Why didn't Hannibal go for Sicily?

[storealex]

Ok, Im reading a book which says:

- Hannibals' main reason for going to war with Rome, was the first Punic war, and with it, the loss of Sicily.
- Sicily was of immense military and economic importance to however controlled it.
- The reason Hannibal opted to attack Italy from land, was that the Roman occupation of Sicily and Sardinia made it too risky to go by sea.
- Sicily was only defended by two Legions, and the city-state of Syracuse which was allied to Rome.
- Hannibal suffered huge losses in marching from Spain to Italy.
- The Charthaginian fleet was a force to be reckonened with.

So the obvious conclusion must be that it would have been wiser to attack and seize Sicily first, and using it as a stepping stone to conquer Italy.
Such a move would have spared Hannibal from the march through Southern France and over the Alps, it would have been easy for him to obtain, since the Roman and their allies were weak on the Island, it would have provided him with the supplies he needed so desperately, and it would be easy for Charthage to resupply him with reenforcements.
But Hannibal was no fool. Am I overlooking an important fact here? Do we know why he didn't attack Sicily, or can we guees by using logic?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Xen]

A)because, by the the Roman navy had gone from Novice to ELite, the best the med sea coudl produce, with skilled marines and sturdy ships (note, the first punic war was NOT Romes first time using a navy- but it was its frist time using it effectivlly on a huge scale of action)

B)as much as the Greeks and Romans hated eachother at the time, both of them hated the carthaginians; this hatred was well sunk into sicilly, but on mainland Italy, it wasnt, as thier the native Itallians were more hated by the local greeks, and so they switche dover to hannibal once he came in

 

[~Corsair#01~]

He went to war because of his oath (they were worth something back then), not of any strategic purpose. He wanted Rome gone, and Sicily just wasn't gonna do that.

Also, I had the impression Rome's navy was immensely superior by this stage.

Did Carthage still hold Lilybeaum at the outbreak of war? Can't remember...

 

[storealex]

A) But Once in Italy, Hannibal still relied on troops and supplies from Charthage being brought to him by sea. So wouldn't the stronger Roman navy be even more of a reason to go for Sicily, which was much closer, and as such I presume, also easier to slip through the Roman patrols at?

 

[-0blivion-]

Did Carthage still hold Lilybeaum at the outbreak of war? Can't remember...

No. Undefeated in First Punic War, but handed over to Rome at the end.

But Once in Italy, Hannibal still relied on troops and supplies from Charthage being brought to him by sea. So wouldn't the stronger Roman navy be even more of a reason to go for Sicily, which was much closer, and as such I presume, also easier to slip through the Roman patrols at?

Not supplies - they foraged and relied on defecting cities in Southern Italy for that. The troops thing never really worked out either, only one group landed during the whole war.

Hannibal was much more ambitious than just taking Sicily. I think it would have been difficult for him to do anything from Sicily. If he left with most of his army, Syracuse may have taken more control of the island. What about Spain? While he was in Italy, Spain was overrun by Scipio, that would have happened with him stuck on Sicily too. What about Africa? If most of Rome's military was undefeated, they most probably would have attacked Africa while Hannibal was on Sicily. I think this because it is Rome's style, and the fact that Regulus did the same in the First Punic War.

He wanted the Southern Greek cities which had provided Rome with so much naval assistance in the First Punic War.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Rome's navy would prevent any invasion of Sicily. The only attempt to resupply Hannibal in Italy was intercepted. I'm wondering if it would be possible to invade Sicily through the straights of Messana. This would require building ships when in southern Rome (I have no idea if this would even have been possible). From there, he would have to attack quickly and have some success before Rome sent more Legions over themselves. Maybe than, they could get support from Siccels and possibly Greeks.

 

[pawpaw]

What would of he done with it ? lack of control of the sea would prevent reinforcements and the trapping of a portion of his army there till the romans felt like taking it back.

 

[dgfred]

Plus the elephants hated riding on boats .

 

[storealex]

Lack of naval supremacy dosn't automatically mean that you can't slip by. Not in ancient times. When Ceasar crossed the Adriatic to fight Pompey for an example, his fleet was much inferior, and he relied on being able to avoid a seabattle. He succeded.
There's also several incident's where Charthaginian navies made it through the Roman lines. For an example, in the beginning of the war, they send a fleet to link up with Hannibal at Pisae. He never went to Pisae however, so he didn't get the supplies, but the point is that the fleet made it.

An invasion from Sicily to Italy, would have been very hard for the Romans to prevent, since the disance was so short. In fact, it was almost possible to throw a stone over the strait, at the tightest spot. Rome's initial invasion of Sicily in the first Punic War, was also due to the fact that Sicily was a stepping stone to Italy, as well as economic reasons.

Also, Hannibal recieved reenforcements over sea more than once (Though not in enough quantitites that it mattered, Elephants didn't like sailing, but it was no problem to force them. We have several accounts of that, and finally, Hannibals forraging proved insufficient, and he asked Charthage for "Troops, money and food"

Montgomery once said something like: The strategic goal must be possible to gain with the tactical means available.

Clearly, Hannibal didn't have the tactical means to take the fight to Italy, and I can't help wondering, if it wouldn't have been easier to enlargen Charthages fleet enough to beat the Roman, than to march over the Alps and fight the entire war without naval supremacy.

 

[EdwardTking]

Sicily was full of fortified cities, that would
take time to break down or capture by siege.

It would have been possible for the Romans
to have supplied such cities by sea, while
simultaneously attacking Carthaginian supplies.

An attack on Sicily would ultimately have failed
in its main objective (killing Rome), because:

(A) It played against Roman strengths (navy with
free men not slaves, and Roman siege technology).

(B) The war would have been a war of attrition for
which the Romans were better resourced.

(C) Hannibal's strength in manouver wouldn' be deployable.

(D) No chance of quick shock victory for Hannibal.

 

[storealex]

Sicily was full of fortified cities, that would
take time to break down or capture by siege.

So was Italy. It was a big problem for Hannibal that he couldn't take them.

It would have been possible for the Romans
to have supplied such cities by sea, while
simultaneously attacking Carthaginian supplies.

This is kinda the same thing they did in Italy too. Indirect approach.

It played against Roman strengths (navy with free men not slaves, and Roman siege technology).

But a war in Italy played against other Roman strenghts. Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade the navy than to invade Italy?

The war would have been a war of attrition for which the Romans were better resourced.

But the war in Italy was also a war of attrition. Hannibal must have known it would go this way, since once he would have beaten the Romans in the field, they would stay behind their walls and starve him, and he would lack both the equipment and manpower to do anything about it.

Hannibal's strength in manouver wouldn' be deployable.

True, but again, he would only be able to use this strenght as long as the Romans played into his hands.

No chance of quick shock victory for Hannibal.

Again, neither in Italy. He stayed there for years...

I think no matter what he did, there would be no chance of a quick victory, so what he should have done was to futher consolidate his position is Spain, improving the navy and siege train, and win like the Romans had won in the first Punic war. A tactical victory could be won, several actually, but only as long as the Romans allowed it by playing into his hands. Had his strategic victory not been obtained by then, he would loose, which he did.

Eventually, Charthage did go for Sicily when they got their alliance with Syracuse, but then it was too late, and Hannibal had already lost the initiative in Italy.

 

[EdwardTking]

But the war in Italy was also a war of attrition. Hannibal must have known it would go this way,

Hannibal would certainly have feared that, but no doubt he hoped for a last decisive battle win before attrition took over. And if the Roman faction that wanted a fourth set piece battle had prevailed, he might have achieved it.

Some aspects are rather like the Nazis versus the Soviets in WW2.

since once he would have beaten the Romans in the field, they would stay behind their walls and starve him, and he would lack both the equipment and manpower to do anything about it.

Early on Rome was itself very poorly walled. But by the time, he won the third battle at Cannae; they had walled it up proper. And if he could kill enough in the fields, there is no one to man the walls.

True, but again, he would only be able to use this strength as long as the Romans played into his hands.

True, but Hannibal could not use it all on an island like Sicily.

I think no matter what he did, there would be no chance of a quick victory, so what he should have done was to futher consolidate his position is Spain, improving the navy and siege train, and win like the Romans had won in the first Punic war. A tactical victory could be won, several actually, but only as long as the Romans allowed it by playing into his hands. Had his strategic victory not been obtained by then, he would loose, which he did.

I think that Hannibal made a number of minor mistakes.

(i) He did not have a siege train. This was because he relied on speed. Now siege equipments consists of iron, wood and ropes; and no doubt a full siege would have slown him down too much to win his 3 big initial victories. However he should have acquired skilled siege men, and taken maybe the iron and wood components with saws, so that he would have had the ability to rapidly create siege engine from Italian trees when he needed it.

(ii) failed to understand that the Alps were a much colder and inhospitable barrier than southern Italian or African mountains. Only one elephant made it through the Alps and that was blind in one eye. Everybody creditted him with outwitting the romans, but he had to fight hard against local tribes and his strategic secret weapon was therefore eliminated early on without even engaging the Romans. Was that really a victory?


I do not believe that it was possible for Hannibal to "upgrade his navy".
The problem was not the number of ships or size of ships, it was that the Cathaginian ships were rowed by slaves who hated the Carthaginians.
Many of them were Greek slaves. Why should they row fast to escape
the Romans and their Greek Allies, when their best hope for freedom was
for their galleys to be caught up with, and boarded and possibly them freed.

The problem with the Carthaginian empire was that it never had a population base of Cathaginians to compete with the Romans. Hannibal could very partly offset that by hiring mercenaries in the army, but there was no remedy for the navy.


In my opinion Hannibal's best chance of victory was a very simple all or nothing one dash approach. Divide about a quarter of his navy into
maybe about 5 detachments and send them to draw off and lure the Roman fleets away. Put the entire army, elephants, catapults, assembled siege trains, infantry, cavalry, Uncle Tom Cobley and all in the rest of the fleet and send that straight to Rome in a blitzkrieg assault. Risk here is that Roman navy not be decoyed and intercepts the Carthaginian main body.

The idea being to capture Rome very quickly and watch the Roman alliance disintegrate.

But I am not even sure that a successful capture of Rome would have worked, it might have been very phyyric like Napoleon capturing Moscow.


But there are likely personal factors involved. Hannibal may have adopted
a strategy for a Land, rather than a Naval attack, because he was himself a land general, rather than a naval admiral, first.

 

[storealex]

Very good post you made there. I'll reply to it all to morrow when I have time.

One thing though, several Elephants made the trip over the Alps (At least my book says so, and it's a good book), but during the battle at Trebbia, snow began to fall, and after the battle, the men were busy taking care of them selves and their wounded, rather than the Elephants, who all died except one.

 

[EdwardTking]

I'm sure your book is more reliable than my memory (I last studied this 33 years ago).

 

[Aegis]

If I remember correctly, Hannibal built his army in Spain and then enlisted a lot of the tribes he encountered in the Alps along the way. I think he went through the Alps because the Romans would not expect it. It was a sneak attack that took a really long time to kick into motion. Lucky for Rome it stalled out.

 

[Sargon of Agade]

Okay, If Hannibal attacked Italy the vast number of Spanish and Gaulic mercenaries that made up his orginal force that defeated the Romans in Northern Italy would not have been available, therefore his force size would have been smaller. He may have been able to persaude or buy a small number of Scilian mercenaries to cover some losses, but not in the number of mercenaries he got from the Italian tribes who were unhappy with the Romans at the time. Two of his brothers also made it to Italy, Mago came from the Balearic Islands and Hasdrubal came from another part of Spain, however neither of this forces made much of a difference... Hannibal, although one of the greatest generals to ever lead men in battle, had the cards stacked against him, one his men only fought cohesively after several battles because they came from such different backgrounds and spoke different languages, which didn't help giving orders, two he could not call on the same sheer number of soldiers that the Romans could and so when the war hinged on who could get more troops into the fight he was simply out-gunned. The Battle of Zama is a great example of Hannibal being on the wrong side of luck and circumstances, his three lines of troops where all completely different, and had never fought with each other, his roman enemies however were under good leadership, were well disciplined, and had help from several Numidian allies to balance out the Roman's lack of cavalry... Hannibal could have won with war, but only if he razed Rome and killed every last person who veiwed themselves as Roman. Hannibal was not blindly lead by greed or hate, he simply was schooled in an art of war not embraced by the Roman's... When Greek City states fought, or when the later Helenistic Successor States waged war, it was a matter of gaining an advantage over an enemy... meaning they fought battles and wars to get something out of it, usually money, sometimes territory... This doctrine of "I just won this battle, give me some money and we'll go away" was the droctine of both Pyrrhus and Hannibal, and after battles they won in Italy they sent envoy's to discuss peace terms, the only terms the Romans would agree to was the surrender of the enemy, and both Hannibal and Pyrrhus had no idea why the losers of a battle would demand surrender. The Romans fought with the doctrine of total war, the war ends when the enemy of Rome is no longer a threat to Rome either through annexation but more regularly in a submissive role as a Roman "Ally" or when Rome burns and there are no more Romans to oppose this enemy.

 

[Gelion]

Also Hannibal did not have much support in his war and only started to recieve reinforcements some years after it started. So he simply did not ahve the forces for thsi attack. Sicily was not his primary goal and only after Syracusa began falling apart did Carthage send forces to fight there.