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