Sorry, I forgot exactly where I remember this from but as Hannibal moved towards the Alps with around 50,000 troops, he was pursued by Scipio with fewer troops (actually, if anyone can find a source with better details I would appreciate it).

Since Hannibal's immediate goal wasn't to lay siege to Rome, but rather to inflict defeat upon the Romans to prevent the war from coming to Carthage, and also to convince Italy to join him, why not engage Scipio in battle?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only the battle of Lake Trisemine required him to be on Roman soil and Cannae really only required flat ground to deploy is cavalry. So why not attempt one of his signature victories against Scipio and then proceed to enter Italy via the coast?

(also I clearly don't mean scipio africanus idk why there was that confusion last time I posted ) I do understand that some kind of invasion of italy would be necessary to end the 2nd punic war, I'm merely arguing (or asking why) that trying to win a victory here when he had more men and then entering italy via the coast would serve the purpose of having to fight fewer men when he later invaded italy ( and possibly demoralize the Romans) rather than losing men in the alps for no return. I'm not sure exactly how Hannibal intended to win the war I assume he would "win" for a short period then march on Rome and hope it would collapse? @PieterGeerkens how does this misunderstand Hannibal's strategy? as I said Hannibal had to win victories in or at least enter Italy battling scipio here would mean fewer Romans to fight in future victories. @Brasidas @sempaiscuba I had tried to address the points made by people downvoting my post, got no response and the downvotes stuck so idk like can you guys just answer my question

  • There's been substantial revision on the question so I'm archiving the original discussion in chat.
    – Semaphore
    Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 7:42
  • 1
    There's something off about the sequence of events you read. Hannibal was not being pursued by Scipio - Scipio tried to intercept him after landing at the Rhone. By the time Hannibal became aware of the Romans, he was already crossing the Rhone. The Roman army arrived a few days later and declined to pursue him across the river. So it seems fairly natural that Hannibal wouldn't re-cross the river to pursue the Romans (who were by then moving on to Spain). Also, it was already nearing winter and if he delayed further he might have had to wait till spring.
    – Semaphore
    Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 8:01
  • my sources are en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… youtube.com/… to which I understand that scipio tried to confront Hannibal which begs the question why did Hannibal decline and go over the alps instead? the numbers given seem to favor Hannibal much more so than in any of his future victories and his army was still fresh from like not having traversed the alps and of course the possibility of entering Italy via the coast
    – Hao S
    Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 16:23
  • Did you read my comment? As I said, due to the timing they were on opposite banks of the Rho'ne. It would have been monumentally stupid to try attack across the river.
    – Semaphore
    Commented Jan 30, 2019 at 8:51

2 Answers 2


The reason is that this was the Second Punic War. During the First Punic War the Carthaginians beat the Romans more than once, destroying their fleets...and the Romans built another fleet. This was what the Romans did. They did not give up just because they lost an army or a navy. They just raised another. And the First Punic War was not exceptional. A century earlier, when Pyrrhus of Epirus invaded Italy the Romans fought him and lost, and fought him and lost again. And fought him and lost again until Pyrrhus had to withdraw, having lost too many men to continue while the Romans just raised another army.

Hannibal knew that attacking a Roman field army -- a chancy thing, anyway -- would do little to win a war against Rome. They'd fight, Rome might win or it might lose. If Rome won, Hannibal was done, because Carthage was a sensible merchant city who would cuts its losses. But if Hannibal won, Rome would raise another army and fight him again. And again. And Hannibal couldn't afford a Pyrrhic victory, either -- too many losses and Carthage pulls the plug.

Under these circumstance, a battle against Scipio in Spain was at best a distraction and at worst a no-win situation.

Instead of planning to meet and defeat one Roman army after another, Hannibal decided on a strategic plan of invading Italy and separating Rome from its Italian allies whose manpower was a major source of those endless armies. (Many of those allies were recently conquered -- why would they be loyal?) Hannibal judged that if he could put a powerful army in Italy, and especially if he could win a battle or two, Rome's allies would revolt, and Rome would be forced to come to terms. (And, note, he never needed to attack Rome itself -- the plan was to isolate it, not to storm its walls.)

Of course, it turned out he was wrong. Even though he won huge victories at Lake Trasimene and at Cannae, all he achieved was a stalemate and the revolt of a fraction of Rome's allies. He was cut off, Rome raised new armies and found a great general in Scipio. Scipio invaded Africa, Hannibal had to follow, lost the battle of Zama -- and Carthage cut its losses and surrendered.

If Rome had been Carthage, Hannibal would have won.

  • 3
    Very nice - just the answer I was trying to figure out how to write. The one point I wanted to work in is that after arriving in Italy, Hannibal's army basically turned into a protection racket. Each city state would play nice and pay a little tribute, than immediately return to Rome's side as soon as Hannibal marched on to the next city. It minimized Carthage's investment, but Hannibal and his men just kept aging and couldn't live forever. Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 2:53
  • 2
    @Pieter Geerkens Good point. I've never understood their loyalty. While Rome was unique among ancient cities in integrating foes on generous terms, it wasn't that nice. I can only assume that Hannibal (or Carthage) had a rotten reputation and the Roman devil they knew was preferable to most Italian states. I can understand some loyalty, but not as much as Rome received. (The protection racket analogy is a good one -- was that the turnoff for the Italians?)
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 2:57
  • First defeating the Romans here doesn't mean nothing it would make his future battles against the Romans significantly easier and also protect Spain from immediate invasion. 2nd it would open the possibility of invading italy via the coastline rather than the alps which might lose fewer men to cold and terrain. Of course Hannibal would have to enter Italy to end the war but there is a matter of method and timing
    – Hao S
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 3:02
  • 1
    Hannibal knew that if he entered into a war of attrition with the Romans he would lose. Hannibal was a very great general and knew that when the obvious strategy results in your defeat, you find a different one. He did. (The fact that it didn't work either was a surprise to everyone -- including Rome!)
    – Mark Olson
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 3:05
  • 4
    @MarkOlson Maybe Roman allies remembered that Carthage was far away, and Rome very near, and they did not trust Carthage to defend them from Rome after the war was over.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 11:17

Well, he wasn't the famous all conquering general of the history books as yet. Those victories were in the future. Taking the coastal roads is exactly what the Romans were expecting. That would work in their advantage, and against Hannibal's best interests.

The Romans would have much shorter supply lines, while those of Hannibal lengthened. It would be much easier for Romans to send in reinforcements. Even if they lost most of the engagements, Hannibal would find it more and more difficult to get more troops and supplies.

Apart from that, Hannibal couldn't simply march up and hope the inhabitants would join his cause. Many of them were Roman allies, and were not likely to change sides. In fact, it would be far more likely that the local population would prefer the Romans - if only because the Roman army was too close for comfort to decide otherwise. (Remember, this is before he crossed the Alps)

The area around the coastal roads was not Roman, but allied with Rome. Massalia was an independent Greek state, friend and ally of Rome. So was the entire area. Hannibal did know that Cisalpine Gaul was recently conquered by Rome. Instead of fighting his way through Roman held territory he choose to circumvent them and go there, using the completely unsuspected Alpine route. He'd have also to fight along the way (mainly the elements), but that was not a certainty. After crossing the Alps he would be in Cisalpine Gaul where he could reasonably expect to find allies and supplies.

  • That doesn't answer the question if hannibal crossed the alps he would have to battle the Romans anyways as well as lose a lot of men in those alps While the Romans didn't expect hannibal they were the ones at Trebia and Cannea that offered battle there wasn't really too much surprise value to be had.
    – Hao S
    Commented Jan 12, 2019 at 23:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.