07-20-2006, 07:57 PM
This is a digression, but I must say that I think Hannibal's basic strategy was perfectly sound, if you accept that Rome and Carthage could not co-exist. If war was inevitable (which I suspect it was), then Carthage had already tried and lost a naval strategy, and lost Sicily to boot, so there was no convenient forward base to use. Carthage couldn't count on outnumbering the Romans, given the geography of North Africa vs. Italy; and a defensive strategy based on solely defending the Carthaginian homeland was by definition passive and ultimately futile. Taking the war to Italy was better; and could not be done by a maritime route. This means crossing the Alps.
Hannibal count hardly count on numerical superiority, given he was invading the Roman heartland; so a smaller qualitatively superior army was logical. He wouldn't have any logistical advantage either; so victory by winning a series of battles was a logical strategy. Rome was fortunate in having Fabius, even though he was under lot of pressure to win a battlefield victory against Hannibal, he resisted this pressure.
Enough of Han-nibal, back to the Han.
Hannibal count hardly count on numerical superiority, given he was invading the Roman heartland; so a smaller qualitatively superior army was logical. He wouldn't have any logistical advantage either; so victory by winning a series of battles was a logical strategy. Rome was fortunate in having Fabius, even though he was under lot of pressure to win a battlefield victory against Hannibal, he resisted this pressure.
Enough of Han-nibal, back to the Han.
Felix Wang
