Hannibal Vs. The Greeks

[Dachs]

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.

The lack of reinforcements for Hannibal in southern Italy was primarily due to political troubles with the main Punic leadership at Carthage, not due to some Roman blockade. Besides, if the Romans can't even blockade Syracuse properly during the siege there - just one city, upon which most disposable Roman naval resources are concentrated - how the devil are they supposed to blockade all of southern Italy, let alone the entire peninsula? And Greece, with its innumerable nooks and crannies, is even harder to cover, especially when the Romans don't particularly have any incentive to keep Hannibal from getting there.

Without the predominance of the concept of the weather gauge in the Mediterranean at this time, either side in a naval battle can choose to avoid it. Therein lies the fundamental Roman problem: they can't actually take positions that are guaranteed to close off a shoreline unless they stay close to the shore, and that means that they cover less shore...and with the low density of force to space and the fact that an individual trireme or quinquereme can't project power like a modern aircraft carrier, prevents Rome from effectively blockading any particular point on the coast.

The ideal situation would not be to prevent a landing at all, but instead to allow the landing of enemy troops, which means that you automatically know where they will have to go to get supplies - just make sure your army and your navy are in contact, so that the navy is offshore when the army heads down to the sea to get supplies. That forces the enemy to try to live off the land, which you can also hurt with a logistical "scorched earth" strategy. Of course, I personally, being a tactics whore, would rather just fight the enemy straight up, field army on field army, but that's just me.

Anyway, IMHO it's difficult if not impossible to interdict the seas this early on, and Rome certainly can't prevent Hannibal from landing in Greece if he so chooses (the original point).

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.

True, I did cite a relatively uncommon example. I still think Laconia would make a dandy base, because Sparta is easy to capture without Nabis' walls, and close(ish) to the sea.

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.

Not the point - it's not supposed to have a reason, but instead you just plop 'em both down in each other's vicinity and say "fight"! Sort of like the quick battle mode in RTW.

Also, great name.

 

[scy12]

Why would Hannibal want to capture Sparta ?

 

[Sharwood]

Why would Hannibal want to capture Sparta ?

Why would Hannibal attack Greece? It's purely hypothetical bs scy12.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Hannibal couldn't even take the city of Rome. He'd have no chance of taking the Greek peninsula. His troops would have been wiped out by attrition before he even would have gotten there.

 

[scy12]

Why would Hannibal attack Greece? It's purely hypothetical bs scy12.

Indeed it is, but i will play this game. Say Hannibal invades Greece why should he attempt to capture Sparta in particular. Of what use will it be to him ?

 

[flyingchicken]

Well, I guess it's the easiest to capture, given that superior strategy beats training from hell and the city has no walls. He could use that city as a base of operations and a source of labor. I'm not too sure about how much the local Spartan farmers would feel about giving him food, though.

 

[scy12]

Well, I guess it's the easiest to capture, given that superior strategy beats training from hell and the city has no walls. He could use that city as a base of operations and a source of labor. I'm not too sure about how much the local Spartan farmers would feel about giving him food, though.

If Hannibal invaded before the punic wars , Sparta has no walls. But if he invaded at somewhere around 207 he would find himself against six miles long walls.

Sparta had already suffered several disastrous defeats at the time i just don't see it as such a good Headquarters of operations. It was not exactly an autonomous city as it was occupied by the Macedonians. This was a bad time to invade A Greece which is full under Macedonian control. It was called Hellenic alliance.

The second problem regarding Greece is that when Carthage would have invaded Greece instead of Rome that would change several events regarding both Greece and Rome. Rome wouldn't want a dominant Carthage so it would either enter the war or it wouldn't cause a civil war in Greece.
Mohamed may not go to the mountain but the mountain will go to Mohamed.
Carthage may not want to face Rome but Rome will want Carthage not to be victorious in Greece.

Even in what if scenarios , if we change only the actions of one countryhere (Hannibal) we do not necessarily stop their enemies actions.

 

[flyingchicken]

Well, if you really want to expound this into a full-fledged althist, you are free to do so.

 

[scy12]

Well, if you really want to expound this into a full-fledged althist, you are free to do so.

Well , that Rome wouldn't want Carthage to be victorious in Greece is nothing else than completly different from alternative history. The problem of alternative history scenarios is that they attempt to change one parameter while everything else remains the same.

 

[flyingchicken]

Then you haven't read the really good ones yet.

 

[scy12]

Then you haven't read the really good ones yet.

Only at Civfanatics can you miss an 66 pages thread. Why didn't they post it at world history , like this thread?

In fact i was ignorant of the whole subforum "Never ending stories ". My appreciation of this site goes up a grade.

 

[Dachs]

If Hannibal invaded before the punic wars , Sparta has no walls. But if he invaded at somewhere around 207 he would find himself against six miles long walls.

Since the Second Punic War started in 219 BC (or 218, depending on your point of view), that gives Hannibal plenty of time to take Sparta before Nabis builds his walls and launches his reforms, as noted previously.

Sparta had already suffered several disastrous defeats at the time i just don't see it as such a good Headquarters of operations.

It's easy to capture and relatively simple to fortify.

IThis was a bad time to invade A Greece which is full under Macedonian control. It was called Hellenic alliance.

After Alex kicked the bucket, Macedon never had full control of Greece again. There are two major anti-Macedonian federal leagues, along with quite a few independent city-states, and then Macedon itself. Greece is politically somewhat splintered and fairly easy to take advantage of.

Well , that Rome wouldn't want Carthage to be victorious in Greece is nothing else than completly different from alternative history. The problem of alternative history scenarios is that they attempt to change one parameter while everything else remains the same.

This isn't really alternate history, even. More like just screwing around.

 

[scy12]

Since the Second Punic War started in 219 BC (or 218, depending on your point of view), that gives Hannibal plenty of time to take Sparta before Nabis builds his walls and launches his reforms, as noted previously.

It's easy to capture and relatively simple to fortify.

After Alex kicked the bucket, Macedon never had full control of Greece again. There are two major anti-Macedonian federal leagues, along with quite a few independent city-states, and then Macedon itself. Greece is politically somewhat splintered and fairly easy to take advantage of.

This isn't really alternate history, even. More like just screwing around.

Since the Second Punic War started in 219 BC (or 218, depending on your point of view), that gives Hannibal plenty of time to take Sparta before Nabis builds his walls and launches his reforms, as noted previously.

Yes.

It's easy to capture and relatively simple to fortify.

Why is a walless city such a good HQ ?

After Alex kicked the bucket, Macedon never had full control of Greece again. There are two major anti-Macedonian federal leagues, along with quite a few independent city-states, and then Macedon itself. Greece is politically somewhat splintered and fairly easy to take advantage of.

Macedon didn't have full control of Greece but they where quite close.

Rome played Perganium and Rhode against the Macedonian hellenic alliance which was a reason why they subsequently where easeir to conquer. You understand that there was some overlap between the division of greece ,civil war and the Punic wars. There is no reason to believe that Greece with the blessing of Romse and as a result the states it supports wouldn't unite against Carthage. Later they may start again , a Civil war but to claim that they will have a civil war while Hannibal is at their doorstep is a bit off what i believe would happen.

 

[Dachs]

Why is a walless city such a good HQ ?

Laconia isn't actually that easy to attack. There's some pretty broken ground between it and Messenia, and sea to the other two directions, leaving only one real way to attack Sparta: from the north. Tegea and Mantinea are pretty good blocking points. Hannibal could, if he were a defensively minded guy (and given his outstanding performance in southern Italy keeping Tarentum and Capua out of Roman hands then why not?) just park an army there and smash all comers.

At the same time, Sparta, lying on hills as it does, would greatly benefit from a wall, even a palisade, and those aren't particularly hard to build. So both tactically and strategically it's relatively simple to protect Sparta.

Macedon didn't have full control of Greece but they where quite close.

They've got control of Macedon and somewhat intermittent control of Thessaly. Athens is independent. Boeotia is just a mess, with Thebes gone, and is pretty much a no-man's-land. Aetolia and the west of Greece is strongly against Macedon, but with a truce in place. Achaea needed Macedonian help awhile back but they basically hate them (many are angry at the Macedonian meddling in Achaean internal politics) and will take the slightest chance to rebel. Messenia is a weak league, sort of. Epirus is under Macedonian influence but isn't really all that strong and mostly serves as a Boeotian style no-man's-land. That leaves most of Greece outside Macedonian control, with significant portions of the Macedonian sphere of influence despising them and willing to fight against them. I don't call that "quite close".

Rome played Perganium and Rhode against the Macedonian hellenic alliance which was a reason why they subsequently where easeir to conquer. You understand that there was some overlap between the division of greece ,civil war and the Punic wars. There is no reason to believe that Greece with the blessing of Romse and as a result the states it supports wouldn't unite against Carthage. Later they may start again , a Civil war but to claim that they will have a civil war while Hannibal is at their doorstep is a bit off what i believe would happen.

Again, Greece isn't even close to unified. If it were, then the Macedonians would be rolling all over Asia Minor and southern Italy already. They're not.

Greece didn't even unite against Persia when it really counted. In a somewhat similar situation, which would some of those independent city-states pick: the ability to use a relatively low-threat ally (low threat because Hannibal can't conquer all Greece by himself) to beat up on the old enemy Macedon, or leaving themselves open to Macedonian hegemony and rule, the very thing they've been fighting against for ages? There is no way Greece will unite against anything unless it is first conquered in its entirety and made to do so. This hasn't happened.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What if Hannibal had invaded the Greeks instead of Rome?

Exactly which Greeks? The Achaean League? The Aetolian League? Macedonia? Asia?

 

[Shaihulud]

Hannibal is a master of manoeuvering, I believe that in a set battle, his tactics would beat the Greeks, I always imagine the greek best soldiers as hoplites and not flexible. i don't know if he would conquer all the greeks though. I don't know enough about the circumstances and scenario where he would want to do such a thing.