Hannibal's Dilemma at Cannae

What is Cannae?

Okay! Timeline! Today, I would like to discuss Hannibal Barca's dilemma after his victory in Cannae. I would also like to discuss the situation if Hannibal had continued with his assault on Rome, and if things would have been different had Hannibal pressed on with the attack on Rome. How different would the world be, and if so, how?

Photo of a Bust of Hannibal Barca (Courtesy of World History Encyclopedia https://www.worldhistory.org/image/4387/hannibal-barca-bust/)

To begin, let's discuss what happened at Cannae. Cannae was a small but strategic town near the Adriatic coast on the far side of the Aufidus River in Italy. The Carthagians were desperate for food to supply their pillaging army. They were also looking for a means to coax the Roman military into attacking them in open battle, thereby allowing Hannibal and Carthage to make use of their superior cavalry, giving them a military advantage. Consequently, Rome had established a grain depot to collect and store food in Cannae, likely because Cannae's being on the coast made it easy to transport goods around back and forth, so this was a convenient situation for Hannibal. Before the Romans could react, Hannibal forced his men to attack and secure the town and grain stores. The Roman Senate, fearful of starvation, ordered both of its newly appointed consuls to take back the grain stores.

Rome had an army of approximately 80,000 men. They had two consuls, Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro, who took turns leading their army as opposed to Hannibal on the opposing side, who solely led the Carthaginians, which caused confusion in leadership on the Roman side. Paullus was very conservative in his tactics, whereas Varro was very brash. Hannibal also crossed the Alps with most of his army, and at this point, had won many military victories in Italy, defeating many Roman soldiers. As a result, the majority of his army was seasoned veterans, and the Roman military was novices. As a result, one day, when Varro took command of the Roman army and ordered his men to assault the Carthaginians, Hannibal thinned out his men and ensnared the Roman army in a trap, slaughtering them and delivering a devastating defeat.

---

What is the Dilemma?

There is a story that says that Maharbal, Hannibal's old friend, was the only one of his army to press Hannibal to move on with his attack on Rome while the rest of Hannibal's men were drunk with victory. Hannibal humbly declined, and Maharbal responded that, "[Hannibal] knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it." Hannibal, however, had years of experience as a general and even more with dealing with the Romans. It is very likely that he knew what it took for the Romans to surrender, and that did not mean the capturing of Rome. The Roman people were very resilient in that they were trained for either victory or total defeat. Hannibal had just led a campaign ransacking the cities of Italy, and his military was slowly dwindling with every battle he fought. Hannibal also knew that Rome was an incredibly walled and fortified city. He was waiting for reinforcements; however, to his credit, he was probably unsure if they would arrive and if they would arrive before he was destroyed. Ultimately, his reinforcements were wiped out, leaving Hannibal stranded. To him, his best options were probably to wait or impede the Romans as much as possible with the forces he did have.

---

Would things have been different if Hannibal had immediately marched on Rome?

I think, yes! But maybe, no. It really depends on the Romans. I think Hannibal definitely could have taken Rome with the weakened state of the Roman Senate and military. The Roman military had just lost an estimated 50,000 soldiers at Cannae and many of its Senate members, as well as a key grain supply. Starving the city out would have been easier, and there would have been fewer trained defenders. The trained defenders who would have occupied the cities would have been fewer however the siege would have taken very long. Here's why. Roman resiliency. It is very likely the Romans would have continued the fight from inside the walls in any way they could. Including training up new legions or fleeing entirely. Hannibal could have captured Rome, but Rome would not have surrendered.

---

What would have been different?

For starters, it would have meant that many of the more famous Roman emperors existed. Julian, Hadrian, Augustus, et cetera. As a result, their ideological influence would never have influenced European society or Western society. Therefore, the idea of a republic may not have formed, and if it had, probably not in the same way. It would have also meant that Carthage would have continued to be a trading power throughout the Classical period and may have continued until much later with its technological developments, such as the alphabet and navigation. It also could have resulted in the discovery of a trans-Atlantic sea route and the discovery of the American continents much sooner because Carthage was a maritime leader. As a result, they could have established colonies in the American continents the Columbian Exchange could have happened much differently.

---

References:

FREEMAN, PHILIP. HANNIBAL : Rome’s Greatest Enemy. [S.l.], PEGASUS BOOKS, 2023.

Mark, Joshua J. “Hannibal.” World History Encyclopedia, 29 Mar. 2018, www.worldhistory.org/hannibal/.

---