Well, seeing how well he faired against the Romans in battle, I'd say he should have faced them on his way in. He might have lost less men, supplies and arms while taking Romans with him as opposed to losing half his army to the elements.
Well, seeing how well he faired against the Romans in battle, I'd say he should have faced them on his way in. He might have lost less men, supplies and arms while taking Romans with him as opposed to losing half his army to the elements.
No, he could not have taken Rome proper. So he tormented them from the countryside. The Romans kept an army between he and Rome at all times and simply shadowed him throughout the peninsula. Every time the Romans engaged Hannibal in open territory, they got bludgeoned very badly. Still Hannibal was smart enough to realize that his greatest weapon was fear. His campaign was more about paralyzing the Roman juggernaut in fear to keep Carthage safe. Scipio Africanus finally wised up and took the fight where it belonged, and once this was done, Carthage was doomed.
Well, didn?t Hannibal march up to the walls of Rome, only he lacked the tools and manpower to break through? I think it was the Romans who harassed him because they couldn?t beat him in the open field. They went and attacked villages that sided with Hannibal, forcing him to move around and stay on the defensive. The Romans were afraid of him because they knew how effective he was as a general, just as his father had been before him. By the time they took the fight to Carthage he no longer had the same resources he started out with. He had lost too many men. By then they knew his tactics and had more soldiers.Still, the fact that he couldn?t take the city even when in sight of it says something. I think if he had taken the approach that the Mongols took against Beijing he would have taken Rome.