Why didn’t Hannibal attack Rome? ⚔️ Hannibal Part 7 – Second Punic War

10 Comments

1. After the battle of Lake Trasimene, Hannibal was at a crossroad. For the first time he had the opportunity to try to take Rome. We wanted to discuss this important issue in a separate video before the three important upcoming battles (Geronium, Ager Falernus and Cannae).
   
   Should he have tried to attack the Roman capital after Trasimene? Since the times of Polybius, historians argue about this issue and we'd love to see what your thoughts are.

   Reply

2. The day I go down to hell I will ask Anibal “Why did you never decide to march over Rome itself?” You had everychance to destroy Rome.

   Reply

3. Conquer Rome is hard asfuck boi

   Reply

4. I think you might have answer a bit of why Hannibal didn't attack, the idea that Rome would not surrender through a peace deal and fight to the last person. Considering that Hannibal had already defeated five Roman armies (one being destroyed practically) with Rome still not backing down probably is what made him realize attacking Rome wouldn't work in his favor. Besieging it would not work as it would steel the resolve the citizens and make them more rebellious, and considering an army is most likely in the city Hannibal would not be able to hold the roads to break them as there is currently two armies in the vicinity whom can travel up the road to strike while the other army in the city and come in for a pincer maneuver (though to coordinate something like would be difficult) meaning the position of armies he didn't know could cost him everything. In short even if the naval blockage worked it wouldn't have given him a clear advantage, so a siege would not work in the long run for him.
   It may also be possible that Hannibal was hoping to inflict more destruction in the peninsula to reduce the war effort for Rome for every where else. Looking at the map the ships positioned near would make more sense to prevent resources reaching the target islands in the Med., allowing those armies to lose war material and make it easier to invade and capture them. This would mean that Hannibal may have pushed to Sicily to render it under Carthaginian hands and successfully recover what was lost in the first Punic war, meaning attacking Rome was never the objective.

   Reply

5. One of history's great unsolved questions.

   Reply

6. Gladius Maximus of the Gladiator…?

   Reply

7. Hannibal was more of a guerrilla type of warrior, always surprising the enemy, trapping, faking retreats and so on. He did not want to risk such an obvious move as Romans were expecting , he wanted to keep his enemy on their toes. It is a superb way to act when on a foreign terrain, far from home. He had to keep as many as his loyal soldiers alive because new ones were hard to get and could desert him any moment.

   Reply

8. I love the vid but I must correct one little flaw:

   7:27 “Seventy ships was over 60% of their entire fleet.”

   If they had 70 ships there and 60 ships elsewhere, then their “entire fleet” is 130 ships. 70 is LESS than 60% of 130.

   Reply

9. He didn't have the resources. The Carthaginians didn't want to fund the total destruction. Hannibal was also a brute. He wasn't a ruler. Ruling over Rome would have been very improbable….maybe he was also content. He saw a comfortable life where he was. What future was there for trying to seize Rome? It would have been the end of him. Rome's walls were built for people like Hannibal…..if one attack had been repelled, it would have given Rome opportunity for an advantageous repelling.

   Reply

10. Very nice history of Roman excellent

    Reply