After looking at the article on Ancient Egypt colonizing Africa I thought it had potential as an interesting topic but no one was discussing what I felt were the pertinent angles. That said it caused me to rethink of an old idea which I felt was a much more realistic question.

Should Hannibal Barca have taken Ptolemaic egypt instead of attacking Rome?

Carthage
Hannibal Barca initiated the second Punic war at around 218 BCE at this point Carthage already had southern Iberia(Spain) under control. They also had an experienced army from that conquest. There goal wasn't to attack Rome directly it was to attack it's surrounding client states and choke it out by weakening it's access to troops and resources.

The Carthaginian army in Iberia, excluding the forces in Africa, totaled, according to Polybius, 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 37 war elephants: it was thus one of the largest in the Hellenistic world and equal in numbers to any that the Romans had yet fielded. Hannibal departed with this army from New Carthage (Cartagena, Spain) northwards along the coast in late spring of 218 BC.



Ptolemaic Egypt
Around the same time(218 BCE) in Ptolemaic Egypt the Battle of Raphia was a year away 217(BCE). After this successful war the native Egyptians used their war training to rebel against the Ptolemaic kingdom establishing an autonomous kingdom for 20 years. Ptolemaic Egypt was generally in decline around this point anyway.

Battle of Raphia
According to Polybius, Ptolemy had 70,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 73 war elephants and Antiochus 62,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 102 elephants.

The two largest of the Hellenistic kingdoms, Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, were bitter enemies, and repeatedly fought for control of Syria. These were the Syrian Wars. The Fourth Syrian War began in 219 B.C. Ptolemaic Egypt was ruled by Ptolemy IV, and the Seleucid Empire was ruled by Antiochus III the Great. By 217 B.C. Antiochus and the Seleucid army advanced through Syria. Ptolemy’s self interests led his ministers, advisors and generals to make serious preparations. Both kingdoms disputed Syria.


www.nairaland.com/attachments/2589443_800pxptolemaicempire200bc_jpeg5b54642e28475e05137205844f7343f0

According to Polybius, Carthaginian army in Iberia had 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 37 war elephants(excluding the forces in Africa)
According to Polybius, Ptolemy had 70,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 73 war elephants



My position is Carthage takes Egypt in order to consolidate hold of the southern Mediterranean trade along with exit to the Atlantic(Carthage already controlled the straits of Gibraltar) This provides...
1.Economic might over Rome by trade from the Senegal river all the way to Egypt
2. A war cushion against rome in terms of supplies(from egypt) and second base of operations Egypt
3. A war cushion against Arabian peninsular in terms of supplies(from Carthage) and second base of operations Carthage

Between (southern Iberia, Carthage, and Egypt) they could have weathered most any attack of that day up till the Mongol introduction of gun powder into the region. It's up for grabs after that.

Conclusion:
Cognitively I don't think it would've even crossed his mind. This was a generational vendetta from his dad, step brother, down to him. By the time he gained control of the army he was in tunnel vision mode against Rome. Maybe if it had been successful they would've looked to Egypt

But he didn't.. and the rest they say is history... If he did take Egypt it would have undoubtedly changed the history of mankind..but eventually they would inevitably clash with the Romans.

Should Hannibal have taken Ptolemaic Egypt instead of attacking Rome?


Putting the question this way makes it sound like Carthage's military class could have chosen between Rome and Egypt which power to attack in 218 BC, and made a conscious decision to take on Rome rather than Egypt. I don't think that choice lay before Hannibal and Carthage's political elite at all.

In fact, it would have been a foolish move if Carthage, instead of dealing with the Roman threat, had decided to sail east and cross swords with Egypt.

Reason is this. Carthage was situated in the Western Mediterranean. The nucleus of its power was therefore in the Western Mediterranean...and that is where it would always have been had Carthage survived the Punic Wars. It would have been ill-advised for Carthage to invest its military energy in campaigns farther away in the Eastern Mediterranean (where Egypt lies) at a time when her power base/nucleus in the Western Mediterranean was being threatened by a growing military force nearer home -- Rome.

Remember that by this time, Rome already controlled Sicily (which she wrestled from Carthage after the first Punic War), and was also already gaining toeholds in the Iberian Peninsula, which hitherto had been Carthage's virtually exclusive demesne.

Sicily is pretty close to the city of Carthage. Veery close, in short. If I was Hannibal I would have been more concerned with the fact that such a strategic island (from a military point of view) was in the hands of my biggest rival in the Western Mediterranean, than I would have been with winning sovereignity over the 'quiet', relatively non-troublesome, Kingdom of the Ptolemies.

If Hannibal had taken his army east, that would definitely have left Carthage vulnerable to Roman attack from Sicily or from Roman-held territory in Spain. Carthage would easily have found itself at war on two fronts. Rome and some Berber allies attacking in the West, Egypt and allied kingdoms of the Hellenistic East (plus Macedonia, most likely) in the East. Carthage, for all its power could not have survived.

The rational thing was to crush Rome in the Western Mediterranean, consolidate its power there, and eventually turn its attention on the Eastern Mediterranean and Egypt. That is the only plan that had a chance of success.

Interestingly, Macedonia was an ally of Carthage during the second Punic War, an ally I doubt she would have had at that time if she had invaded Ptolemaic Egypt (with its line of Macedonian-descent rulers, and it's Hellenistic tradition).