Hannibal spent over 10 years in Italy

How could he not starve out Rome.

Hannibal did not besiege Rome because he knew that without reinforcements, he could not take it. As Adalwolf said, he lacked siege equipment and in order to starve Rome out he would need to have his forces completely surround the city for months.
However, this would likely result in a devastating defeat largely because of Fabius Maximus's strategy. This would result in Hannibal's forces running out in food before the Romans behind the walls.
Furthermore, after Cannae the Romans still had a significant force in Italy and many more legions were raised immediately succeeding Cannae.
The few months (at least) required to starve out Rome would be more than enough time for a very large relief force to arrive at Rome's defence.
Though Hannibal was a tactical genius, his forces would be spread too thin while besieging the city to offer any hope off resistance against the double-sided threat. Hannibal would be forced to withdraw or fight to the last man, and more than likely be annihilated.

Regards, Praetor

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" ~ Maharbal

How does Rome hold out for 10 years with no supplies.

hannibal sucks, not that great anyway... lost Rome and Carthage.

Originally posted by Praetor Originally posted by Kamikaze 738 "Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" ~ Maharbal I have given reasons why Hannibal did not march on Rome after Cannae and you have given us a quote from a person who may or may not have existed and thats all. Futheremore Hannibal displayed a great deal of Strategic ability as is demonstrated by his invasion of Italy via the Alps (a brilliant strategy) indeed Hannibal was called the "father of strategy" by military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge.

I know you have, Im just saying that the quote represents the situation Hannibal is in. Hannibal knew how to gain a victory because (obivously) he's a tactical genius but he does not know how to use it because like you said, reinforcement were limited and there wasn't time/energy needed to build seige weapons to assault Rome and etc. Basically Im reflecting what you were saying


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 27-Mar-2007 at 19:46

Originally posted by MonsterKiller hannibal sucks, not that great anyway... lost Rome and Carthage.

Originally posted by pekau We should be asking how Hannibal managed to stay in Italy for ten years, not Rome being able to stay alive for ten years.

It was kinda like a stalemate, Rome didnt have the resource to successfully destory Hannibal's army, which is taken by the example at Cannae. The Romans never (until one in Rome would be proven to take the task) will openly fight against the "military genius" Hannibal since they dont want to face another defeat. So the slow process of elimination begins to take Hannibal off Italy.

All the meanwhile, Hannibal didnt recieve much forces from Carthage or Macedon so all he had was his mercenaries and his mind to to challenge Rome. In the end, he was forced back to face a new general that was ravaging Spain and there Hannibal was defeated. Rome won in the end because they had the resource to hold on longer, unlike the Carthagians which were limited in their supplies.


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 27-Mar-2007 at 23:08

Originally posted by pekau Did Hannibal really sieged Rome? I don't think he could have even if he tried. There were still some Roman defenses that prevented Hannibal to reach Rome... and Rome could still get the supplies from Southern Italy. We should be asking how Hannibal managed to stay in Italy for ten years, not Rome being able to stay alive for ten years.

Pekau, Rome was never besieged by Hannibal. He could have if he tried, but as we have established, his chances were fairly slim (I will not delve into why, as it is discussed earlier in the thread). Actually, Southern Italy was quite hostile and shaky in their allegiance towards Rome. The Apulian, Bruttian and Campanian 'allies' to Rome experience a lot of defection to Hannibal, such as Capua and Tarentum. It was the Latin and Northern allies of Rome who remained loyal - to an extent - to Rome. Please note, the Gauls of the North are not included.
In saying this, there were still cities and towns in Southern Italy and Sicily that could interact with Rome herself.

Originally posted by Snowybeagle What was the size of her forces and what were her defences?

There is no exact figure, but I'm pretty sure that Rome still had 8 legions around Italy (plus allies) and those in Sicily. The Sicilian sanctioned legionnaires comprised to an extent, of those who had survived Cannae and were consequently put on the Sicilian front.
Rome itself had able soldiers and several tens of thousands of decent militia. The walls of Rome were not as impressive as they were in the time of the Empire, but were formidable to any besieger nevertheless. Their sheer magnitude and 'circumference' (Note, Rome was not circular) was one of the reasons Hannibal could not have sustained the siege, with such a thin line surrounding Rome.

Originally posted by Kamikaze_738 It was kinda like a stalemate, Rome didnt have the resource to successfully destory Hannibal's army, which is taken by the example at Cannae. The Romans never (until one in Rome would be proven to take the task) will openly fight against the "military genius" Hannibal since they dont want to face another defeat. So the slow process of elimination begins to take Hannibal off Italy. All the meanwhile, Hannibal didnt recieve much forces from Carthage or Macedon so all he had was his mercenaries and his mind to to challenge Rome. In the end, he was forced back to face a new general that was ravaging Spain and there Hannibal was defeated. Rome won in the end because they had the resource to hold on longer, unlike the Carthagians which were limited in their supplies.

Yes it was a stalemate under the implementation of the Fabian Strategy but otherwise, Hannibal was in control most of the time. Plundering Southern Italy at his will...things like that. Rome certainly did have the resources to defeat Hannibal. They far outnumbered him still and had easy access to supplies (Hannibal's forces couldn't block every trade route...). The thing was, as you said, that they were not up to facing Hannibal in a major pitched battle! He was just too damn good. Of course, skirmished, guerrilla conflicts and minor engagements were fought (such as those involving Marcellus and Hannibal) in Italy, but nothing pitched; the Romans knew Hannibal would find a means of fighting on his own terms, and securing victory even before the battle had started.
Hannibal's support from Carthage and Macedon was rather disappointing indeed, well in many aspects, non-existent. His mercenaries stayed very loyal thanks to his charisma and radiating effect of the success he generated. Also, the fact that they gained a lot of resources and riches from raids/plundering was another reason for their astonishing loyalty to a foreign commander.

I agree with Adalwolf when he says "Hannibal was forced back to defend Carthage itself, and lost the battle of Zama against Scipio Africanus, who had defeated the Carthaginians in Spain".
Hannibal was not necessarily forced back to Africa because of Roman pressure, he could have kept up his practices and presence in Italy for years to come. I should point out though, that his forces were dwindling and Hasdrubal's defeat at Metaurus was a big blow indeed.
It was his need to protect his homeland and nation that drove him back. Carthage demanded he return to protect/save them from the threat that was, Scipio. That he actually complied and returned amazes me, after all the Carthaginian senate did for him while in Italy (or lack of...).
Hannibal was defeated at Zama, though I see it more as Rome defeating Carthage. Rome was determined, endurant and had a stubborn attitude to win! Carthage I must say, did not have the same grim determination (not Hannibal, he had plenty) and will to survive that Rome had. Also, Rome learned from their mistakes - as is illustrated throughout their history - and bounced back from where practically any other nation in history would have collapsed. Full marks to Rome.

Originally posted by MonsterKiller hannibal sucks, not that great anyway... lost Rome and Carthage.