What if Hannibal Barca had not only breached the walls of Rome, but then proceeded to raze the city to the ground, destroying the city in a manner reminiscent of what happened to the mythical Troy?
How would history have changed, and would the Romans have still been able to win, with their heart destroyed?
World history would be much, much different.
Carthage was not a North African clone of Rome. It was a very different society with very different goals and aspirations.
It would really depend on how much Romans wanted to keep Rome going as compared to just relocating to other cities/founding new ones. If you look at wars in Greco-Roman history city razing wasn't uncommon. Fairly common when a victor just didn't want to deal with that city anymore. It didn't mean the city itself ceased to exist. Athens was razed in the 5th century by the Persians and they were a considerable powerhouse for a couple more centuries. In fact the archeological record of a lot of Greco-Roman layers shows "destruction layers" of ash, arrowheads, rubble, etc....where cities were razed several times. Here's a good summary. Destruction of Cities in the Greek World
It would likely have to do with how much of the Roman nobility survive, and how supportive the neighbors are of refunding Rome. In the power balance, if other cities in the Italian Peninsula think supporting a Roman rebuilding helps counter the power of Rome, then it happens. If Rome can continue to be the loci of power...History may go on more or less the same way, albeit with a couple generation slow down of Roman power development. But it's also possible that someone else fills the gap. Carthage builds a maritime power hegemony where the Mediterranean states are more or less independent under a Carthaginian dominance for a while. Or the Greeks figure their stuff out and another Alexander brings unity there to redominate that part of the world.
Your mention of the destruction of cities in the Greek world reminds me of how the Greeks razed Troy to the ground, taking away treasure and slaves. The consensus was that violent warriors like Achilles and Agamemnon had utterly destroyed Troy. Yet, archeology tells us that it was rebuilt!
In order for this to have happened, Hasdrubal Barca would have needed to destroy the Scipio Brothers' army right after Cannae and march into North Italy, Mago Barca's army land in Liguria and march into North Italy, and the Romans unable to cobble together their 4 legions worth of garrison troops from Illyria, Sicily, and Tarentum for a last stand resistance against three Barcid field armies.
At that point they might as well surrender, so razing Rome would not necessarily even be necessary.
Very hard to assess. Rome was such a power that its absence, and presumably a dominant Carthage, history could spin of in any direction. Perhaps the Alexandrian successor states continue to grow.
If you take it back earlier to when Brennus had the chance to destroy Rome, does Carthage behave differently without a strong rival in Italy.
People tend to forget too that it's not even really Carthage that we're talking about, but the personal Barcid empire in Spain.
In name it was part of Carthage and as far as Rome was concerned, Carthage was responsible for Hannibal's actions. However, Hannibal's father established himself as a quasi divine king and acted independently of Carthage.
If Hannibal wins, it's difficult to say how that would've played out. Does he win despite the half assed support from his mother city? If so, what is the now victorious Hannibal's next action? Does he continue to act as an agent of Carthage or does he go on building his own independent empire?
Interesting point.
There very fact of Barcid power was part of the reason for the tepid support, they didn't want Hannibal to be too successful.
It was said that without Carthage, we wouldn't have had Rome ( as we know it) but what happens Carthage without Rome to challenge it. A Carthage/ Barcid war is an interesting possibility, like a brutal sequel to the Truceless war.
In the third century BCE it was still just the city of Rome and it's coalition of subjects and "allies".
If the city of Rome gets raised, the whole polity is gone.
Would the Romans have still been able to win?
What Romans?
Awfully bold of you to assume there would be any non-enslaved survivors.