Velociraptor

The Romans also benefited from Bona Fortuna when they intercepted the correspondences between Hannibal and Philip V, and Hannibal and Hasdrubal. I guess we can only criticize in retrospect, but it was not wise of Hasdrubal to write down his plans to hook up with Hannibal, and not simply commit the plans to the memories of the 6 messengers who rode all the way down Italy, only to be caught around Tarentum. But they certainly would have been tortured for the information. Fortune definitely did not favor Hannibal in many circumstances.

Well, definitely one of them. I disagree though about Zama. Hannibal's tactics were subtle, and not intended to encircle and destroy. His use of 3 lines, each acting independently, did much to wear down Scipio's army. It's possible Hannibal used his cavalry to draw away the superior Numidian/Roman horse, thus making the main battle an infantry one. Some say it was the scattered elephants that did most damage upon Hannibal's own cavalry, but their riders had weapons to kill them, so this might not be true. Scipio organized and re-formed very well, but it was the discipline and better morale of the Romans that came through. I think the key to the battle was the handling of the elephants and the superior cavalry. I certainly agree if Hannibal had succeeded, even with Rome dominant much later down the road (delaying her realm over the Western world), he would be held in higher esteem than other greats like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. I don't think they were any better as raw military geniuses.

Yes, I think Hannibal viewed the Roman alliance similar to that of his own country, which grounded subjects down with heavy tribute. He thought he could finish the growing Roman empire by stirring a revolt among her allies, as the Truceless War had almost ruined Carthage by revolting mercenaries a few decades earlier. I think his aim of detaching the Latin peoples of central Italy in Latium etc. was doomed from the start, but his overall operational aim of encircling Italy from around the Mediterranean was not far-fetched at all. Syracuse revolted and Macedon was allied with him. The less-reconciled Greeks joined him in southern Italy, and if it seemed his chances of winning the war increased, more of them would have probably done so. The Romans simply were more aggressive in closing those doors than Carthage and Philip of Macedon were to exploit them. Many people in Italy had to reckon who was probably going to win the war, and thier allegiances maybe were aimed at this, and not complete loyalty to Rome. What Spartan JKM mentined about the 12 colonies is very significant: Rome was clearly being strained. I doubt, however, Hannibal was joined by many cities solely because they believed in his cause. Terror and force played a part. I read once something like, "Hannibal transcended the traditional ability of the soldiers who fought for him". If so, this says a lot for Scipio Africanus, who had abetter army at Zama, but a smaller one against green troops in the first 2 lines under this very incredible general who could get the most out of troops.

Great topic Spartan. Wonderful scholarship on your part. I always found it intriguing that despite Hannibal's genius, his incorporation of Gallics and Numidians etc. into his army to 'liberate' the peoples of Italy from the Romans yoke. Why would these people, under an alliance of strong bonds of nationhood, leave their Roman masters for people who had been pillaging Italy for many years before and 'barbarians' from Africa? No question though - he came very close. Great tpoic. I'd like to go over a lot.