Question Home

Position:Home>History> Did you know hannibal nearly destroyed the roman empire what would have happened


Question: Did you know hannibal nearly destroyed the roman empire what would have happened if he did!?
does anyone what would have happened if hannibal destroyed the roman empireWww@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Hannibal and his army invaded Italy, they lived off the land and never lost a battle on Roman ground for 17 years!. But, as a previous poster stated, they weren't prepared for siege warfare!. They didn't have enough men or the right equipment to conduct a siege!. They could not conquer the City of Rome itself!. The Romans had control of the seas and Hannibal couldn't receive reinforcements or siege equipment from Sparta!.
The only reason Hannibal lost the Battle of Zama was because the leader of his cavalry force ( Masinissa of Numidia) betrayed him and switched sides before the battle!. The Romans promised them land if they betrayed Hannibal, which they did!.

It's hard to predict what would of happened if Hannibal had conquered Rome itself!. I think it safe to say this, thought!. I don't believe Julius Caesar's conquests in Gaul and Britain would of happened if the Spartans had retained control of Italy and Rome!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It's an unlikely scenario; Hannibal was a commander of unique ability and could rinse the field armies that Rome sent against him!. In a parallel to the Anglo-French Wars 1337-1453, the Carthenaginians, like the English, were dominant on the battlefield but lacked the resources (or moreover the ability to get them to Roman soil due to Roman naval dominance) to make these victories strategically meaningful!. While they couldn't win battles the Romans were always able to get enough men together to lift a siege or shadow the enemy from a distance!. Without the ability to take many towns, or effectively garrison those he captured, Hannibal's Italian campaign was no more than chevauchee!.

But lets say after Cannae, Hannibal advanced on Rome and took it by a combination of suprise and treachery, it's not impossible!. The Romans were a bloody-minded lot, so would have attempted to re-take the capital but with Rome lost they would not only loose a great deal of central funding & planning!. also the Latins, Samnites et al would renounce their alliegence to Rome and would oblige Roman forces to disperse to deal with them!.

Its impossible to say what the Med!. World would have been like without them!. Their success seems to have lain in their unique lack of empathy, paranoia and robust zenophobia; not something that Carthage or the older, more worldly states to the East possessed!. A safe answer would be to say that none would have gained lasting dominance, as all had failed to in the previous centuries!. Maybe one of the Diadochoi would have chanced upon a highly capable ruler in the mould of Alexander or Philip I and would have achieved a generation or two of power; but these states were tolerant and their make-up pologlot, so a weak ruler could pull them down in a way that the more institutionalised Rome could not be!. Maybe one would have colapsed, as Selucia did under Roman pressure, and a new power could emerge as neo-Persia did!. Without the restraint of Rome such a power could indeed be formidable!.

So someone else might end up ruling a large chunk of the Roman Empire!. But likely for a lesser period of time and in a more personal fashion!. It seems very unlikey that they would have bothered with Romes adventures in the North!. It would likely have been a more culturally tolerant empire; both the Zoroastrians and Greeks could be high minded but didn't tend to be culturally interfering!. The social & cultural vacuum left by the withdrawl of Rome would not have been!. Then again its probably more likely that no one power would dominate!.!.!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

You can never predict the past!.!.That being said we can theorise about what possiblities could have taken place!.

The main problem with the assualt on Rome was that the usual number of soldiers needed for siege battles was 3-1!. The Carthiginian General needed reinforcements, but the council in his hometown was reluctant to do anything!. They refused to send assistance and Hannibal was powerless to attack!. Eventually Roman fleets landed upon the shores of Northern Africa under a commander by the name of Scipio!. Hannibal returned to defend Carthage but was defeated in a bitter confrontation, where his elephants were made useless!.

Anyway, Carthage, being reasonably a rich empire in culture, religion, economy and military, might very well have reconsidered sending supplies, infantry and cavalry if Hannibal took Rome!. Remaining roman contigents, infuriated, would attempt to re-take their capital city as soon as possible, probably outnumbering Hannibal greatly!. Siege conflicts were quite unique compared to open fields - tactics were limited, so Hannibal's advantage would be nill!.

Another point to remember, was that Rome was seized by Brennus, Leader of gaul in 387 BC, yet this did not end Roman dominance!. Rome still had several other townships in foreign lands!.

If more men were deployed from ships in time, the Warlord would have most likely ravaged Italian provinces, crushing Roman civil revolts and resistance from professional forces!. After Italy was seized then some stability could be found!. New trade opportunites would arise from the newly conquered towns, leading to excess wealth!.

I believe Hannibal would have then focused his attention to Sicily, finding allies among the European Gallic barbarians and Germanic tribes!. Rome was an influential city and taking control of it would send a message out to neighbouring kingdoms!. From then on, perhaps he would look to the East and Greece, aiming to capture strategic locations, draw Roman regiments into more traps and sack settlements!.

Carthage would possibly have become the next most powerful faction in history, stretching their lands further and much easier than the Romans did, or they would have had a rapid decline due to war based circumstances!. Hannibal could have contracted a disease or illness, dieing soon after Rome's downfall!. It really is guesswork, but that's what i think!.

Thanks for the question, it was really interesting :)Www@QuestionHome@Com

At the time of Hannibal there was still the Roman Empire, but the Republic of Rome!. Hannibal was defeated first by Quintus Fabius Maximus, and then finally to Zama by Scipio Africanus said!.
Hannibal had no chance to beat the formidable Roman army!.

By El Vecio New Roman Army!.Www@QuestionHome@Com