Why did hannibal failed?

[stalin006]

well i guess yall want more ancient history threads and less WW2-cold war ones right?

Why did Hnnibal failed his invasion of rome? adn how could he had bbeen succesful?, if he was succesful in defending carthage, could he had monted another offensive invasion?

also wehre did his mercenaries came from?

 

[Octavian X]

My thought is his supply lines were stretched to the breaking point. It would've been impossible to get more troops, supplies, and food to Hannibal's armies in Italy. Also, once the Romans figured out how to defend against the elephants, and weren't panicked by them, Hannibal was screwed.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear stalin006!

I'm afraid that Hannibal was doomed from beginning. Main Carthage strenght was his fleet. Carthage's ships were bigger, faster & more dangerous in any naval battles then Roman's. But...
Main Carthage problem was - all of these ships was moved by muscle force of captured slaves chained to their oars.
Yes, Roman slavery system wasn't any good for any of his neighbors, but in times of Second Punic war, Carthage slavery was greater menace for any sailor in Mediterranean. Cause of it -famous "Eurliquidon" - North-East wind that carried any vessel to Carthaginian's shore in mid-December till February period of any year. Any sailor on any vessel caught by this "evil wind" was brought to Carthage & broken upon local banks. & slaved, of course. This is main meaning of famous "Carthage must be destoyed" of Roman slogan of tese times. No trade, no any communications via Mediterranea would be secure till Carthage remained "slavery den" for any sailor in open sea.
If you will check it, you will find that Second Punic war began as "coalition war" of "all-Mediterranean countries" against sole Carthage & in the first phase of this war we got strange phenomena: Romans usually won any naval battles & lost any battles on land. Reason is - any slaves in Carthage ships refused to work in battle conditions & any "strong & proud" Carthage's ships became "sitting ducks" for Romans. (Roman's ships was moved by muscle force of "free plebeians" that took part in any naval battle as usual soldiers. Rome never met the same problem in naval battles as Carthage!)
Carthage military had better training then Roman's - it's reason of Carthage superiority on the land. But in any case - crippling deficiency of Carthage's fleet became trade's problems for Carthage. (No ships - no sea voyages - no trade - no tax revenue from traders - empty state coffers - no salary for mercenaries - no land troops enough for Hannibal - Zama - utter defeat - completely broken economy of Carthage. Broken economy is Doom for any "commercial state".

Then Hannibal was doomed, it was just matter of time for this bitter ending...

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. By the way, I was really amused to find out that Roman's named small bands of fast & lithe (in comparison to Carthage ships) triremes as "wolf packs" .
Tactics was devised by Lellius the Wise (father of famous Lellius the Beautiful): group of 6 ships - 1 big trader with resources of food & water with 5 triremes stood on anchor in vicinity of Carthaginians trade routs & simply "ate alive" any Carthaginian's vessel! There are some really weird stories about 5 minuscule triremes "got" in one battle 8 Carthaginian quiquiremes (warship with 5 & "half" rows of oars - bigger then trireme in 2,5 times) & 3 dromons (really huge trader that got its description as "Noah Ark" in Old Testament - dromon was only ship that go in the open Ocean to "Tin Islands" i.e. modern Britain, - triremes around it was similar 5 little dogs around the elephant ! But these "weenies" got them all in any case!!!
By Roman's archives these "wolf packs" went for their preys all year around & in some really bombastic cases "stalked around" Carthage up to 3 years without return! Wow...

It seems that German's naval strategists of XX century had really inspirational reading about ancient naval warfare, doesn't it? I think this comparison just can't be pure coinscidence!
Alas, we again return to WWII topic from ancient times.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

One of Hannibal's largest problems was, that he wasn't a very good general to begin with. He had the personal power (the charisma with which you can mainpulate mobs) of Caesar or Alexander, but he didn't have their strategical skills. He was victorious on the battlefield because he had highly motivated troops, but he didn't know how to use the victories (a widespread quote).
He attempted to defeat Rome by terminating all it's diplomatic relations. That is a politician's way. He failed because Rome had some able generals. Carthage didn't.
I guess that's the curse of a civilized mercantile and politcal power fighting against a militarist one. Had the Carthaginians had able generals, Rome would have been utterly defeated, because the Trasimenic lake and Cannae doubtlessly showed that the Carthaginian soldiers were stronger, more motivated and better trained than the Roman ones.

 

[stalin006]

well in the battle field he was a great general, he studied alexanders tactics like the "pincer" manouver which allowed him a victory against large odds

 

[Vrylakas]

Stefan Haertel hit it on the nose; after Cannae Hannibal could have easily marched on Rome itself but didn't, prefering to trash the Roman countryside. He repeatedly won battles and then failed to take advantage of his victories. Rome did indeed develop good generals, but only after several years. Victory was for Hannibal to take but although he did all the work for it he didn't know how exactly to reach for it.

 

[stalin006]

oh i see, ok, mmmh.....i wonder if he had used his victories correctly..............

 

[onejayhawk]

As I see it a General has three tasks: Building, preparing and fighting. One element of Napolean's genius that is often overlooked is his ability to pull troops from seeming thin air. A general must have an army and in ancient times that meant recruitment. Hannibal's army was an incredible patchwork of often hostile mercenaries and tribal groups. Rome in comparison was homogeneous. Hannibal anks in the first order amoung Generals in this important area.

During the Desert War of 1990-1991, the US Army demonstrated one principle as well as anyone could ask: preparation. Had Saddam Hussein invaded Texas, the result, ignoring the populous would have been very different. Not the outcome, mind, but the resulting battle. If the US is surprised and put on the defensive by a large attacking force, the counterattack is likely to be almost instinctive. In the Desert War the US rushed a large number of troops into the desert between Kuwait and Saudi and dug in. Saddam declined to press his advantage. This allowed the US to build the type of units they wanted, train them in the expected actions, supply them fully and ensure supply lines while preventing the enemy from doing the same. The result was a 4 day blitz that went around and through some very heavy defensive lines with minimal losses.

Hannibal's battles were much the same. He was a master of concealing strength while creating the impression of strength elsewhwere. This was done in large part by his choice of ground and his familiarity with it. Pecise records do not exist, but it seems clear that his troops went to battle rested and fed and with some idea of what to expect and of what was expected from them. Wallenstein, possibly the first staff command General, was known for knowing how much could be asked of his mercenaries and how not to ask the impossible.

It is in the last area that things get iffy. Recounts of the battles are not accurate enough to determine how well he dealt with the unexpected. His battle plans were certainly brilliant, but we do not know what happened when they went blooey. This much is clear, his troops fought and his troops were successful. A part of this may be in his ability to convey his plan to the unit level commanders and his willingness, and their ability, to fight semi-independantly. But this is also a sign of a great General: knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his army and acting accordingly.

One other thing is crystal clear. Rome owes Hannibal Barca a huge debt. Because of the unforseen invasion, military discipline improved drastically and officer training advanced by leaps and bounds. Within a generation Rome was a FAR better military machine than Hannibal found it. This was his lasting impact, the beterment of his enemy.

J

 

[Gandalf13]

I have to agree with Stefan Haertel on this one. Hannibal really wasn't a great general. He never exploited his victories, and gave Rome time to regroup and bring up more reserves of manpower. I have to say that the Romans were brilliant during the 2nd Punic War. After losing to Hannibal in pitched battle, they just went to Spain and an invasion of Africa, forcing Hannibal to leave Italy.

 

[stalin006]

well when it is said general is as in how good in the battlefield, i agree w/ onejawhawk

 

[Archer 007]

Because he was stupid and didnt siege Rome. Use Roman tactics against em'. (Refrenceing to the Rome invasion of Carthage when they started losing).

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I see that nobody hit on it.

The real reason is that the Carthiginians were terrible at siege warfare, a science that Rome would excell in at later years.

Hannibal had no engineers capable of building seige equipment (he had some engineers, but they wern't very bright it seems), and he knew his army didn't have the supplies to sustain a seige (this was why he wanted the Greeks to take a southern Italian allied city for him, so he could recive men and supplies from home, but this never happened).

He defeated one Roman army after another for 20 years, but from the writings of the Romans themselves, it becomes clear they understood he could never take a major walled city, so they reguarded him a nusence, and sent their best soldiers and officers to Hispalia (Spain) to destroy Carthage's empire, and eventually landed in North Africa, were these troops, led by the battle hardened and brilliant Scipio Africanus showed how simple it was to defeat Hannibal.

The second Punic war saw the rise of effective consular legions, as well as fleets so well described by A_Bashkuev above.

The worst of it was that Rome now knew NO power in the anciet world could defeat them, as they would show in the coming centuries.

SPQR
(For the people and senate of Rome )

 

[SeleucusNicator]

A bit off-topic, but just what species of Elephant did Hannibal use? I seem to remember reading somewhere (many years ago), that he used a now-extinct breed of North African Elephants, presumably very similar to other African Elephants.

Now, African Elephants are known to be less trainable and more likely to be spooked then, say, Indian Elephants, yes? I would imagine so; Indian Elephants are found in zoos and circuses much more often than their African counterparts.

But how more effective would Indian Elephants be in combat, if their added trainability translates into war at all?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

As I recall, the Elephants were a North African breed, approx 6 to 7 feet in hieght, and quite trainable.

This species seems to have become extinct at some point in the Roman Imperial period.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

But how more effective would Indian Elephants be in combat, if their added trainability translates into war at all?

Several Indian/Burmese/Thai/Khmer Rulers have found the (Indian) Elephant extremely useful in battle. Both as a mobile archery platform and as weapons of terror.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Alcybiades of Athens!

I’m afraid that you opened some “can of worms” by your statement. I was afraid of it & didn’t go to all complications of this issue in my first message. But if you like to talk it about…
I think – you are completely right in the point that Hannibal couldn’t make any siege on Rome after Cannae victory by the reason of complete absence of any siege weapons in his Army. (Everybody can check it by any chronicle of that time.) By the way – absence of siege weapons gave Hannibal possibility to cross Alps & good logistic edge over Roman armies in this phase of war. (Everybody naming Hannibal as “coward” or “stupid” shows some misunderstanding of ancient military customs or warfare, I’m afraid. Then it was reason of my silence till Alcybiades’ answer. It’s really pointless to argue with anybody over his misunderstanding of issue.)
But I must argue next Alcybiades’ statements: Cartage hadn’t any siege weapons in this time period then it was pointless to siege Rome’s city walls & Rome had technological edge over Cartage in “siege weapons technology”. As far I know, Rome of that time hadn’t any knowledge of siege weapons as well as Cartage! In times of Samnite wars Rome bought couple of catapults from Tarent & after First Punic war one of essential part of Roman treaty with Syracuse was: providing by Syracusian mechanics some Siege weapons to Rome on regular basis for really big amount of money. It means that Rome couldn’t produce these siege weapons by herself. We don’t know a reason of this ******** condition of Roman science, but we can make a good guess: Siege weapons of that period were produced from a lot of belts made from bull tendons. Drying of these tendons was really complicated thing & could been made only in very dry weather. These nature conditions were only in East Sicily with really hard dry season from early spring till later autumn, but Rome or Cartage hadn’t them. (Rome region had summer rains maximum (& heavy snows in winter) & Cartage region had really damaging for any siege manufacturing high humidity level.) Then both countries bought their siegeworks from independent Greek’s city-state – as Syracuse for main source & Tarent in lesser scale.
Syracuse was one of most important ally of Rome in that period & it was clear that Cartage & Rome would make other war in next future. I think (but I’m not sure) that creating of New Cartage in Iberian Peninsula by Cartaginians was attempt: to do some “relief move” in “siegeworks” technology. (There were really long dry seasons in Iberia of that time! Good thing for bull tendons drying!) Then New Cartage became most important mark for Rome in this war. (No New Carthage – no Siege weapons – no siege of Rome as result!) If you will check it Gasdrubal army carried really potent siege works to help Hannibal & it was a reason for their really slow advance through Alps. After Gasdrubal defeat it was really pointless for Hannibal to stay in Italy if no revolt in Syracuse.
Syracusan ruler Hiero was slain by mutineers that made their swore to Cartage cause immediately after Cannae battle due to Rome took out main part of her garrison from there for defense of Rome herself. Cartage paid really exorbitant money for Syracusan mutineers & their leader Archimed for this cause. It was a reason of Roman really hard reaction – Army of Marcell went to Sicily immediately after Syracuse’s revolt & created strong blockade of Syracuse in expense of Rome’s defense by the way. It was most important issue for Rome to return their siegeworks producing center as fast as it’s possible. They can do it in really fast method due to their complete supremacy on the sea, then I stressed this point in my previous message.

If Rome hadn’t sea supremacy, they couldn’t make successful Syracuse’s blockade & got their siege weapons producing center back. If Rome hadn’t sea supremacy Hasdrubal could bring siege weapons from New Cartage to… Capua’s shore for example & both brothers could begin siege of Rome. If Rome hadn’t sea supremacy Scipio couldn’t come to New Cartage in no time & destroy this siege weapons producing center. Then it was sea supremacy, but not siege weapon supremacy – main reason of Rome’s success in that war. But it was some “secondary reason” due to real strong point was “siege weapon” supremacy – if Rome couldn’t get Siege weapon supremacy via sea supremacy, sea supremacy can bring only some trade disruption & was in some sense – pointless. Oh, it’s really complicated issue.
I didn’t want to bring all this complication earlier, then it was cause of my short answer previously. Yes, it was sea supremacy as root of Rome’s victory in that War. But most important result of this reason was technological edge in siege weapon having by Rome & “not having” by Cartage. Then your statement is “hit on the nail” in some sense. But in some sense it is missed .

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. If I remember correctly, your famous predecessor – Alcybiades of Athens lost his Army & Fleet under Syracuse as well, trying to get local siege weapon producing center under his thumbs. (Syracuse under Dionisios the Great was big & loyal supporter of Sparta & send their siege weapons for Spartan’s cause.) Is it some “bad memories from the past” about siege weapon importance for you to make so great praising for them? Eh?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by ozscott75

Several Indian/Burmese/Thai/Khmer Rulers have found the (Indian) Elephant extremely useful in battle. Both as a mobile archery platform and as weapons of terror.

Indeed, as did my namesake, who certainly had more luck with Elephant warfare than Hannibal did. (Because of a lesser prepared enemy, I would imagine)

But it does seem that Elephants are too vulnerable to distraction and could backfire and become a problem for you if your enemy learns to deal with them properly.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

A_Bashkuev (or simply Alex )

You seem to misread what I said, look again:

"a science that Rome would excell in at later years."

Seems your wrote all that for nothing!

Never said they were good at it in the second Punic war!

 

[Panda]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
A bit off-topic, but just what species of Elephant did Hannibal use? I seem to remember reading somewhere (many years ago), that he used a now-extinct breed of North African Elephants, presumably very similar to other African Elephants.

They were forest elephants, smaller and more docile than their plain brethern, which made it possible to train them for warfare.

IIRC, the Carthagians originally invited Indians to teach their animal trainers how to train elephants for warfare.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Alcibiates!

I saw this your statement but you told us that Cartage was terrible in siege warfare. (Read your own message . But in the annales describing battle at Metauros it said that Hasdrubal must take this battle in really unfavorable position due to his need to protect carthaginian catapults that he tried to deliver to Hannibal army. Then - there were siege weapons in Carthage! But really interesting point - why Carthage didn't use them previously - for example in siege of Syracuse in First Punic war, or in some territorial dispute earlier, or send them to Samnii in times of Samnite wars. Reason is: they create colony of New Carthage especially for producing siege weapon manufacture. It is real reason of Scipio to march in Spain really fast. You truthfully said that Hannibal couldn't do anything in Italia till he hadn't any siege weapons & his brother brought them. Then battle at Metauros is more important then it seems & Scipio campaign in Spain is more important then Hannibal campaign in Italy! It is the same paradox as cou8rse of "Battle for England" in 1940. Bombing of Coventry & other cities was scary thing, but real battle consisted in fighter "dog-fighting" over Channel. Till England could decimate German luftwaffe Jagdgeschoedders in these dog-fights any bombing of civil centers was really pointless!
Then - while Rome's fleet could protect Italian seashore from any Carthage land-dropping & control mountain passes for bringing any Carthaginian siege works their position was secure. There was really interesting discussion between Varro & Fabius after Cannae battle:
Fabius asked Varro - why he go ahead in so unprepared manner? Varro answered that he wanted to know - if Hannibal has any catapults in his army. Varro said: "We broke their front & find out that there is no any Catapults there. Then we got most vital information in price of couple thousand of Plebeii. It is fair deal!"
You know most intriguing result of this disput? Varro was found innocent! Claudius the Beautiful said later - "Maybe Cannae battle was good thing after all. We relieved Eternal City from these bothersome Plebs in one bloody good sweep!" (Try to check in & you will found that Roman cavalry (Patrician in its Nature) escaped, but Roman infantry (Plebeian by its Nature) was slain by Carthaginians. Add to this great Plebeian unrest of that time & you will see very strange, but logical picture of Cannae battle. (Main question was - Had Hannibal siege works or not? Lifes of thousand Plebei was - "secondary" question.) Then - Roman strategy is looked in really different light! (Many of modern guys is caught in modern view on humankind, but Roman's had really different view on price of Life of Plebei, or - Patrician .

Well, I know that your opinion isn't really differ from mine, but you stressed your point of Siege works then it was reason of my response. (By the way I saw your disput over Rommel's strategy in African's company & Malta' importance. You did extremely fine - really nice indeed.)

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. By the way, main opponent of Cartage in Africa was Egypt - not Rome at all. Egypt had access to North African Elephants as well as Cartage, but NEVER used them in warfare. Reason is really simple - Egypt had many pastures for raising sound Cavalry (or Chariots of really ancient times), but Cartage hadn't any! (You can check it - all Carthaginian cavalry was Numidian by its origin due to fact that Cartage hadn't any good horse pastures!)
Then Elephant usage in Cartage warfare wasn't "military innovation" in some means, but only some "relief movement" for getting any "speedy" military units in battle field. No one ancient country of Mediterranean region don't use any Elephant in their battles due to horse pastures were common (except Cartage region) & African elephant is really freaky & uncontrollable animal in comparison to horse.)
Excuse me for some flooding here.