Hannibal Vs. The Greeks

[RalofTyr]

What if Hannibal had invaded the Greeks instead of Rome?

 

[The End Is Nigh]

Um... the poll options don't make much sense. What choise am I supposed to make?

 

[Sharwood]

If you mean who would win, it's clearly Hannibal. The Romans whooped Greece without trying, you really think Hannibal wouldn't have abso-fraggin'-lutely molested them?

 

[Dachs]

Uh...what time period are we talking for the Greeks? Same point in time as Hannibal, Persian Wars era, Peloponnesian Wars era, pre-Alexandrine, early Diadochi...the Greek military system was vastly different at many of those stages. Could be lots of different answers.

 

[flyingchicken]

Apparently (as much as I can sum up from the OP), the time period is around the "Hannibal invades Rome" episode but, instead of "Rome" he goes for "Greece."

Of course, "Greece" could be anywhere from the edges of the Seleucid Empire (if you count Alexander's empire as "Greek") to the heel of Italy, each with their own flavors of political conflict, military organization, and combat style (but not by much, as the southerners did adopt that danged phalangite system--among other things--Alexander and his successors used so much).

 

[Dachs]

(but not by much, as the southerners did adopt that danged phalangite system Alexander and his successors used so much).

Nah, Alexander and his immediate successors were awesome because of effective use and coordination of combined arms. A phalanx by itself is a poor idea, as Philip V found out at Cynoscephalae and Perseus learned at Pydna.

 

[flyingchicken]

Mine edit came before your comment! But aye, them phalangites are rather un-awesome without lancer support.*

*Disclaimer: I just know a handful of (i.e. one) historical phalangite tricks (sans "s").

 

[Dachs]

Mine edit came before your comment! But aye, them phalangites are rather un-awesome without lancer support.*

*Disclaimer: I just know a handful of (i.e. one) historical phalangite tricks (sans "s").

Well, having cavalry is nice, yes, but you shouldn't neglect the psiloi and peltasts either. As for the trick - are you referring to Chaeronea (338 BC)? Or something slightly earlier and involving "one last push for me"?

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Um, you guys do realize that Hannibal barely had a fleet. How would he get to Greece? How would he trace supply? How would he take a walled city? This poll makes no sense.

 

[flyingchicken]

^ The Adriatic Coast. Resupply would be a matter of raiding the nearest granaries and foraging bushes. He'll build ladders to take walled cities.

@Dachspmg: Well, since Chaeronea involved breaking up a line for a cavalry charge, yeah, I guess that's the one.

Anyway, I think the more interesting question is: Who will win, Pyrrhus' forces in Rome (time of full strength) or Hannibal's forces in Rome (time of full strength)?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

There is also the minor issue that if the Romans objected to his crossing the Ebro, they may have had similar objections to his building a fleet to rival theirs and then invading a string of Greek states such as Croton, Tarentum, Syracuse and the Achaean or Aetolian league on the mainland, nearly all of whom controlled critical sea routes into the Tyrhennian and Adriatic seas and werely closely allied with Rome.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

^ The Adriatic Coast. Resupply would be a matter of raiding the nearest granaries and foraging bushes. He'll build ladders to take walled cities.

I hope you don't seriously mean this.

Because...............

Hannibal would start his army in Carthago Nova, like he did in real life (near modern day Cordoba) He then marches up spain, across the alps, down the Adriatic coast, and into Greece. That's what? 3000 miles of hostile and semi-hostile territory? He'd lose 5/6 of his army just getting there.

Furthermore, living off the land is more of a desperation tactic than anything else, and if the Greeks were sufficiently brutal to burn their own stores in the face of Hannibal's march, he would be left high and dry.

Thirdly, slapping some ladders together does not a siege force make. Think about it. Someone carrying a heavy ladder has to move slowly, easy targets for anyone with a bow or javelin on top of the wall. Then you have to put it up against the wall, and hope nobody tips it back over or pulls it up. Then you have to climb people up, one at a time, in light armor (cuz heavier armor would make it too hard to effectively climb due to restrictions on shoulder and knee mobility) all the while a defender or three will be sitting on top of the ladder waiting to knock you back down.

Hannibal never even took a set up roman fortified camp. A field fort! That's a few wooden walls and a ditch slapped together in an hour or two. Taking a city with stone walls would be much, much harder.

Lastly, the main strike force of Hannibal's army were his cavalry. Assuming he could somehow keep them intact in his long march to Greece, he would find that cramped valleys and hnasty terrain, poor forage unsuitable for major cavalry usage.

 

[Dachs]

Time to play Kemal Mustafa's devil's advocate.

Um, you guys do realize that Hannibal barely had a fleet. How would he get to Greece? How would he trace supply? How would he take a walled city? This poll makes no sense.

Actually, Carthage could deploy enough ships to move major armies - look at Mago's landing in Liguria late in the war. A landing which was uncontested by the Roman navy...showing that, along with most of the rest of the history of ancient warfare, that the ratio of force to space isn't high enough to suffice to block most "choke points" as we think of them now. Only much smaller spaces would be able to be blocked. The Romans even managed to get through the Strait of Messina with virtually no navy against a strong Punic blockading force in the First Punic War. Transport really isn't the problem.

...but what he does when he gets there is. Forage really doesn't work all that well, in northern Greece especially, because the development there is virtually nil before the Roman conquest of Macedon late in the second century BC. And, as you mentioned, the walled cities of southern Greece would prove extremely problematic. I suppose he could attempt to ally with one or the other of the Leagues against Macedon (or vice versa), providing him with a base, but that would be dependent on the vagaries of his ally, and thus would be unsatisfactory.

Resupply would be a matter of raiding the nearest granaries and foraging bushes. He'll build ladders to take walled cities.

Ain't that simple, especially during a siege. He's going to denude the countryside pretty quickly, and he will also be there for a long time, especially in a siege. The large numbers of Numidian cavalrymen and other allied horse units is going to increase the rate of fodder loss exponentially, so that he'll be able to stay in one spot for not very long at all before he has to leave, even in developed country like Boeotia or the Peloponnese. Hannibal would have to rely on capturing at least one city very quickly by either surprise or political maneuvering, which is eminently possible but IMHO unlikely.

@Dachspmg: Well, since Chaeronea involved breaking up a line for a cavalry charge, yeah, I guess that's the one.

Dandy.

Anyway, I think the more interesting question is: Who will win, Pyrrhus' forces in Rome (time of full strength) or Hannibal's forces in Rome (time of full strength)?

That *is* an interesting question. I'd favor Hannibal because Hannibal seemed to have a better grasp of things, especially what with not throwing lots of stuff into the center (ex. Battle of Heraclea; Pyrrhus achieves ascendancy on the flanks but then tries to use his phalanx as a battering ram anyway...scrub muffin). What Pyrrhus did at Heraclea would play right into Hannibal's hands, or it should. It's as though he didn't learn anything from getting trashed at Ipsus, being part of Demetrius' cavalry wing.

There is also the minor issue that if the Romans objected to his crossing the Ebro, they may have had similar objections to his building a fleet to rival theirs and then invading a string of Greek states such as Croton, Tarentum, Syracuse and the Achaean or Aetolian league on the mainland, nearly all of whom controlled critical sea routes into the Tyrhennian and Adriatic seas and werely closely allied with Rome.

"Control of the seas" is nonexistent in this era.

Hannibal would start his army in Carthago Nova, like he did in real life (near modern day Cordoba) He then marches up spain, across the alps, down the Adriatic coast, and into Greece. That's what? 3000 miles of hostile and semi-hostile territory? He'd lose 5/6 of his army just getting there.

If he's fighting Greece, he just sails across the Ionian Sea and the eastern Med. It's not like anyone can stop him.

Thirdly, slapping some ladders together does not a siege force make. Think about it. Someone carrying a heavy ladder has to move slowly, easy targets for anyone with a bow or javelin on top of the wall. Then you have to put it up against the wall, and hope nobody tips it back over or pulls it up. Then you have to climb people up, one at a time, in light armor (cuz heavier armor would make it too hard to effectively climb due to restrictions on shoulder and knee mobility) all the while a defender or three will be sitting on top of the ladder waiting to knock you back down.

More practical than you might think. Scipio Africanus Major took Carthago Nova with ladders after all, with relatively low casualties, through simple redirection and marching through a lagoon. There are plenty of Greek city states with weak defenses that could be taken in a similar fashion. Like Sparta. Which has no walls. (Well, not until 207 BC when Nabis comes in and builds the first ones. Hannibal's got ten years to take it.)

 

[Yui108]

^ The Adriatic Coast. Resupply would be a matter of raiding the nearest granaries and foraging bushes. He'll build ladders to take walled cities.

@Dachspmg: Well, since Chaeronea involved breaking up a line for a cavalry charge, yeah, I guess that's the one.

Anyway, I think the more interesting question is: Who will win, Pyrrhus' forces in Rome (time of full strength) or Hannibal's forces in Rome (time of full strength)?

Erm... Hannibal. Unflexible formations generally don't do that well against Elephants. Also Hannibal was much smarter than Pyrrhus and didn't just go on some prideful adventure to Rome expecting a cake walk.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

I dunno. The battle of Hydaspes proved that dense infantry formations could hold off elephant charges. Remember, elephants are not particularly aggressive beasts, and do not willinglyharge into a wall of phalanx pikes. Furthermore, Porus had far more elephants available than Hannibal did. Indeed, Only one female elephant even made it alive into mainland italy. Excepting the battles of Trebia and Zama, they were largely irrelevant.

 

[flyingchicken]

Unflexible formations generally don't do that well against Elephants.

1. I don't get the connection between flexibility and weakness against elephants. Last time I checked, those legions (a flexible formation) ran screaming the frist time Pyrrhus sicked his elephants at them, and Alexander's troops (which were inherently less flexible than the Roman legions) aptly beat those Indian elephants in his campaign.

Also Hannibal was much smarter than Pyrrhus and didn't just go on some prideful adventure to Rome expecting a cake walk.

2. Can't argue with that.

Edit: Haha, crosspost.

 

[scy12]

What i never understand regarding Hanibal was what plans he had that would pay off in the long run and how he would take advantage of any victories he had in the field. He has shown unable at sieges and so if Hanibal went against Greece i declare it either a stalemate or Hanibal being victorious on the field but in the long run either losing finally or just not succeeding.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Hannibal's plan was to either come to a negotiated settlement with Rome after beating them in the field, or, failing that, having the roman allies defect after seeing that Carthage could go where it wanted.


Didn't really work though. The roman allies/client states were more loyal than just a defeated force being subjugated by a master, something that Hannibal didn't seem to realize.

 

[Dachs]

Didn't really work though. The roman allies/client states were more loyal than just a defeated force being subjugated by a master, something that Hannibal didn't seem to realize.

Yes, a psychological problem: just because he hated Rome so much, he thought everybody did.

 

[Spartan117]

Time to play Kemal Mustafa's devil's advocate.


Actually, Carthage could deploy enough ships to move major armies - look at Mago's landing in Liguria late in the war. A landing which was uncontested by the Roman navy...showing that, along with most of the rest of the history of ancient warfare, that the ratio of force to space isn't high enough to suffice to block most "choke points" as we think of them now. Only much smaller spaces would be able to be blocked. The Romans even managed to get through the Strait of Messina with virtually no navy against a strong Punic blockading force in the First Punic War. Transport really isn't the problem.

"Control of the seas" is nonexistent in this era.

More practical than you might think. Scipio Africanus Major took Carthago Nova with ladders after all, with relatively low casualties, through simple redirection and marching through a lagoon. There are plenty of Greek city states with weak defenses that could be taken in a similar fashion. Like Sparta. Which has no walls. (Well, not until 207 BC when Nabis comes in and builds the first ones. Hannibal's got ten years to take it.)

I think you could be underplaying the role of naval control a little bit. Although intel at this time of any type of military movements in a field is poor which could lead to hardship in trying to obtain "control of the seas" the Romans did obtain control of the shipping lanes in Sicily. This control did pretty much stop reinforcements and resupplying of Hannibal in southern Italy. It is not absolute control of the seas but some control can be obtained.

Siege warfare for Carthage and Rome during the first 2 Punic wars was costly and inefficient. The vast majority of cities were overtaken through betrayals(opening of gate doors, etc...) and through starvation. Both Rome and Carthage tended to avoid direct assault of cities. Although both Rome and Carthage did become more competent in the ways of siege warfare as the second punic war went on.

Edit:

What i never understand regarding Hanibal was what plans he had that would pay off in the long run and how he would take advantage of any victories he had in the field. He has shown unable at sieges and so if Hannibal went against Greece i declare it either a stalemate or Hanibal being victorious on the field but in the long run either losing finally or just not succeeding.

It was uncommon at the time to engage in a war until one side was "decimated". Romans did not proceed in typical manner refusing to come with terms with both Carthage or Epirus. So in order to achieve victory against Macedon, Achean league, or Aetolian league Hannibal would not have had to completely destroy those particular factions.

However I do not see Carthage warring with any of those powers as Rome was a problem in just about all their fronts. Romans were checking the advance and strength of Carthage as a result Rome was the most immediate concern. Not to mention that many Carthaginians were still bitter over Romes action in Sardinia during their mercenary war.

The over-extension of supplies and possible Roman attempts to curb Carthage's influence would make a war with any Greek-based faction militarily unrealistic. So a campaign into mainland greece would have likely been met with failure.