Should Hannibal have attacked Rome?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave
I don't know if this question has been brought up in this forum before but I am curious to know what fellow forum members think.
Did Hannibal err in not attacking the city of Rome itself when he had the chance to do so?
It seems to me that Hannibal knew better than anyone else what a predicament he was in with his lack of manpower and resources. But could the same thing not be said of the Romans? The disastrous defeats they suffered must surely have reduced their manpower to a dangerously low level.
Would they have withstood a siege by the Carthaginians at that time?

[Paullus Scipio]

This is a bit of an old chestnut !!
The plain Fact of the matter is that there was no way for Hannibal to successfully besiege Rome....and not because he didn't have a siege train, as many have postulated. He could easily have had one built and rounded up catapults etc from the cities in Southern/central Italy that went over to him.
Consider these facts, and then decide whether you would have tried it !

Rome's potential military manpower in 204 B.C., some years after her worst defeats and losses still numbered some 214,000 - and the same again in Allies !! ( Hannibal's army in Italy never exceeded 50,000 men or so ) -sitting outside Rome's walls with that many enemy troops on the loose would have been suicide, and Rome's many Allies were steadfast.

Consider what it took to capture Carthage in 146 B.C., a similar but possibly slightly smaller city. The Roman attackers numbered some 80,000 plus African and Numidian allies, Carthage stood alone, her territory stripped from her, her navy gone ( by treaty), her military forces shattered by Masinissa and his Numidians. Carthage had been totally disarmed, surrendering 200,000 sets of arms (panoplies) and 2,000 catapults. The city was to all intents and purposes defenceless, with no hope of succour from anywhere.
It took the Romans three bloody years to reduce Carthage (149-146 B.C.) ending Carthage's 400 year domination of the Western Mediterranean.

So, did Hannibal err ? No !!

Was Rome reduced to a dangerously low manpower level? Certainly not !! :twisted:

Would Rome have withstood a siege at that time? Easily, and they knew it ! :lol:
For example, at one point, to relieve the pressure on his Ally Capua ( Italy's second biggest city, slowly being reduced by Rome ) Hannibal "faked" a march on Rome to draw away Roman armies. The Romans weren't fooled. Some land outside the city that Hannibal was camped on came up for auction. It was calmly sold for its normal market price........ :wink:

[jc02005]

Hannible took 36 elephants with 2000 footsoliders and 1500 Calvary

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Hannible took 36 elephants with 2000 footsoliders and 1500 Calvary

I'm sorry that is just not correct. What is your source for that information? The correct number is the one given by Paullus Scipio above.

[Paullus Scipio]

Just for the record, Hannibal's army was at its smallest when it emerged onto the plains of Northern Italy after its epic march over the Alps. At that time he had 12,000 African and 8,000 Spanish Infantry (20,000) and 6,000 cavalry (compared to the 38,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry who had left the Rhone - his losses fighting his way over the Alps against Gauls and the weather had been horrendous).

These figures will be accurate, Polybius (3.56.4) stating he got them from Hannibal's own Lacinian inscription. Appian records (Hannibalic War 1.4) that Hannibal began the Alps crossing with 37 elephants, Polybius mentions 'about 40', but we don't know how many didn't survive the crossing.

Just over six weeks later, at the battle of the Trebia, around December 22nd-24th, his army had been re-inforced by 9,000 Gallic infantry and an astonishing 5,000 cavalry (14,000 ) from the Po valley tribes. There were evidently still a number of elephants, though we are not told how many. During the severe winter after Trebia, all but one of the elephants dies.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Speaking of Punic Wars, isnt here a film coming out next year called ''Hannibal the Conqueror'' in which Hannibal is played by Vin Diesel?

Any opinions?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You could say that the Alps were his greatest enemy, until Scipio Africanus... 8)

[Hugh Fuller]

Wasn't Hannibal supposed to have had an alliance with Philip V of Macedonia but the Romans were able to bluff him into staying in the Balkans rather than coming over to Italy to aid Hannibal. John Maddox Roberts uses this possiblity as a turning point in his alternate history series that began with Hannibal's Children about a rome that had to leave Italy and move north of the Alps and their eventual return. Philip joins with Hannibal and they besiege Rome, forcing its capitulation.