity to run out and for Carthage to raise an army before they actually took any action.

And even then, it took them two years to take the city. I have my doubts that they can take the city at this point, when Carthage actually knows how to fight and has Hannibal to command the siege...

 

[Elfwine]

Cato hasn't rose to prominence yet. You have to wait for the Second Macedonian War before he gains fame. And besides, even with him saying that at the end of every speech, they waited for the indemnity to run out and for Carthage to raise an army before they actually took any action.

And even then, it took them two years to take the city. I have my doubts that they can take the city at this point, when Carthage actually knows how to fight and has Hannibal to command the siege...

The fact remains that that answers your question. Rome wanted Carthage eliminated as anything resembling a threat.

Carthage doesn't know how to fight any better than it did later, and Hannibal is not an invincible general or graced by a particularly good army.

To continue ACW comparisons, you're asking "What if Schofield was defeated by Hood at Spring Hill?"

There is no reason for Rome not to push for final victory, as opposed to "Well, guess we have to wimp out", and Roman desire for vengeance is a serious thing.

Does that mean any and all possible scenarios end with Carthage losing? No. But Zama is far too late for any meaningful difference.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

...Carthage controlling North Africa and only North Africa eliminates them as any possible threat. You do realize that was a part of the actual treaty that ended the second punic war right?

 

[Elfwine]

...Carthage controlling North Africa and only North Africa eliminates them as any possible threat. You do realize that was a part of the actual treaty that ended the second punic war right?

Carthage still exists, it still has an army, and still has the capacity to try to rebuild a navy.

The hostility of the Entente to Germany in 1918 looks positively generous by comparison with Rome's attitude towards Carthage being anything other than an insignificant bug.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Carthage still exists, it still has an army, and still has the capacity to try to rebuild a navy.

The hostility of the Entente to Germany in 1918 looks positively generous by comparison with Rome's attitude towards Carthage being anything other than an insignificant bug.

I'm not saying they wont destroy Carthage later or at least attempt to. They will. They will jjst be content to a treaty limiting Carthage to North Africa and preventing them from building a navy all the while playing Numidia against them.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not saying they wont destroy Carthage later or at least attempt to. They will. They will jjst be content to a treaty limiting Carthage to North Africa and preventing them from building a navy all the while playing Numidia against them.

Or, seeking vengeance for Scipio's defeat, move to crush Carthage completely.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If that was how Rome worked they would have did that when the same thing happened in the 1st Punic war.

 

[Elfwine]

If that was how Rome worked they would have did that when the same thing happened in the 1st Punic war.

That Rome did not do it in the First Punic War doesn't mean they wouldn't do it in the second, where they have considerably more hostility towards Carthage and Hannibal than a great power rivalry alone.

Frankly, I think you're just trying to spare Hannibal being defeated here.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

My point is Rome didn't want to go there in the first place. They'd hardly be willing to send another army when they didn't want to send the first.

 

[Elfwine]

My point is Rome didn't want to go there in the first place. They'd hardly be willing to send another army when they didn't want to send the first.

I'm not really convinced by what I've read that Rome didn't want to go.

Scipio was responsible for a lot of stuff in regards to what his army did here, sure - but remember the whole Roman armies depending on their generals thing.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I don't really think the Romans have much stomach to try again, having never defeated Hannibal in battle and having failed epicly twice in two invasions of North Africa.

A quick glance through Roman history would suggest the opposite. The idea of the Romans not having "much stomach to try again" makes no sense. Look back at the First Punic War. How many entire fleets did the Romans lose to storms, with tens of thousands of men dying each time? And how did the Romans respond? They just built another fleet.

These are the Romans we're talking about here. Believe me, they'd try again.