Could he have taken Rome with his army? Did he need more men

File: BasedFabius.jpg (1MB, 808x1625px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 808x1625px

>>2602032
Once Rome wised up and started using Fabian Strategy after being absolutely decimated Hannibal couldn't really get anything done. Rome would just avoid every fight with him and used the fact that they could outlast him to their advantage.

At that point Hannibal needed to commit, He couldn't though because didn't have support from Carthage and as a result he just harassed Rome for a long ass time then left.

>>2602032
No. He was specifically trying to get Italian tribes who were on the fence to join him, hence why it kind of looked like he was wandering around Italy.

There was a plan, it just wasn't obvious (because it didn't work).

Considering the Social Wars, the Samnite Wars, etc. it wasn't unreasonable to assume some Italians would turn on Rome.

>>2602069
He had support from Carthage it's just they couldn't deliver kek.

>>2602069
What can Carthage do when Rome controls the mediterranean? Send another expedition over the alps, and again lose half their men?

Hannibal won some very impressive victories but had he any semblance of a strategic mind he would not have invaded. It was futile from the get go.

anything can happen nothing is certain.

But it would have been a feat to do. He has already beaten the odds in spectacle fashion countless times to get to that point, asking him for even more miracles over and over again is impossible. There's no way he could have even conquered Rome, his army was not built for seiges because it needed to keep moving to supply especially when the Romans are using scorched earth tactics. That leaves him the option of storming Rome, which would have caused massive casualties, disease, not to mention having to occupy the insanely uncooperative mobs in the city WHILE continuing a campaign against the remaining roman presence in Italy and Spain. How is hannibal going to manage holding Rome AND dealing with Scipio and the other remaining generals with a depleted army?

There's little chance an attack would even succeed without the knowledge of effective seige craft, and he didn't have the numbers to go storming the walls of italy, he had to win on the field. It's makes you wonder if it was failed from the start, if he even ever really had a chance to win or if he was just the proto barbaric horde that can win some battles and pillage some farmland but ultimately cant take cities effectively.

>>2602032
>Could he have taken Rome with his army

No.

>Did he need more men to take the walls?

No. He needed enough of a regular supply source to reduce the walls with siege equipment.

>>2602069
You do realize that the Fabian strategy was adopted before Cannae, right?

> He couldn't though because didn't have support from Carthage

And that is simply bullshit. Carthage sent ENORMOUS forces his way. It just turns out that with the Romans in more or less complete control of the sea route, any reinforcements had to run the same gauntlet through the Alps that his initial army did, except this time without the benefit of surprise. So they tended to get intercepted and attacked en route.

>>2604697
this

people say "y no reinforcements tho" thinking Carthage was just absolutely retarded and didn't try to take advantage of hannibal. The fact it, the Romans decisively controlled the sea, Scipio was raising hell in Spain, and you can only play a trick like cannae/trebia/etc once until your opponent catches on and doesn't fall for it anymore. Carthage tried to reinforce, but the Romans wouldn't let it happen.

Some modern and not so modern historians speculate that had he marched on Rome immediately after Cannae, he would have forced a surrender from shock.

I really dont see how since, massive army dead or not the city was still formidable and Hannibal's arm too small to besiege it. Why would they immediately surrender when Rome had all the means to survive and an empire that can raise new legions?

In any case, cant blame Hannibal for his strategy with what he knew at the time. His brothers did their best but were fairly mediocre generals. The Carthaginian senate however were completely useless and actively worked against him.

>>2603796
WHAt about the civil wars?

>>2604697
>armies intercepted and attacked
>Hannibal doesnt get support because of this

We expressed the same idea but to my fault I didn't expand upon it as much as you did. Thank you for correcting me and providing a more detailed explanation.

>>2604697
>You do realize that the Fabian strategy was adopted before Cannae, right?
You realize that they stopped for a while because it was considered "dishonorable" and that's why Cannae happened right? Fabius and Marcellus started it right back up afterwards.

>>2604739
>The Carthaginian senate however were completely useless and actively worked against him.
It's a shit excuse. Cannae basically only happened because Fabius the warty cunt lost power and the army command was given to the incompetent Varro.

>>2604999
So, you mean the statement, and I quote

>Once Rome wised up and started using Fabian Strategy after being absolutely decimated Hannibal couldn't really get anything done.

Isn't in fact correct?

He couldn't because literally every other Carthaginian was an incompetent faggot.