WI: Hannibal Wins at Zama?

"Carthago delenda est."

... Carthaginem esse delendam, please! We should stay correct here, because this part of latin grammar was a real pain in the ass. :cool:

I guess, nothing would change after a roman defeat at Zama. The romans did not conquer the world with the sword. Some historians say, they did it with spades and oxcarts. I say, it was plain stubbornness!
 
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.

I'll say it again. The Roman Senate did not want to let Scipio go in the first place. He practically had to manage the whole invasion himself, one of the reasons he had to use the Romans who fled at Cannae who were stationed on Sicily.

Also, in the First Punic War the Romans invaded North Africa and set out shop outside Carthage. Their army was destroyed and then their fleet was destroyed. Needless to say, they never invaded North Africa again in the war and instead settled for finishing the Carthaginians off in Sicily and securing a favorable peace. I don't see why they wouldn't do that here.
 
Also, in the First Punic War the Romans invaded North Africa and set out shop outside Carthage. Their army was destroyed and then their fleet was destroyed. Needless to say, they never invaded North Africa again in the war and instead settled for finishing the Carthaginians off in Sicily and securing a favorable peace. I don't see why they wouldn't do that here.

Sure a roman defeat at Zama could lead to a favorable peace treaty for Carthago. But this would just lead to an earlier 3rd Punic War. Longterm, nothing would change, imho.
 
Sure a roman defeat at Zama could lead to a favorable peace treaty for Carthago. But this would just lead to an earlier 3rd Punic War. Longterm, nothing would change, imho.
There would be a Third Punic War but it might turn out differently and start at a different time for different reasons,etc. It could have butterflies maybe not for Carthage per say, but for Rome's policy towards the east. Maybe.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
There would be a Third Punic War but it might turn out differently and start at a different time for different reasons,etc. It could have butterflies maybe not for Carthage per say, but for Rome's policy towards the east. Maybe.

Find it doubtful tbh, the Carthaginian war effort was nearly always half hearted with a minority of its ruling class in favour of war. It was Rome that was the more aggressive and determined of the two. Any other city would most likely have collapsed into civil war or sued for peace after Hannibals initial victories. Romes ability to tie cities to itself was fairly unique for the period even if it wasnt always perfect.

If Hannibal wins at Zama what I can see at best is a slightly better treaty then a very slightly earlier 3rd Punic War as it becomes clear that Carthage is still a strong city with good economic links that historically fought Rome almost to a standstill.

Third Punic war also started for almost no reason, Carthage was pushed into it by constant and unreasonable demands from Rome including total disarmament (which was done and still Rome wanted more with its last straw being the total destruction of the city and moving a few miles away). That Carthage lasted as long as it did is a testament to the bravery of its defenders and the shoddy state of the Roman army when it was freshly conscripted.
 
I'll join the chorus supporting the fact that Scipio's plan wasn't supported in the least by the Senate. I believe he was only given permission to go to Sicily, without an army and without a clear mandate to cross into Africa, when he threatened to go to the People with his plan. Effectively the Senate caved in to Scipio to prevent him from stabbing them and their auctoritas in the back and even then gave him nothing in the way of support.

If Scipio was defeated, I don't the Senate would have sent another army. It seemed rather content to just sending army after army to keep Hannibal pent up and making sure he didn't cause any trouble. The Fabian Strategy seemed to be working for them and they had certainly learned patience after Cannae. The war may very well have gone on until someone else decided to invade Africa or Hannibal's army withered away.

Without an invasion, I can see the war dragging on for a long time and the peace treaty really only being a prolonged armistice until someone from the next generation decided to start things up again.
 
Top