what if hannibal had burned down rome

[Taras Bulba]

Oh, but i still don't understand how that leads to WWI in 1200 AD.

well... 1200 is a bit early of a year... I was thinking the higher middle ages, such as the 1500s or 1600s, which I guess might not be the typical medieval ages people think of...

I was just saying that a loose way to think about it is that if the balance of power I was referring to started earlier, there probably would've been a world war earlier, although probably wouldn't have actually initiated fighting until after the medieval ages ended, you're right

I know history pretty well, so i'm curious as to what could've happened if this happened or that person did that instead of this. If your not, then don't post.

well... that's all good and fine, but I just don't see the point, as these threads typically go one of 2 ways... the side that says "that can't happen" and some ridiculous explanation. Frankly, saying "that can't happen" isn't really doing much for the thread because alternative history threads are "what if..." threads... and seeing as I am not alive at that time, I cannot tell you what would've happened exactly, I can only give a loose interpretation... that's all

 

[innonimatu]

A combination of the two. Besides, as the second Philippos famously said, any fortress can be taken with an assload of gold...but Hannibal hadn't the money, or the men to fully blockade Roma, much less a fleet to prevent resupply down the Tiber as in the Gothic Wars of seven centuries later.

Thanks for the answer. I don't know much about ancient warfare, and here you just left me wondering about another thing: who easy was it to evade a siege using a river?
I understand that it creates a big problem for the besiegers, as they are forced to split their army, weakening it, and may not have a nearby bridge or ford. But they couldn't even prevent navigation in reasonably small rivers like the Tiber?

 

[Dachs]

Thanks for the answer. I don't know much about ancient warfare, and here you just left me wondering about another thing: who easy was it to evade a siege using a river?
I understand that it creates a big problem for the besiegers, as they are forced to split their army, weakening it, and may not have a nearby bridge or ford. But they couldn't even prevent navigation in reasonably small rivers like the Tiber?

During the aforementioned Gothic War of the sixth century AD/CE, the besieging Gothic forces attempted to put a chain across the river to block naval traffic, with some success. Totila had more men, though, and less enemies to deal with; Hannibal would have had to control both sides of the river on land to attempt a similar blockade, and crossing the Tiber would have been opposed by Roman troops. The fundamental problem faced by the Qarthadastim around Roma would have been, though, the problem of supply. They needed a lot of men to break into the city, but there didn't exist the forage around the city due to Roman efforts to denude the country.

 

[Condor_green]

A word on sieges, when attempting a siege the invading army should at the least have 6 times the manpower of the defending army. only an incredibly skilled siege expert can take control of a city with anything less.

 

[Condor_green]

If Hannible had taken Rome it wouldnt have mattered the Roman culture probably would have prevailed. Look at the pretuskan invasions

 

[Sharwood]

If Hannible had taken Rome it wouldnt have mattered the Roman culture probably would have prevailed. Look at the pretuskan invasions

I doubt it. Carthaginian culture didn't exactly prevail after it was razed to the ground, and considering Hannibal's hatred of Rome that's a likely scenario if he took the city.

 

[Condor_green]

I doubt it. Carthaginian culture didn't exactly prevail after it was razed to the ground, and considering Hannibal's hatred of Rome that's a likely scenario if he took the city.

What i mean is Rome was initially sacked by brennus and the gallic tribes who held the city for about a year before the Romans retook the city. many empires have fallen and been invaded only to rerise to power ie Egypt, China
India Arabia etc

 

[Sharwood]

What i mean is Rome was initially sacked by brennus and the gallic tribes who held the city for about a year before the Romans retook the city. many empires have fallen and been invaded only to rerise to power ie Egypt, China
India Arabia etc

Yes, but that was before Rome made pretty much all Italy hate it. If they smelt weakness, they'd defect, and Rome being burnt to the ground is a pretty sure sign of weakness.

 

[Condor_green]

Yes but the Roman culture would survive because by then italy was using its senatorial system with the major patrician families living in cities outside of Rome if Rome is burned to the ground the patricians would defeat hannibal and resettle the area. the Roman Senate would survive because the idea isnt only in Rome but in all of Italy

 

[Sharwood]

Yes but the Roman culture would survive because by then italy was using its senatorial system with the major patrician families living in cities outside of Rome if Rome is burned to the ground the patricians would defeat hannibal and resettle the area. the Roman Senate would survive because the idea isnt only in Rome but in all of Italy

If Rome fell, the Italian cities would immediately reach an agreement with Carthage. They might retain the Republican model, but even that is unlikely, as Hannibal would be smart enough to attempt to put por-Carthaginian groups in power, which are almost certainly not those based on the old Roman system of government.

 

[Dachs]

If Rome fell, the Italian cities would immediately reach an agreement with Carthage. They might retain the Republican model, but even that is unlikely, as Hannibal would be smart enough to attempt to put por-Carthaginian groups in power, which are almost certainly not those based on the old Roman system of government.

If Hannibal attempted to do this - not that he wouldn't - such a thing would be rather ephemeral. The old men in the senate back home in Africa wouldn't be happy with the Barcids (hmm; since I'm on this native-languages kick, would it be 'Baraq'? ) establishing yet another preserve for themselves like Hispania. Either way, it'd degenerate into a civil war like you said earlier, and we'd probably see leagues along the old Rasna, Achaian, and Aitolian lines breaking away like I said earlier, taking advantage of Qarthadastim distraction.

 

[Sharwood]

If Hannibal attempted to do this - not that he wouldn't - such a thing would be rather ephemeral. The old men in the senate back home in Africa wouldn't be happy with the Barcids (hmm; since I'm on this native-languages kick, would it be 'Baraq'? ) establishing yet another preserve for themselves like Hispania. Either way, it'd degenerate into a civil war like you said earlier, and we'd probably see leagues along the old Rasna, Achaian, and Aitolian lines breaking away like I said earlier, taking advantage of Qarthadastim distraction.

Exactly. My sole point there was that he'd thoroughly rape the republican system of government before he was forced to take action to defend himself, assuming he survived the inevitable assassination attempt.

 

[innonimatu]

Exactly. My sole point there was that he'd thoroughly rape the republican system of government before he was forced to take action to defend himself, assuming he survived the inevitable assassination attempt.

Funny how the carthagian republic and the roman republic seemed to be evolving in the same direction. Carthage was just a little ahead in the imperial trend, I guess.

 

[Dachs]

Funny how the carthagian republic and the roman republic seemed to be evolving in the same direction. Carthage was just a little ahead in the imperial trend, I guess.

Qarthadast already had an empire, so that makes sense, hein?

 

[Camulodunum]

if carthage conquered and occupied italy, then they wouldve been sacked by the huns, goths, vandals, etc.

 

[Dachs]

if carthage conquered and occupied italy, then they wouldve been sacked by the huns, goths, vandals, etc.

Why do you assume that the Qarthadastim would have been around that long?

 

[Antilogic]

I guess the assumption is that no other power would be able to challenge them before the Huns, Goths, and Vandals started migrating into the "Roman" territories.

Of course, they would have had to deal with the Celts, Gauls, and the East before they could reach that point.