WI Hannibal Wins Decisive Victory At Zama?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn't change anything. Carthage's lost everything minus its possession in North Africa and if the Romans don't respond immediately with another army, which they will, Masinissa and the Numidians will attack.
 
Carthage will still lose Spain to the Romans. So Zama or not, it would count as a win for the Romans and a defeat of the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War.
 
While I agree with the general point there, it would still have interesting consequences.

Namely, the fortune (or misfortune) of Scipii. Assuming that Scipio Africanus dies. They seems to have been more "centrists" (or whatever was close of centrism in the Republican Rome), in opposition to both more conservative or traditionalist gens as Fabia; and from more popular factions as Gracchi (in the time of the adopted grand-son of Scipio Africanus).

Granted, their place would have been taken by someone else, but in a defining time for Rome (when it obtain mediterranean hegemon), the decline of a strong family could lead to an earlier confrontation between populares and optimates.
 
It doesn't change anything. Carthage's lost everything minus its possession in North Africa and if the Romans don't respond immediately with another army, which they will, Masinissa and the Numidians will attack.

I think that Rome will not répond with another army. The majority in the Senate was reluctant to Scipio's plan. So if his plan ends in disaster at Zama, it would be the second disaster of a roman army in Africa after Attilius Regulus' disaster during Punic War I.

But as mentioned by others, the consequences for Carthage will not be very different. Carthage still loses all its possessions outside Africa. But it might try to deal with Massinissa without Rome being able to intervene.

The other point is that Rome may have more difficulties in Spain than it had in our timeline. Because at that time, the spanish chieftains considered Scipio more or less as their king. Remember many of them wanted to defect when they believed Scipio had died from disease in 206.

At home, it will be the fall of the house of the Cornelii Scipiones. This changes many many things. There Will be no Gracchi as we knew because Tiberius Gracchus the father will not marry one of the daughters of Africanus.

We may have one generation earlier what happened in the late 170's : the plebeian nobility becoming dominant on the roman political stage and, for the first time, ou string patricians from the yearly college of consuls.
The fact was long ignored, and has been proven by the great historian Munzer, but just after The disaster of Cannae, the Comitiae were going to elect for the first time in roman history 2 plebeian consuls, until Fabius Maximus engineered some kind of coup to replay the election and have himself elected consul.

Rome will also probably take more time before expanding eastwards.
 
As Matteo mentioned Rome likely wouldn't send another army-Scipio essentially had to do this all on his own because the senate was mostly against sending an army to North Africa after their repeated disasters there in the first punic war and the exhaustion after this war. The terms I can imagine would be similar to the ones Scipio originally proposed and which was accepted by the Carthaginians and ratified by the Roman senate. That is (quoting from Wikipedia): " Carthage could keep its African territory, but would lose its overseas empire, by that time a fait-accompli. Masinissa was to be allowed to expand Numidia into parts of Africa. Also, Carthage was to reduce its fleet and pay a war indemnity."

So here's the main difference-Carthage would, crucially have the ability to conduct their own diplomacy inside Africa (after they hand over some territory initially to Massinissa). That in itself has serious butterflies, because Masinissa was repeatedly able to expand at Carthage's expense without Carthage being able to do a single thing about it. Here, they will be able to put a stop to his expansion.
 
Also Carthage's negotiating hand won't be quite as terrible as it was IOTL, so we might well see the Romans imposing a smaller indemnity and a more generous/no naval limit.
 
Also Carthage's negotiating hand won't be quite as terrible as it was IOTL, so we might well see the Romans imposing a smaller indemnity and a more generous/no naval limit.

The naval limit would still be there-it was there in Scipio's offer before the battle and I doubt the Carthaginians would say no to a naval limit unless they are under the impression Hannibal can continually beat back Roman invasions every time they come.
 
I rather think that Rome's hand after defeat would be slightly weakened comparer to what it was before defeat. Hannibal and Carthage decided to fight the battle of Zama precisely because they considered Rome's offer too harsh not to risk a battle in order to improvise the peace terms.

And Scipio offered harsh conditions because because he wanted the glory of defeating Hannibal in battle and thought he had a very very good chance of winning this battle.
 

Howlers

Banned
Hannibal will further submit his place as one of the greatest tacticians of all time and Scipio’s reputation as a general will be lessened. The peace terms on Carthage will be less harsh
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top