War Strategies of Ancient times in terms of Genocide

Hannibal During 2^nd Punic War

Hannibal’s strategies as reported by LTC James Parker of the US Army in his article

Comparing Strategies of the 2d Punic War: Rome’s Strategic Victory Over the Tactical/Operational Genius, Hannibal Barca were “1) Defeat Roman field armies   2) Move south and separate allies 3) Invade Latium and besiege Rome.”  However, this strategy ended up backfiring and causing him to lose the war.

Hannibal Barca was the leader of the Carthaginian army during the 2^nd Punic War. He is considered one of the best tactical generals in all of history.  He led the army of Carthage into Italy and stayed their defeating Roman armies for 15 years.  However, his resistance to a complete genocide of Rome came back to bite him in the end (and eventually led to the genocide of Carthage in the 3^rd Punic War).  Hannibal’s plan as listed above was to go into Italy and in defeating Roman armies get their allies to join Carthage.  He did not want to destroy Rome but instead his goal was to bring Rome into the Carthaginian Empire.  This in the end was his downfall.

Hannibal’s major victory was at Cannea, where he destroyed 16 legions of Roman armies, in what is considered today to be one of the best tactical victories of all time.  However, even after defeating a large piece of the Roman army he continued to stay in Southern Italy and not attack Rome.  His ambivalence coupled with the lack of reinforcements from Carthage caused the Carthaginian loss in the war.  This is how one of the greatest generals of all time was defeated in the 2^nd Punic War.  

This lends an interesting view on genocide.  Had Hannibal sacked and killed the people of Rome when he had a chance (which he had a few when he had a clear path to Rome with the Roman Army out of his way) he could have been victorious in this battle and in making Carthage the most powerful empire in the world.  Does this mean that genocide is the right move for Hannibal?  Does the victory in what could have been a major turning point in the history of the world make genocide the correct option?  These are the questions that Hannibal’s failure brings up.        

Rome During 3^rd Punic War

As was described in the earlier section, Hannibal decided not to sack Rome and this was one reason he was defeated.  In the 3^rd Punic War, Rome would not make the same mistake.  Even after showing their might during the 2^nd Punic War, Rome decided that they were not satisfied with the homage that Carthage was paying them.  In this case they would wage war on Carthage and take their burgeoning army into Northern Africa. 

The Romans would not make the same mistake Hannibal did.  According to Appain the Romans would totally destroy Carthage.  In his words “Then came new scenes of horror. As the fire spread and carried everything down, the soldiers did not wait to destroy the buildings little by little, but all in a heap…Scipio that he would spare the lives of all who might wish to depart from Byrsa. This he granted to all except the deserters. Forthwith there came out 50,000 men and women together, a narrow gate in the wall being opened, and a guard furnished for them.”   This tells of how the Roman leader completely destroyed the city and then took the surviving Carthaginians back to Rome and turning them into slaves.

This shows that the respect that Hannibal showed Rome was not reciprocated.  Rome did not care about taking Carthage as part of their empire.  This is what led to their victory and the end of Carthage.  So this again poises the question if genocide can be the smart way to go about defeating other nations?  Rome used it and finished off its opponent while Carthage chose not to and paid the price.

Appian

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_punic_26.html#%A7129

LTC James Parker

http://www.iwar.org.uk/military/resources/hannibal/Parker_J_P_01.pdf