Tobias Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 I'd have to agree Spurius. As a former Punic colony and then an independent nation, there would surely be that thought that a economically active, rich yet subdued Rome would be of more use to them then a razed wasteland. Although it seems that that was not likely to happen anyway. As well, the destruction or sacking of Rome may have inspired the Romans and given them a moral advantage, which does count for a lot in battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 My thoughts are the Romans survived the sacking and near destruction of their city by the Gauls. They went on several centuries later to subdue Gaul. If Hannibal had stormed Rome he might have done some serious damage. But I doubt it would have been the end of Rome. They would have survived and rebuilt. And eventually sought revenge. But how history would have changed with a delayed Roman empire is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 PS ... I am pinning Hamilcar Barca's essay as example of the kind of contribution I would like to see more of in this folder. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilcar Barca Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I'm honoured Primus. I'll try and get a new one up when I have some free time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.