- Historians have debated this question for generations and will likely never come to an agreement, although many now suspect that Hannibal in the end would have lacked the logistical capacity to capture Rome itself. But could he have forced the Romans to the negotiating table through other means? Perhaps. At any rate, Michael P. Fronda recently analyzed the situation in detail in his study Between Rome and Carthage: Southern Italy During the Second Punic War (2010) and concluded that, even in the best possible scenarios, Hannibal’s chances for victory remained slim; his Italian allies essentially proved too disparate for Hannibal to form them into a cohesive force. To quote Fronda himself:
- Because Rome enjoyed a significant manpower advantage, Hannibal needed to elicit massive allied revolts in a short period of time. Rome’s Italian allies were willing to come over to Hannibal’s side, but only on their own terms, and Hannibal struggled to get all the communities in any given region to revolt at the same time. Moreover, it was difficult for Hannibal to maintain the loyalty of the Italian communities that did revolt. The arguments presented in this book reveal that local conditions and motivations significantly influenced the decisions of various Italian states to remain loyal to Rome, thus shaping the course and ultimately the outcome of the Second Punic War. In short, Hannibal’s failure resulted from military disadvantage that he could not overcome through diplomatic means because of local, circumstantial factors. (280)
- Scholars have put forth very polarizing opinions as to its very nature. C. R. Whittaker, who, based on the sheer lack of evidence[X] for apparatuses of imperial administration, suggested that the Carthaginians did not really maintain an overseas “empire” until very late into the fourth century, when conflicts with the Sicilian Greeks and Romans forced her (ironically) to expand economic control over far-flung territories. I would actually take the argument further: the Carthaginian Senate simply lacked the political willpower to administer any overseas possessions at any time; even the Barcid activities in Spain, in my view, occurred without significant government oversight. The available evidence better substantiates the existence of an African empire, complete with provinces and governors and the systematic exploitation of native populations. The extent of our knowledge, however, depends on how willing you are to draw analogies from the experiences of the Numidians and Romans (who evidently adapted the Carthaginian system already in place; see e.g. Manfredi 2003), because our material for the Punic period is, again, extremely slim. J. F. Lazenby was right on the mark when he judged the Carthaginian “empire” a “loose and ramshackle affair.” (Hannibal’s War 1998: 234) [X]Footnote: an issue of third-century coins distributed to Carthaginian troops in Sicily bears the legend b’rṣt, meaning “in the territories” or “in the lands.” This is sometimes taken as evidence of a Carthaginian province in Sicily, though the coins could just have well been circulated in Africa with the legend implying “(valable) sur (tout) le territoire.” (valid throughout the territories) (Visonà 1995: 170)
- See: Fronda, Michael P. Between Rome and Carthage: Southern Italy During the Second Punic War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Lazenby, J. F. Hannibal’s War. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. Manfredi, Lorenza-Ilia. La politica amministrativa di Cartagine in Africa. Atti della Accademi Nazionale dei Lincei, 327-532. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2003. Picard, Gilbert. “L’administration territoriale de Carthage.” In Melanges d’archeologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol (Vol. 3), edited by Raymond Chevallier, 1257-1265. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études, 1966. Visonà, P. “La numismatique partim Occident,” in La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherce, edited by Véronique Krings, 166-181. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Whittaker, C. R. “Carthaginian imperialism.” In Imperialism in the Ancient World, edited by P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, 59-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.