Manpower in the Second Punic War

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I would argue that he was not too far off as well, but for different reasons. He actually did get some roman ally cities to turn.
But the social wars were about the allies wanting to be treated better or to be given their freedom? In the end they were given better terms by Rome! I think tha twas the reason for the uprising anyway, I could be wrong tho, I have to re-read soooomuch :?

[Paullus Scipio]

Nice to see you back, James , and have the pleasure of your posts once again !
James McKinnon wrote:-

In my opinion, Peddie is very much like Dexter Hoyos' criticisms of Hannibal: they both cite how because events fomented unfavorably for Hannibal over the course of a few years, somehow it was Hannibal's fault. Didn't Clauzewitz himself evince the issue of chance.

....and of course, these criticisms smack heavily of 20-20 hindsight too. Lest it be forgotten, Hannibal came within a whisker of success.....he had every reason to think that the fairly recently co-erced/conquered Italian empire of Rome would jump at the chance of independence, and he was almost right.....Northern Italy came over to him ( the Gauls), Southern Italy ( Apulia,Bruttium and Campania) including Italy's then second largest city Capua, linked by marriage ties etc closely to Rome......with Rome's major Allies reduced to central Italy -largely the Latins ( and some of them 'mutinied' and refused to supply conscripts at one point....), and a little surprisingly perhaps, the Etruscans. It wouldn't have taken much more...

His attitude was more Roman than Carthaginian - whatever it takes to attain the means to the end.

...arguably a Carthaginian, or at the very least, a Barcid trait! lol:
Carthage was, if anything, more ruthless than Rome, certainly toward colonies/subjects...and Carthages empire certainly resented her in a fierce way that Rome's did not, or at least to a lesser extent. Many have noted that Rome's magnanimity to the defeated helped build the Empire enormously - Carthage did not do this. If Hannibal's estimation was wrong, it was in gauging that Rome's subjects would rebel as readily as Carthage's...not mention the fact that there was a certain 'Italian homogenity', and Geography dictated that once Peace came and Hannibal left........but I doubt these facts escaped him.

In my opinion, the Second Punic War was provoked by the Massiliotes and Romans, but they didn't necessarily want to fight it in 219-218 B.C. Hannibal was prepared and determined to fight, to their surprise perhaps, as Carthage was in a much stronger position than two decades earlier.

...the causes, I think, were more complex than that. Perhaps the Barcids always planned a war of revenge, if the tale of Hamilcar making young Hannibal swear 'never to be a friend of Rome' before departing for Spain have any foundation. Hannibal's "inept diplomacy" over Saguntum is hard to explain otherwise. Nor must it be forgotten that there were many in Carthage who did not want War with Rome, who resented Barcid control of Carthage's single biggest asset (spanish silver) - Spain was a Barcid possession more than a Carthaginian one, hence somewhat lukewarm support for this arrogant man who had got unwilling Carthage embroiled in another war with Rome.....let him fight it with Barcid assets....
Nor did the Romans help the situation...they must have watched the Barcids carve up Spain with growing alarm, felt that after their supineness over Sardinia, the Carthaginians would once more give way....the nuances were subtle, Rome had reason to expect Hannibal to be handed over when it sent it's embassy - only Roman arrogance in conveying their demands led to massive Carthaginian resentment and ultimate refusal......calculation and mis-calculation...shades of the causes of WW1 !!

And Off-Topic, so 'nuff said, but a thread for another day.....'The causes of the Second Punic War'....I once took part in a massive exercise (over a weekend) at Sandhurst run by its lecturers on this subject ( and designed some of the mechanisms, and researched a lot of the data) called 'Clouds in the West'

[Paullus Scipio]

James wrote:-

Many make reference to the strategic foresight of Scipio the Elder while on the mouth of the Rhone, in his decision to send the bulk of his army onto Spain even after he realized Hannibal was heading for Italy. That’s tenable, as this meant Carthage at least would not have a free hand in Spain, and as it turned out, it had far-reaching effects in Rome's favor. But it was the Senate’s decision to send the army to Spain in the first place, thus he was merely adhering to their orders. But his own decision to return to northern Italy indeed illustrates the flexibility of the Roman system, and long-term strategy would be the hall-mark of Roman direction throughout the war.

...as I pointed out in response to your previous post one advantage the Romans had was the sagacity of the Senate (which rarely put a foot wrong Strategically in the War, and gave Roman commanders the luxury of unity and support, save the disagreement over 'Fabian' non-engagement tactics), whereas the Barcids and Hannibal did not have the same support from Carthage...indeed had many enemies there.
The Scipios were clever commanders too, and Rome suffered a cruel blow with their deaths......

Thus, paradoxically, it was because of the rising of the Boii and Insubres, leading to their delay, that helped Rome in the long run with the war in Spain.

...and there would be many more such paradoxes as the war see-sawed back and forth...which is one of the reasons study of it is so fascinating !! D ........my personal favourite ! 8) 8)

Your post here is excellent and well worthy of a Laudes.. D