A Carthage-based Western civilisation?

If Hannibal had destroyed Rome in the third Punic War, would Carthage have been capable of matching Rome's role and legacy in Western Eurasia? Needless to say predicting the details of such a civilization would be rather ridiculous, but hypothesizing generalizations is less so.

I doubt it's capacity to have same degree of influence, due to it's not being positioned to expand as far North into Europe as Rome was, as well as it's being more mercantile then militaristic. But it should play some role in the cultural vacuum left by Rome.
 
Last edited:
No. Rome was an imperialistic empire, Carthage was a trade based nation. For more information, use the search function.
 
Well, the problem here is in 'characterising' civilizations. Generally speaking, the Romans are thought of as pragmatic, practical and aggressive, with the Carthaginians described as lazy, mercenary and greedy. How much these characterisations are down to the Romans who defeated the latter is a big question.

On a more historical note, it is known that the Carthaginians mostly utilised mercenaries in their armies, rather than home-grown legions. This does not indicate a military machine capable of large scale conquest. The conquest of Spain is a rare example of this in Carthage's history, and it took individuals considered to have extraordinary talents by any civilization's standards.

Additionally, whilst North Africa provided them with a breadbasket and their trading gave them a huge income, this did not indicate their homeland was stable, as the Numidians always threatened to break out of their control and raid territory. The Romans rose to world power primarily by totally securing the entire Italian peninsula.

I don't think that the Carthaginian people were incapable of creating a world-shattering civilization, simply that its infrastructure was not particularly suitable for it.
 
For starters, Hannibal fought Rome in the Second Punic War, not the third war, which occured decades after his death.

Carthage's potential for Roman-like territorial expansion is limited, not so much by the size of it's population, but by the numbers of it's citizen body. Carthage was in a sort of personal political union with the neighbouring city of Utica, but the citizens of those cities were only those that could claim patrilineal descent from the original founding inhabitants of their home city, as was the case with many Punic and Greek colonies and city-states. Actually, not all people of Phoenician stock were considered citizens of Carthage either. Carthage's empire had begun as a protective alliance among the other Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean. Carthage was an ancient maratime republic. Its actual territorial expansion was often overseas rather than overland. Although, Iberia was very valuable for its natural silver reserves.

Rome's expansion in Italy was possible because; 1) they would occasionally and selectively enfranchise some of their Italian Socii with Roman Citizenship. And b) whenever they destroyed rival city-states in Latium, Etruria, Campania, Umbria, Picenum and Samnium, they would install some of the Roman milites whom fought in the campaign in the defeated city as a new colony. The Romans invested their manpower in their citizen body. And because of this, they had a massive recruitment base of men whom had a stake in defending the republic.

If Hannibal destroys the Roman Republic, I can see Carthage leaving a strong cultural impression in Iberia and North Africa, but achieving something close to what Rome did is a hell of a long-shot.
 
i think it is interesting how willing people are to forget the loooong military history of carthage.

the sicilian wars, the pyrrhic war, the punic wars, the mercenary war... all of these were fought by carthage with relative effectiveness (except for the 3rd punic war, mainly because rome had completely broken them by then).

carthage may not have been an empire building state, but it was heavily militarized. and also, a lot of what are described as mercenaries in their armies would be more accurately described as auxilaries. true, only the sacred band was consisted of "true carthaginians" but they did recruit heavily from areas they controlled, like iberia and north africa.

i would say, however, that carthage's main focus has historically been the acquisition of trade routes. i don't think they would have the power to completely replace rome, but i think they certainly could have controlled large swaths of land in the west, particularly in africa, italy, and spain.
 
Regarding military aspects, actually what I find particularly amazing (I've been doing some research into this, especially since I'm dabbling on my own timeline :D ) is that the Carthaginian mercenary-based armies were basically on-par as fighting forces in their effectiveness with the Roman legions, and this is in my opinion quite an achievement, especially if you consider that Carthaginian armies (in particular during the 2nd Punic War) were often composed of half a dozen different ethnic groups.
 
Regarding military aspects, actually what I find particularly amazing (I've been doing some research into this, especially since I'm dabbling on my own timeline :D ) is that the Carthaginian mercenary-based armies were basically on-par as fighting forces in their effectiveness with the Roman legions, and this is in my opinion quite an achievement, especially if you consider that Carthaginian armies (in particular during the 2nd Punic War) were often composed of half a dozen different ethnic groups.

i think the Sacred Band is pretty cool too :cool::cool::cool:
 
i think it is interesting how willing people are to forget the loooong military history of carthage.

the sicilian wars, the pyrrhic war, the punic wars, the mercenary war... all of these were fought by carthage with relative effectiveness (except for the 3rd punic war, mainly because rome had completely broken them by then).

carthage may not have been an empire building state, but it was heavily militarized. and also, a lot of what are described as mercenaries in their armies would be more accurately described as auxilaries. true, only the sacred band was consisted of "true carthaginians" but they did recruit heavily from areas they controlled, like iberia and north africa.

i would say, however, that carthage's main focus has historically been the acquisition of trade routes. i don't think they would have the power to completely replace rome, but i think they certainly could have controlled large swaths of land in the west, particularly in africa, italy, and spain.

While I agree with most of this, I doubt they'd try to control much, if any, land in Italy. What they'd more likely do is to play off the various surviving groups in Italy...Etruscans, Samnites, Oscans, Umbrians, Greeks...against each other. Without Rome to hold everything together, in all likelihood Italy refragments along ethnic lines. As long as Carthage can maintain that sort of status quo, Italy won't stand in the way of its plans to dominate the Western Mediterranean.

I can see them taking Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, maintaining a tight grip on Spain and maybe the coast of Southern Gaul. I doubt they'd try to conquer the Celts of Gaul, or Britain...more profitable simply to trade with them. The civilizations which would arise out of such a situation could be quite interesting.
 
I always found it ironic that Genoa and Venice resembled Carthage more than Rome.
Well Genoa was founded as a damned Ligurian-barbarian-heathen cesspool. ;) (I think Venice was founded a lot later as a good Roman Christian city)

Anyways, I've been beaten to the punch, but I'd like to reiterate first, use the search function, as the topic of Carthage winning and having the same destiny as Rome is fairly big for BCE topics here; second, it's the second Punic War; and third, Carthage doesn't have the manpower or mentality to conquer the empire Rome did. You would have to change everything about Carthage itself to make it have the manpower and the desire to conquer far away places. Even Naples up in Italy and southern regions of Gaul are too much, in my opinion. Britain probably is most feasible out of places that Carthage can expand outside of its territory during the second Punic War, and even that's a little shaky.
 
If Hannibal eliminates the Republic before 212 BCE, then that would leave the city-state of Syracuse, as once again, Carthage's main rival in the western Med. Hannibal may then have a small window of opportunity to at least sail to the Punic colonies of western Sicily to assert Carthage's authority there. But if he falls completely out of favour with the Carthaginian oligarchy, then he could either seek to take over Carthage or sail back to Iberia where his family are practically in control and found a new Punic state there. That way, Carthage would find itself starved of Iberia's mineral wealth and Hannibal could gradually force them to accept whatever terms he gives the the senate.
 
Top