Semper Fi

After Cannae could Hannibal have taken Rome?

Some people say Hannibal not going to Rome changed the course of history, but he never really got the support from Carthage...so who knows?

I think he should of burned Rome to the ground with the men he had left.

Amled

Good question.
With a reported casuelty count exceeding 15,000, Hanibal too was in serious need of recuperation.
So the question is, would he have been able to take Rome with what remained to him of combat effective soldiers?
Also he would have to manufacture siege equipment to overcome the walls and fortifications of Rome itself, besides which Rome; like the North during the American Civil War, had an unerring ability to field new armies in the wake of defeats.
IMO he should certainly have tried, after all what was he doing on the Italian Peninsular, if not defeat and conquer Rome. And having destroyed the best part of their military, he would never be in a better position to accomplish this aim.

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

Officer of Engineers

Hannibal needed the support of the Italian city states. He never got those. His logistics didn't allow him to attack Rome or any other heavily fortified city. You will note that he stayed in the country side during his time in Italy, never once taking and holding a city.

__________________
Chimo

Semper Fi

Don't you think though if Hannibal would started his attack on Rome more barbarians would of been inclined to join him or at the very least they would sacked Rome for everything they got.

I mean Rome would of been a pretty chaotic place. It would of been a free for all.

Who would of stooped them?

PubFather

Actually, I think that was the problem for Hannibal. Firstly, he didnt have the equipment/men to take Rome without an enormous risk of defeat.

Secondly, Hannibal fully expected the Romans to reasonable. He was there to defeat the Romans, force them to sign a peace treaty that gave Carthage Spain, and restored their pre-emience in trade in the Med. After Cannae, Hannibal doubtless expected the Romans to give in. He reckoned without their utter bloody-minded determination to keep fighting, and their ability to create new armies from seemingly nothing.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

zraver

Could he have taken Rome? Yes, but not facing good enough odds to ensure sucess he instead tried to break apart the republic.

Amled

I seem to recollect that a number of Italian cities did revolt, and joined with Hannibal!

zraver

yes, but not enough to really upse tthe apple cart. he wa sable to create a 20 year conflict in the hear tof the republic but never shatterd it.

leib10

Hannibal could've taken Rome if he acquired the necessary siege equipment and provisions, but never could've held it and defeated the remaining Roman legions. His men were too few in number and it was only a matter of time before he was trapped and annihilated.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

Amled

Let's say that he had taken and sacked Rome, never mind holding it. Could Rome have recovered?
A high proportion of those Italian city-states it had conquered would most likely have declared their independence, for not to mention its non-Italian conquests.
That aside, it should also be mentioned that the city of Rome itself had been conquered and sacked 150 years before Hannibal by the Gauls, yet it came back, bigger, badder and stronger then ever.

leib10

Yes, it would've recovered. The majority of the provinces would've remained loyal to the Roman cause, and the ones who joined the Carthaginian cause would've quickly changed horses once again or would've been forced back into submission when Hannibal was eventually crushed.

Semper Fi

So...let's say Hannibal defeated Scipio at Zama. Was Hannibal, and Carthage still screwed?

It seems like Hannibal was they ultimate underdog by taking Rome on at that time.

Amled

Quit right.
As with Japan in '41, and many a fighter before, they could get in a good punch or two, but didn't have the where-with-all to deliver a knockout blow.

ColonalStriker

He knew that Rome could just throw every last citizen it had at him. He was smarter than to rush them.