Why Didn't Hannibal Attack Rome?

swords

New member
From what I read it seems clear that there were mainly four factors that prevented Hannibal from taking Rome: Firstly, he lost a lot of men and including elephants over the Alps, and he only had his calvary, which, although he used brilliantly in such battles like Cannae, it is doubtful if Rome could be conquered with the limited supply he had. This is where siege ladders and catapults come in handy(though I don't know if Carthage had catapults, oh well), but Carthage was unable to supply him since Rome controlled the naval passage at the time.

He wanted to disrupt the alliances between Rome and it's allies, but failed in his attempts(the uprisings in Gaul almost succeeded, but where defeated at Telamon, which is in Italy). Roman colonies that were hearing of Hannibal's thrust into Italy were also hoping to forge rebellions but were quickly put into check by Rome.

And Cornelius Scipio was a General to be reckoned with, who was always one step ahead of Hannibal. And add to the fact that Hannibal was not able to join with his brother who's head was decapitated in Spain and thrown into Hannibal's camp to add insult to injury. I think I may have more than four here, but what do you think was the greatest factor that prevented Hannibal?

Or do you think it's a combination of it all?

I personally think if Hannibal was given the equipment he needed, it would have been an easy task for him(conquering Rome that is).
 

Tim

New member
With the right equipment and man power such a statment could be true of many other similar battles.
Plus cavalry is all very well for open battle, but for seige purposes they're practically useless, 'cept for foraging. And then a small force like that you say Hannibal had would be of little use against well-trained infantry. At this point cavalry is by no means perfected. So to some extent you have to nullify Hannibal's cavalry. Though it is reasonable to assume that these men could instead fight on foot.
But without seige engines Hannibal's only option is to suround the city. Which from what you've said he obviously didn't have to men to do. And as you also pointed out the Romans could still supply themselves by sea.
From what I know the story and history of Hannibal is so famous because of his daring trek across the Alps, and then the fact that this is closest we get to Rome's fall, until of course Rome fell.
Excuse me if all this seems a little silly to someone that knows the history. These are just logical guesses.
 

swords

New member
Oh thats cool. I don't exactly call myself a expert either, as a matter of fact, I welcome any corrections members wish to give. Now my question is "Why didn't Hannibal attack Rome", and this is a big what if that I find fascinating because our world would have certainly changed. And siege warfare, in fact, siege ladders, it would have seemed, would have been a difficult task either way you look at it, because it's such a bulky item to wheel around.

Ultimately, Hannibal was called back to defend his homeland from Scipio, which pretty much answers this question. However, one would assume Hannibal was getting impatient wondering the Italian countryside for a long amount of time, and that he must of been eager to crush Rome right away. Im surprised he didn't make some sort of effort, though maybe it would have been premature, but no galiante effort whatsoever. Perhaps another reason he didn't attack Rome was due in part to too much caution?

BTW Tim, thanks for clarifying your post, I didn't mean to start any false accusations. I see that it was strictly coincidential...
 

bob

New member
I always believed that after campaigning Hannibal was weakened and he never really had the ground troops or the quality of ground troops nessecarry to storm a city such as Rome Hannibal faced something that was seldom seen in ancient world basicly a nation at arms Hannibal just could not risk attacking Rome too much of a gamble.....
 

bob

New member
I always believed that after campaigning Hannibal was weakened and he never really had the ground troops or the quality of ground troops nessecarry to storm a city such as Rome Hannibal faced something that was seldom seen in ancient world basicly a nation at arms Hannibal just could not risk attacking Rome too much of a gamble.....
 

swords

New member
Ya, not enough troops and equipment will most certainly limit your capabilities. It's interesting to think how it would have resulted, that is, if Hannibal had the men and the equipment needed. Then all he would have had to worry about was his push on Rome, and not issues that shouldn't concern Generals in his position...
 

Patrick

New member
A combination of all... yeah or if one would be more important it would have to be the lack of soldiers.
 
Top