Hannibal didnt march on Rome because of numbers of his troops and no siege equipment. He was not prepared for siege. He was sitting in Italy and waiting for Rome to give up and force peace.
It had nothing to do with siege equipment. He could build it when he wanted and on site, which is attested by closer reading in the sources. His army was more than 250 miles away from Rome, and would have taken weeks to get there. Around 11 percent of it was dead after Cannae, and probably about half wounded. If he marched on Rome, he'd have had hardly 25,000 men, and would have been outnumbered by the Roman garrison defending the walls.
contrary of any military tactician would say; the psychological impact of a siege of Rome after the battle of Cannae would have torn apart the last allies of Rome... the italian peninsula at that time was inhabited by a mix of different peoples: etruscans, latins, ligures, samnites, umbrians, etc... most of them not being in good relations with Rome... Hannibal could have ended the myth of the roman's might and turned them all against Rome with just a single shot: the siege of Rome itself!
@donions you don't need to carry siege weapons... they will slow down your troops. usually the siege weapons were built at the siege location, with local materials...
or you can build a dirt ramp over the city wall with war prisoners like the romans used to do... or you can dig tunnels under the city wall, causing it to crumble, like the assyrians used to do... in theory you cannot siege a fortified city without siege weapons, but it actually happened ;)
@VASIOOO it happened before... Esarhaddon took the egyptian capitol; Memphis (a far larger city than Rome in the time of the 2nd punic war!) with only 15,000 troops... the assyrians were outnumbered 40:1 and yet they won... Genghis Khan's army was outnumbered 20:1 at the siege of Beijing and yet the mongols won... do not underestimate the panic! after Canae the romans were on the flee crying: "Hannibal ante portas!" because they had NO army left! Hannibal just didn't realize the opportunity...
finally a video that explains why Hannibal did not march on Rome. Most seem to think it was a tactical error on Hannibals part, when he was one of the few who really understood his army's situation in Italy.
@ZendeghiBahal yeah. If he didn't march on Rome it's because he really didn't think he could take the city. And he was not the conservative type, he was the one who crossed the goddamn Alps in winter, so it's pretty clear that his strategy simply did not include direct assault on Rome. It was the wisest thing to do. He didn't win in the end because he faced the most resilient, enduring enemy ever, not because of any mistake of his.
Hannibal didnt march on Rome because of numbers of his troops and no siege equipment. He was not prepared for siege. He was sitting in Italy and waiting for Rome to give up and force peace.
TheTroo 6 months ago
@TheTroo
It had nothing to do with siege equipment. He could build it when he wanted and on site, which is attested by closer reading in the sources. His army was more than 250 miles away from Rome, and would have taken weeks to get there. Around 11 percent of it was dead after Cannae, and probably about half wounded. If he marched on Rome, he'd have had hardly 25,000 men, and would have been outnumbered by the Roman garrison defending the walls.
kivati 1 month ago
contrary of any military tactician would say; the psychological impact of a siege of Rome after the battle of Cannae would have torn apart the last allies of Rome... the italian peninsula at that time was inhabited by a mix of different peoples: etruscans, latins, ligures, samnites, umbrians, etc... most of them not being in good relations with Rome... Hannibal could have ended the myth of the roman's might and turned them all against Rome with just a single shot: the siege of Rome itself!
bogdancomm 1 year ago 8
@bogdancomm you cant siege a massive city like Rome with 30thousand or so troops, and no siege equipment.
donions 9 months ago
@donions you don't need to carry siege weapons... they will slow down your troops. usually the siege weapons were built at the siege location, with local materials...
or you can build a dirt ramp over the city wall with war prisoners like the romans used to do... or you can dig tunnels under the city wall, causing it to crumble, like the assyrians used to do... in theory you cannot siege a fortified city without siege weapons, but it actually happened ;)
bogdancomm 9 months ago
@bogdancomm
:))
siege a city of 500.000 with mearly 27.000
suicide
VASIOOO 8 months ago
@VASIOOO it happened before... Esarhaddon took the egyptian capitol; Memphis (a far larger city than Rome in the time of the 2nd punic war!) with only 15,000 troops... the assyrians were outnumbered 40:1 and yet they won... Genghis Khan's army was outnumbered 20:1 at the siege of Beijing and yet the mongols won... do not underestimate the panic! after Canae the romans were on the flee crying: "Hannibal ante portas!" because they had NO army left! Hannibal just didn't realize the opportunity...
bogdancomm 8 months ago
@VASIOOO alot easier to feed 27,000 than it is to feed 500,000.
Proverbs1533 1 month ago
Excelent documentary!
jfarinhote 1 year ago
i like this video..
MrFK2 1 year ago
finally a video that explains why Hannibal did not march on Rome. Most seem to think it was a tactical error on Hannibals part, when he was one of the few who really understood his army's situation in Italy.
ZendeghiBahal 2 years ago 9
@ZendeghiBahal yeah. If he didn't march on Rome it's because he really didn't think he could take the city. And he was not the conservative type, he was the one who crossed the goddamn Alps in winter, so it's pretty clear that his strategy simply did not include direct assault on Rome. It was the wisest thing to do. He didn't win in the end because he faced the most resilient, enduring enemy ever, not because of any mistake of his.
ronasheton 1 year ago
ATTILA THE KHAN IS THE MAN
zohar5150 3 years ago
@zohar5150
attila the hun you smart ass
ulongkoror 1 year ago