WI: Egypt Conquers Carthage?

Scottgrad · Aug 27, 2014

What if, before the events of the third Punic War, (let's say 300 BC) Egypt and Carthage had each competed with each other over the Greeko-Mediterranean islands of Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus? What would the result had been? A prominent Carthaginian naval victory or success for the closer-by Egyptians?

I'm not sure what Egypt's naval standing was at this time, but I do know the Phoenicians had a prominent and capable naval power, but their reliance on Mercenaries would probably have disastrous effects if war with Egypt were to occur on land (not sure how many Greeks were willing to sell their services to Carthaginians).

Please provide details as to why one would have reigned dominant for the control of these islands.

Herzen's love-child · Aug 27, 2014

You realize that in 300BC we're talking of Ptolemaic Egypt? That there hadn't been such a competition between the 2 powers and in fact had civil trade relations? That Egypt was seriously engaged in the wars of the Diadochi? And that Carthage was engaged at the time with the Western Greeks, particularly Syracuse?

In other words, both powers were seriously distracted and not in any direct competition with each other.

You'd have to change the date and change a lot of the history of both the Diadochi and Carthage to have your desired state of affairs. Carthage never had pretensions to hegemony in the Eastern Med and had no power projection in that area at all. They looked to their North and West, instead. Had they tried to vie for Crete or Cyprus or Rhodes (a strong naval power in its own right), various of the Diadochi states would nail Carthage for its cheek.

Seleucus · Aug 27, 2014

On a related topic, however, I'm curious to see if there's room for Carthage to intervene in the eastern Mediterranean.

For instance, how implausible would it be for the Seleukids to attempt military alliance with Carthage, promising to grant independence to their homeland of Phoenicia once that's conquered from the Ptolemaics, in return for Carthaginian naval assistance?

Herzen's love-child · Aug 27, 2014

Seleucus said:
On a related topic, however, I'm curious to see if there's room for Carthage to intervene in the eastern Mediterranean.

For instance, how implausible would it be for the Seleukids to attempt military alliance with Carthage, promising to grant independence to their homeland of Phoenicia once that's conquered from the Ptolemaics, in return for Carthaginian naval assistance?

I think Carthage would have appreciated help more against Syracuse. I'm pretty sure Carthage by this point hadn't more than sentimental feelings of their homeland.
It took a common enemy, Rome, to create a nominal alliance between Carthage and the Seleucid Empire. Egypt isn't that common enemy.

Seleucus · Aug 27, 2014

Herzen's love-child said:
I think Carthage would have appreciated help more against Syracuse.
It took a common enemy, Rome, to create a nominal alliance between Carthage and the Seleucid Empire. Egypt isn't that common enemy.

The question is how much affection did Carthage still hold for their homeland of Phoenicia? The did, after all, evacuate civilians from Tyre and attempt to send a fleet in its defense when Alexander sieged it. I do think that if promised a prize such as Phoenician independence and how reason to trust the promise, they would consider such an alliance

Namayan · Aug 27, 2014

Scottgrad said:
What if, before the events of the third Punic War, (let's say 300 BC) Egypt and Carthage had each competed with each other over the Greeko-Mediterranean islands of Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus? What would the result had been? A prominent Carthaginian naval victory or success for the closer-by Egyptians?

I'm not sure what Egypt's naval standing was at this time, but I do know the Phoenicians had a prominent and capable naval power, but their reliance on Mercenaries would probably have disastrous effects if war with Egypt were to occur on land (not sure how many Greeks were willing to sell their services to Carthaginians).

Please provide details as to why one would have reigned dominant for the control of these islands.

Carthage needs to be invited first in big boys Hellenics club among Macedonia, Seleucids and the ptolemies before they can even think of taking either one of them on the Hellenic area if you mean 300 bc.

But first you really need find a plausible reason and resources for Carthage to venture in that part of the med first before you can dream of them having a war.

If you mean before third Punic war which is between 200-150 bc, Carthage doesn't even have a military by then. Not only that, the Romans are in that area by that time. So that ASBish if you meant that timeframe.

SlyDessertFox · Aug 27, 2014

So here's a scenario: Carthage is conquered by some Alexanderesque adventurer who also (like Alexander) is willing to adopt/adapt Phoenician culture and essentially makes a more Greco-Phoenician Carthage that still maintains its interest in maritime matters, except now with a Hellenistic King. In that way, Carthage is now a player in Hellenistic politics by nature of having a Hellenistic King who is always going to at least consider power projection east. Now there's your reason for power projection east. Now let's say when the Ptolemaic Empire is more on (what seemed like at the time) it's last legs and is being partitioned in treaty by Antiochus* and Phillip*, Carthage's king gets in on it-say he wants the Ptolemaic port on Crete. A Ptolemaic navy then encounters a Carthaginian navy out to secure their new prize. A naval battle ensues.

Granted, it's closer to 200 BC than 300 BC, but that's the best I could think of.

Derek Pullem · Aug 27, 2014

slydessertfox said:
So here's a scenario: Carthage is conquered by some Alexanderesque adventurer who also (like Alexander) is willing to adopt/adapt Phoenician culture and essentially makes a more Greco-Phoenician Carthage that still maintains its interest in maritime matters, except now with a Hellenistic King. In that way, Carthage is now a player in Hellenistic politics by nature of having a Hellenistic King who is always going to at least consider power projection east. Now there's your reason for power projection east. Now let's say when the Ptolemaic Empire is more on (what seemed like at the time) it's last legs and is being partitioned in treaty by Antiochus* and Phillip*, Carthage's king gets in on it-say he wants the Ptolemaic port on Crete. A Ptolemaic navy then encounters a Carthaginian navy out to secure their new prize. A naval battle ensues.

Granted, it's closer to 200 BC than 300 BC, but that's the best I could think of.

Pyrrhus?

POD#1 He doesn't support Magna Graecia
POD#2 If he keeps on the right side of the Sicilians and ejects Carthage from Sicily
POD#3 Builds / buys a fleet and conquers Carthage

GdwnsnHo · Aug 27, 2014

Derek Pullem said:
Pyrrhus?

POD#1 He doesn't support Magna Graecia
POD#2 If he keeps on the right side of the Sicilians and ejects Carthage from Sicily
POD#3 Builds / buys a fleet and conquers Carthage

I can only imagine his fleet/army may succeed, but Rome is still a huge question.

If he has the forces to conquer carthage, he may have the resources to reconquer Magna Grecia.

A timeline based on this where Pyrrhus manages to adapt to Manipular legion style warfare could be incredible, especially if he can push a claim on the Diadochi afterwards.

Ultimate Paragon · Aug 27, 2014

GdwnsnHo said:
I can only imagine his fleet/army may succeed, but Rome is still a huge question.

If he has the forces to conquer carthage, he may have the resources to reconquer Magna Grecia.

A timeline based on this where Pyrrhus manages to adapt to Manipular legion style warfare could be incredible, especially if he can push a claim on the Diadochi afterwards.

That would be awesome.

SlyDessertFox · Aug 27, 2014

Derek Pullem said:
Pyrrhus?

POD#1 He doesn't support Magna Graecia
POD#2 If he keeps on the right side of the Sicilians and ejects Carthage from Sicily
POD#3 Builds / buys a fleet and conquers Carthage

Would Pyrrhus be interested in accommodating Phoenician culture and their merchant/maritime traditions?

EDIT: Alright now I'm into this I'll craft a scenario to make my above question happen.

By the time Pyrrhus reaches North Africa, a dictator* has set himself up in Carthage (not unprecedented there). A couple disaffected Carthaginian nobles approach Pyrrhus and offer to help him take the city in exchange for some guarantees. The nobles are discovered and the dictator (we'll call him Hamilcar) wants to make an example of them to discourage any further treason as the siege goes on. He has them crucified on top of the bursa and leaves their bodies on the crosses for days. He begins to crack down on dissent and all this has the opposite effect of turning more and more nobles away from him. Many of them begin to see Pyrrhus as the lesser evil-Pyrrhus starts to get wind of this and makes a series of guarantees to reassure the disaffected nobles. They agree to kill Hamilcar and let Pyrrhus' forces on a determined night in exchange for him not looting the city (in addition to the other guarantees). His forces burst into the city on cue, and with Hamilcar dead and the defenders caught completely by surprise, it's a smashing success. Most surrender or defect due to the pleas of the nobles and a small force holds out on the Bursa before it to surrenders.

Now Pyrrhus has an incentive to accommodate the Phoenicians and their institutions/traditions.

Tonifranz · Aug 27, 2014

slydessertfox said:
Would Pyrrhus be interested in accommodating Phoenician culture and their merchant/maritime traditions?

EDIT: Alright now I'm into this I'll craft a scenario to make my above question happen.

By the time Pyrrhus reaches North Africa, a dictator* has set himself up in Carthage (not unprecedented there). A couple disaffected Carthaginian nobles approach Pyrrhus and offer to help him take the city in exchange for some guarantees. The nobles are discovered and the dictator (we'll call him Hamilcar) wants to make an example of them to discourage any further treason as the siege goes on. He has them crucified on top of the bursa and leaves their bodies on the crosses for days. He begins to crack down on dissent and all this has the opposite effect of turning more and more nobles away from him. Many of them begin to see Pyrrhus as the lesser evil-Pyrrhus starts to get wind of this and makes a series of guarantees to reassure the disaffected nobles. They agree to kill Hamilcar and let Pyrrhus' forces on a determined night in exchange for him not looting the city (in addition to the other guarantees). His forces burst into the city on cue, and with Hamilcar dead and the defenders caught completely by surprise, it's a smashing success. Most surrender or defect due to the pleas of the nobles and a small force holds out on the Bursa before it to surrenders.

Now Pyrrhus has an incentive to accommodate the Phoenicians and their institutions/traditions.

Would he be tactful enough to retain support? I mean he was a shortlived king of Macedon who got booted out after only two or three years, and he immediately alienated the Greeks who invited him to Italy by his highhanded measures that could have used a little more finesse. And would he abandon his Carthaginian conquest to pursue his next project? (By which he won't intend to let go of Carthage, but he will go on some wild adventure while leaving dissatisfied people behind, who would overthrow him in his absence?)

Derek Pullem · Aug 27, 2014

Tonifranz said:
Would he be tactful enough to retain support? I mean he was a shortlived king of Macedon who got booted out after only two or three years, and he immediately alienated the Greeks who invited him to Italy by his highhanded measures that could have used a little more finesse. And would he abandon his Carthaginian conquest to pursue his next project? (By which he won't intend to let go of Carthage, but he will go on some wild adventure while leaving dissatisfied people behind, who would overthrow him in his absence?)

Probably - but if in the POD he is smart enough to avoid alienating the Sicilians maybe he's also smart enough to cut a deal with the Carthaginians

Gannt the chartist · Aug 27, 2014

Agathocles would be a better bet as a POD. He wins at Himera and its possible to extrapolate from that a more successful African campaign. He had relations with Cyrenaica and marriage relations with both Phyrros and the Lagid's. He seems to have been able to manage mercenary armies and to be conciliatory in power.

But Egypt is never really in a position to march Westwards. Too much to do in Palestine/Syria and keeping Egypt quiet.

Same thing in reverse - Its a long way, other people much more powerful locally and if there really is fellow feeling with the old country - encourage emigration to the new lands in the west.

SlyDessertFox · Aug 27, 2014

Tonifranz said:
Would he be tactful enough to retain support? I mean he was a shortlived king of Macedon who got booted out after only two or three years, and he immediately alienated the Greeks who invited him to Italy by his highhanded measures that could have used a little more finesse. And would he abandon his Carthaginian conquest to pursue his next project? (By which he won't intend to let go of Carthage, but he will go on some wild adventure while leaving dissatisfied people behind, who would overthrow him in his absence?)

OTL Pyrrhus probably wouldn't have been able to pull it off. But then again, OTL Pyrrhus probably wouldn't have been able to get this far. So assume for this sake Pyrrhus is slightly more rational (perhaps a POD of his birth which keeps most of his qualities but makes him more rational so he technically wouldn't be the same Pyrrhus but would have most of the same qualities. Or perhaps assume he learns from his mistakes in Makedonia)

Gannt the chartist said:
Agathocles would be a better bet as a POD. He wins at Himera and its possible to extrapolate from that a more successful African campaign. He had relations with Cyrenaica and marriage relations with both Phyrros and the Lagid's. He seems to have been able to manage mercenary armies and to be conciliatory in power.

But Egypt is never really in a position to march Westwards. Too much to do in Palestine/Syria and keeping Egypt quiet.

Same thing in reverse - Its a long way, other people much more powerful locally and if there really is fellow feeling with the old country - encourage emigration to the new lands in the west.

I don't really think Agathocles had the resources or the desire to actually conquer Carthage. His attack on Carthage was a shot in the dark attempt at drawing Carthaginian forces away from Syracuse-if his campaign in Sicily is more effective he probably won't launch the African campaign-too many risks involved. Enough to make it worth his while when he was staring the conquest of his city in the face, but not when he's having a string of successes.

Gannt the chartist · Aug 27, 2014

Well no Agathocles would stop at Sicily. But if you want to change personalities I think a Sicilian based Hellenistic adventurer/ Alexander analogue operating around 310 BC (or for that matter a Carthaginian one) is a better bet than a Balkan based one operating out of the mess that is 30 years later.