Why didn't Hannibal destroy Rome after the battle of Cannae?

Destroying Rome cannae be done lad

>>3259030
Because he couldn't. He couldn't even take Nola right after Cannae, and Rome itself was much more heavily fortified.

>>3259030
If you kill your enemies, they win.

>>3259044
Amen my leaf friend

>>3259030
Reinforcements failed to arrive, and his force after Cannae wasn't strong enough. They just roamed around Rome until they could evacuate.

>>3259154
Reinforcements wouldn't have helped. He neeeded siege engines and time to reduce Rome's walls, no matter how many men he had. He had neither; without a regular supply line (impossible with Rome's predominance on the water at that point) sticking in place long enough to reduce walls like Rome's means that his force exhausts the local food supply and starves to death.

>>3259035
underrated post

>>3259030
Like many posters said, he simply could not. Furthermore, capturing Rome was never Hannibals main war goal. He fought like people did during the ancient times: Humiliate your enemy enough on the battlefield to force them on the negotiating table.
He simply did not expect that Rome would a.) not immediatly statrt negotiations and b.) that the roman allies/ clients in Italy would not defect en masse.
Heck, even fucking Macedon declared war on Rome and invaded the roman holdings in Epirus and near the Illyrian coast, yet they could do jack shit.
Nobody fucking expected the romans to not only fight on but also beat everyone.
Total War as a concept was not something the civilized world back then did. Only the romans were stubborn enough to do so.

>>3261063
>He simply did not expect that Rome would a.) not immediatly statrt negotiations
That's fairly stupid, given how Rome reacted to several similarly huge setbacks in the 1st Punic War (albeit usually on the water, not land)

>>3261095
Look at world war 1. People sent Soldiers into the meatgrinder for years before new doctrines and everything developed. Those people weren#t stupid and neither was the ancient world.

Rome suffered in only 2 campaign seasons what was a total loss in terms of warfare. Yes they still had a lot of holdings and a strong navy but 3 armies were demolished by some lunatic who went over the alps.
Every other major power during that period would have atleast made some kind of deal with Hannibal to get him to fuck off.
The romans just thought: No deals.
They would not even ransom roman prisoners from Hannibal. To everyone back then,. the romans seemed crazy and kind of stupid for refusing to give up.

>>3261102
You're missing my point. Rome suffered colossal losses in the outset of the 1st Punic war as well, similar to the defeats at the outset in the second; fleets at the time were enormous investments of manpower, and the Romans kept losing them without coming to a negotiated peace.

Hannibal certainly knew about the First Punic war. To assume that Rome would suddenly change for no reason is stupid.

>>3261176
>>3261095

You're right, he was wrong. Hannibal, while being well versed in Greek culture, didn't understand the Romans as well as he thought.

His army was mostly gauls he picked up on the way to Italy. They can't into siege warfare.

Was Rome the Russia of it's time? Just send more men to their grave until you win?

>>3261931

Yes, but they tended to borrow men from their conquered "allies" to make it work. Rome was a hydra, defeat one army and two more will be formed to replace it.

forgot to bring catapults

>>3259030
Why? He BTFO Rome a couple times what's the point of continuing?

>>3261769
Or he understood Rome too well. The Fabian Strategy is inherently opposed to the Roman military culture, and I'm sure Hannibal expected rome to continue sending all of their troops into traps.