history

23068 readers

133 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why didn't Hannibal attack the city of Rome itself? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Maybe I have the facts wrong, but here is what I understand happened:

Hannibal crossed the Alps in 218 BC with adorable 7-foot-tall elephants
Hannibal trounces the Romans in every battle, Cannae, Capua twice, Herdonia in 212
Hannibal controls a good bit of Italy now: 217 map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png
The Romans fight Carthaginian territories in Africa and Iberia, eventually Hannibal has to leave Italy to defend them

Seems like he had plenty of time to strike at the nerve centre? Why didn't he sack Rome after Cannae or something? Or am I misunderstanding the facts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Hannibal would trounce the Romans on the field, but he didn't have the capability for a long term siege. His goal was to get the cities of Italy to throw in their lot with him. Another issue was the Carthagnaginian senate didn't really support Hannibal. His dad basically ruled Spain with Carthage rubber stamping it to get this veteran general out of the city. As far as I know they were wary to support his son as well.