Why carthage lost the 2nd punic war ?

How exactly is that? Rome can outlast him, and they know it, he doesn't have engines to breach the walls, or a regular supply train to be able to actually invest the city before hunger makes his army depart. There are still a lot of Latin allies to draw manpower from, as well as some of the more desperate measures they took like arming/freeing slaves.

Again. He could not take a dinky little town in Campaigna. To do something to Rome itself requires the Roman leadership to be suicidally oblivious and to throw the gates open despite the fact that he can't get in.

why wouldn't those cuck latin cities rebel against the oppressive Rome?

>be Carthage
>be maritime empire
>can't even send stuff through see to italy which is 75% coasts

Because Rome wasn't that oppressive to most of Italy, and in fact Roman rule cut down on the endemic warfare that was the likely outcome of Hannibal smashing up Rome's alliance system and then pissing off back to Carthage as the new regional powers would start to struggle for dominance.

it's physically impossible, there is Sardinia in the way

>Be Carthage
>Get into the First Punic War
>Lose hundreds of ships in it, which while none of our sources state exact manpower losses in those fleet actions, probably come to the low hundreds of thousands if their ships are similar to contemporary Greek ones and have similar crew requirements.
>Don't have the money or manpower to throw down the drain in another fight like that
>Deal with the ensuing Roman naval dominance, part of which is when you try to ship stuff over the water, crap like this happens.
books.google.com/books?id=bP8sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Carthage attempts to send reinforcements to hannibal by sea&source=bl&ots=bLsMJu2PMK&sig=G3AQpGtu_3P1eikg-wr59tctyfQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKo7zZt8HVAhXD7IMKHTxUAagQ6AEISTAF#v=onepage&q=Carthage attempts to send reinforcements to hannibal by sea&f=false

The feared their neighbouring cities more than they detested Rome's hegemony (which was quite beneficial for the most part)

Capua rebelled against them
and was severely punished for it.

His plan wasn't to march on Rome, it was to disrupt Italy so the Carthaginians could make gains in Sicily and Hispania.

They failed though.

Roman manpower advantage, plus Scipio being one of history's greatest generals

Hannibal = Yang Wenli
Scipio = Reinhard

Fucking Numidians betraying Carthage.
Scipio was good but just like the Duke of Wellington, he is only remembered for beating a great man once. And once is not enough to be his equal or surpass him.

they feared gaulic warrior?

I'll just post it and leave

...

I'm sorry but that is not a Phoenician complexion.

Literally German vs Russia 2.0

that and the other Scipios defeating Antiochus and winning the third Punic war from another Barca

Roman "militias" defending homeland
Vs.
(((Merchants))) with mercenary army
Really makes you think

Carthage has stupid helmets compared to Rome

Muh elephants

Semitic people neither less

>carthage vs rome
>lorica segmentata
>rectangular shield

>Carthage after the 1st Punic War
>maritime empire

More likely the inverse. Especially ironic since Yang Wenli used Fabian tactics to draw Reinhard out

don't be an autist that game has tech trees

Because Sardinians failed their rebellion against The Romans

Scipio helped change Roman strategy and he never lost a battle. He was the greatest general in Roman history, and one of the best ever.

why would you rebel against someone who can't even get to you?

really I was just looking at how their factions treated them

Because the Carthaginian merchant class, led by Hanno, didn't want to commit to a war. Same reason they surrendered in the First Punic War after one naval loss.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aegates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tyndaris
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sulci

Why do you feel a need to post when you clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject matter? Do you have any idea how much manpower goes down when you lose a major fleet? But sure, it had to do with Hanno's opposition, who used his MERCHANT MAGIC! to cause the Carthaginains to lose at Dertosa, or to cause the naval attempts to get crushed by the Roman fleet!

>actually dismissing Hanno's influence in the Gerousia
Why do you feel a need to post when you clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject matter?

Can you try actually addressing the argument presented and not just stick your head up your ass?

Scipio wouldn't have pulled off a battle like Alesia though.

Does any one have that pasta about Sicily or Sardinia I dont remember

Rome was built on hills giving it the high ground. Hannibal took the initial high ground in the alps but made the rookie mistake of coming down from the high ground. From that point on the war was determined.

...

You guys have no idea what you're talking about. If Hannibal marched on Rome, the city itself, the leadership would have fallen in panic 100% guarantee .You're looking at this from 2000 years in the future perspective where you know everything there is to know about Carthage and Rome and their capabilities. People back then did not. You think the Roman Senate back then knew how well Carthage was faring, if it had siege weapons or did the Carthaginian leadership backed Hannibal? Absolutely not. They could only guess. Hannibal's mistake is that he underestimated Rome's willingness to fight and their allies willingness to back Rome. If Hannibal struck at the heart of the problem, it would have no doubt made an extremely large impact on the morale of Rome's citizens and their allies.

Actually, the Senate was really close to surrendering to Pyrrhus who dealt far less casualties and damage to the Romans (yes, Rome was weaker back then but still) and was only persuaded not to do it by Appius Claudius Caecus.

Why didn't Hannibal just ride the eagles to the alps?

>If Hannibal marched on Rome, the city itself, the leadership would have fallen in panic 100% guarantee
You're basing this on what exactly? Because the immediate reaction to Cannae was a little bit of shock, and then doubling down on fighting, with actions taken very rarely in Roman history, like arming slaves and resorting to human sacrifice.

I'm also looking at past Roman history. The city itself got sacked after the battle of the Allia, and Rome didn't roll over and die, even though they had a hell of a lot less to work with than they did when they were fighting Hannibal.

>You think the Roman Senate back then knew how well Carthage was faring, if it had siege weapons or did the Carthaginian leadership backed Hannibal?
They sure as fuck knew roughly where and how big his army was, whether or not it had engines, and the leadership backing Hannibal is irrelevant, because he's far out of their reach.

>Hannibal's mistake is that he underestimated Rome's willingness to fight and their allies willingness to back Rome.
I like how you say this right after you're baselessly assuring that Rome was ready to fold after Cannae. If Rome is willing to fight, marching on the city is 100% useless.

> If Hannibal struck at the heart of the problem, it would have no doubt made an extremely large impact on the morale of Rome's citizens and their allies.
Unless of course, Rome doesn't fold, and he mills around in front of the walls picking his nose until lack of food forces him to withdraw. That would actually probably make an impression, just not the one he wants.

>Actually, the Senate was really close to surrendering to Pyrrhus who dealt far less casualties and damage to the Romans (yes, Rome was weaker back then but still) and was only persuaded not to do it by Appius Claudius Caecus.
Or we could close our eyes, pretend Cassius Dio is the only source worth mentioning, and say they were thinking of a short truce to raise more troops.

Just to elaborate a bit further, consider this. Cannae was a year after a previous, not quite as famous disaster for Rome at Lake Trasameine. An army marching off to attack Hannibal got ambushed and rolled into a lake and crushed. It was after that that we got Quintus Fabius Maximus taking the helm and his now famous "fabian strategy".

In close to a year of campaigning, Fabius would shadow Hannibal's army, disrupt his foraging parties, decline pitched battle, and construct a series of fortified camps near wherever Hannibal was at the moment. Not once were any of Fabius's fortified camps successfully assaulted, and those had far lesser defenses than the city of Rome. The Romans fucking knew that Hannibal did not have it in him to attack those kind of fixed defenses, and the entire premise of your post is ridiculous.