Originally Posted by Honey Badger

I speculate that the answer is that Hannibal wanted Italian Gauls to join his army before he attacked the Romans.

The goal of his campaign may have been to trigger a revolt against the Romans on the Italian peninsula, he didn't think he could face the Romans alone. Hannibal routinely recruited other tribes to join his cause.

Many groups hated the Romans but not many dared to attack them because of of their military might. His plan may have been to unite everybody who despised the Romans and attack them together.

He avoided the Roman army in "France", why would he walk straight into them by taking the coastal route? This would not make any sense because it would be harder to face the Romans in this area, they were dug in and success against intrenched legions would have played into the Romans hands.

Hannibal took a route that would catch the Romans off-guard.
By doing so he suffered huge losses which were probably more then expected but probably not as many as he thought he would lose by facing the dugged-in Romans. It also allowed him to recruit more allies. And catch the Roman's off guard.

Hannibal like to control the tempo and place of his battles. Like Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of positioning in military strategy. Both thought that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through an established list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions. Planning works in a controlled environment; but in a changing environment, competing plans collide, creating unexpected situations.

When Hannibal did face the Romans he could choose the terrain and take it to the Romans on his terms we all know what happened next....

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

So the Mamertines, from Campania, were of Italian origin and thus should have preferred Roman over Carthaginian assistance in their fight against the Syracuse Greeks. Which they evidently did. So why wasn't the fight between Rome and their Mamertine allies against Syracuse and their Greek-Sicily city allies? Sounds like Carthage must have poked their nose in where they didn't have to. After they were expelled from Messana by the Mamertines they could have just stayed out of it.


PairTheBoard

Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit

The second Punic War was less of a Roman vs Carthage conflict, and more of a very powerfull Barca family vs. Rome situation. Carthage itself was not totally committed to the Barca Invasion of Italy untill it was really too late. Lots of speculation to be made if the Spanish Barca Carthage and the North African Carthage had worked together and sooner.

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

I just started "TheGhosts of Cannae". By Robert l o'connell. If anyone wants a review of it after, I'll post one.

Scipio is probably the most understudied military, historical, and political figure, ever. I've never read a biography of his that was a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Honey Badger

I would love to read your reivew. This book has been in my wish list on Amazon for awhile.

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

I downed about a third today, one of the perks of unemployed bums on rainy days in starbucks.

He seems to be taking a tack of Rome's economic engine was war, and Carthage's was commerce. He is placing a LOT of emphasis on the First Punic War's deletrious effect on Carthage. The most interesting stance he is taking is that Hannibal was only ethnically Phoenician, and that his upbringing, friends, education, and generalship was Hellenistic. Best anecdote so far that I don't recall was that at age nine, Hamilcar asked Hannibal if he wanted to go with daddy to Hispania, and when he said yes, Hannibal made him put his hand on the burnt corpse of an infant sacrifice to Baal and swear everlasting hatred for Rome. He cited Diodorus for that, I think, but I don't recall that in Diodorus from college, or reading it anywhere before.

Originally Posted by Honey Badger

I speculate that the answer is that Hannibal wanted Italian Gauls to join his army before he attacked the Romans.

The goal of his campaign may have been to trigger a revolt against the Romans on the Italian peninsula, he didn't think he could face the Romans alone. Hannibal routinely recruited other tribes to join his cause.

Many groups hated the Romans but not many dared to attack them because of of their military might. His plan may have been to unite everybody who despised the Romans and attack them together.

He avoided the Roman army in "France", why would he walk straight into them by taking the coastal route? This would not make any sense because it would be harder to face the Romans in this area, they were dug in and success against intrenched legions would have played into the Romans hands.

Hannibal took a route that would catch the Romans off-guard.
By doing so he suffered huge losses which were probably more then expected but probably not as many as he thought he would lose by facing the dugged-in Romans. It also allowed him to recruit more allies. And catch the Roman's off guard.

Hannibal like to control the tempo and place of his battles. Like Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of positioning in military strategy. Both thought that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through an established list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions. Planning works in a controlled environment; but in a changing environment, competing plans collide, creating unexpected situations.

When Hannibal did face the Romans he could choose the terrain and take it to the Romans on his terms we all know what happened next....

Originally Posted by scooternut123

Still beats me why Hannibal didn't attack Rome when he had the chance. Great tactical moves on his part starting with that surprise attack coming from the Alps instead of the via the Mediterranean towards Sicily.

Great moves around Rome, especially that ambush thing the did.

But the guy just didn't attack Rome. In fact he delayed so long that he wound up having to go back to Carthage to "defend" his home via an attack on Scipio.