FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I'd contest that Hannibal had every opportunity to destroy Rome, for some reason he never did and that has had historians speculating ever since as to his motives why he didn't.
After Cannae ...
Close Roman military collapse
Hannibal also secured an alliance with newly appointed King Hieronymous of Syracuse, and Tarentum also came over to him around then. Hannibal now had the resources and personnel needed to make a successful invasion of the City of Rome. At the time he was not certain of this and spent a great deal of time pondering whether to invade or not. During the time of his indecision the Romans had regrouped and become rejuvinated, making the invasion now impossible. The Romans looked back on Hannibal's indecision as what had saved Rome from sure failure.
The reasons that Hannibal didn't invest the City of Rome was because he was harried by Roman armies, while he was not supplied by reinforcements by his allies or by Carthage:
Sieges and skirmishes in Italy
The war in Italy settled into a strategic stalemate in the years following Cannae. The Romans, after suffering three consecutive defeats and losing countless other battles, had at this point learned their lesson. They utilised the attritional strategies Fabius had taught them, and which, they finally realised, were the only feasible means of defeating Hannibal. ... They always kept Hannibal in view, they only fought when everything was in their favour; they sought to starve him rather than destroy him in battle; and cut down his power of doing harm as fast as circumstances warranted....
As the war drew on, Hannibal repeatedly appealed to the Carthaginian oligarchy for reinforcements and aid. ...
... without the resources his allies could contribute, or reinforcements from Carthage, Hannibal could not make further significant gains. Thus, inadequately supported by his Italian allies, abandoned by his government, and unable to match Rome’s resources, Hannibal slowly began losing ground. Hannibal continued defeating the Romans whenever he could bring them into battle, yet he was never able to complete another decisive victory that produced a lasting strategic effect.
What I find particular interesting about the politics in Carthage that lead to the lack of reinforcements is that it was primarily the "peace party" in Carthage that prevented it:
The War-faction and the Pro-Roman Peace Party were the two main political parties that controlled Carthage during this time. The latter represented Peace and Conciliation with Rome, and the other represented a war policy and a policy of resistance to Rome. Despite the apparent unanimity of the acceptance of war, Hanno the Great, the leader of the peace party, condemned Hannibal’s actions. As spokesperson for the Carthaginian noble class, he opposed the policy of foreign conquest pursued by Hannibal.
Shades of a Democratic Congress!
What was the end result of Carthage's refusal to send Hannibal the necessary forces for him to complete the occupation of Rome? Carthage's utter destruction.
I think there is a lesson in there ... somewhere.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
One can't put todays standards on a civilisation 2,000 years ago and compared to Rome, Carthage was civilised. Rome had no problem with genocide which is a little more than sacrificing children because of religious superstition.
Rome never solved any problems, there was not being a problem to solve at the time, Rome was imperial, like all powers that would invade and impoise their will on a country and yes, just like the USA and Britain before it. Rome was a disaster for much of the known world, it was an uncontrolable monster. It is like saying European settlers in America solved the native problem.
But tell me, what conquests and occupations solved problems? WWII was not an invasion and ocupation in the sense that Iraq is and many invasions are because the eventual occupiers were the ones initially attacked. Iraq was attacked by an imperial force, just like Napoleon and Hitler invaded countries, to advance their influence and power.
Your hatred for Rome is simply a reflection of your entire anti-Western bias.
FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, di... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread