That political rivalry in Carthage against his family probably changed the history of Europe. Who knows what he could have done with timely support in Italy? We would not be speaking English for sure
One must also question, of course, what support Carthage could have given him, considering that the seas were largely dominated by Roman fleets in the Second Punic War.
Those extra troops and supplies would still have to reach Italy. And once dispatched to Italy, they would not have been available for the Spanish theatre - the accelerated fall of which may have just sped up the timeline for Carthage’s defeat.
Once Rome stopped buying new Legions and feeding them to hungry Carthaginian generals, Hannibal victories largely dried up, and his strategy of attempting to sway Italian polities to his side was overwhelmingly a failure. More troops wouldn’t have changed that he refused to meet Roman forces on battlefields of their choosing, and could no longer rely on Romans rushing to face him on battlefields of his choosing. And with the fall of Syracuse, it’s extremely dubious that he would have been in a position to take Southern Italy while hemmed in on all sides. Playing stalling games in Campania was about all he could do at that point, with or without additional resources.
Carthage definitely had to supply a complex theater of operations. But I remember he did get supplies , and once was waiting in a port city for promised supplies that were diverted.
That cost him alliances, and set the tone, for a while , where he had to prove, and keep proving, to others in Italy that he could be a reliable balance to Rome. It definitely changed his campaign, and forced him into battles he rather had avoided.
A lot of his success was advertising to others in Italy that they could depend on him. A lot of the troops and supplies he used were from those allies in Italy.
Also, to change the history all he had to do was delay Roman expansion by a few decades; it was probably set in stone he could not keep an invasion up forever: but organizing a lasting counterbalance, with many Tribes and cities in Italy, using Carthage as a nucleus, was possible.
Rome had plenty of opponents in Italy without him, but they had no good way to unify against Rome without him
That political rivalry in Carthage against his family probably changed the history of Europe. Who knows what he could have done with timely support in Italy? We would not be speaking English for sure
One must also question, of course, what support Carthage could have given him, considering that the seas were largely dominated by Roman fleets in the Second Punic War.
There were times when extra troops and supplies were stopped by his enemies at home.
In an alternate history he might have locked down parts of southern Italy: hobbling an expansionist Rome long enough for everything to be different
Those extra troops and supplies would still have to reach Italy. And once dispatched to Italy, they would not have been available for the Spanish theatre - the accelerated fall of which may have just sped up the timeline for Carthage’s defeat.
Once Rome stopped buying new Legions and feeding them to hungry Carthaginian generals, Hannibal victories largely dried up, and his strategy of attempting to sway Italian polities to his side was overwhelmingly a failure. More troops wouldn’t have changed that he refused to meet Roman forces on battlefields of their choosing, and could no longer rely on Romans rushing to face him on battlefields of his choosing. And with the fall of Syracuse, it’s extremely dubious that he would have been in a position to take Southern Italy while hemmed in on all sides. Playing stalling games in Campania was about all he could do at that point, with or without additional resources.
Carthage definitely had to supply a complex theater of operations. But I remember he did get supplies , and once was waiting in a port city for promised supplies that were diverted.
That cost him alliances, and set the tone, for a while , where he had to prove, and keep proving, to others in Italy that he could be a reliable balance to Rome. It definitely changed his campaign, and forced him into battles he rather had avoided.
A lot of his success was advertising to others in Italy that they could depend on him. A lot of the troops and supplies he used were from those allies in Italy.
Also, to change the history all he had to do was delay Roman expansion by a few decades; it was probably set in stone he could not keep an invasion up forever: but organizing a lasting counterbalance, with many Tribes and cities in Italy, using Carthage as a nucleus, was possible.
Rome had plenty of opponents in Italy without him, but they had no good way to unify against Rome without him