The Truceless War

[Hamilcar Barca]

Forward: I wasn't sure about sticking this up here but Skanderberg somewhat encouraged me by putting up one of his own write-ups.

 

 

The bloody conflict known as The Truceless War 241BC-237BC, fought between Carthage and it's mercinary armies following the first Punic War is one of the lesser known conflicts fought in the ancient world, mainly on behalf of the fact that all Carthaginian accounts were likely destroyed along with the city in 146BC. However, Polybius' account of the war did survive and I have used it as my primary source in sumarising this conflict and its key battles for anyone who is interested. The key figure brought to prominance as a result of the eventual Carthaginian victory was Hamilcar Barca, father and mentor of Hannibal. Hamilcar's ultimate victory allowed him to completley re-organise the mercinary armies and also secure a foothold in Spain which would prove to be Carthage's greatest military resource.

 

The Truceless War

241BC

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Hamilcar Barca. Underrated Genius.

Great work.

[Germanicus]

Great work Hamilcar, I knew nothing of these wars.

[Primus Pilus]

The mercenary war is so often overlooked yet so pivotal in the chain of events leading up to the Second Punic War. It allowed Rome to seize Sardinia and Corsica, and eventually forced Carthage into Hispania (to find new resources, etc.) I wonder, had Carthage maintained enough treasury to maintain its mercenary army (or at least had enough to disperse the army peacefully), if the scope of the Second Punic War may have been completely diminished.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

 

But yes, if the Truceles war never happened, history may have unfolded radically different. I think that the 2nd Punic War would still have enevitabley come about but it may not of happened for another 50 years or so. What is also intersting to contemplate is how the 2nd Punic war would have turned out if Hamilcar had not been assassinated. These is almost a parallel between Hamilcar and Hannibal and the likes of of Phillip and Alexander.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Except I doubt there was any rivarly between the two but yea there is a definite parallel. However we will never know exactly how Hamilcar would have fared and any assumption , for the better or worse, it ultimately baseless...

[Hamilcar Barca]

Indeed, but what is indisputable is that both men were charismatic, brilliant leaders whose military and tactical knowledge was the inspiration and envy of countless generals in the millenia to come. However, as Maharbal mused at Cannae, "Hannibal, you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one". Hamilcar on he other hand capitalised on any success he achieved, no matter how small it was. It was such a trait that allowed him ultimate victory over the Mercinaries. Now if both men had led the war against Rome along with the tag team brothers, Hasdrubal and Mago ... but yes we will never know.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

"Hannibal, you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one"

 

 

I never liked that quote much. Even its very occurrence is questionable. Personally, I believe this quote was mostly past around after the days as they believed Hannibal had the chance to take the city and never really questioned it. So this quote could have gven them a sort of explanation as to exactly why it he did not. Also Maharbal was saying to Hannibal to capitalize on this victory and head for Rome and Hannibal's invasion of Italy inorder to capture Rome has never had much backing. He didnt have that many soldiers, his supplies were not sent to him as he had no supply chain, he ate off Roman land, Most of his men were Barbarian recruits and there were plenty of Roman armies in the area. So in my opinion, that quote is just missused. Then again, Hannibal's plan of NOT taking Rome has never really been proven either. But personally, I don't see how he could possibly have had the chance. I think he did his best to capitalize on his victories but he was in an area where it was very hard. The minute he blinked there was a Roman army ready to take a city he captured, his supplies were too often lacking and even in cities that went to him there still was a high risk of the city being lost to the Romans from the inside. As that seemed to be a popular things then....

 

Now if both men had led the war against Rome along with the tag team brothers, Hasdrubal and Mago ... but yes we will never know.

 

 

Europe could have then been influenced by the punic language instead of Latin. lol

[P.Clodius]

I never liked that quote much. Even its very occurrence is questionable.

 

 

I like the quote but I agree with your argument. Hannibal was too weak to attack Rome directly. His army was an army of mobility, and Hannibal's experience with siege warfare was weak, just two I think (Saguntum and Nola).

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I dont think it was as much that his army was mobile as much as the enviroment around him and the situation forced him to. He had no supply train coming from anywhere and should he stay in one location for too long he risked running out of food or being surrounded by a large Roman army. With that said, trying to take Rome would have been one of the worst ideas he could have tried.

[Guest fdgh]

I am not intending to be a permanent member of this site, but your discussion has peaked my interest. I am a purveyor of Carthaginian history. What many fail to realize is that Hannibal probably had the strategic genius to pull off a siege of Rome and take the city, the only reason he didn't is because he lacked siege equipment. He had requested reinforcements from Carthage, which would include siege engines, but the anti-war party had taken control of Carthage in his absence. It was led mainly by Hanno the Great, who personally used his influence to keep from sending reinforcements to Hannibal. It probably stems from his personal rivalry with Hannibal's father Hamilcar in the Truceless War. So, due to largely his own personal blindness, Hanno the Great, leading the anti-war faction in Carthage, prevented reinforcements from reaching Hannibal, denying him the necessary siege-equipment to take Rome and destroy his sworn enemy, and the arch-enemy of Carthage. In essence, Hanno the Great was the greatest traitor to Carthage. For if Hannibal had sacked Rome, then I think there is little doubt that Carthage would never have been so ruthlessly destroyed in the Third Punic War, and it's ashes sown with salt.

So in regards to your comments, it is well known Hannibal had great strategic genius, and it is highly likely that if he had been supplied with his reinforcements, he could have taken Rome. You forget that much of southern Italy turned to his side at one point or antoher, and by cutting off Rome, he would be cutting Rome off from any of it's allies. Basically the only reason that the war was lost was because of Hanno the Great and his anti-war party and their refusal to reinforce Hannibal. Hanno the Great was nothing but a dirty traitor. Would Scipio Africanus's victories have meant anything if Rome had fallen? Carthage would be the undisputed master of the Mediterranean.

[Tobias]

That's a fascinating account. I have to confess i have read little on this area of Roman History, being more devoted to the Late Republic to Eastern Empire period, but that is a really interesting and detailed account. You've persuaded me to look more into Early Republican Rome Hamilcar

[Spurius]

...

So in regards to your comments, it is well known Hannibal had great strategic genius, and it is highly likely that if he had been supplied with his reinforcements, he could have taken Rome. You forget that much of southern Italy turned to his side at one point or antoher, and by cutting off Rome, he would be cutting Rome off from any of it's allies. Basically the only reason that the war was lost was because of Hanno the Great and his anti-war party and their refusal to reinforce Hannibal. Hanno the Great was nothing but a dirty traitor. Would Scipio Africanus's victories have meant anything if Rome had fallen? Carthage would be the undisputed master of the Mediterranean.

14216[/snapback]

 

So what do others think? I tend to agree with fdgh here...Hannibal didn't fail, Carthage did.

 

I have two questions with a seige of Rome by Hannibal.

1)Was Hannibal really lacking engineers? There should have been ones available from the sympathetic southern cities. Materials available on site too. Was this a real problem?

2)Would sacking Rome been enough to stop Rome? I think that only the stone by stone destruction that Rome did to Carthage would work. Would Hannibal or Carthage carry out this destruction? I don't think so. Carthage would want any economy gain it could get from Rome after the defeat of Rome.

[jermus22]

Hi, everybody! Just joined the site and was excited to see you guys discussing the Punic Wars, Carthage, etc. Can't say I know a lot about Roman history in general, but the Punic Wars are a hobby of mine.

 

In regards to the question about Hannibal's ability to carry out a siege of Rome, from what I've read recently, he did have the equipment and tactical ability to conduct an operation of that scale. However, Hannibal's major obstacle didn't lie in equipment or technology, but rather in manpower. According to John Peddie's excellent book "Hannibal's War," Rome's walls measured some seven miles around, definitely making it extremely difficult for Hannibal's army (roughly 44,000 men after Cannae) to circumvallate or assault the entire city. The population of able-bodied men inside might possibly have outnumbered Hannibal's own army, and the Romans very likely could have raised an army as large as Hannibal's to oppose the besiegers. It's also important to note that when Hannibal attacked Saguntum in Spain, he probably had about 120,000 men in his army, many of whom were reliable veterans instead of questionable troops like the Gauls and Italians in his army after Cannae. Not to mention that the siege of Saguntum took eight months, and there were no Roman legions outside the city to oppose Hannibal.

 

It appears that Hannibal's grand strategy really involved drawing all of Rome's allies away from the Latin confederacy, while awaiting reinforcements from Africa (by sea) and Spain (Hasdrubal by land). His Italian allies proved fickle, his subordinate generals in Italy fared poorly when entrusted with their own armies, and Carthage failed to send adequate reinforcements by sea. Even his brother Hasdrubal was slow to arrive in Italy, due to his setbacks against Publius and Gnaeus Scipio. Even after defeating the two Scipios at the battles of Ilorca and Castulo in 211 BC, Hasdrubal failed to mobilize an army for Italy before Scipio Africanus arrived with his own troops and took Nova Carthago. By the time Hasdrubal did arrive, his army was a shadow of its former glory, having been defeated a year earlier at the battle of Baecula, and consisting largely of unreliable Gauls and Ligurians.

 

All the factors mentioned earlier (and others) caused the Carthaginian grand strategy to fail, even though Hannibal for his part did what was necessary.

 

This post might have been a little long, sorry. I'd really enjoy hearing some other takes on the subject. My theories might have some holes in them, and I always like hearing other opinions on this topic.

[jermus22]

BTW, I'm also up for any discussion about the Truceless War. I've taken a particular interest in that topic during the last two years, even making a trip last November to visit ruins and possible battleground sights in Tunisia.