Here we begin a new category with the enigmas of History. Enigma:«Why didn't Hannibal take Rome after the victory at Cannae? »
In the year 216 B.C. Hannibal faces at Cannae eight Roman legions, cavalry and auxiliary troops (composed of allies), in total more than 80,000 men. On the other hand, Hannibal offered about 40,000 men (Iberians, Libyans, Gauls and Carthaginians) and 6,000 horsemen (mostly Numidians). The numerical superiority of the Romans presaged the end of Hannibal in the Italian peninsula, but the result of the battle (which we will tell about in a new section «Great Battles») was the massacre of the Roman army. More than 50,000 casualties on the Roman side and about 6,000 on the Carthaginian side.
The panorama that is presented for Rome is bleak. The largest army recruited by Rome has been defeated. Hannibal can reach as far as the city of Rome itself. But here the enigma begins, Hannibal decides not to take Rome and to garrison in the South, even Maharbal (one of his lieutenants in command of the Numidian cavalry) came to tell him «Hannibal knows how to win, but you don't know how to take advantage of your victories».
We will never know the real reason why he did not march to Rome, here we leave you several reasons (each one who draws the conclusions from him):
- Even defeated, Rome still had many allies.
- He could quickly recruit new legions (for example by lowering the recruitment age, usually from 16 to 40 years old)
- Rome was a perfectly walled city and Hannibal did not have the resources to build siege weapons or maintain a long siege with his remaining troops.
- She hoped that Rome's allies would rise up and join her cause, leaving Rome bereft of outside support.
- He Offered Peace to Rome but was refused. Rome surrendered at the feet of Hannibal would have been the perfect victory (thus fulfilling the promise made to his father Hamilcar, "eternal hatred of Rome")
- The lack of support -sending more troops- by Carthage (the Carthaginian Senate is controlled by Hannibal's great enemy, Hannon «the Great»)
Was the greatest strategist of all time right or wrong?
