Hannibal Barca shoul've occupied Rome

What would have changed though?

Not to mention that he lacked siege equipment and couldn't rely on a supply train to feed his troops. As such he could neither take the city by storm or starve it out.

Well perhaps he should have put more effort in getting italic levies rather than just setting off from Spain and accepting his numbers would only go down from there.

How is that different from rome using citizens as the backbone of the army while all the other roles are fulfilled by barbarians?

It didn’t have 1 millon yet back then

Thank Jove's jubilant scrotum the Carthaginians never overran Rome. Rome would have become yet another Semitic, child-sacrificing colony of Canaanite savages, not inventing concrete or building aqueducts or comfy baths.

>1 million
more like 200-400k

Carthaginian cities already had aqueducts tard, Roman ones were just much bigger

>Hannibal Barca shoul've occupied Rome

he simply couldn't, he sucked major balls in sieges and didn't have enough soldier anyway: that's why his strategy was to sever the link between rome and his allies, and then attack rome directly: but those allies remained loyal and annibal was cucked by carthago not sending any major fucking reinforcement in 15 years

The Semites came back and won Rome with

(((((((Christianity)))))))

Based on Greek principles tho. Carthage was literally good for nothing.

You mean the religion that (((((they))))) sought to quash? The religion that later put ((((((them)))))) in medieval ghettos?

No, aqueducts were used in the near east in the bronze age and even in some parts of pre Roman Italy

>the religion that later saved (((their))) lives by putting them into safe spaces and giving them the monopoly over the banking system
FTFY

If you want Carthage (Hannibal) to win, you either get Hasdrubal to avoid the Battle of the Metaurus (so he gets to join his brother's forces) or get Hamilcar to avoid death (that way you have two great Barcids; one for Hispania and one for Italy)

>he forgets the Minoans had them before the Near East
The point is, Rome was better at it. Rome was better at engineering and building - that's why so much of it still stands - it was physically beyond the destructive capabilities of the barbarians.

Here's how it's done.

And of course none of this (put them in ghettos, let them practice usury) is even in the New Testament - thus not Christian.

No actually. Both the guy you're responding to and you yourself are engaged in retarded revisionism and conspiracy theory. The jews as a group did not cook up christianity to try and undermine rome, nor did they as a group seriously try to undermine it either. Not in the classical era anyway. The jews of the classical era still thought the messiah was on his way and whenever a candidate who looked like he might fit the bill showed up they rose in rebellion under said candidate's banner only to get thoroughly skull-fucked by the roman authorities/military.

this

>siege equipment
can be built

>supply
>what is plunder

Armchair generals amuse me. Read up on Hannibal's logistic situation after Cannae cause all of your uninformed points have an easy and direct answer.

Exactly as Jesus prophesied.

>The Temple will be destroyed again
>Fulfilled in 70 AD

The Jews rejected God, so God rejected them.

>If Hannibal Barca besieged and occupied Rome effectively defeating the Roman Republic the world would be quite a different place nowadays.
Yes, it would be. Now please explain how a mercenary army with no siege equipment or supply train can besiege a city. You can't storm the walls, and the people inside with actual grain stores are going to be able to resist starvation longer than your army can. Remember that in the immediate aftermath of Cannae, with Rome at their nadir, Hannibal attempted to take the dinky little town of Nola..... and failed. And then failed to take it two more times. What on earth makes you think he ever had a chance to take Rome?