Why did Hannibal lost the war?

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

Guaporense said:
Actually the total resources under control by Rome and Carthage were comparable. If Rome had 10 times the resources of Carthage both city states wouldn't engage in war for a total of 40 (!) years before a decisive outcome could be reached.

I don't think that the difference in resources between Rome and Carthage was all that great as people think it was. I have counted all the troops engaged in all the battles that wikipedia has manpower numbers for (which are derived from ancient sources) and I have reached 650,000 men for Carthage and 770,000 for Rome, a manpower superiority of 20% for Rome. However as Sylla1 have argued, since these numbers were derived from pro-Roman sources they tended to exaggerate Carthaginian troop numbers and understate Roman troop numbers. Still, considering the literary evidence it appears that if our sources are not that distorted them Carthage did not suffer from such inferiority in resources after all.

There are some pretty basic problems with that number, including too many well rounded ratios, the inability to be sure that the infantry of say the Messapians represents the share of the general population as among Romans or Latins. The manpower for infantry with citizen status equals the 250,000 of the allies - and more importantly, the proportion of foot soldiers and cavalry equals the classica ideal of 10:1 (5:1), making the figures present proportions within the army, not so much available manpower. Also, these figures came from Fabius Pictor, who was writing in Greek, and presenting it and emphasizing the coalition of the Italic peoples under the leadership of Rome, deliberately echoing Greece's coalitions against the Persian Empire, and to impress his readership of the enormous manpower advantages Rome had. Accordingly, Erdkamp believes the manpower survey does not bear the weight of calculations that are based on it. (Erdkamp, Manpower and Food Supply in the First and Second Punic Wars in Hoyos (ed), Companion to the Punic Wars, pp.58-65)

sylla1 · Dec 31, 2011

IMHO a good indirect indicator on the limited contemporary Punic manpower potential was the fact that the consuls for DXXXVI AUC / 218 BC (Publius Cornelius Scipio [Major] / Tiberius Sempronius Longus) considered that the recruitment of six legions was enough to attack the Cartaginian empire (three under PCS to invade Hispania, three from Sicily under TSL).

tomar · Dec 31, 2011

Guaporense said:
Actually the total resources under control by Rome and Carthage were comparable. If Rome had 10 times the resources of Carthage both city states wouldn't engage in war for a total of 40 (!) years before a decisive outcome could be reached.

I don't think that the difference in resources between Rome and Carthage was all that great as people think it was. I have counted all the troops engaged in all the battles that wikipedia has manpower numbers for (which are derived from ancient sources) and I have reached 650,000 men for Carthage and 770,000 for Rome, a manpower superiority of 20% for Rome. However as Sylla1 have argued, since these numbers were derived from pro-Roman sources they tended to exaggerate Carthaginian troop numbers and understate Roman troop numbers. Still, considering the literary evidence it appears that if our sources are not that distorted them Carthage did not suffer from such inferiority in resources after all.

Nope..

Even today after a massive population boom in Tunisia (which is now over) Italy has 6 times the population of Tunisia (this ratio was 16 in 1900).

Carthage did not even control the whole of Tunisia. Carthage had much less arable land (and this land -as is the case today- was less productive due to lesser rainfall and water supply) much less population, much less wood and probably less metal than Rome. Counting manpower in battles is irrelevant, the figures are wrong to start with, and when a soldier participates in 2 battles you are double counting.

Cornelius · Dec 31, 2011

In response to the manpower discussion,

Im currently reading "The Fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy, and he claims that the major part of the Punic armies consisted of Spanish, Gallic, Libyan and Numidian mercenaries, not Carthaginian citizens. By 218 BC, Carthage had a major empire in Spain, and Spain provided Carthage with a great number of soldiers. As such, it is irrelevant whether Carthaginian Africa (modern northern Tunisia, which, according to Goldsworthy, was far more fertile than today and could thus support a large population) could rival Rome in terms of manpower. The combined Carthaginian empire, however, most likely could rival Rome and her allies in terms of manpower, or at least wasn't far behind. On the other hand, the Spanish would prove not to be particularly loyal, whereas most of Rome's allies remained loyal even after Cannae. Also, it was difficult for Hannibal to receive reinforcements from the great manpower reserve of Spain, and from Africa too for that matter (he only got reinforcements once, I believe), as evidenced by the battle of the Metaurus in 207 BC. Rome, however, had a much more immediate access to her manpower resources, and could thus replace lost troops much more effectively (witness the aftermath of Cannae, when new Roman forces were raised with astonishing speed). So the actual manpower available to Rome and Carthage respectively may not have differed greatly, but Rome could use her resources much more effectively.

tomar · Dec 31, 2011

Cornelius said:
In response to the manpower discussion,

Im currently reading "The Fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy, and he claims that the major part of the Punic armies consisted of Spanish, Gallic, Libyan and Numidian mercenaries, not Carthaginian citizens. By 218 BC, Carthage had a major empire in Spain, and Spain provided Carthage with a great number of soldiers. As such, it is irrelevant whether Carthaginian Africa (modern northern Tunisia, which, according to Goldsworthy, was far more fertile than today and could thus support a large population) could rival Rome in terms of manpower. The combined Carthaginian empire, however, most likely could rival Rome and her allies in terms of manpower, or at least wasn't far behind. .

Disagree.... Carthage controlled Spain consisted of small "islands" or parcels and did not represent a significant portion of the territory/population. Moreover loyalties were shifting and the romans were able to recruit in Spain as well....

As for Tunisia being more fertile then, perhaps it was so... but in that case Italy would have been more fertile as well......again rainfall is important.... What is important is the relative fertility of Italy to Tunisia,,, it is higher today, and it was higher then

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

tomar said:
Disagree.... Carthage controlled Spain consisted of small "islands" or parcels and did not represent a significant portion of the territory/population. Moreover loyalties were shifting and the romans were able to recruit in Spain as well....

As for Tunisia being more fertile then, perhaps it was so... but in that case Italy would have been more fertile as well......again rainfall is important.... What is important is the relative fertility of Italy to Tunisia,,, it is higher today, and it was higher then

Carthage control of Spain was extended as far as the River Tagus by Hannibal, though the addition of territory added by Hannibal (which was about half the territory recorded) wasn't as populated as what his father and brother-in-law had won. The problem was it was also generally only recently acquired territory, meaning politcal ties with the various communities weren't as solid as Roman ones, and as evidenced in the literary sources, was prone to rebellion and switching sides. Even the ancient Phoenician colonies like Gades eventually refused to admit Carthaginians back into its city, as Mago Barca cruelly found out at a time of need.

tomar · Dec 31, 2011

markdienekes said:
Carthage control of Spain was extended as far as the River Tagus by Hannibal, though the addition of territory added by Hannibal (which was about half the territory recorded) wasn't as populated as what his father and brother-in-law had won. The problem was it was also generally only recently acquired territory, meaning politcal ties with the various communities weren't as solid as Roman ones, and as evidenced in the literary sources, was prone to rebellion and switching sides.

Exactly....

More over the above map is misleading in that we tend to view it with our modern eyes accustomed to nation states, with set borders, passport control, currency specific to the country and such......This was not at all the case then, at best the map represents territory over which Carthage exerted a varying degree of influence. Again there would be "islands" were Carthage control was strong and vast tracts of territory where it was weak or non existent.

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

tomar said:
Exactly....

More over the above map is misleading in that we tend to view it with our modern eyes accustomed to nation states, with set borders, passport control, currency specific to the country and such......This was not at all the case then, at best the map represents territory over which Carthage exerted a varying degree of influence. Again there would be "islands" were Carthage control was strong and vast tracts of territory where it was weak or non existent.

Agreed - we really have little clues as to the nature of the control of this area - no doubt it varied between the communities (for example, the Barcid's married into a Spanish community when Hasdrubal the Fair and Hannibal took Spanish wives, through conquest, and those overawed by his recent military conquests up to the River Tagus through submission).

Cornelius · Dec 31, 2011

tomar said:
As for Tunisia being more fertile then, perhaps it was so... but in that case Italy would have been more fertile as well......again rainfall is important.... What is important is the relative fertility of Italy to Tunisia,,, it is higher today, and it was higher then

I'll quote a couple of passages from Goldsworthy's "The Fall of Carthage" to prove you wrong here:

"The land was fertile (far more so than today), the climate favourable and their productivity foreshadowed the time when the African provinces would be the great granaries of the Roman empire."

"In 300 the land controlled by Carthage was significantly greater than the ager Romanus, the lands owned by the Roman people, and rivalled the sum of these and the territories of Rome's allies. Its yield was probably significantly greater, for much of the land in Italy had poorer soil."

tomar · Dec 31, 2011

Cornelius said:
I'll quote a couple of passages from Goldsworthy's "The Fall of Carthage" to prove you wrong here:

"The land was fertile (far more so than today), the climate favourable and their productivity foreshadowed the time when the African provinces would be the great granaries of the Roman empire."

"In 300 the land controlled by Carthage was significantly greater than the ager Romanus, the lands owned by the Roman people, and rivalled the sum of these and the territories of Rome's allies. Its yield was probably significantly greater, for much of the land in Italy had poorer soil."

What evidence does he have to support this ?

Facts:

-Italy is twice the size of Tunisia
-Italy gets more rainfall and has better water supplies than Tunisia (it would take a weird climatic event to change this since Italy is much further North than Tunisia)
-Nowadays Italy has 10 times the forest area of Tunisia and 3 times the arable land.
-The yield per hectare of wheat in Italy is on average twice higher than in Tunisia
-40% of Tunisia is a desert

Of course certain areas in North Africa (in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco) due to their mild climate and decent water supply are good for agriculture but even there the yields are much lower than in Europe, even southern Europe. There simply is not enough water, and I dont believe there is any evidence of any large rivers having existed there in the 3rd century BC

In the end it does not matter how many millions of square km of desert Carthage nominally controlled....... the fact is it had very little productive land and less population than Rome... also much less wood... which might help explain why it lost naval supremacy to Rome relatively quickly

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

tomar said:
In the end it does not matter how many millions of square km of desert Carthage nominally controlled....... the fact is it had very little productive land and less population than Rome... also much less wood... which might help explain why it lost naval supremacy to Rome relatively quickly

The forested mountains of Libya provided plenty of wood, such as oak from the Mogod and Monts de la Mejerda uplands north of the Bagradas River. Numidian forests also presented them with further resources. Perhaps the simple reason for why they lost naval supremacy was because they adopted the quinquereme quite late, and the last war they had was in 278-276 against Pyrrhus which involved little sea action, thus the navy had not had any serious combat experience, nor the following generation. The large naval battles of the first Punic War may not have been fought by very dissimilar opponents as usually thought. They didn't really have naval superiority in the Mediterranean before that either to be honest.

tomar said:
There simply is not enough water, and I dont believe there is any evidence of any large rivers having existed there in the 3rd century BC.

The Bagradas River, (the Wadi Majardah) was quite big back then.

On productive land, Hoyos remarks that Carthage did indeed have very productive land, but I can't seem to find a source for where he got the information, but I'd read The Carthaginians by Dexter Hoyos as it provides the most current, up-to-date knowledge on Carthage in print.

Cornelius · Dec 31, 2011

tomar said:
What evidence does he have to support this ?

Facts:

-Italy is twice the size of Tunisia
-Italy gets more rainfall and has better water supplies than Tunisia (it would take a weird climatic event to change this since Italy is much further North than Tunisia)
-Nowadays Italy has 10 times the forest area of Tunisia and 3 times the arable land.
-The yield per hectare of wheat in Italy is on average twice higher than in Tunisia
-40% of Tunisia is a desert

Of course certain areas in North Africa (in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco) due to their mild climate and decent water supply are good for agriculture but even there the yields are much lower than in Europe, even southern Europe. There simply is not enough water, and I dont believe there is any evidence of any large rivers having existed there in the 3rd century BC

In the end it does not matter how many millions of square km of desert Carthage nominally controlled....... the fact is it had very little productive land and less population than Rome... also much less wood... which might help explain why it lost naval supremacy to Rome relatively quickly

I don't know what evidence he has, but I do know that he is one of the most knowledgeable and reliable historians of today. So, no offence, but I'll take his word for it. I'm sure he has plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could present some evidence of your own to support your so-called facts?

You mentioned the lack of water, but there was actually plenty of water in Carthaginian north Africa, namely the great river Bagradas, which, much like the Nile in Egypt, made the land very fertile. The situation today is simply not relevant in this context; climate can change dramatically in 2,000 years. As for Carthage losing naval supremacy, I would think that had more to do with the defeats at Mylae, Ecnomus and the Aegates Islands. And what do you mean by "quickly"? Carthage still had a formidable fleet in 241 (the last year of the war) when the Romans won the decisive battle at the Aegates Islands. So I don't know about quickly.

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

Diodorus records a description of the Carthaginian countryside which sounds as though based on a source from an eye-witness for Agathocles of Syracuse's invasion of Africa in 310:

The intervening country through which it was necessary for them to march was divided into gardens and plantations of every kind, since many streams of water were led in small channels and irrigated every part. There were also country houses one after the other, constructed in luxurious fashion and covered in stucco, which gave evidence of the wealth of the people who possessed them. The farm buildings were filled with everything that was needful for enjoyment, seeing that the inhabitants in a long period of peace had stored up an abundant variety of products. Part of the land was planted with vines, and part yielded olives and was also planted thickly with other varieties of fruit-bearing trees. On each side herds of cattle and flocks of sheep pastured on the plain, and the neighboring meadows were filled with grazing horses. In general there was a manifold prosperity in the region, since the leading Carthaginians had laid out there their private estates and with their wealth had beatified them for their enjoyment. (20.8.3-4)

This coincides with Polybius' comments on the productivity of the chora (Carthage's home territory). It certainly does appear to be quite productive.

Hoyos presents more information on the countryside outside of the chora: There were plenty of fruitful areas in the countryside beyond the chora: the lower Bagradas valley, the so-called 'little Mesopotamia' between this and the Catadas (modern Mellane) river to its east, and also (by the 4th Century BC) the uplands around the middle Bagradas and its tributaries the Siliana and the Muthal – regions of populous towns like Thugga, Uchi, Thurbursicu and Bulla; not to mention the richest region of all, Byzacium. (Hoyos, The Carthaginians, p.65)

sylla1 · Dec 31, 2011

Please note that even if the minute details of the demographics of Carthage were currently known (rather far from being the actual case) those details would be in all ikelihood just poor proxies of the Punic manpower potential, mainly because we are simply entirely ignorant on the recruitment process and requirements for the ostensibly predominantly foreign Punic army, or even for the presumably predominantly national Punic fleet.

Again, IMHO for the purposes of this thread it is far more valuable the relatively discrete amount of the Roman forces specifically recruited to invade the Carthaginian state from two fronts by the consuls PC Scipio & TS Longus.

After the previous centuries-long Roman-Punic alliance, the two decades plus Punic War I and the almost equivalent "cold war" period following the later, it is noteworthy that the Romans (inevitably the Senate as a whole included) might have concluded that "just" six legions would have been enough for such task.

markdienekes · Dec 31, 2011

sylla1 said:
After the previous centuries-long Roman-Punic alliance, the two decades plus Punic War I and the almost equivalent "cold war" period following the later, it is noteworthy that the Romans (inevitably the Senate as a whole included) might have concluded that "just" six legions would have been enough for such task.

An interesting point, Sylla.
When Regulus invaded Africa in 256 BC, he had only some 15,000 infantry and 500 horse - obviously the chora wasn't as developed as 40 years later... but still, it is a very small invasion force that he was expected to achieve victory with!

sylla1 · Dec 31, 2011

markdienekes said:
An interesting point, Sylla.
When Regulus invaded Africa in 256 BC, he had only some 15,000 infantry and 500 horse - obviously the chora wasn't as developed as 40 years later... but still, it is a very small invasion force that he was expected to achieve victory with!

Sadly, it is IMHO extremely hard to achieve any valid conclusion from any numbers of the highly fictionalized & utterly chauvinistic account of CA Regulus and Xanthippos (I mean, "highly" & "utterly" even for the standards of ancient historians).

We are talking here about:
- The same Caius (or Marcus??) Attilius Regulus who purportedly killed a 120 feet serpent at the Bagradas river and sent its skin to Rome for exhibition;
- The same Roman commander who was purportedly defeated just because some obcure (but Hellenic) mercenary informed the Carthaginians after so many years of training war elephants the amazing secret information that the lines of infantry at battle could be crushed by such beasts (?!?!?);
- The same who purportedly so bravely returned to Carthage as a prisoner on his own will after having failed his mission at Rome just to face his obvious fate;
- And the same that would have been tortured by the amputation of his eyelids plus sun exposition and sleep deprivation up to death (the later anecdote BTW used as an explicit justificaton of the simultaneous use of Roman torture for the Punic POW).

In such conditions, it would be IMHO quite speculative & risky (to say the least) to consider the aforementioned figure of 15,500 Roman invaders as just any sober unbiased objective numerical description of the facts.

tomar · Jan 1, 2012

markdienekes said:
. In general there was a manifold prosperity in the region, since the leading Carthaginians had laid out there their private estates and with their wealth had beatified them for their enjoyment. (20.8.3-4)

This coincides with Polybius' comments on the productivity of the chora (Carthage's home territory). It certainly does appear to be quite productive.

Hoyos presents more information on the countryside outside of the chora: There were plenty of fruitful areas in the countryside beyond the chora: the lower Bagradas valley, the so-called 'little Mesopotamia' between this and the Catadas (modern Mellane) river to its east, and also (by the 4th Century BC) the uplands around the middle Bagradas and its tributaries the Siliana and the Muthal – regions of populous towns like Thugga, Uchi, Thurbursicu and Bulla; not to mention the richest region of all, Byzacium. (Hoyos, The Carthaginians, p.65)

Again I am not saying that there is not good agricultural land in small parts of North Africa. You are right about the Bagradas, which is still the mainstay of Tunisian agriculture today. I am simply saying that there is not enough of it and not enough water.
Perhaps a good illustration is Lybia vs India.. Lybia has more than 50% the land area of India, but less than 0.5% the population...i.e India is 100 times more populous than Lybia per sq km. That is the result of the ample water supply India gets through the moonsoon rain.

If you go to Tunis today, you will see plenty of beautiful villas, expensive cars and hear about the local millionaires/ billionaires... If however you conclude from that that Tunisia is a rich as Italy you would be wrong. Tunisia GDP per capita is about 10 times less than Italy's

Even if the climate was better in ancient times in Tunisia (in which case it was better as well in central Italy given the relative geographical locations of these 2 areas) there was no way northern Tunisia could compete economically with central Italy, it just does not have the resource base. It cant now, and it could not then. It's no accident that Carthaginians resorted to trade and colonization early on.

tomar · Jan 1, 2012

markdienekes said:
An interesting point, Sylla.
When Regulus invaded Africa in 256 BC, he had only some 15,000 infantry and 500 horse - obviously the chora wasn't as developed as 40 years later... but still, it is a very small invasion force that he was expected to achieve victory with!

Actually these numbers at least sound plausible in terms of the logistics involved, the transportation capability required etc....... In addition they would probably expect to recruit locally to supplement their forces.

Also this was about same estimated scale of the Vandal force which invaded north Africa (though much later of course) and apparently of the arab invasion force still later on. Finally, when the french invaded Tunisia in the late 19th century it was with a force of about 30,000

tomar · Jan 1, 2012

Cornelius said:
I don't know what evidence he has, but I do know that he is one of the most knowledgeable and reliable historians of today. So, no offence, but I'll take his word for it. I'm sure he has plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could present some evidence of your own to support your so-called facts?

You mentioned the lack of water, but there was actually plenty of water in Carthaginian north Africa, namely the great river Bagradas, which, much like the Nile in Egypt, made the land very fertile. The situation today is simply not relevant in this context; climate can change dramatically in 2,000 years. .

You are right to doubt and verify my information. But facts are facts and those I quote you can verify from a multitude of serious sources such as the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) for land productivity

I am surprised that you dont apply the same logic to Goldsworthy. I have found his work to be of unequal quality and you should certainly not trust him - or any other source for that matter- blindly (otherwise, next you'll be believing that Carthaginians had flying elephants)

BTW even he states that one the causes of the Roman victory was
"Rome possessed resources well beyond those of Carthage, both in men and goods, which made it possible for Rome to fight a multi-decade war regardless of the cost"

In any case in this particular book Goldsworthy brings nothing new to the table and does not challenge the usual cliches associated with the punic wars,

tomar · Jan 1, 2012

Cornelius said:
As for Carthage losing naval supremacy, I would think that had more to do with the defeats at Mylae, Ecnomus and the Aegates Islands. And what do you mean by "quickly"? Carthage still had a formidable fleet in 241 (the last year of the war) when the Romans won the decisive battle at the Aegates Islands. So I don't know about quickly.

I have the following timeline

261 BC - Battle of Agrigentum, which results in a Roman victory and capture of the city. Rome decides to build a fleet to threaten Carthaginian domination in the sea.

260 BC - First naval encounter (battle of the Lipari Islands) is a disaster to Rome, but soon afterwards, Gaius Duilius wins the battle of Mylae with the help of the corvus engine.

258 BC - Naval battle of Sulci: Roman victory.

257 BC - Naval battle of Tyndaris: Roman victory.

256 BC - Rome attempts to invade Africa and Carthage attempts to intersect the transport fleet. The resulting battle of Cape Ecnomus is a major victory for Rome, who lands in Africa and advances on Carthage. The battle of Adys is the first Roman success in African soil and Carthage sues for peace. Negotiations fail to reach agreement and the war continues.

So basically one year after they decide to build a fleet, the romans start whipping the carthaginians at sea. And five years later they have enough naval dominance that they can organize a seaborne landing in Africa. I dont know how much quicker than that it can get, since supposedly Carthage had da best naval force in the med (well apparently not, given how easily and quickly the romans challenged and won dominance)

Search

Search

Why did Hannibal lost the war?

markdienekes

sylla1

tomar

Cornelius

tomar

markdienekes

tomar

markdienekes

Cornelius

tomar

markdienekes

Cornelius

markdienekes

sylla1

markdienekes

sylla1

tomar

tomar

tomar

tomar

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions