Battle of Cannae - Could Hannibal Have Taken Rome?

[danjwood]

Dear Romans,

 

August 2nd is the anniversary of your greatest defeat - the Battle of Cannae - where Hannibal and our Carthaginians easily defeated you in battle. No seriously, I was wondering if any of you think Hannibal could have gone on to take Rome after that big victory (which did take place on August 2nd apparently)? Like the Gauls did in the 4th century B.C and the Huns did much later.

 

I am very keen for any views that could help me think about this as I try and write a blog for the anniversary on our website:

www.woodbrothers.tv

 

For any interested, our documentary series about Hannibal and the 2nd Punic War is currently airing on BBCFour in the United Kingdom. If you are in the UK you can watch it on the BBC i-player here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t6skb

 

We're keen to know what you think about it too, so please let us know with comments on our website or at the BBC Television blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/07/on-h...cling-fro.shtml

 

Thanks for your time. Kind regards

Danny Wood

[barca]

I was wondering if any of you think Hannibal could have gone on to take Rome after that big victory (which did take place on August 2nd apparently)? Like the Gauls did in the 4th century B.C and the Huns did much later.

 

 

Huns?? You mean Goths and Vandals?

[danjwood]

Huns?? You mean Goths and Vandals?

 

hhhmmm yes, sorry Barca! Attila the Hun got close but didn't quite sack Rome...so yes I mean the later sackings, so by Alaric the Visigoth in 410 or the later one by the Vandals...

[Ingsoc]

No, Rome was too far from the battle scene and the march to her would have to be through some ruff terrain. Also Hannibal didn't have the men nor the equipment to conduct long siege against Rome.

 

The mention of the famous suggestion of Maharbal that Hannibal should storm Rome was most likely is a dramatic literature device rather than a recording of a historic event.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree with Ingsoc. I'd also add that marching on Rome wouldn't have fit with Hannibal's overall strategy, which was to peel off Rome's allies in Italy and thereby deprive Rome of her chief military asset -- Italian manpower.

[Virgil61]

I'd make this speculation: The capture of Rome would have--if not shattered--then probably fatally weakened the remaining allied allegiances.

 

I can't imagine Hannibal lacking the vision to not take the city if it were doable. He'd then be the owner of one of the greatest victories--Cannae--and one of the most strategic blunders in military history. I'm of the opinion his reasons for not moving on Rome had validity probably due to the lack of probability for success [in Hannibal's eyes].

 

Is it possible he made an error? Sure, but in spite of Maharbah's reported statement, I take it on faith that Hannibal knew his strengths and weaknesses, what his army was capable of and what the enemy was capable of.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Virgil61

[caldrail]

I was wondering if any of you think Hannibal could have gone on to take Rome after that big victory (which did take place on August 2nd apparently)? Like the Gauls did in the 4th century B.C and the Huns did much later.

 

 

Huns?? You mean Goths and Vandals?

 

 

The Huns had threatened the eastern Roman empire in the 4th century, mostly by reputation. One general Trajan (not the emperor) had a wall built to keep them out. That said, the arrival of huns toward the end of that century precipitated a certain river crossing by goths to escape them, and as we know, the Romans suffered a spectacular defeat soon after.

 

As regards Hannibal marching on Rome, the Romans themselves believed that disaster was a few days march away. It may well have bbeen. Now whilst Hannibal was an intelligent man, he would as a military commander be dependent on reports from spies, deserters, and civilians, in order to make decisions on strategy. It is therefore likely that he wasn't aware how exposed Rome was. If he did know, and refused to make the final blow, then it was because he wanted to bring the Romans to their knees by attrition on their home ground, not by tying himself down to a costly siege, which would have ultimately made him vulnerable had the affair not been finsihed quickly. In other words, he chose not to take the risk.

Edited August 2, 2010 by caldrail

[danjwood]

Thanks Ingsoc, M.Porcius Cato, Virgil and caldrail for taking the time to give it some thought. I appreciate your instructive comments. I'm still not sure if Hannibal did the right thing! all the best Danny