Carthaginian Expansion into the Sahara

[Historico]

The Garamantes were probably present as tribal people in the Fezzan by 1000 BC They appear in the written record for the first time in the 5th century BC; according to Herodotus, they were a numerous people who herded cattle and hunted the "Ethiopian Troglodytes", or "cave-dwellers" who lived in the desert, from four-horse chariots. (These people may have been a Khoisan-like race of pygmies who local populations claim once inhabited the region.) Roman depictions describe them as bearing ritual scars and tattoos. Tacitus wrote that they assisted the rebel Tacfarinas and raided Roman coastal settlements.

The Romans kept close trade contacts with Garamantes; archaeologists have even found a Roman bathhouse in Garama. The Roman chronicler Maternus accompanied a Garamantian ruler on a four-month military expedition to what is now the border area of Nigeria. Still, despite of the trade relations, Romans did not really consider them civilized.

The Garamantians represented a challenge to Rome, never giving in to Roman power, while the coastal zones of today's Libya did. Despite this, Herodotus reported that they had no weapons of war, and did not know how to defend themselves.

In the 1st century BC, the Garamantes raided North Africa and clashed with Roman forces. According to Pliny the Elder, Romans eventually grew tired of Garamantian raiding and Lucius Cornelius Balbus captured 15 of their settlements in 19 BC. After a Roman punitive expedition in 70, the Garamantes were forced into an official relationship with Rome and might have become one of the Roman client states.

By around 150 the Garamantian kingdom (in today's central Libya (Fezzan), principally along the still existing Wadi l-Ajal), covered 180,000 square kilometres in modern-day southern Libya. It lasted from about 400 BC to 600.

The decline of the Garamantian civilization is said to be connected to worsening climatic conditions. What is desert today, was fairly good agricultural land and enhanced through irrigation 1,500 years ago. As the fossil water does not replenish itself quickly, over the six centuries of the Garamantian kingdom, the ground water level fell. The kingdom declined and fragmented. Its competitor, the Ghanian kingdom in the western Sudan, became its successor.

Byzantine records claim that the king of Garamantes made a peace treaty with Byzantium in 569 and accepted Christianity. Later Muslim records say that in 668 the king of Garamantes was imprisoned and dragged off in chains. The area was eventually absorbed into the Muslim sphere of influence.

So What If Hanno, The Carthaginian Merchant who around 550-450 BC, who made the legendary trek across the Sahara stumbled across this Saharan Civilization and convinced the Carthaginian 100 that the region was far to bountiful to pass up? Would The Carthaginains spend Resources to conquer this civilization so, it may be useful in time of war?

[Nicole]

They may ally with the Garamantes... but I don't see why the Carthaginians would see it worth conquering, after all they are more of a trade empire.

[Leo Caesius]

I'm fairly certain that the Carthaginians were aware of the Garamantes, but Hanno didn't trek across the Sahara - he made a periplus around Africa.

[Michael B]

When you consider that the Cathaginians did very nicely out of their holdings in Sicily and Spain whilst they held them, what would be the point of conquering large areas of desert that would have had little imperial return?

[Leo Caesius]

Not to mention Spain, with its mines.

[LordKalvan]

Even more to the point, Hanno's periplus of Africa was an "once only" venture.
There is no record of anything coming out of it: no colonies (which were possibly something distant from Carthaginian mentality) but not even trading posts, even if Africa might offer precious goods to trade (ivory, rare woods, gold). It would be interesting to imagine a "new Carthage" in the Cape area.
The climate is similar enough to Mediterranean, and, even if the ties with Carthage are lost after the Roman victory, there are trading opportunities toward India and the isles of the Sonda (via Madagascar) or toward Arabia, via Zanzibar and Socotra (all these islands would do nicely for Carthaginian naval bases).

[Straha]

imagine if the dutch come to the cape and find a carthaginian empire...

[Michael B]

It would be interesting to imagine a "new Carthage" in the Cape area. The Cathaginians are going to have as much trouble trying to sustain it as the Vikings had Vineland. The problem is that they don't have a ship that can sail from the Moroccan coast straight to the Cape as the early modern Europeans had. That means that a voyage is going to require staging posts in tropical Africa. Any one manning them is going to be killed by the natives if disease doesn't get them first. Yes, the early modern Euros did have trade forts, but they also had cannon. It was only in the nineteenth century that they managed to handle the diseases

Sailing home is also difficult until the winds that blow up the west side of the south Atlantic are discovered.

[LordKalvan]

Quite true.
But the main reason is that there are a lot of opportunities much closer to home (Spain, Sicily, Sardinia). There is no demographic pressure, and no commercial incentive to go so far away.

In any case the "sanitary belt" of the Equator, say from OTL Nigeria southward to Zaire, is an effective impediment to European expansion (which is probably why the Romans too never pushed southward from Morocco).

[Leo Caesius]

But the main reason is that there are a lot of opportunities much closer to home (Spain, Sicily, Sardinia). There is no demographic pressure, and no commercial incentive to go so far away.If Diodorus Siculus is to be believed, however, they did in fact have a "doomsday plan" to relocate their entire operation, in the event that something should happen to Carthage.

[DominusNovus]

If Diodorus Siculus is to be believed, however, they did in fact have a "doomsday plan" to relocate their entire operation, in the event that something should happen to Carthage.
Too bad nobody ever invaded Carthage or conquered the city. :rolleyes: :cool:

[Tyr]

The ancient idea of the way the world was involved the belief that the sahara was utterly impassible and just got hotter and hotter until a man would just ignite.
They believed that the northern and far southern regions of the world were too cold for habitation, the middle too hot and in betwen these 3 were 2 habitable zones- the other one being utterly unreachable by mortal men.

This is more of a Greek way of thinking but I'm sure Carthage would see the same logic.

[Leo Caesius]

That's not the view of the world we get in the Somnium Scipionis (after Scipio Africanus, the conquerer of Carthage). He is intrigued with the idea that, on the other side of the globe, people were walking with their feet pointed up at him.

Besides, by Roman times, the Trans-Saharan slave trade is surely already in place? Even if Hanno didn't trek across the Sahara, he did make it to sub-Saharan Africa, and brought back some gorillas (we actually got the word "gorilla" from this very tale).

[Faeelin]

If Diodorus Siculus is to be believed, however, they did in fact have a "doomsday plan" to relocate their entire operation, in the event that something should happen to Carthage.

Where did they plan on going?

[Faeelin]

Besides, by Roman times, the Trans-Saharan slave trade is surely already in place? Even if Hanno didn't trek across the Sahara, he did make it to sub-Saharan Africa, and brought back some gorillas (we actually got the word "gorilla" from this very tale).

You know, I think that the trans-saharan slave trade didn't start until well into the Islamic Era, with the arrival of camels.

I could be wrong, of course.

[Paul Spring]

According to a story in Herodotus (which he stated that he did not believe, but wrote down anyway) a group of Phoenicians actually sailed all the way around Africa - but they started along the Red Sea coast of Egypt (the expedition was funded by a Pharaoh) and sailed around the entire continent in clockwise direction, eventually reentering the Mediterranean and returning to Egypt. This was around 620 BC, I think. It supposedly took them about 3 years if I remember correctly, stopping periodically to gather and/or grow food at different places along the coast. Some people have suggested that this is quite possible, since it's actually easier to go around Africa from east to west rather than the other way, since the current is going with you rather than against you most of the way.

That route wouldn't have helped Carthage much, but I think it's worth noting that there may have been at least a few people in the Mediterranean who had a decent idea of the actual size and outline of Africa.

[Leo Caesius]

Where did they plan on going?A large, uninhabited, thickly forested island with navigable rivers somewhere out in the Atlantic, according to Diodorus Siculus. Either they were bluffing or exaggerating about the size of the islands they had discovered, none of which actually had navigable rivers.

[Faeelin]

A large, uninhabited, thickly forested island with navigable rivers somewhere out in the Atlantic, according to Diodorus Siculus. Either they were bluffing or exaggerating about the size of the islands they had discovered, none of which actually had navigable rivers.


You know, at this point the Caribbean was largely empty....

[Leo Caesius]

You know, at this point the Caribbean was largely empty....Precisely. *Evil laughter.*

Actually, if I ever do get to publishing my Carthaginian TL, I think I'll leave it up in the air as to whether they survive or not. For dramatic effect. I'm so sick and tired of "Carthaginians colonize the New World" TLs by this point. However, I do think it would be need to tinker with a story about the Carthaginian Plan B and the evacuation of Carthage.

[Faeelin]

Actually, if I ever do get to publishing my Carthaginian TL, I think I'll leave it up in the air as to whether they survive or not. For dramatic effect. I'm so sick and tired of "Carthaginians colonize the New World" TLs by this point. However, I do think it would be need to tinker with a story about the Carthaginian Plan B and the evacuation of Carthage.

I dunno, Leo.

How many good ones have you seen?

For fun, fast foward to 1492, when Columbus finds a thriving iron age civilization sacrificing people to Bel.

[Historico]

If Diodorus Siculus is to be believed, however, they did in fact have a "doomsday plan" to relocate their entire operation, in the event that something should happen to Carthage.

Interesting, eventhough I am talking about a different Hanno actually did trek across the Sahara...I mainly was wondering about if the Carthaginains possibly after the destruction of the city itself...Travel to Garamatia and Settle there...Would a strong punic state wan't to venture out of this Nova Carthage/Garamatia state and futher explore Africa itself?

[Nicole]

But why would the trade and sea-oriented Carthaginians go to Garamantia?

[Leo Caesius]

Interesting, even though I am talking about a different Hanno actually did trek across the Sahara...Tell me more about this Hanno, because I have never heard about him before.

I mainly was wondering about if the Carthaginains possibly after the destruction of the city itself...Travel to Garamatia and Settle there...Would a strong punic state wan't to venture out of this Nova Carthage/Garamatia state and futher explore Africa itself?Well, as Faeelin pointed out, without the "ships of the desert" you don't get trans-saharan travel (although I'm 100% positive that the Romans had slaves from subsaharan Africa; perhaps they transported them by boat or traveled via the Nile River valley). If the Carthaginians retreated into Numidia, Mauretania, or Garamantia, they'd be in an even worse position to get to subsaharan Africa, as the interior of the continent is a much bigger obstacle than the coast.

[Tyr]

That's not the view of the world we get in the Somnium Scipionis (after Scipio Africanus, the conquerer of Carthage). He is intrigued with the idea that, on the other side of the globe, people were walking with their feet pointed up at him.

Besides, by Roman times, the Trans-Saharan slave trade is surely already in place? Even if Hanno didn't trek across the Sahara, he did make it to sub-Saharan Africa, and brought back some gorillas (we actually got the word "gorilla" from this very tale).

Eh?
That fits in with my view.
They did believe there was men on the other habitable side of the world, they were called antropods or something similar.
This is the entire reason the idea became unpopular- with the coming of christianity people couldn't accept that another Jesus had either appeared on the other side of the world as well or that they were forever damned (wikipedia has something written very close to this)

The African slaves would be assumed to be just from the edges of the habitable zone- after all it must have been some way off as people weren't bursting into flames anywhere near the med.

[robertp6165]

Tell me more about this Hanno, because I have never heard about him before.

Well, as Faeelin pointed out, without the "ships of the desert" you don't get trans-saharan travel (although I'm 100% positive that the Romans had slaves from subsaharan Africa; perhaps they transported them by boat or traveled via the Nile River valley).

The Romans may have had a few African slaves which they gained via Nubia. The Romans did periodically campaign down there. But the trans-Saharan slave trade dates to the 7th century A.D. and was started by the Arabs.

[Leo Caesius]

The Romans may have had a few African slaves which they gained via Nubia. The Romans did periodically campaign down there. But the trans-Saharan slave trade dates to the 7th century A.D. and was started by the Arabs.Herodotus relates that the Nasamones (one of the nomadic Libyan tribes, as opposed to the settled Libyan tribes in the West) attempted to cross the "Sandy Belt" and actually succeeded, ending up in the valley of a river that traveled from east to west (which he identifies with some branch of the Nile). The inhabitants of this marshy river valley were a race of black-skinned pygmies who were skilled in sorcery.

He also relates two other attempts to cross the Sandy Belt, which ended in catastrophe.

[Othniel]

Leo, I forget, but which year was it that Africa was circumnavigated?

[robertp6165]

Herodotus relates that the Nasamones (one of the nomadic Libyan tribes, as opposed to the settled Libyan tribes in the West) attempted to cross the "Sandy Belt" and actually succeeded, ending up in the valley of a river that traveled from east to west (which he identifies with some branch of the Nile). The inhabitants of this marshy river valley were a race of black-skinned pygmies who were skilled in sorcery.

He also relates two other attempts to cross the Sandy Belt, which ended in catastrophe.

I don't deny that there may have been sporadic crossings of the Sahara prior to the 7th Century A.D. But they were just that...sporadic. The trans-Saharan slave trade did not begin until the arrival of the Arabs in North Africa. African slaves held by the Romans most likely came from Nubia via the Nile, not by any trans-Saharan route.

[robertp6165]

Leo, I forget, but which year was it that Africa was circumnavigated?

The Phoenicians left from Egypt's Red Sea ports in 603 BC and arrived back in Egypt via the Pillars of Heracles in 600 BC. <shameless plug warning>Incidentally, this voyage was the POD for my ANCIENT EGYPT SURVIVES UNTIL THE PRESENT DAY timeline.

[Leo Caesius]

The trans-Saharan slave trade did not begin until the arrival of the Arabs in North Africa.That being the implication of my statement "without the 'ships of the desert' you don't get trans-saharan travel."

[Historico]

Tell me more about this Hanno, because I have never heard about him before.

Well, as Faeelin pointed out, without the "ships of the desert" you don't get trans-saharan travel (although I'm 100% positive that the Romans had slaves from subsaharan Africa; perhaps they transported them by boat or traveled via the Nile River valley). If the Carthaginians retreated into Numidia, Mauretania, or Garamantia, they'd be in an even worse position to get to subsaharan Africa, as the interior of the continent is a much bigger obstacle than the coast.

I Actually got the name mixed up of the Carthaginain Explorer who crossed the Sahara. The Explorer was Mago who made the trek c.a 450 BC...But I more Interested in the Carthaginains retreating to Garamatia after the lose of the third Punic War to possibly come back and defeat the romans a Century or So later

[Leo Caesius]

I Actually got the name mixed up of the Carthaginain Explorer who crossed the Sahara. The Explorer was Mago who made the trek c.a 450 BC...But I more Interested in the Carthaginains retreating to Garamatia after the lose of the third Punic War to possibly come back and defeat the romans a Century or So laterI'm afraid that that's highly unlikely. The land that the Garamantes occupied wasn't actually all that fertile, at least by Herodotus' reckoning (he claims that Libya is inferior to Europe and Asia in terms of its fertility, and that all of the good land was on the coast and around the River Cinyps, in the area that came to be occupied by the Romans). The group that Herodotus describes as lacking any weapons of war and not knowing how to defend themselves is probably not the Garamantes but another group with a similar name that became corrupt at some point in the transmission of the text, as the Garamantes who fight the "Ethiopian troglodytes" in their chariots live deep within Libya, and the pseudo-"Garamentes" who have no weapons live in the vicinity of the Nasamones and the Psylli, on the coast.

The territory of the Garamantes was, according to Herodotus, based around an oasis, ten days' march from any other oasis and thirty days' march from the coast -- not the sort of resource that could sustain an entire civilization, and certainly not a civilization of the size that could "defeat" the Romans. Also, the Garamantes are not going to be terribly happy about sharing their oasis with the Carthaginians, and if the Carthaginians attempt to seize their territories after having been thrashed by the Romans, they'll probably get the stuffing knocked out of them.

[Leo Caesius]

Apropos of crossing the Sahara - I read this in the Journal of World History 14.4:
No doubt Arab accounts are superior to classical accounts in accurately
describing the peoples of the Sahara largely because of one profound
event that occurred in the interval: the opening of the trans-
Saharan trade system. In the ancient period some trade existed into
and out of the Sahara with the secretive Carthaginians playing some
undetermined role on the north side. But this was a haphazard relay
system in which goods were passed from oasis to oasis, people to people,
until they were consumed or, in rare cases, emerged on the other
side. The coming of Islam with its system of commercial law and larger
world contacts and the use of the camel as a cross-desert beast of burden
opened highways to trade. None of the ancients had informants
who had actually crossed the desert; all of the Arab writers could find
such people if they so wished.

In ancient sources references to trans-Saharan crossings are few and problematic. Athenaeus’s The Deipnosophists offhandedly mentions that “Mago of Carthage crossed the desert three times, eating dry meal and having nothing to drink” (II.44). Herodotus relates the story of a crossing that is almost as bizarre (II.32). It involved five young Nasamones, who set out in search of adventure, deciding to explore the desert. Eventually they were captured and carried off by little black men to a town beside a crocodile-infested river flowing from west to east. The town was said to be inhabited by wizards. The Nasamones escaped and returned home. Ptolemy (I.8.4; 1.10–11) reports that a certain Julius Maternus from Leptis Magna, accompanied the King of the Garamantes on a four-month expedition southward to Agisymba, “the place where the rhinoceri gather.” Wherever this was, Julius Maternus’s trip produced no long range consequences.

[Umbral]

Pardon me for the thread necromancy, but recent archeologic excavations indicate that the Garmantian empire were no one-oasis affair but larger by...quite a bit (http://www.archaeology.org/0403/abstracts/sands.html).

Given their advantages in terrain and fierce need for slaves, is it possible contact with the Carthagians may not have resulted in any Carthagian expansion, but quite the opposite?

I think some speculations on this deserves its own thread.

[DominusNovus]

The article points out that there was more water available, just out of reach of the Garamantes' capabilities.

This inspires me to some degree. Because, after all, in my Historia Mundi timeline, technology is a fair bit more advanced around the time their civilization fell.

But, I'd have to retcon them back into the timeline, something I'm loathe to do (even though I'm gonna have to do it with India alot, since i keep ignoring them).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Also, the Carthginians already controlled all the outlets for Saharan trade, so they were benefitting from the Sahara without having to expend the resources to try to control it militarily.

France in the 19th & 20th c spent 100 years conquering the Sahara, which required a progressive and sustained effort, supported by advanced technology and the need to develop manpower resources that could be used in the desert. Nevertheless, it was a big money loser. Contrast that with the Ottomans, who treated the Sahara as an "international" hinterland and generated budget surpluses in Libya, which was much poorer than Tunis or Algeria.

Quite true.
But the main reason is that there are a lot of opportunities much closer to home (Spain, Sicily, Sardinia). There is no demographic pressure, and no commercial incentive to go so far away.

In any case the "sanitary belt" of the Equator, say from OTL Nigeria southward to Zaire, is an effective impediment to European expansion (which is probably why the Romans too never pushed southward from Morocco).

[Equinox]

if you wanna know what happens, read m timeline;) A Carthaginian Victory (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=64126)

[Alcuin]

Herodotus relates that the Nasamones (one of the nomadic Libyan tribes, as opposed to the settled Libyan tribes in the West) attempted to cross the "Sandy Belt" and actually succeeded, ending up in the valley of a river that traveled from east to west (which he identifies with some branch of the Nile).

Shouldn't that be West to East? Firstly the Niger travels West to East, secondly, it is more likely that he would see a river flowing West to East as a tributary of the Nile. If one was flowing East to West, he'd just assume that it flowed into the Atlantic Ocean.

[Leo Caesius]

Shouldn't that be West to East? Firstly the Niger travels West to East, secondly, it is more likely that he would see a river flowing West to East as a tributary of the Nile. If one was flowing East to West, he'd just assume that it flowed into the Atlantic Ocean.Why do you say that? Seeing as the Nile flows south to north, any tributaries to its west (where there isn't much in the way of water) would necessarily flow not into it but away from it - east to west.

[Alcuin]

Why do you say that? Seeing as the Nile flows south to north, any tributaries to its west (where there isn't much in the way of water) would necessarily flow not into it but away from it - east to west.

No, that doesn't make sense. They knew the Nile flows into the Mediterranean. Any tributary would have to flow into the river because that's what tributaries do.

[Leo Caesius]

No, that doesn't make sense. They knew the Nile flows into the Mediterranean. Any tributary would have to flow into the river because that's what tributaries do.Fine, then, distributary. Does it make sense now?

[Umbral]

More interest in the Niger basin might be intersting from this civilization.