The Punic Wars: The Possiblility of Carthage defeating Rome

[Kt_Atis]

Hey guys sorry I haven't post in a while I've been kind of busy. You see I'm going to make a movie about a famous historian but don't know which one yet. Also I've been planning to make an AH of America it'll be good. However busy or not I have been reading through the threads and seen your guys topics and everything. Yall are some of the smartest historians I know. Debating left and right and many able to debate on several diffrent topics at the same time. : ) But lets see if someone can figure this one out. I don't wanna get off topic here.

The Punic Wars. Carthage lost all three of them. But You don't have to live back in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Century B.C. to realize how strong Carthage was. They dominated the Mediterranean Sea for crying out loud! They had warships that numbered hundreds of men just rowing it. They could out manouver just about anything. And During The Third Punic War, the 300,000 Carthagininas inside the wall transformed the town in to a huge arsenal. They produced about 300 swords, 500 spears, 140 shields and 1,000 projectiles for catapults daily! People obviously there was something going on. But the question is what was going on? What could have been a better outcome and most of all who is responsible for the fall of Carthage?

[nunya]

Originally Posted by Kt_Atis

Hey guys sorry I haven't post in a while I've been kind of busy. You see I'm going to make a movie about a famous historian but don't know which one yet. Also I've been planning to make an AH of America it'll be good. However busy or not I have been reading through the threads and seen your guys topics and everything. Yall are some of the smartest historians I know. Debating left and right and many able to debate on several diffrent topics at the same time. : ) But lets see if someone can figure this one out. I don't wanna get off topic here.

The Punic Wars. Carthage lost all three of them. But You don't have to live back in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Century B.C. to realize how strong Carthage was. They dominated the Mediterranean Sea for crying out loud! They had warships that numbered hundreds of men just rowing it. They could out manouver just about anything. And During The Third Punic War, the 300,000 Carthagininas inside the wall transformed the town in to a huge arsenal. They produced about 300 swords, 500 spears, 140 shields and 1,000 projectiles for catapults daily! People obviously there was something going on. But the question is what was going on? What could have been a better outcome and most of all who is responsible for the fall of Carthage?

The Carthage-Rome War was a heavilly imbalanced one,Rome had so many more forces.Thanks to Hannibal,Carthage managed to fight really well,but if not for him,they would have been defeated much quicker.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

This ought to go in the pre-1900 forum. I've reported it.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by nunya

The Carthage-Rome War was a heavilly imbalanced one,Rome had so many more forces.Thanks to Hannibal,Carthage managed to fight really well,but if not for him,they would have been defeated much quicker.

What...are...you...talking...about?

Have you read history?

[Midgard]

I think Carthage's largest problem was that it did not realize what it was up against until really late in the Punic Wars. They did not, as a state, fight for their survival or for utter dominance - more so for advantage and influence (in the first two Punic wars, that is). Like a number of other states before and after it, it was a state ruled from and for the capital city. In other words, if Carthage itself fell, the rest of its empire would have crumbled. Romans, on the other hand, fought for utter dominance, and would not take return to status quo for an answer.

Another major problem for Carthage was its over-reliance for mercenary armies. It required top-caliber generals to work without the usual problems of relying on mercenaries (i.e. the need to pay them first and foremost, lack of loyalty, unwillingness to fight hard and independently when not led by a well-respected general such as Hannibal), as opposed to Roman concept of citizen-soldiers. Carthage was a colossus on the feet of clay, simply because it trusted its economy to make war against Rome, did not bothering to properly invest into military machine. By the time Carthage shifted towards citizen-soldiers (Third Punic War), it was too little, too late, and by then its control of the seas was gone, while its economy could not support a large, extended campaign outside of its home territory.

So, in short, the answer to your question is that Carthage's system of relying on mercenaries, its internal political instability that prevented decisive action to crush Rome had Hannibal received requested reinforcements, and its lack of true nationhood - in essense being a city-state with colonies, not an Empire is what doomed it. Granted, Rome was not much more than that at the point, but by the Second Punic War Rome was already well on its way to becoming an empire in all but a name, where it was not focused ONLY on the city of Rome, but had a base that would have survived even the sack of Rome, especially since there were already precedents for that. Carthage never quite made the transition, and was doomed when it was faced with a genuine empire-in-the-making.

[Empror Mike]

Say Hannibal manages to recruit just another Gallic or Italic tribe on his side.
Then he succesfully besieges Rome.

The Romans fight hard for another four or five Punic Wars, and then they are utterly crushed as a power.
And then Carthage takes-over the world, a strong possibility, given that (at the time) Carthage's domination strategy was exactly what Rome's would become a century or so later.

[ninebucks]

Hannibal was disliked by the politicos in Carthage, there was a black mark placed against his family after his father had lost Sicilia to the Romans.

If, somehow, there was a different leader in Carthage, someone who got on with Hannibal, then the Second Punic War would have probably been successful.

If the Carthaginian Senate had sent him a level-headed, but talented deputy; someone to tell him to sit down and think about what he's going to do in the long term (Hannibal was a tactical genius, but he couldn't strategise for shit), then its likely we'd all be speaking Phoenician-influenced languages by now.

[Prinz Richard Eugen]

Let's say Hannibal wins and Rome sues for peace. Carthage gets Spain and Sicily. Eventually, he dies. The Romans have long memories and desire to resume the war to punish Carthage as they did to many other enemies. As stated before, Carthage relies on mercenaries to fight and they need superior leadership. What are the chances of another Hannibal? (other than the name - I understand every Cathaginian name appears over and over). The Romans have motivated citizen-soldiers and at least some solid leaders. There might be 4-5 Punic wars but Rome would win out.

[Nova]

You guys are forgetting that Scipio was a decent match for Hannibal.

[ninebucks]

Originally Posted by Prinz Richard Eugen

Let's say Hannibal wins and Rome sues for peace. Carthage gets Spain and Sicily. Eventually, he dies. The Romans have long memories and desire to resume the war to punish Carthage as they did to many other enemies. As stated before, Carthage relies on mercenaries to fight and they need superior leadership. What are the chances of another Hannibal? (other than the name - I understand every Cathaginian name appears over and over). The Romans have motivated citizen-soldiers and at least some solid leaders. There might be 4-5 Punic wars but Rome would win out.

Not any more they don't. Any surrender terms would almost certainly involve the dissolution of Rome's army. Besides, Rome alone poses no threat, especially when all of Northern Italy is pro-Carthage.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Originally Posted by Kt_Atis

Hey guys sorry I haven't post in a while I've been kind of busy.

You do realize you've only been a member for 2 weeks?

You see I'm going to make a movie about a famous historian but don't know which one yet.

Riiight.

And During The Third Punic War, the 300,000 Carthagininas inside the wall transformed the town in to a huge arsenal. They produced about 300 swords, 500 spears, 140 shields and 1,000 projectiles for catapults daily!

We know what those things are.

But seriously, even if they defeat Rome so completely that it never become a threat again, unless they reform into something more than a city-state with colonies they have at the most 2 centuries before the Greeks put and end to their ambitions.

[Homer]

Originally Posted by VoCSe

But seriously, even if they defeat Rome so completely that it never become a threat again, unless they reform into something more than a city-state with colonies they have at the most 2 centuries before the Greeks put and end to their ambitions.

Why?

IOTL, the Greeks had centuries of colonizing in the West and competing with Cartahge in Sicily, but never put an end to their ambitions. And then large Greek Empires arose, ruling even the motherland of Phoenicia, but still they didn't put an end to Carthage's ambitions.

I'd say that without Rome, Italy would dissolve in smaller states again until a new Rmoe-like entity (Samitians?) begin their quest, whereas Carthage falls back to a trade Empire, possibly loosing conquered Greek city states in Southern Italy and Sicily again.

As is said above, I can't see Carthage conquer the known world. They didn't even conquer all of Northern Africa as the Romans did...

[abas]

Originally Posted by ninebucks

Hannibal was disliked by the politicos in Carthage, there was a black mark placed against his family after his father had lost Sicilia to the Romans.

If, somehow, there was a different leader in Carthage, someone who got on with Hannibal, then the Second Punic War would have probably been successful.

If the Carthaginian Senate had sent him a level-headed, but talented deputy; someone to tell him to sit down and think about what he's going to do in the long term (Hannibal was a tactical genius, but he couldn't strategise for shit), then its likely we'd all be speaking Phoenician-influenced languages by now.

They had reasons dislike every strong military commander.

[Michael B]

The Romans won the First Punic War in part because they broke the Carthaginian naval superiority. If the Carthaginians won the naval battles instead of losing them, they would not only cut off the Roman troops in Sicily, but also stop the invasion of their homeland.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Originally Posted by Homer

Why?

IOTL, the Greeks had centuries of colonizing in the West and competing with Cartahge in Sicily, but never put an end to their ambitions. And then large Greek Empires arose, ruling even the motherland of Phoenicia, but still they didn't put an end to Carthage's ambitions.

This is the Hellenistic Age. Macedonia, Egypt, Epirus, and those Greek leagues were more powerful than the old city-states, and if they have a chance to break Carthaginian dominance of the western Mediterranean they will. An Egyptian-Macedonian alliance, for instance, is useful against the Seleucids but also Carthage; just wait until some Greek colony calls for aid and they're not too busy.

[nunya]

Originally Posted by FENK

What...are...you...talking...about?

Have you read history?

Gee I dont know,the Punic Wars?

[Kt_Atis]

Originally Posted by Michael B

The Romans won the First Punic War in part because they broke the Carthaginian naval superiority. If the Carthaginians won the naval battles instead of losing them, they would not only cut off the Roman troops in Sicily, but also stop the invasion of their homeland.

I agree. Carthage was one not to be messed with. But all they had to do was attack Rome with a full naval and take them out. And When you think about it Carthage kind of had many opportunities to take Rome out. Rome had some bad military generals. So if you ask me Carthage had the potential but lacked the ability