Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Hannibal DID march to Rome?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 16th July 2010

  Hannibal, the Carthaginian victor of three jaw-droppingly great tactical victories against Rome in three devastating pitched battles from 218-216bc (Trebbia, Lake Tresimene & Cannae), at that point in history had Rome in his grip of fear, within whose mighty walls noblewomen were said to wash the ground with their hair in order to appease their Gods for mercy.
  But (in)famously, he didn't march upon Rome that year... but five years later, maybe too late?
  
  By 212 Hannibal had captured most of S.Italy, but his beleaguered Celtic and Italian allies, dotted around the country in pockets (as were Rome's allies), kept crying out for protection against a vengeful and growing Rome, so he was forced to dash to and fro to aid them.
  
  Battle of Capua 211bc
  Hannibal again tried to relieve his main harbour as in 212bc by luring the Romans into a pitched battle. He was even unsuccessful in a direct assault, and the Romans stayed behind their fortifications.
  Hannibal was also unable to lift the siege by assaulting the besiegers' defences. So he tried a strategem of staging a march towards Rome, hoping in this way to compel the enemy to abandon the siege and rush to defend their home city.
  
  However, only part of the besieging force left for Rome and Capua fell soon afterwards. Near Rome he fought another pitched battle.
  Punic officers in a starving Capua felt betrayed as Hannibal gave up on Rome, and Capua, then marched south-east to Bruttium and Apulia.
  
  In 211 The Romans mounted their 2nd siege of Capua, so Hannibal marched on Rome to distract their siege, and although panic ensued, Hannibal could only camp outside the city. He carried no heavy siege weaponry, and did not have a large enough army to do so.
  
  As a symbol of defiant disrespect for the Carthaginians, the Roman senate sold the very ground under Hannibal’s army- for full price. All talk of surrender was banned and the word 'peace' was outlawed by Rome.
  But Capua fell to the Romans, who completed their conquest of Syracuse and destruction of a Carthaginian army in Sicily.
  
  Hannibal- still undefeated, was soon forced to fight a defensive campaign- as his own veteran warriors died off to be replaced by newer, untested recruits, Rome grew in confidence and experience, under Hannibal Barca's old adversary, Publius Scipio.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Hannibal DID march to Rome?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010

  I'd be interested in other views on Hannibal's very belated move against Rome.

  Link to this forum: Hannibal DID march to Rome?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010

  Did Hannibal actually have the ability to take Rome in a siege? Did his army have the resources and the food to sustain a long siege? And would the fall of Rome have meant the capitulation of the empire? Somehow, I doubt it....

  Link to this forum: Hannibal DID march to Rome?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010

  I agree, even in 216bc just after the catastrophe at Cannae, the third such disastrous defeat to Hannibal, when the Romans were down but not out, the desperate Romans still failed to capitulate.
  
  So by 212/211, when the Romans had grown in morale, strength and boldness to such an extent that Scipio had even invaded Hispana, Hannibal's domain, there was no way Rome would give ground.
  
  Besides, even in 216bc, Hannibal had left his siege engines etc back in Hispana with his brother, who would later attempt to bring this machinery to aid his older brother.

  Link to this forum: Hannibal DID march to Rome?

  Report message4

Back to top