Why did Hannibal Lose to Rome???? (HE COULD HAVE WON!!)

Something that I've always found fascinating is how Hannibal, the Carthaginian general, managed to invade Italy, defeat the Romans in three crushing victories, but still go on to lose the war. His defeat becomes even more astonishing when we have a look at the number of men that Rome lost. It lost about one-third of the Senate, an astonishing two-thirds of its overall manpower. I think the story of Hannibal becomes even more interesting when we compare it with that Like Hannibal, Alexander embarked on a daring invasion of a neighbouring state and defeated them in three decisive battles. However, that is where the similarity ends. While Hannibal would go on to lose the war, the empire that Alexander was fighting crumbled and he took the throne. So why couldn't Hannibal convert his victories in battle into victory in the war? How on earth did Rome not just survive, but end up winning? In this video, I'm going to answer all those questions, but first let's have an overview of the history, the astonishing story of the Second Punic War. In 264 BC, the Western Mediterranean was dominated by two main powers. One was Carthage, located in the north of Africa, in what is now Tunisia. It had been founded about 500 years earlier and had developed into a vast trading empire. It controlled the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, parts of Western Sicily and also areas in southern Spain. However, Carthage's power was about to be challenged by a rising force to the north, Rome. Rome was expanding fast. In the previous century and a half, it had brought the majority of Italy under its control and now it was beginning to involve itself in Sicily. Carthage, seeing a threat to its sphere of influence, warned Rome to stay away from Sicily. However, the Roman Republic did not take orders from foreign powers and so war was inevitable. War broke out in 264 BC and initially it didn't go well for Rome. Fighting across the water in Sicily required a navy, which Rome didn't have. Roman power had been built on the back of its highly effective legions, so while it could fight any power on land, it had no tradition of shipbuilding. However, the Romans endured their early defeats. They learned and adapted to the new kind of warfare. They captured Carthaginian ships and copied their design, mass-producing them on a scale that Carthage couldn't match. They also innovated, inventing new tactics like the corvus. That allowed them to pin their ships to the Carthaginians to cross over and fight in hand-to-hand combat. Eventually, after 23 years of war, Carthage surrendered and signed a humiliating agreement where it withdrew all claims to Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia. It was also forced to pay huge war indemnities to Rome. One Carthaginian general, Hamilcar Barca, refused to accept peace with the Romans. He withdrew to the Carthaginian territories in southern Spain and for the next decade he fought to expand them. Hamilcar would die in an ambush in 228 BC, but before he died he made his son swear an oath that they too would never accept peace with Rome. It was an oath that they would loyally follow for their entire lives. The eldest of his sons was Hannibal who had been learning the art of war since he was a young boy. He and his brothers were enormously wealthy and their territories in Spain were virtually independent of the Carthaginian state. In fact, the brothers were so powerful that in 218 BC Hannibal was able to launch his own war against Rome, laying siege to Rome's allies in Sagenta in the northeast of Spain. After an eight-month struggle Hannibal was able to take the city and from there he moved north. His army was composed of Carthaginians, mercenaries, allied Celtic tribes and North African Numidians. Famously, he also took with him 40 African war elephants. Hannibal managed to march that army over the Pyrenees, through hostile areas of Gaul and then across the Alps and into Italy. Once there he defeated the Romans in a series of battles, most notably Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. The Romans lost more than 100,000 men in just those three engagements. Cannae was particularly devastating. A lot of Rome's ruling elite were killed in the fighting and some even questioned whether the Roman state had a viable future. However, Rome refused to negotiate despite the almost supernatural genius of Hannibal on the battlefield. It not only managed to raise new army but even invaded Spain and Macedon to open up new theatres of war and deprive Hannibal of supplies and reinforcements. Hannibal's strategy was to create a big alliance of Celts, Greeks and Italian cities against Rome. However, Hannibal was only able to win over a few Italian allies and because he had so few men he was unable to protect them. The Romans knew that Hannibal could never match their resources and endless manpower so they employed a strategy of attritional warfare. They harassed Hannibal's army while ensuring that the city of Rome itself was safe behind its walls. Eventually, the Roman general Scipio invaded North Africa, forcing Hannibal to return and defend Carthage. The final showdown would happen at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. Scipio had studied Hannibal's tactics and now he was going to use them against the Carthaginian general. He neutralised Hannibal's elephants, fought his infantry to a standstill and turned his own Numidian allies against him. Zama would turn out to be one of Rome's greatest victories and Carthage had no choice but to sue for peace. In the treaty that followed, it was stripped of all its overseas possessions and forced to pay a 50 year indemnity. Its fleet was limited to just 10 ships and it was banned from having war elephants. As for Hannibal, he was left with no cause to fight for in his home country and so he took work as a military consultant in the east. There he would die around 183 BC. Rome meanwhile became the undisputed master of the Mediterranean. In 143 BC it captured Carthage itself and completely obliterated the city. Rome wanted to make sure that Carthage would never again be a threat and so they systematically tore down every building and cursed the site. The entire Carthaginian civilisation was destroyed. So that is what happened, the defeat of Carthage and Hannibal's failure. Why wasn't a military genius like Hannibal able to win the war? For me, one of the most important reasons is the fact that Rome's allies in Italy remained loyal. Not only was that hugely significant, I think it was actually fairly surprising. In hindsight, it's easy to take for granted that all of Rome's allies would remain loyal but I really don't think it was quite so obvious. For example, let's again compare the experience of Hannibal with that of Alexander the Great in Persia. In Persia, many of the territories defected to Alexander with little resistance. It seems that some of them had almost no loyalty to the Persian crown. For example, when Alexander defeated the Persian governor in Egypt, the entire territory surrendered to him and proclaimed him pharaoh. Other important cities like Sidon, Damascus and Babylon also welcomed Alexander. Some of them even gave him huge sums of money. I think when Hannibal invaded Italy and won three crushing victories, it would have been very reasonable to assume that all of Rome's allies would abandon him in a similar way. You have to remember that many of those cities had only recently been conquered by Rome. For example, the important port of Neapolis had come under Roman control in 327 BC, only about one century before Hannibal's invasion. Another important city, Brundisium, had been subjugated in 266 BC, less than 50 years prior. Even so, both of those allies remained loyal. Many of Rome's allies would have suffered horrific violence as they were conquered and yet only a few decades later, they didn't defect. They could very plausibly have viewed Hannibal as a liberator and seen his invasion as an opportunity to regain their independence. Now it is important to point out that some cities did switch sides, the most important being Capua. Capua was the second most important city in Italy and they saw an opportunity to defeat Rome and become the dominant power. That said, the majority of the cities in Italy did remain loyal to Rome and of course we need to ask why. One of the most important reasons is that Rome was known to be a good ally. It would go to war to protect its territories and vassal states. In fact, the war with Hannibal had started precisely because Rome had come to the defense of Segunta, its ally in Spain. Another reason is that Rome was known to be a ferocious enemy when betrayed. Those city-states knew that if Rome did win, retribution would be brutal and Hannibal wouldn't be around to protect them. Most towns in Italy took the pragmatic approach of staying with the devil they knew rather than risk a future in slavery. Another big reason that they remained loyal is that Rome had always been good at integrating people. It offered a path to citizenship for newly conquered people. That might seem unremarkable but at the time it was extremely unusual. For subjects of the Greeks or the Carthaginians, it was almost impossible to become full citizens. Rome, on the other hand, gave full citizenship to newly conquered people and that encouraged them to remain loyal. One of the main reasons that it was so significant that Rome's allies remained loyal is because they provided men. Throughout the entire war, Rome had an astonishing ability to find more men to replace those that it had lost. For example, at the Battle of Cannae, Rome lost about 80,000 men. Only one year later, it had already managed to raise another army of 100,000. It's estimated that Rome lost two-thirds of its manpower during the first three defeats to Hannibal. Any other state would have been destroyed by such huge losses. Rome managed to cling on in large part because it could get more men from its allies. That allowed Rome to refuse to negotiate and continue fighting. That was an enormous problem for Hannibal. You could even say it is the main reason that his plan failed. His overall strategy when invading Italy was to deal some crushing blows to the Romans, thinking that they would then come to the negotiating table. If they didn't agree to negotiate, then as a plan B, he would surely be able to win over Rome's allies and reduce its power that way. Of course, both those plans failed. Rome did refuse to negotiate and its allies remained loyal. That meant that the only way for Hannibal to win the war was to besiege Rome and take it by force. I think it's worth pointing out that for much of human history, a battle as decisive as Cannae would have virtually guaranteed victory because the victor would then simply mulch on the capital. It would have been irrelevant that Rome refused to negotiate because it would have been besieged and destroyed. That brings us on to another major reason that Hannibal lost. He wasn't in a position to do that. While Hannibal was one of the best generals in history in open battle, when it came to sieges he was far less impressive. There are several examples of Hannibal's limited ability when it came to siege warfare. The first is the siege of Sagunta that I mentioned earlier. It took Hannibal eight months to take a very small settlement that had only 10,000 inhabitants. That siege took place at the very beginning of the war when Hannibal's forces were fresh and at full strength. Another example of Hannibal's lack of success was at Nola. Nola was a town of only 30,000 people in Napoli. Three times Hannibal tried to besiege it and every time he failed. The first siege was just a few months after his victory at Cannae so the Romans were as weak as they were ever going to be. Even so, Hannibal was unable to take the town. As you can imagine, given that Hannibal struggled so much with taking small towns, it would have been almost impossible for him to take Rome. At that point, Rome was one of the largest cities in Europe with a population of about 250,000 people. Hannibal's army was never larger than 40,000 men, barely enough to completely encircle the city. Even if he had tried, another Roman army would probably have arrived to lift the siege and Hannibal would have had to fight the battle on two fronts. Hannibal was exceptional at field battles, guerrilla warfare and logistics, but it seems that he had no flair for siege warfare. In fact, he was never actually able to take and hold a large city. Again, I think it's interesting to compare him with Alexander the Great. Not only was Alexander exceptional in open battle, he was also a master of siege warfare. Even though he had roughly the same number of men as Hannibal, he was repeatedly able to besiege and take cities. For example, immediately after taking the throne in 335 BC, Alexander besieged Pellae in modern-day Albania and conquered it easily. The next year he invaded the Persian capital and successfully took Halicarnassus and Miletus. Unlike Hannibal, Alexander was very creative and daring when it came to sieges. He built siege towers that could be placed on boats and elaborate causeways called malls to reach fortresses that were shielded by water. At Gaza, his men actually tunneled underground to undermine the walls. That had a psychological impact on the defenders. It was like there was a ruthless monster or devil coming up from the earth to devour them. That made them much more likely to surrender rather than try to resist. If they believed that it was inevitable that Alexander would eventually take their city, they might as well just give up. Another reason that Alexander was more successful at sieges than Hannibal was that he was much more willing to lose men in the process. He was willing to directly assault the walls, even though it would cost him large numbers Hannibal, on the other hand, was always very cautious in how he used his troops, always trying to keep losses as low as possible. That did make him beloved of his men, but it was a large part of the reason that he struggled so much at siege warfare. If Hannibal had been better at sieges, I think it could have been a game changer. Then it wouldn't have mattered if Rome refused to negotiate or its allies remained loyal, as he would have been able to subjugate them by force. Another major reason that Hannibal failed was that he didn't have the full support of the Carthaginian state back in North Africa. Despite its loss in the First Punic War, Carthage was still a very powerful and wealthy city and its ability to wage war was significant. However, there were many powerful people in Carthage who resented Hannibal and his family's power in Spain. That was made even worse by the fact that Hannibal had actually started the war with Rome without the official backing of the Carthaginian state. Much of the Carthaginian ruling elite feared that another war with Rome would only end in defeat and further reduce Carthage's power. In their view, even if Hannibal was somehow successful in his invasion of Italy, the cost to Carthage in blood and treasure would be ruinous. They did have good reason for that outlook. Rome had endured losses in the First Punic War that would have compelled almost any other power to seek peace, but instead it had fought on with seemingly pathological determination. The First War had dragged on for almost a quarter of a century and brought Carthage to the brink of outright destruction. Nothing had changed in the meantime and so Hannibal's war looked like it was just going to be a repeat of that catastrophe. With those that wanted peace and those that hated him united against him, Hannibal found it almost impossible to get any aid from Carthage. Even after his momentous victory at Cannae, when his brother Mago showed the Carthaginian Senate the thousands of rims taken from the dead Romans, they still refused to give Hannibal the aid that he requested. The majority of the Carthaginian forces were sent to Spain. Hannibal was sent only a small force of 4,000 Numidian cavalry. That said, while the Carthaginian state wasn't particularly willing to help Hannibal, even if they had wanted to, it would have been difficult. That is because Rome had one huge advantage over Carthage that wasn't challenged throughout the entire 16 years of war. It controlled the seas. Let's not forget that the reason that Hannibal had to march his army and elephants across the Alps and into Italy was precisely because they couldn't be transported over the sea. The audacious crossing was less a stroke of tactical genius and more a bird born out of necessity. Of course, it did have huge downsides. Of the 40 elephants with which Hannibal embarked on his invasion of Italy, three quarters of them died en route. That perilous path had to be followed by Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, when he attempted to reinforce the main army. The Romans, on the other hand, were able to ship forces wherever they wanted with no difficulty. That allowed them to ship men to Spain to intercept any reinforcements that were going to come over the Alps. It was also a major factor in the war ending because it allowed Rome to send troops to North Africa to threaten Carthage itself. Of course, it was that which forced Hannibal to abandon his progress in Italy and return home. I think those are probably the main reasons that Hannibal failed, but I do think there are a couple of others worth mentioning. One is that almost all of the Carthaginian generals, other than Hannibal, were fairly weak. Hannibal's brothers fought many battles against the Roman armies, but barely had any major victories. As the Roman generals got better, it became the case that the average Roman general was better than the average Carthaginian general, with the exception of Hannibal. If Carthage had had a few more generals as talented as Hannibal, perhaps that would have changed the course of the war. Something else is that Carthage had to rely on mercenaries for its armies, which had some obvious disadvantages. Mercenaries were less reliable and loyal than citizen soldiers would have been. At the Battle of Zama, the final battle which secured Carthage's defeat, Hannibal lost precisely because his mercenary cavalry defected to join the Romans. Overall, there are many reasons that Hannibal failed, but for me it can be summed up by saying that his overall strategy was bad. He made a plan based around Rome negotiating, and when they didn't, he really didn't know what to do. Given that he knew how tenaciously Rome had fought during the First War, that was an unforgivable mistake. All that said, I actually think Rome was always likely to eclipse Carthage, and that is because of something that I mentioned earlier, the fundamentally different ways that the two states treated citizenship. Rome almost forcibly turned conquered people into citizens, giving itself a huge population to draw upon during times of war. Carthage, on the other hand, made it almost impossible for non-citizens to become citizens. Only the children of full Carthaginians had full citizenship. Even the children of one citizen and one non-citizen weren't full Carthaginians. That meant that in any war, there would always be very few men to fight, and so their armies would have to rely mainly on mercenaries. It meant that there were fewer people truly invested in the future of the Carthaginian state. Perhaps then, while the story of Rome's defeat of Hannibal was extremely dramatic, it was in fact merely a manifestation of something that was always going to happen.