Tactics

[Pompieus]

Hannibal failed because he underestimated the cohesion of the Roman confederation. He expected the Italian allies to join him against the tyranny of Rome. But except for the Bruttians, Lucanians and a few Oscan towns in Campania like Capua (vile traitors that they were), the Italians stood by the city that stood by them against the Gauls, and that spoke a similar language and worshipped the same gods.

[caldrail]

To some extent, but he also failed because he couldn't land a killer blow. Thats not because he made a mistake (though it does seem so at first glance) but rather because he underestimated roman stubbornness. Notice that he does not attack the city of Rome, nor does he spend much time on territorial gain nor objective conquest. His whole campaign is about threat and intrusion. Without the ability to supply his troops for a long period in one place, he must must remain mobile, and therefore gambles that his victories against roman forces sent against him will bring the romans to a white flag. The romans were close to panic - in that he almost succeeded - but its that large manpower pool that brings in fresh troops after a short delay. Hannibal, reliant on the mercenaries that crossed the alps with him, could not replace his losses so easily.

[M. Demetrius]

To some extent, but he also failed because he couldn't land a killer blow. Thats not because he made a mistake (though it does seem so at first glance) but rather because he underestimated roman stubbornness. Notice that he does not attack the city of Rome, nor does he spend much time on territorial gain nor objective conquest. His whole campaign is about threat and intrusion. Without the ability to supply his troops for a long period in one place, he must must remain mobile, and therefore gambles that his victories against roman forces sent against him will bring the romans to a white flag. The romans were close to panic - in that he almost succeeded - but its that large manpower pool that brings in fresh troops after a short delay. Hannibal, reliant on the mercenaries that crossed the alps with him, could not replace his losses so easily.

Right all the way. I'm reading Polybius' The Rise of the Roman Empire, and he's making that point clear. Add in the difficulty of not being able to get fresh supplies or troops from the homeland, and Hannibal's position is increasingly less tenable each day that goes by, each soldier he loses in battle or to normal attrition. Plus, he was fighting to fulfill his blood oath to hate the Romans, while they were fighting for their very existance, and they knew it. Edited February 15, 2008 by M. Demetrius

[Pompieus]

All true. The Roman navy and the campaign in Sicily prevented any help reaching Hannibal from Africa, and armies in the Po Valley and Spain cut him off from those bases while the Italians held out in their towns ans destroyed the crops before the Carthaginians could get them. But had the Samnites, Etruscans, Picentines Sabines, Paeligni, Marsi, Marrucini et al opened their gates to Hannibal and provided supplies to his army he wouldn't have had the problems you mention - the Romans would. They would have been have been restricted to Latium and would have been forced to deal.

[caldrail]

But if Hannibal was getting supplied from sources beyond local foraging the romans would know about it. Hannibal could not spare forces to protect wagon/mule trains who would have been very vulnerable in enemy territory, and I suspect that although Hannibal may have welcomed such supply he would have steered clear of relying on it in order to preserve mobility and to avoid stretching his forces. Further, you might remember that Hannibals army had already marched across the alps and suffered terrible privation because of it. These were hardened men well used to grabbing whatever they could get.