RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: If Hannibal decide to join Roman army....
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

Anonymous

This is a what-if question. Supposed Hannibal was not part of Cathargians, but instead join the Roman army , with the same quality/skills he had in history, what do you think will be consequences?<br>
<br>
Do you think Roman army would have even been more powerful?<br>
Do you think the Romans will be able to create a even larger empire encompassing the whole of Europe (wipe out all barbarians)?<br>
<br>
Would Romans be able to defeat the Persians, a great power in the east? <p><IMG SRC="http://simaqianstudio.tripod.com/logo2.jpg"><br>SMQ President of <A href="http://pub44.ezboard.com/bsimaqianstudio"> Simaqian Studio</A></p><i></i>

Guest

Salve,<br>
<br>
In my view the consequences of Hannibal joining the Roman cause would have little effect on Roman policy making and campaigning. At best he would perhaps command units of allies and auxiliaries, the major commanders being drawn from the exclusive circles of senators and the few new men. His ancestry would have been held against him and though his descendants might have been coopted into the Roman elite, he himself would stand little chance to acquire senatorial rank. The counterfactual history based on his defection to the Romans would thus probably have little major resulting differences.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
I'm not entirely sure that this thread ought to be here instead of OT, but we'll leave it for a bit and see where it goes. I think what he's suggesting Sander is that Hannibal was Roman to start with rather than him being a defector to Rome. In which case he would have not made much difference, as you suggest. The 2nd Punic War was an inevitability, despite people trying to suggest it was some sort of Barcid revenge thing. Hannibal would simply have been another talented general for the Romans to use. <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ucatiline.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Catiline</A> at: 2/18/01 5:18:43 pm<br></i>

Anonymous

I think if Hannibal HAD been a Roman to begin with, we may not have even heard of him in the first place. His father's innate hatred of Rome was what inspired Hannibal to take up arms against Rome and thus become the legend he is. <p>...or not.</p><i></i>
Not entirely sure that's true, though of course we'd never have heard of him under the name Hannibal. If he was a Roman senator then he'd undoubtedly have had a succesful military career. To suggest that Carthage allowe Hannibal to go to war purely on the basis of personal antipathy to Rome is a patent fallacy. It's a good myth ,and convenient for Roman propaganda, 'Look at all these Carthaginians, letting they're private emotions get in the way of there duty to the state', but it can't be true. The Barcids weree hugely powerful, especially in Spain but the war had the support of the Carthaginian elite. hannibals legen comews from his defeat rather than his success. He proves Rome's strength not her weakness in the eyes of Roamn spin doctoring. <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>

Guest

Salve,<br>
<br>
In my view, supposing Hannibal was of decent Roman stock to begin with and eligible for senior political positions (<i> praetor</i>, <i> consul</i>, prorogued commands), it would still have been difficult to argue the case for a radically different course of events. There were other gifted Roman commanders, notably Scipio Africanus (though not greater than Napoleon imho), whose ambition was held in check by the checks and balances at this date still governing the behaviour of the elite. A Roman Hannibal may have enjoyed some brilliant successes as commander fighting for the Roman cause, but jealousy of his fellow senators would have made sure that his reputation would not assume dangerous proportions by withholding support for further tenures of office. He would not have made too great an impact. Rome would have gone to war with Carthage and destroyed its power in the end and the Roman empire would probably have come up against the same difficulties surrounding final and effective subiugation of Germany and Parthia/Persia, winning the battles and loosing the peace.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 2/18/01 5:43:43 pm<br></i>

Anonymous

Well, in any case, Hannibal was NOT Roman. He WAS, in fact, Carthaginian and I shall try in future to restrict my replies to matters not based in the ethereal. <p>...or not.</p><i></i>

Anonymous

Your downplaying the man.First of all,Hannibal never had the consent of the Carthaginian senate & it's government.It was primarily a Barca affair,the war with Rome.The seed was planted by Hamilcar in Spain,& finished by Hannibal,albeit none too successfully.Hannibal had barely any support from Carthage during the war,and as the war progressed these layed the grounds for his defeat.In fact,if not for his brothers & their entreaties he would barely have gotten a respectable size of an army into Italy.The fact that he accomplished so much speaks in grand volumes how much an individual could accomplish against great adversity.Do not compare Scipio to Hannibal for he was merely a student of the great man,brilliant as he was.Hannibal in command of Roman troops?He may have conquered more than Alexander did!Study their miltary skills & compare the weight of their achievements & one would see who clearly excels the most.The fact that Hannibal brought Rome to her knees for all the 15 years he spent on her soil with increasingly weakening & inferior forces but still managing to instill dread & fear to his enemies is unparalled in history.The Romans could have crushed Hannibal with their vastly numerous & superior troops,but with their awe & fear barely touched swords with him,except when they knew they had the advantage.Never did they dare go to his territory or provoke him;every Roman general that did got burned.And if Carthage wasn't able to control Hannibal,as Rome couldn't Scipio,& Scipio was merely a protege,how could Rome have controlled Hannibal?And would one argue against success,something which Hannibal would definitely & undoubtedly have with his superior martial skills commanding the indomitable Roman legion? And Hannibal's legend did not derive from his defeat against the Romans alone;his miltary record & what he did to Rome & the reasons why & how Rome was able to defeat him is partly what made the man leave an inimitable legacy. <p></p><i></i>

Guest

Salve,<br>
<br>
There are similarities in the problems faced by the government and an independent commander faced by Carthage with Hannibal and Rome with Caesar. Both embarked on warfare without consultation and with little regard for their respective governments.<br>
<br>
As a battlefield commander Hannibal may have been as good as Alexander the Great, however while he did win the battles (except for the decisive last ones, wqhich nullified earlier successes) he was not able to win the wars. Since battles are means to an end and not an end in themselves he should in my opinion be rater lower than Alexander. the latter was a better commander who not only won his battles, but achieved the aims he was after. Hannibal's brilliance as a commander is marred by his inability to succeed in his war aims and in the end counted for little. For a parallel one can think of Lee in the American Civil War, a very good commander who despite frequently outgeneralling his Union opponents nevertheless failed to win his war. Grant may have lacked the glamour of Lee, but he achieved his war aims which what it is all about.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

History has proven that some of the victors in a war are not always the greatest Generals,just as some of the greatest generals are not always victorious in the wars that they fought in.Napoleon is one example.Several circumstances are the cause of this,& not always in the control of the general.And there is also a thing called "plain & simple luck",& if one reads & studies the campaigns of the aformentioned commanders,one would clearly see. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

That's quite true. History has a way of taking mediocre leaders and turning them into gods because of their victories even when the victories were as much to do with terrain and weather as their leadership.<br>
<br>
Henry V defeated the French because of rain and a narrow killing field. He was lucky his army was so small compared to that of the French. <p><br><i>SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.</i></p><i></i>

Anonymous

Great question,<br>
<br>
Although unrealistic it is tempting to think about. If Rome was not so hell bent on pursuing Hannibal after the war, it might have lead to something different. I refer you to the 2nd exchange that Scipio had with Hannibal in B.H. Liddell Hart's biography of Scipio..when Scipio was sent to Carthage to find out if Antiochus was attempting to instigate a rebellion.<br>
<br>
B.H. Liddell Hart<br>
Scipio Africanus "Greater Than Napoleon"<br>
1926..new edition 1994 <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

Hannibal was raised in the hatred of Rome and that in my opinion seriously impaired his judgement and his assessment of the general strategic situation.<br>
His "feat of arms" of crossing the Alps is not so much the crossing -- people had done it for ages-- but the fact that he managed to slip in despite the legions pursuing them. Good maneuvering, but certainly no genius in there.<br>
That maybe explained by the fact that Hannibal was a general raised in the hellenistic military tradition. In other words: a pro, and a good one. Whereas at that time the roman generals were nothing more than amateurs and sometimes very bad ones.<br>
Crossing the Alps and all that may have been very impresssive but strategically it was suicidal. In hindsight I have a hard time figuring out what he tried to achieve, exactly.<br>
Moreover, if Hannibal was very much up to date tacticallywise, he totally missed the political and cultural point.<br>
He was still in the hellenistic mindset, when a battle lost or won didn't lead to total destruction or submission but to another round of wheeling and dealing.<br>
War, afghan style.<br>
The Romans were in a different state of mind. They invented the concept of total war. At this time also, numerous italian cities, which Hannibal hoped would flock to his standards, didn't. The notion of a motherland was gaining ground over the one of city state. Another miscalculation of the punic general.<br>
Comparing him to Alexander strikes me as funny. With similar strategic views, the Macedonian wouldn't have gone further that the suburbs of Athens.<br>
Blinded by hatred, Hannibal wanted just one thing: revenge. Humiliate Rome, beat the legions and then what?<br>
The scope of Alexander's --and his father Philip-- strategic, political and cultural vision is still difficult to grasp today.<br>
As for the logistic feat of arms consisting of taking a 50.000 man regular army from Greece to India, and back, it was only surpassed by Gengis Khan's hordes.<br>
My bet is that against Alexander, Hannibal would have fared no better than Darius who, contrary to popular belief, had a good army led by competent generals.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=antoninuslucretius>Antoninus Lucretius</A> at: 4/5/02 4:14:05 pm<br></i>

Anonymous

Are we assuming that Carthage is a part of the republic or that Hannibal is a citizen of Rome?<br>
<br>
I just received word that Hannibalus Barcus just got trampled by an elephant when his brother invaded the Iberian peninsula.<br>
<br>
Dang. <p><BR><p align=left><font color=gold><font size=2>
_______________________________<BR>
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS<BR>
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III </font></font><BR>
<font color=gold><font size=2>
VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE<BR>
_______________________________</font></font></p><i></i>

Anonymous

I have to agree with Antoninus on most of the points he covered except with his comparison of Hannibal and Darius. Correct me if I am wrong but did not Darius, at the command of vastly superior numbers, flee the field of battle at the battle of Granicus? This coming after Alexander himself led the Companions on a calvary charge at the heart of the Persian defenses. Then did not Darius once again flee after another pin point charge by the Companions, once again led personally by Alexander, at the battle of Issus. And finally at Gaugamela, while commanding an estimated 200,000 troops, did not Darius flee a third time after yet another attack by Alexander and his companions? It is very difficult for me to imagine Hannibal ever fleeing the field of battle while in command of superior numbers. Now I know what everyone is thinking, what about the battle of Zama? It is my belief that after never having received support from Carthage, and after the death of his brother, I do not believe that Hannibal had his heart in the battle. I think the General faced by Scipio Africanus was a much different and embittered man. In fact, I might go so far as to say that Hannibal, with his heart no longer in the fight, allowed himself to be defeated at Zama.<br>
Back to the question at hand, I do believe that had Hannibal, and say Scipio, had switched places, the possibilities would have been endless. I feel that Rome would not only have crushed Carthage early in the Second Punic War, but also that Rome would have conquered a vast majority of Africa. Who knows, perhaps Hannibal would have been the first Ceasar Augustus? <p></p><i></i>
Pages: 1 2