Hannibal Barca's Failure To March On Rome

There is no doubt that Hannibal Barca was a military genius, however his failure to march on Rome after the battle of Cannae in 216BC was an immense mistake, as it led to the downfall of the great leader, and his nation; Carthage. Historians and scholars have disputed over his failure to march on Rome after the battle in Cannae, whilst considering whether he had the ability or the intention to march on Rome in the first place.

There has been an ongoing debate between modern and ancient scholars in regards to Hannibal’s capability to march on Rome after the battle in Cannae, as he required sufficient equipment, support and time; since he could have needed to siege Rome after his attack.

Modern historians Fuller, Doge and Hoyos argue that Hannibal

Rome had “raised two legions …and under M. Lunius order Rome released 8000 slaves, and an 6000 prisoner of for capital crimes for not paying debts, on the condition that they agree to serve in the Roman army”. However, Lazenby informs that “over 40 percent of the Italian allies had defected toward Carthage by 212 BC,” and the Etruscans and Umbrains began to join, therefore revealing that Hannibal had began to gain sufficient support. Hannibal also gained allegiance from the Gallic tribes whilst in Po Valley, however there allegiance is questioned by Doge, since they looked at him “ as a new master, and not from approval of his course”. Furthermore, a Hannibal had constructed a treaty with the Loric, which had “granted its autonomy but gave Carthage right of entry …. as well as each party to assist the other in peace and war.. Therefore, Rome would have to deal with “communities in Italy that sided with the Carthaginians” giving Hannibal a significant advantage, as he had eliminated those allies from acting as buffers. Hannibal should have marched on Rome after the battle in Cannae, since he was outnumbered 40,000 to 80,000 and managed to succeed, therefore he would be able to take on 2

Hannibal had set Latin allies free and ransomed Roman since he needed money, Quintus Ennius states “the victor is not victorious is if the vanquished does not consider himself so” since Rome refused to pay. Shean says that Hannibal had not Marched on Rome due to the, “least glamorous and most mundane reason of all: no food”. Hallward explains that Hannibal would not capture Rome “even if the opportunity had arisen” as it was not his intention. Hallward further explains that if Hannibal marched on Rome after the battle in Cannae …”the futility of such an empty gesture before the walls of Rome, which would have lessened the moral effect of his victory and would have abandoned the opportunity of obtaining more important gains”. Contradictorily, Livy and O’ Connell state that Hannibal had a “hatred” for Rome. Polybius, however believes that we don’t know what exactly was Hannibal’s intentions, perhaps he did want to capture Rome, yet scholars Hallward, Livy and Bagnall argue this. Goldsworthy states that “Hannibal should have marched on Rome …(not) to besiege or capture the city, …but to coerce the Romans to seek terms, or at lest to further erode their creditability to march on Latium. Nevertheless, it is evident tat Hanniabal had made a significant mistake by not marching on Rome after the