Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
Is it Rome or Hannibal who offers battle?
Hastrubal was no Hannibal.
Beseiging Rome forces them to give battle no? If Hannibal is sitting outside Rome another supporting army has forage duty or guard our back duty.
Leave a comment:
Guest replied
The reason why Hannibal did not do it and why Fabious did was that Hannibal's men got nothing to eat. Fabious burned everything in front of Hannibal, leaving Hannibal's men nothing to eat.
How come Hannibal did not practice scorched earth policy? He could have raided Roman farms, industries, sea ports, ala Mongol style. It would have the effect of bottling up Roman armies in the cities and Romans would have lost the country side effectively losing control of its empire.
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?
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?
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?
We are derailing, either KIA+WIA numbers are wrong or 20k is a figure too small for the men that would be fit to participate in the siege. Unless of course Hannibal's casualties were 60%, which were not.
Anyway, the fact remains that Hannibal can't effectively siege Rome, even if all 50k troops he had prior are alive and well. Can we move on?
I see why you're confused.Ancient sources give the KIA's.The WIA's are estimated based on typical engagements and modern studies about ancient battles.Some certainly died,some were disabled permanently,while others recovered.Againt some adversaries,it is resonable to say that a higher WIA/KIA ratio existed,based on their tactics and weapons.Like the Parthians,Dacians and Thracians.
Ok... now I am getting lost! A 'tactician' relates to battlefield tactics right and a strategist to 'campaign movement', with logistics (food, weapons, clothes etc) thrown in? So Hannibal is not a strategist? The whole concept of over the Alps and all? That IS a strategic concept yes? (Not sure if I have terms right when addressing the military).
The move across the Alps was a fantastic piece of strategic surprise but it was squandered when he could not bring the Romans into a battle of annihilation. Cannae does not count. Rome was not annihilated.
You say that Hannibal never managed to bring a Roman army to battle Sir; yes but only after Fabius Maximus was appointed Dictator/assumed command, and his express policy was NOT to give battle.
I said that he was never able to force battle. He could not force the Romans to a battle that they had to fight.
Ok so you have more (useless) soldiers than Hannibal 2/3rds of whom may change sides. IF he beseiges Rome every day he sits outside the greater the likelihood that City A (particularly the Greek cities - who Hannibal was allied with in their homeland) will defect. The odds on manpower COULD change very rapidly.
Wellington once said, if you face Napoleon, run away. If you face his Marshalls, stand and fight.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
Hannibal was a maneuver general, not a positional general. A fantastic tactician but a poor strategist. He never did once forced a Roman army to accept battle.
Ok... now I am getting lost! A 'tactician' relates to battlefield tactics right and a strategist to 'campaign movement', with logistics (food, weapons, clothes etc) thrown in? So Hannibal is not a strategist? The whole concept of over the Alps and all? That IS a strategic concept yes? (Not sure if I have terms right when addressing the military).
You say that Hannibal never managed to bring a Roman army to battle Sir; yes but only after Fabius Maximus was appointed Dictator/assumed command, and his express policy was NOT to give battle.
Sara,nope.The besieger has more problems than the besieged,if the city is prepared and well supplied with food and water.Whatever can be foraged will be gone soon,even if the defenders don't practice scorched earth and foul water and poor food will affect even a modern high tech army with dysenteria.Back then it was much worse and whole armies perished by disease in front of fortified walls.If there is a relief force or one that can harass the besiegers,it's even worse.In short,those are the reasons fortified cities were a functional concept for thousands of years.If you remember,Vercingetorix was sorta forced into Alesia and the city wasn't properly supplied,an impediment compounded by being overcrowded.
None apply to Rome after Cannae.The city was well supplied after Trasimene.The defenders outnumbered what Hannibal could bring to Rome right after Cannae.Hannibal in a fixed position is an easy target for a commander like Fabius,as the Colonel said.Fabius has an intact fleet,a league of loyal city to harass Hannibal's meagre logistic lifeline and superior numbers.Roman Senate and the most loyal cities were acutely aware of these advantages,thus while the situation was serious,it was not desperate and nobody from the core of Roman power tried to bail out.
Ok so you have more (useless) soldiers than Hannibal 2/3rds of whom may change sides. IF he beseiges Rome every day he sits outside the greater the likelihood that City A (particularly the Greek cities - who Hannibal was allied with in their homeland) will defect. The odds on manpower COULD change very rapidly.
All KIA's.A bit more than half were Gauls.Polybius and Titus Livius included them,I'm just relaying information.Can't kill them if they lied
We are derailing, either KIA+WIA numbers are wrong or 20k is a figure too small for the men that would be fit to participate in the siege. Unless of course Hannibal's casualties were 60%, which were not.
Anyway, the fact remains that Hannibal can't effectively siege Rome, even if all 50k troops he had prior are alive and well. Can we move on?
Sara,nope.The besieger has more problems than the besieged,if the city is prepared and well supplied with food and water.Whatever can be foraged will be gone soon,even if the defenders don't practice scorched earth and foul water and poor food will affect even a modern high tech army with dysenteria.Back then it was much worse and whole armies perished by disease in front of fortified walls.If there is a relief force or one that can harass the besiegers,it's even worse.In short,those are the reasons fortified cities were a functional concept for thousands of years.If you remember,Vercingetorix was sorta forced into Alesia and the city wasn't properly supplied,an impediment compounded by being overcrowded.
None apply to Rome after Cannae.The city was well supplied after Trasimene.The defenders outnumbered what Hannibal could bring to Rome right after Cannae.Hannibal in a fixed position is an easy target for a commander like Fabius,as the Colonel said.Fabius has an intact fleet,a league of loyal city to harass Hannibal's meagre logistic lifeline and superior numbers.Roman Senate and the most loyal cities were acutely aware of these advantages,thus while the situation was serious,it was not desperate and nobody from the core of Roman power tried to bail out.
Leave a comment: