What if things had turned out slightly different? Could Hannibal have secured victory?
During two successive wars, it is likely that Rome’s victories were unavoidable. Carthage was predominantly unable to overcome Roman military power due to its inability to comprehend Roman resolve. During the first war, it was unfathomable at the onset to see Rome as a naval power.
Still, the Roman political system allowed a quick decision on maritime funding. During the Second Punic War, Carthage underestimated the ability of the Romans to withstand casualties and continue to fight.
Suppose Hannibal had attacked the city of Rome as quickly as possible. In that case, he may have scored a decisive victory that ensured Carthaginian domination. The Roman key to success was the strategic flexibility of their government to make quick decisions regarding campaigns, manpower, and equipment.
The leadership and relentlessness of its generals were instrumental in ensuring Roman victory. As a result, the Romans held the advantage in three distinct areas: manpower, sea power, and leadership.
Hannibal and the Carthaginian government underestimated the resolve of the Roman people to wage war.
The Romans just kept coming. They are relentless and never give up. Within the psyche of every Roman citizen was bred the notion of public military service. Because of this, they display a formidable spirit for fighting.
Moreover, the Romans were able to raise an army composed of men willing to fight and die for their country with little pay despite substantial casualty numbers time and again. The Romans had an easier time raising its citizen army than Hannibal in maintaining a mercenary army.
Hannibal did an excellent job of inflicting casualties on the Romans. He defeated them soundly on many occasions, but every time the Roman people raised another army and pursued Hannibal wherever he was.
The Romans were able to do this because the Roman system of universal military obligation service by its citizens and allies was far superior to the Carthaginian mercenary system. The Carthaginian system of professionalizing mercenaries is much slower to mobilize and significantly more expensive, especially in times of crisis.
When the First Punic War began, Carthage was the preeminent naval power in the entire Mediterranean. Therefore, the Carthaginians assumed that any naval battle would result in a swift, overpowering victory, completely underestimating the Romans as sailors.
However, through quick legislation, the Romans built a fleet and developed a new weapon of war, the Corvus. Through this Corvus, the Romans turned naval battles of maneuver into land battles aboard ships. Because of their fleet’s outstanding record against Carthage in the first Punic War, the Romans could dictate Hannibal’s route in the second war. Had Carthage held an advantage on the seas, Hannibal could have landed in southern Italy and attacked Rome this way.
Also, with Rome controlling the sea routes, Carthage was prevented from conducting resupply operations for its men in either war. As Polybius wrote, the Romans are “much less skilled in the handling of their naval forces, they nevertheless prove successful in the end, because of the gallantry of their men.”
Rome also enjoyed a considerable leadership advantage over Carthage. At the beginning of the war, the Roman government continued to function, sending its armies where needed and appointing generals.
However, when Hannibal defeated the Romans at Trasemine, the Romans named a dictator. While this dictator was mostly ineffective, it is an example of the Roman ability to respond to crises with action. The Roman government continued to make keen strategic decisions that led to victory. Generals appointed by Rome throughout both wars were powerful and influential leaders that did not hesitate to make the necessary decisions.
The Roman Senate maintained a strategic grasp of the matters while selecting the right leaders to accomplish their tasks. Rome was able to prosecute the Second Punic War on multiple fronts, enjoying military success in Spain, Greece, and Africa nearly simultaneously. Its generals and Senate were mutually supportive and able to find victory through the aggressive leadership of its generals.
On the other hand, Carthage lacked this dynamic ability in its leaders outside Hannibal. While it is true that Hannibal enjoyed considerable success in defeating Roman armies and convincing Roman allies to defect, he could not deliver a decisive blow that would have forced Rome to surrender. By the time Hannibal reached Lake Trasemine, he had destroyed the Romans. He was within striking distance of the city itself. Taking the city of Rome would have sent an even stronger message about the power of Carthage and its role in world affairs.
Rather than strategizing to win support from Roman allies, Hannibal should have marched straight on Rome itself after his great victory at Lake Trasemine. Hannibal’s indecisiveness about taking Rome in one swift action, and his own government’s inability to reinforce him, allowed the Romans to rebuild their army repeatedly. By allowing the Romans to rebuild their forces continuously, the Carthaginians left the opportunity for Scipio Africanus to take Spain and eventually invade Africa.
The Second Punic War might have been avoided altogether if the first war had ended in Carthaginian victory. Never underestimate the Romans. Avoiding conflict with the Romans, as they were becoming much too powerful, is preferred. However, suppose Carthage sought a successful outcome against the Romans in a new war. In that case, the Roman strategy of swift action and decisiveness in both the government and military would be necessary to overcome advantages in manpower, sea power, and politics.
