Would the Carthaginians lasted longer if they hadn't backed

>>2875060
No, because they were outnumbered heavily by Italics

>>2875060

They lost the second punic war because they DIDN'T back Hannibal. Had they actually backed him, we'd be talking about how Rome got wiped off the map and it's fields salted.

>>2875063

But they had also claimed the Iberian Peninsula and the Strait of Gibraltar, so I'm not convinced that the Roman "strength in numbers" is the best argument

File: tumblr_m43hp7Joxu1qdqgjdo1_1280.jpg (206KB, 695x960px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 695x960px

>>2875063
>not backing based hannibal

>>2875075
Nah, they claimed just like 10% of the Iberian Peninsula

>>2875083

True, but that was enough to pique the interest of the Romans

>>2875088
Yes, that's why Romans crushed them like a bug under their feets.

Phoenicians have always been medicore warriors who relied on mercenaries, Italics on the other hand were hardcore badasses with a thousand year old tradition of warfare and raiding

>>2875073
>They lost the second punic war because they DIDN'T back Hannibal.
Will this bullshit ever die? Hannibal led a damn big army for carthaginian standards, and was sent reinforcements through the whole war. It was hardly the carthaginian senate's fault that Hannibal was far too deep beyond enemy lines to receive the reinforcements. After all, he was the general: he should have known that the alpine route would have only worked once, and that Carthage had no chance whatsoever at going by sea (which is why he went through the Alps in the first place). Hannibal gambled the whole campaign upon a generalized uprising of the italics (which was very silly for a multitude of reasons, but w/e); when that didn't happen, the war was as good as lost. Carthage simply didn't have the resources to take on the republic united. Hell they lost even tho half of Rome's army was busy terrorizing greeks for most of the war.

>>2875212
>which was very silly for a multitude of reasons, but w/e);
I find it to be quite reasonable from Hannibal's view, and it worked for Gallia Cisalpina and some Greek city-states. How should he have known that the Italics wouldn't bulge when that's what usually happened in other regions?

>>2875248
>I find it to be quite reasonable from Hannibal's view
It really wasn't. Half the italics allied with Rome of their own volition, not at all under duress. It was totally unlike the gauls and hellenes that had to be militarily subjugated to keep them from attacking.
And then when you consider the reason why the italics aligned themselves with Rome (protection against the CONSTANT pressure from gauls and hellenes and the constant internecine feuding), and the military history of the 3rd century (gauls terrorizing the northern borders and hellenes waiting for the first hint of conflict to attack the peninsula, see Phyrrus, the illyrians after the first punic war, the macedonians during the second) it becomes even sillier.
The italics for the most part would have had no reason whatsoever to rebel, because to do so would only have meant inviting all their enemies to invade as soon as Hannibal had left.
Aprioristically it made no sense whatsoever for them to rebel, but Hannibal was too much of a glory hound to care. Well it's pretty obvious from his history that he was a very mediocre strategist (although a very brilliant tactician), so it's not like it's a surprising mistake.

>>2875248
Because the same goddamn thing happened when Rome fought Pyrrhus?

>>2875248
>it worked for Gallia Cisalpina and some Greek city-states
But Gallia Cisalpina wasn't even roman back then. The parts that were roman allies (venetics and etruscan mostly) didn't even rebel.
They had to occupy or violently overthrow the government in half the greek cities before they switched too.