Why didn't Hannibal choose the seaway?

[akandi]

Hi all

I got to write something about the reasons why Hannibal did choose the way over the Alps instead of the seeway. So does anyone know any good sources? A comparison of the Roman fleet and the Carthaginian one would also be great.

Thank you

Andy

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

well you might want to take a look at what the roman were doing at that time, and Livius will tell it to you best, that is getting a large force ready for transport to Spain by... sea.

[spittle]

If you want to compare Carthage and Romes naval abilities it may be interesting to point out that when Rome was a minor power, and Carthage was far more important, they came to blows over Sicily.

At this point of history (I'm guessing 3rd century BCE) Carthage had a type of production line for making ships. The parts were prefabricated and came with symbols to show what they were (a lot like Ikea flat pack furniture).

One of these Carthaginian ships was crashed onto Roman land and the Romans were essentially given the entire plans for building ships of their own.

 

As for Hannibals reasons for marching around the Alps and entering Italy from the north.....It was so unexpected that the Romans never even thought to protect their northern borders to any great extent.

[caldrail]

The problem with mounting a sea-borne invasion of Italy is that it meant sailing right into the heart of roman waters. Although the romans were generally poor sailors early on, during the previous punic war they had reverse-engineered cartaginian galleys and created a navy virtually from scratch. The invention of the corvus had given the romans the advantage of being able to employ their motivated and trained soldiers as marines, fighting 'land' battles aboard ship. Hannibal was aware of this. He was also aware of the risks of transporting a large fleet in one go across open water for some distance. Could he risk a bad storm at sea? Were the ships available? Building a large fleet was vulnerable to roman action. Was it better to spend spanish silver on more ships or more mercenaries to complete his campaign? Hannibal chose the latter course, hoping that his excursion through the alps would suprise the romans and outflank their armies. It was a difficult course however, his men were starved and they lost a fair few assets in local hostilities or accidents, not to mention desertions.

 

Was the crossing of the alps the right choice? Hannibal thought so.

[spittle]

"...reverse engineered Cartiginian galleys"

That sounds so much better than the way I attempted to explain it!

 

What years did this take place in?

was I way out with 3rd cantury BCE?

[akandi]

Thanks for the answers..

As far as I know, the Romans sent armies to Spain and North Africa, right at the beginning of the war. Hannibal's transition of the Alps took much time, I think. If the Romans arrived earlier in Spain and Africa than Hannibal arrived in Italy, they could have harmed Spain and Africa heavily. Why didn't this happen?

[Primus Pilus]

Thanks for the answers..

As far as I know, the Romans sent armies to Spain and North Africa, right at the beginning of the war. Hannibal's transition of the Alps took much time, I think. If the Romans arrived earlier in Spain and Africa than Hannibal arrived in Italy, they could have harmed Spain and Africa heavily. Why didn't this happen?

 

 

While Hannibal was marching east, the Romans, under the brothers Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus and Publius Cornelius Scipio (the father of Africanus), sailed to Massilia in Narbonensis (Marseilles, France) and became quite aware of Hannibal's progress. Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus did in fact arrive in Hispania prior to Hannibal's arrival in Italy, but it was hardly undefended. Hannibal left an army in Hispania under his brother Hasdrubal that occupied Gnaeus, while Publius returned to Italy to meet Hannibal (unsuccessfully of course) as he came down from the Alps.

 

As for an invasion of Africa, the Romans had to secure Sicily and Sardinia, as well as fight on two additional fronts in Italy and Hispania (while also keeping a wary eye on the Illyrians and Philip of Macedon to the east) before attempting an African invasion).

[spittle]

Philip of Macedon?

Alexander the Greats father?

[Ingsoc]

Philip of Macedon?

Alexander the Greats father?

 

Philipus V of Macedon, ruled during 221 BC to 179 BC

[caldrail]

"...reverse engineered Cartiginian galleys"

That sounds so much better than the way I attempted to explain it!

 

What years did this take place in?

was I way out with 3rd cantury BCE?

Off hand I don't know the dates, but this was taking place during the first punic war. A carthaginian galley was beached after rough seas on roman territory and in exactly the same way as modern technological warfare, the romans studied this vessel, learned from it, and decided to create their own navy based on its principles. Contrary to popular belief, oarsmen were not slaves, and there is a mention somewhere of slaves being made freedmen so they could row ships like these (but I think that happened later - the civil wars?). The romans had their new crews practising rowing on dry land whilst the ships were being built. Its easy to laugh - lets remember they gave the carthaginian ships a bloody nose.

[P.Clodius]

The romans had their new crews practising rowing on dry land whilst the ships were being built. Its easy to laugh - lets remember they gave the carthaginian ships a bloody nose.

I don't think its laughable at all. You have to admire the determination, and the practical nature of it. Modern armies do the same thing, dry run after dry run, until it becomes a drill. I remember training for FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) with houses that were little more than lines of string pegged out on the ground.

 

FYI When the romans lost a fleet to bad weather in the 1st Punic War they replaced the 120 ships in 90 days. Carthage couldn't match this, it was too preoccupied counting the shekels. In the 2nd Punic (Hannibalic) war the romans had complete maritime superiority, due in part to the terms brought on them at the end of the 1st war. Had Hannibal assembled a navy he would probably been engaged by the romans before he even left Spain, or, at least signaled his intention to make war prior to making it.

[spittle]

"Dry run"

The last few posts make me wonder whether practising rowing on the beach, or similar activity, is the origin of the phrase 'dry run'.

[caldrail]

Probably, but I suspect from later times than the romans.

[Legio X]

I dont know much about their fleets, but i know the romans had a better fleet. Thats one of the reasons, the other one is that he wanted to surprice them, witch had been impossible if he took the seaway.

[Pompieus]

Rome was dominant at sea when the war began. The Romans initially mobilized 220 ships to 100 Carthaginians. 160 went to Sicily to prepare for the invasion of Africa while 60 took the Scipio brothers and their army to Gaul to head off Hannibal at the Rhone (they arrived too late as they were delayed by a revolt of the Boii and Insubres in the Cisalpina).

 

The Roman navy maintained its superiority through the long war, fending off various attempts by Carthage to support Hannibal by raising rebellions in Sicily, South Italy and Cisalpine Gaul, supplying the army in Spain, and keeping the Macedonians occupied in Greece. Some scholars think that the Romans maintained 215-220 ships most years, and possibly 290 in 208BC, others say the fleet varied from 220 in 218 to maybe 120 in 212 and 220-230 in 208. In any case this was apparently far more than Carthage and Macedon combined could man (one wonders why a rich commercial city like Carthage couldn't?).

 

An interesting example of Sea Power 20 centuries before Alfred Thayer Mahan.

 

By the way, Lew Wallace and Ben-Hur notwithstanding, Cadrail is right, Roman galleys were NOT rowed by slaves, the 300 or so rowers required by a quinquireme were proletarii without the property qualification to serve in the army, freedmen, possibly some slaves hired from their masters for the purpose, and locals from Sicily, Spain, Illyria or Greece. (Another question is how many ships and men were provided by the "Naval Allies" - Greek cities of coastal Italy as opposed to the Romans themselves. The sources don't say)

Edited January 6, 2009 by Pompieus