What would Happen if while crossing the Alps Hannibal died? Would the campaign against Rome continue without him? Would it meet as much success if it did?
Hannibal Dies crossing the Alps
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
Define success. I mean Carthage still lost the war, so technically all that Hannibal did had no long term effects, aside from making him a famous general.
The Gaulish and Iberian troops desert en masse, leaving the remaining Punic and Libyan troops to die stranded in the Alps. Rome is able to deploy large forces outside Italy, and thus wins a much easier and earlier victory against Carthage. Without the depletion of resources and manpower caused by Hannibal's campaign, Rome might be able to expand eastwards earlier. Scipio Africanus and Fabius Cunctator would never get their nicknames. 
I have to disagree with those saying that the Iberians would abandon the Carthaginian army. Hannibal's Iberian allies were very much bound to the Barcid family. They had fought with and against Hannibal's father, Hamilcar, and Hannibal's brother-in-law, Hasdrubal the Fair, and had grown to know the Barcas well. Over the course of the war the Iberians would similarly attach themselves to the Scipio family -- not to Rome or Carthage, but to Scipones or Barcas. My assumption is that if Hannibal died, mostly likely Mago Barca would assume power (since Hasdrubal remained in Iberia). After all, the proverbial Rubicon (nearly the Rubicon itself!) has been crossed, and the Carthaginians are in enemy territory. Mago would likely want to go forward with the war; and it's hard to turn back anyways when you're in the mountains on the verge of crossing into Roman-influenced territories. If Mago does assume the command -- and I can't imagine why he wouldn't -- the Iberians would likely remain with the army because it is a Barcid army. The Gallic allies, on the other hand, are much more likely to return home because they were bound to Hannibal. Mago would have to work to convince them to stay.
Now, Mago taking Hannibal's place is bound to be less successful -- it just is, Hannibal was one of the greatest tacticians of all time and Mago, while capable, was not. My guess is that the war is quick, Mago's army is obliterated through attrition and a battle or two, and Rome probably prosecutes the war until Carthage is either destroyed or conquered, because they'll be far less exhausted and hey, why not.
I might be coming across as biased, but I don't think you can say that Hannibal had no long term effects besides that he became a famous general. For instance, I've seen people theorize that the enormous losses that Rome suffered in wars during the late third and early second centuries BC (and especially in the Second Punic War) brought about the need for reform that ultimately culminated in the Gracchi brothers' famous attempt at a redistribution of land and the Marian reforms in the army; and in turn, the Marian reforms are often considered a causal factor for the civil wars of the First Century BC, which of course ultimately culminated in the formation of the Principate. Now, I won't go so far as to say that without Hannibal there could be no Augustus, but it is an example of how the war affected the course of Rome. And of course the war IOTL had huge implications for the future of Carthage. Just because Carthage ultimately gets conquered IOTL and most likely ITTL as well doesn't mean that there won't be significant changes.
As to what the long-term effects of the POD might be ITTL, if the war goes the way I theorized above... well, to start, Carthage gets conquered earlier. Also, Rome would probably start fighting to conquer the Diadochi kingdoms in the east sooner, and they would probably have greater success fighting them as well since there would be more manpower (although that said, the quality of the legions might be somewhat less since the Second Punic War wouldn't have provided so much... we'll say experience). If Rome conquers the east sooner, they will probably want to conquer other places sooner as well -- however, for somewhere like Gaul, this actually might backfire, since Gaul being more primitive would not facilitate the Roman conquest, meaning it might actually take longer for Rome to succeed conquering Gaul than it did for OTL with Caesar. The quality of the legionnaires attacking Gaul might also be a factor for that -- considering how Marian legionnaires were basically professional whereas the Polybian legion was amateur. Eventually, the Polybian legion might hold Rome back, and it might not be easy for the Romans to recognize a need for reform to the legions if they are still winning wars and available manpower is relatively static. Also, maybe the larger population leads to more social tension? Maybe Rome ends up weaker because of the PoD?
My strength in Roman history is the third century BC, so I'll admit I could easily be off base with some of my suggestions/leaps. I just don't think anyone should write off the possibility that the PoD would have no long-term effects just because Carthage loses in both scenarios.
Now, Mago taking Hannibal's place is bound to be less successful -- it just is, Hannibal was one of the greatest tacticians of all time and Mago, while capable, was not. My guess is that the war is quick, Mago's army is obliterated through attrition and a battle or two, and Rome probably prosecutes the war until Carthage is either destroyed or conquered, because they'll be far less exhausted and hey, why not.
I might be coming across as biased, but I don't think you can say that Hannibal had no long term effects besides that he became a famous general. For instance, I've seen people theorize that the enormous losses that Rome suffered in wars during the late third and early second centuries BC (and especially in the Second Punic War) brought about the need for reform that ultimately culminated in the Gracchi brothers' famous attempt at a redistribution of land and the Marian reforms in the army; and in turn, the Marian reforms are often considered a causal factor for the civil wars of the First Century BC, which of course ultimately culminated in the formation of the Principate. Now, I won't go so far as to say that without Hannibal there could be no Augustus, but it is an example of how the war affected the course of Rome. And of course the war IOTL had huge implications for the future of Carthage. Just because Carthage ultimately gets conquered IOTL and most likely ITTL as well doesn't mean that there won't be significant changes.
As to what the long-term effects of the POD might be ITTL, if the war goes the way I theorized above... well, to start, Carthage gets conquered earlier. Also, Rome would probably start fighting to conquer the Diadochi kingdoms in the east sooner, and they would probably have greater success fighting them as well since there would be more manpower (although that said, the quality of the legions might be somewhat less since the Second Punic War wouldn't have provided so much... we'll say experience). If Rome conquers the east sooner, they will probably want to conquer other places sooner as well -- however, for somewhere like Gaul, this actually might backfire, since Gaul being more primitive would not facilitate the Roman conquest, meaning it might actually take longer for Rome to succeed conquering Gaul than it did for OTL with Caesar. The quality of the legionnaires attacking Gaul might also be a factor for that -- considering how Marian legionnaires were basically professional whereas the Polybian legion was amateur. Eventually, the Polybian legion might hold Rome back, and it might not be easy for the Romans to recognize a need for reform to the legions if they are still winning wars and available manpower is relatively static. Also, maybe the larger population leads to more social tension? Maybe Rome ends up weaker because of the PoD?
My strength in Roman history is the third century BC, so I'll admit I could easily be off base with some of my suggestions/leaps. I just don't think anyone should write off the possibility that the PoD would have no long-term effects just because Carthage loses in both scenarios.
I agree with Monopolist in everything but one important respect: I think no Hannibal will, incidentally, delay Roman expansion east. While Rome had fought the Illyrians up until very recently, they didn't so much interest or willingness in going any further east than that-that of course all changed when Philip V allied with Hannibal-now Rome saw (what they viewed as) a legitimate threat in the east-Philip was attempting to intervene in their backyard. That couldn't go unpunished.
Granted, Rome is going to find an excuse to invade in the east eventually. But I doubt it will be earlier than they did OTL-I also have my doubts that Rome might be called on to protect Greeks against Philip and Antiochus if they don't have that experience making their presence known in Greece with the First Macedonian War. So again, less excuses to be able to wiggle themselves into the power struggle.
Granted, Rome is going to find an excuse to invade in the east eventually. But I doubt it will be earlier than they did OTL-I also have my doubts that Rome might be called on to protect Greeks against Philip and Antiochus if they don't have that experience making their presence known in Greece with the First Macedonian War. So again, less excuses to be able to wiggle themselves into the power struggle.
Yes, in fact it would mean much more success for Carthage...
...because a Rome that hasn't been humiliated on the field multiple times and been unable to force their enemy out of Italy for all time might not be as harsh in the final treaty.
Hmmm... good points. I know you know a lot more about how Rome got involved in Greece than I do, so I think I'll bow to your opinion on this. My assumption was that there would be more of a pent up jingoistic energy after TTL's Second Punic War than IOTL, and the east is a natural target, especially considering how there were already tensions between Rome and Macedonia over Roman bases in Illyria (which you kind of mentioned). However, they might choose to conquer another region, or stay at peace, hard as it is to see Rome willing to be at peace for long!
Also, I'm going to amend my statement on Rome's hypothetical war to conquer Gaul ITTL. It might be more likely ITTL that Rome conquers regions/tribes of Gaul individually rather than sweep across (basically) the whole thing in one giant campaign like Caesar did. I say this because if Rome is starting the conquest of Gaul earlier, it might be wiser for Rome to conquer a small region, then consolidate, then conquer another region and so on, as opposed to conquering the whole thing and then working to consolidate all of it at once. The attempts to conquer Germania at the end of the first century BC and beginning of the first century AD might be a good model.
Also, to wcv215:
I think you're wrong in your interpretation of why the treaty happened. You're saying that Rome imposed those incredibly harsh terms because of Hannibal's success, and that without Hannibal the Romans wouldn't be so hard on Carthage? I would say Rome only agreed to come to terms because Hannibal had exhausted them so much -- if Rome wasn't so weary of the war they would probably have continued the war until Carthage was conquered. Time after time throughout Roman history that seems to have been the case -- in the first war the state opposing Rome might have a lot of success and eventually a settlement is reached (usually in favor of Rome), but in the second war the enemy state is brought to their knees and often executed. If we assume Rome suffers few setbacks in a war against Mago/Hasdrubal instead of Hannibal, than why would Rome give up before Carthage is completely vanquished? That's just my $0.02
That is quite possible. My thinking was basically that without those losses Rome might be willing to perhaps keep Carthage confined to North Africa, have to pay a large sum etc, but might not push for near total disarmament for instance.
At the very least if Rome does decide to subjugate Carthage (which is possible, perhaps even probable) the final outcome would probably be better for Carthage than destruction, enslavement of the survivors, and salting the site which occurred in the Third War OTL.
Well, besides Rome salting the earth (which is a legend), those are good points -- Rome probably would be less hostile to Carthage in conquest without Hannibal. And it is possible that Rome might agree to peace and keep Carthage around until a third war -- I just think it's more likely that Rome would prosecute the war until Carthage is destroyed if Hannibal hadn't inflicted devastating defeats and maintained the war for nearly two decades like OTL.
So here's how I can see this war playing out. Rome will invade North Africa early on after defeating Mago, but the invasion is bound to fail-I don't see how it can be a success, and if it doesn't stumble before hand, it will fall apart at the siege of Carthage (incidentally, here might be where an easier peace can be made-if the terms aren't very harsh as the Romans approach Carthage's walls, Carthage would be willing to accept, like they were prepared to do when Regulus invaded in the First Punic War.
Now with that failure, I can see the war dragging out in Spain-the Scipio brothers are bound to face defeat at some point due to the fickle nature of the Spanish allies and the Barca's ties to them, like IOTL. But eventually, I think Rome will prevail in Spain obviously.
Now the interesting thing here is, Carthage isn't as exhausted as they were by Zama OTL. They likely aren't throwing as much men and money into fruitless ventures in Sicily and Sardinia, and instead following the failed first Roman invasion, might pour their resources into just building a respectable navy. While this still may not be enough to defeat Rome's navy barring some miracle, it means Carthage is far less likely to accept a Zama esque peace. I can see something more along the lines of this:
-Carthage cedes colonies in Spain
-Carthage agrees to pay some indemnity to Rome
-Carthage agrees to keep military navy to X ships
-Carthage agrees to make regular grain shipments to Rome
Something like that, confining Carthage to North Africa, seems like the most likely scenario IMO. Rome had shown themselves not very interested in directly ruling and conquering more established civilizations at this time-Carthage being the main exception I think because of the destruction Hannibal wrought. I don't see why that policy wouldn't continue here-far more useful to let Carthage manage affairs in North Africa as a virtual Roman client (in the way of, say, how they managed affairs with Pergamon-technically able to take independent military and political action, but a close eye being kept on them by Rome) than to go through the process of managing it themselves. The Romans preferred remote control (and would actually use this in North Africa with Numidia), so without the really bad blood and boogeyman of Hannibal, I think Rome could see Carthage as a useful client in North Africa.
Now with that failure, I can see the war dragging out in Spain-the Scipio brothers are bound to face defeat at some point due to the fickle nature of the Spanish allies and the Barca's ties to them, like IOTL. But eventually, I think Rome will prevail in Spain obviously.
Now the interesting thing here is, Carthage isn't as exhausted as they were by Zama OTL. They likely aren't throwing as much men and money into fruitless ventures in Sicily and Sardinia, and instead following the failed first Roman invasion, might pour their resources into just building a respectable navy. While this still may not be enough to defeat Rome's navy barring some miracle, it means Carthage is far less likely to accept a Zama esque peace. I can see something more along the lines of this:
-Carthage cedes colonies in Spain
-Carthage agrees to pay some indemnity to Rome
-Carthage agrees to keep military navy to X ships
-Carthage agrees to make regular grain shipments to Rome
Something like that, confining Carthage to North Africa, seems like the most likely scenario IMO. Rome had shown themselves not very interested in directly ruling and conquering more established civilizations at this time-Carthage being the main exception I think because of the destruction Hannibal wrought. I don't see why that policy wouldn't continue here-far more useful to let Carthage manage affairs in North Africa as a virtual Roman client (in the way of, say, how they managed affairs with Pergamon-technically able to take independent military and political action, but a close eye being kept on them by Rome) than to go through the process of managing it themselves. The Romans preferred remote control (and would actually use this in North Africa with Numidia), so without the really bad blood and boogeyman of Hannibal, I think Rome could see Carthage as a useful client in North Africa.