Thread: Apres Cannae

Originally Posted by Blademaster

He could have directed one army to go to Rome and siege it while keeping his army away and destroy the countryside and force the Roman armies to come to him in order to relieve Rome.

So doable in your opinion then? (With 2nd army).

Originally Posted by snapper

Well I asked for a military view and am grateful for your opinions, though I not entirely convinced; marching on Rome surely is the ONE way to force Rome to accept battle? If they are defeated there, outside the very gates of Rome, it's pretty much game over.

Never mind... Suppose Hastrubal had not been defeated? Would the presence of a second Carthaginian/allied army in the immeadiate theatre have alowed Hannibal to win the 2nd Punic War?

marching on Rome forces Hannibal to give battle, not Rome. Rome does not need to come out from behind the walls unless Hannibal moves on Ostia, in which case he squanders the advantage his cavalry gives him. The best he can do is set up a siege in being where he uses cavalry and flying columns to isolate Rome from direct contact with the interior. However, this is less than ideal as unlike Carthage which was a coastal empire, Rome was a power based on interior population centers with well established roads and ports linking the Italian peninsula from multiple locations. He simply didn't have the manpower to truly isolate Rome.

Ok so he sets up 'a siege in being'. The longer this goes on the more defections there are from Rome and the greater Hannibals manpower. The game is NOT to take Rome but to 'liberate' the Gallic and Greek cities/break the federation. If 70% of the cities previously allied to Rome defect the war is all but over. I accept that he cannot win militarily immeadiately after Cannae but that is not the aim. The aim is to win politicaly.

Originally Posted by snapper

Ok so he sets up 'a siege in being'. The longer this goes on the more defections there are from Rome and the greater Hannibals manpower. The game is NOT to take Rome but to 'liberate' the Gallic and Greek cities/break the federation. If 70% of the cities previously allied to Rome defect the war is all but over. I accept that he cannot win militarily immeadiately after Cannae but that is not the aim. The aim is to win politicaly.

Doesn't matter. He lost politically when the Carthaginian Senate refused to back him anymore and the allies knew that and used that to their leverage and to Hannibal's detriment. The only way I could see Hannibal being successful is capturing the Naples port and then retake the Sicilian Island and station troops among the Alps passes and effectively bottle the Romans and re-establish Carthaginian might and rebuild the empire and gathering more armies and settle for the long haul, playing it like a strategic game. He didn't and that is why he lost to Fabian, a strategician, the same way that Confederation Gen. Robert Lee lost to Union Gen. US Grant in US Civil War.

If the Romans didn't want to offer battle, fine, just raid all the border towns and seaports and destroy any naval projection capability and offer pirates and marauders bounty for successful raids against Roman towns and garrisons. Death by a thousand cuts strategy and Romans would be forced to deal with Hannibal's choosing of the battle.

I shall bow to the accumulated wisdom of my elders on this matter.

I have another to ask though!