Map: the Carthago-Roman dispute with Persian Empire
- Thread starter Keenir
- Start date
Leo Caesius
Banned
It's actually much more likely, IMHO, that Carthage would ally with Persia; they had a treaty with them, which was outlined in Justin's Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, IIRC. Also note that their mother cities are all now loyal members of the Persian empire; it is precisely this reason why Persia and Carthage never went to war.
IMHO, it would take better than a POD to have Rome and cathage working together: maybe an army of head shrinkers 
Or just our history...LordKalvan said:IMHO, it would take better than a POD to have Rome and cathage working together: maybe an army of head shrinkers
Rome and Carthage were old allies on the eve of the First Punic War, which they kinda stumbled into.
Well, yes. But Sicily (and its grain resources) is the stumbling block for any such alliance. Not to mention that the way of living and the "philosophy" of the carthaginians would be difficult to understand (and probably disgusting) for a roman of the republican times.DominusNovus said:
Keenir
Banned
overall, my idea was "Rome's strengths come into play on land, Carthage's at sea"
nominally, a Ptolemy. (the Syrian threat has been neutralized by Persia)
policy-wise...probably strongly in the Persian camp.
well, my reasoning was that, between the efforts of the Athenians and the Cypriots(sp), Persia now has a fairly good open-water fleet (note that they control Knossos, and possibly dominate trade with Egypt)...which makes them a threat to Carthage.
btw, I never said the Punii mothercities are loyal...only that they're part of Persia.
OTL Carthage also had a treaty with Rome.
no need to apologize, goodsir. I relish FB of all stripes, as it helps me improve my AH-ing abilities.
(and if you'd like to make a Rome&Egypt-vs-Persia&Carthage ATL and-or map, please, go right ahead; I may or may not make one of my own as well)
Wendell said:
nominally, a Ptolemy. (the Syrian threat has been neutralized by Persia)
policy-wise...probably strongly in the Persian camp.
Leo Caesius said:
well, my reasoning was that, between the efforts of the Athenians and the Cypriots(sp), Persia now has a fairly good open-water fleet (note that they control Knossos, and possibly dominate trade with Egypt)...which makes them a threat to Carthage.
btw, I never said the Punii mothercities are loyal...only that they're part of Persia.
OTL Carthage also had a treaty with Rome.
Diamond said:As usual, Leo makes a lot of sense (on history-related matters
I wonder if this alt-Rome would've tried to foster strong ties with Egypt to prevent a continguous Carthaginian-Persian empire?
(sorry to hi-jack your idea, Keenir)
no need to apologize, goodsir. I relish FB of all stripes, as it helps me improve my AH-ing abilities.
(and if you'd like to make a Rome&Egypt-vs-Persia&Carthage ATL and-or map, please, go right ahead; I may or may not make one of my own as well)
Maybe the Romans eventually assimilate the Carthaginians? I'm not sure what your long term aims are, but the Romans were very good at assimilating new cultures into their state.
Okay then, I see the Romans eventually assimilating the Carthaginians and the eventual collapse of the Persian Empire (unless there are a series of wise just kings). Egypt is probably going to soon pass under the control of one of the two states. Also, you may want to consider that Northern Europe may be more “civilized,” if the two powers are competing for land.
LordKalvan said:
What was that philosophy/lifestyle? IIRC at least some Carthaginians worshipped Moloch and practiced human sacrifice, but it's been a long time since I read that.
The gods of carthage were certainly semitic gods, but possibly that could be managed (the Greeks did, why not the Romans?). And the human sacrifices to Moloch have been probably exaggerated.
I was mostly thinking in terms of approach to commerce (which for a republican man of Senatorial class was anathema), and the concept of state (which appear to be at odds with the Roman one, even if I admit that practically all of the sources on Carthage are roman, and likely to be biased).
Maybe I am mistaken, but I always regarded Carthage polis as more similar to Italian city states, with warring families, and a substantial lack of allegiance to the city itself.
I was mostly thinking in terms of approach to commerce (which for a republican man of Senatorial class was anathema), and the concept of state (which appear to be at odds with the Roman one, even if I admit that practically all of the sources on Carthage are roman, and likely to be biased).
Maybe I am mistaken, but I always regarded Carthage polis as more similar to Italian city states, with warring families, and a substantial lack of allegiance to the city itself.
I've always thought that the Romans and Carthaginians went to war for completely different reasons. Rome was interested in loot and power, while Carthage was interested in trade.
Both of these involve riches being brought into the parent Empire, but the Carthiginian attempt was self sustaining to a point, Where as, the Romans would eventually run out of peeps to steal from.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that Rome had nothing to offer to its client states. I just believe that Carthage might have developed a more healthy (for lack of a better term) state of affairs in the Mediteranean(?)
Plus.....I'm a certified, " What if the Carthaginians had succeeded Nazi"
Both of these involve riches being brought into the parent Empire, but the Carthiginian attempt was self sustaining to a point, Where as, the Romans would eventually run out of peeps to steal from.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that Rome had nothing to offer to its client states. I just believe that Carthage might have developed a more healthy (for lack of a better term) state of affairs in the Mediteranean(?)
Plus.....I'm a certified, " What if the Carthaginians had succeeded Nazi"
Faeelin
Banned
LordKalvan said:
Hmm. I'm not so sure. There were plenty of important people amongst the Italian allies, particularly in the Greek cities, who dabbled in trade; and the fact that men like Cato were writing tracts explaining why agriculture was superior to trade suggests that upper class Romans of the era were investing in trade.
It was absolutely forbidden, and it was one of those things that got you expelled from senate. Then, it must be said that dummies were invented even before that to circumvent stupid laws.Faeelin said:
Still I am under the impression that Romans considered carthaginians to be dangerous anarchists; at the same time, Carthaginians might be more quick to adapt to modern times than ancient Romans.
This isn't the original Persian wars, right? There's no way that Rome could have evolved if Greece gets knocked out that early in any recognisable form. Perhaps a later Greek defeat after the Peloponisean War? Perhaps Alcibiades sticks with the Persians? (the great thing about Alcibiades is that he's defected to pratically everyone at one time or another)