It was not like they lost because of bad luck, Rome had a much bigger empire. And I'm kind of happy that Rome won or else we wouldn't be here today.
According to Polybius(the most reliable ancient historian)
at 220Bc(two years before the invasion) Rome could field 700.000 infantry and 80.000 cavalry, whereas Hannibal crossed the alps with only 40.000 men.
These facts combined with the established Roman naval supremacy after the first Punic war led the Romans to the assumption that the war would be an "away match" in Spain and Africa.
Hannibal's briliant tactical victories only managed to prolonge an already lost war.
It must be added here that Hannbal had no clear objective in mind when he invaded Italy.He brought no siege engines with which to capture the larger cities and eventually Rome itself.It seemed he believed the war could be won by inflicting devastating looses upon the Romans,impressing their italian allies and force them to switch sides.Such a tactic could never suceed against Rome with her inexaustible manpower sources.
His only hope, an alliance with King Philip V of Macedonia
collapsed when the Carthaginian messengers bearing a request for Macedonian aid in southen Italy were intercepted en route to Greece.His neglect of signing such an important treary before the war only raises questions about Hanibal strategical goals.
Comment