A Carthaginian world: Better, or worse?

Well?

  • Better

    Votes: 16 20.5%
  • Worse

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • other

    Votes: 36 46.2%

  • Total voters
    78
Well you have a good point. So long as Carthage lacks the population to really build up armies or proper settler colonies expansion is likely to be limited.

I am just not convinced it has to remain as such for several hundred years.

You establish a trading colony in Gaul. The local Gallic tribes have to be either subdued to coerced into loyalty through tribute and the like otherwise they are a constant threat to trade. After a while the trader starts wondering whether or not it would be cheaper to defeats these tribes once and for all rather than pay them tribute decade after decade.

As an early example I think this was happening Hannibals Iberia. I'd argue trading empires acted as they did largely because they were constrained for some reason. Portugal for example in the far east was limited from establishing larger colonies by a simple lack of available manpower, the same was true for the other Europeans.

Do you want Greeks constantly fighting Macedonians, Thracians and other Greeks? Not really, you want them trading with you not wasting money on paying for large numbers of Hoplites to march up and down Attica. So you subdue them all and bring them into the Empire.

Each expansion invites more expansion to safeguard the fresh conquest or to penetrate new markets.
 
Without the almost lucky war with Phyrrus and the inheriting of (an already bloated) Pergamon that the Romans got, Carthage actually never really could establish the power base to really conquer the Greek world as it was, then. They certainly are missing a lot of the distinct military advantages that allowed the Romans to handle Phyrrus (remember, in ancient warfare, because one particular tactic or group of tactics can beat another doesn't mean a third which can beat the first can't be beaten by the second -- if that makes any sense; basically the Legion and the strategic conditions favored the Romans against Phyrrus, his less flexible phalanxes being unable to maneuver effectively in the hilly terrain in parts of Italy.

Carthage could beat Rome because of their exceptional generals. Whenever Carthage was really winning, it was because they had a cabal of professional and (nominally) loyal generals such as Hannibal or his father (loyal to, if not the [Punic] Republic, at least Carthage itself). The damage done to Italy by Hannibal's rampage there in the Second Punic War arguably killed the [Roman] Republic as a viable institution.

Carthage v Phyrrus is a somewhat more even fight. Neither is guaranteed to win and it would depend heavily on the political situation who won (Who's side is Syracuse on? Tarentum? Is Macedonia involved? The Aetolian and Achaean leagues?). Even with a victorious war against Phyrrus, I don't know how viable an idea it is to have Carthage annex Epirus wholesale.

Again, too, they'd never get Pergamon in the same way (and it probably won't even be the power it was, at the time, that happened on Rome's account), so they'd never get that foothold in Asia. I really honestly believe that Carthage would only be ruling over the Greeks in their domain -- Marseilles, Syracuse, maybe eventually Magna Graecia.

This, though is wrong:

You establish a trading colony in Gaul. The local Gallic tribes have to be either subdued to coerced into loyalty through tribute and the like otherwise they are a constant threat to trade. After a while the trader starts wondering whether or not it would be cheaper to defeats these tribes once and for all rather than pay them tribute decade after decade.

While Celtic tribes could be dangerous, even in the far barbarian north in Britain there had been an active trade in tin for a thousand years with the Mediterranean world (on and off but holding strong with the last few centuries). The Greek colony at modern day Marseilles actively traded with the Gauls (it was actually sort of the point of the colony). That was the whole point of any colony back then, really. You plant your traders right where they can do their trading.

This is important to remember, because I think you thought I was talking about the 18th century settler colonies of two powers in particular: Britain and France. Well, not really.

As an early example I think this was happening Hannibals Iberia. I'd argue trading empires acted as they did largely because they were constrained for some reason. Portugal for example in the far east was limited from establishing larger colonies by a simple lack of available manpower, the same was true for the other Europeans.

Any sort of over-seas empire was constrained by manpower. That is, until the early 18th century in Britain and, a little later, France and other parts of the continent. It was an agricultural revolution caused by a certain set of conditions. There was a huge amount of inventing being done in this time, the British economy had become so monetized that wage labor became a much more viable job and the working class really came into its own with the rise of enclosures being an interesting precursor of the factory system. A huge increase an agricultural output (and a general rise in the quality of life) followed into a huge increase in excess population.

This is why you see the American colonies in 1700 having 250,000 people to having 3,000,000 in 1776.
 
Even if Cathage were to beat Rome and prempt its rise sidelining Italy for a time as a centre for Empire. It would likely only be temporary. there are still the Gauls in the North and the Hellenes to the East who will contest for influence and outright control in the Italic States.

Eventually though you might see the centre of Carthage's mercantile Empire shift west to say New Carthage in Iberia, once the strength in population there makes itself apparent. A Pheonician derived Celtiberian empire centred on Nova Carthago might prove more viable and long lasting.

Could you then get a Gaulish Empire in the North that becomes more cohesive and co-exists with this New Carthage based Carthaginian Successor state.

Call it a Neo Carthaginian Empire instead of Carthaginian. That would make the Germanic migrations interesting to say the least.
 
Not Much Different

Carthaginian victory in the Punic Wars would leave the world probably much the same. Sure, language would be different and some cultural aspects of western society would be different.

Remember that Carthage was gradually undergoing the same process that Rome was-Hellenization. The main stubling block I see is the human sacrifice practice. Over time that practice may have ended first because of Hellenization, then because of the influence of Christianity.

Human nature is the same. With Hellenization and Christianity influencing the Carthaginian Empire, much of what our world is like today would still be intact.
 
Not knowing how a Carthaginian victory in either of the first two wars (not going to pretend that a short-term victory in the third one will ever go anywhere unless it's by ASBs) would affect world history in the long run, the only fair thing I can do is vote "other." I can't even say that it couldn't be worse, even back then.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Carthaginian victory in the Punic Wars would leave the world probably much the same. Sure, language would be different and some cultural aspects of western society would be different.

Remember that Carthage was gradually undergoing the same process that Rome was-Hellenization. The main stubling block I see is the human sacrifice practice. Over time that practice may have ended first because of Hellenization, then because of the influence of Christianity.

Human nature is the same. With Hellenization and Christianity influencing the Carthaginian Empire, much of what our world is like today would still be intact.

Roman historians grossly exaggerated the extent to which the Carthaginians engaged in human sacrifice. In all likelihood, the practice was either very rare or practically non-existant.

The idea that two completely different cultures, after being exposed to the Greeks, will end up practically identical, is rather bizarre. Yes, whenever cultures are in contact they borrow aspects and memes from eachother, but there is a great deal of randomness in what gets transferred. A Hellenised Carthage needn't be anything like a Hellenised Rome.

In regards to Christianity, on this board, the consensus is that Jesus Christ should be treated as a historical figure like anyone else. Which means that if something many generations before his birth changes history in a significant enough fashion, then it shouldn't be assumed that his birth will still occur, just as one wouldn't assume the birth of Napoleon or Hitler if something earth-shatteringly different happened before the time, and near the place, of their birth. No Jesus, supposedly, means no Christianity, as long as you follow the principles of AH, supposing otherwise drags theology into the equation and throws the floodgates open to cosmic determinism and makes everything rather messy.
 
As many have already stated, it would just be different. There is no real way of telling if the world would be better off or not.

Carthage, IMO, would probaly link the nations of the Mediterranean together through trading and diplomatic links, and there would be a lot more influence from Greeks, Phoenicians, etc on the less advanced nations. Indeed, when the Germanic tribes and other nomads arrive, Europe would be unrecognizable.
 
Roman historians grossly exaggerated the extent to which the Carthaginians engaged in human sacrifice. In all likelihood, the practice was either very rare or practically non-existant.

The idea that two completely different cultures, after being exposed to the Greeks, will end up practically identical, is rather bizarre. Yes, whenever cultures are in contact they borrow aspects and memes from eachother, but there is a great deal of randomness in what gets transferred. A Hellenised Carthage needn't be anything like a Hellenised Rome.

In regards to Christianity, on this board, the consensus is that Jesus Christ should be treated as a historical figure like anyone else. Which means that if something many generations before his birth changes history in a significant enough fashion, then it shouldn't be assumed that his birth will still occur, just as one wouldn't assume the birth of Napoleon or Hitler if something earth-shatteringly different happened before the time, and near the place, of their birth. No Jesus, supposedly, means no Christianity, as long as you follow the principles of AH, supposing otherwise drags theology into the equation and throws the floodgates open to cosmic determinism and makes everything rather messy.

You're correct-a Hellenized Rome and a Hellenized Carthage need not be anything like each other; however, it's clear that before the destruction of Carthage that the city was adopting more Hellenistic practices just as Rome was. It's not at all unlikely that the Carthaginian Empire would have melded various cultures together just as Rome did, and that the two would come out perhaps similar, though as you say not identical.

If indeed Christ was a merely a historical figure (for the sake of discussion here) and we can assume the birth of other great figures who are not directly in the path of conquest (such as Rome-I wouldn't argue that Julius Caesar would still be born. If he was he may have excelled in another aspect of life.) I can't rule out the birth of Christ. We don't need to assume theology here, just lack of proximity to the vortex of war. Judea would have been absorbed in the Carthaginian Empire, but when? And how? We don't need to assume that this would have happened in a way that would alter every event, including the birth of Christ.

You can make the choice to rule out Christ's birth in the resultant timeline; I chose not to.
 
Though it is still pretty dead, I do have my 'Carthage, Rome, and Epirus' TL. Basically, Phyrrus wins over Rome and preserves the Carthage-Rome balance of power as Epirus expands as the third/fourth 'superpower' of the Med. basin.
Basically, Rome beat Pyrrhus. Carthage looked weak and they looked strong, and the Romans were now bold enough to attack Carthage. That never happens here. Rome is still preoccupied, and won't march down the Med. The Diadoci stay. The Med. is fractured, and there never is a Roman Empire.
 
Duncan Head and I wrote a timeline on the old board where Carthage defeats Rome and stuff happens.

The POD is an immediate attack on Rome after the near-annihilation of the Roman Army at Cannae. Geographically this might be extremely tricky to pull off.

The Timeline

216 BC-Carthaginians lay the proverbial smackdown on the Romans as OTL. However, they immediately follow with a forced-march to hit Rome itself before the preparations can be made for a siege.

216 BC (some time later)-The Carthaginian army hits Rome after the messengers telling of Cannae. Some siege preparations are made, so they simply can't immediately occupy the city.

215 BC-Bolstered by reinforcements from Capua and other Italian cities dissatisfied with Roman dominance, the Carthaginians take Rome by storm. The city takes awhile to fall in nasty house-to-house fighting and Rome is ultimately burnt to the ground after much rape, pillage, etc.

215 BC (a few days later)-Capua proclaims the "Confederacy of Italia" with much autonomy for every city (so a dominant center like Rome doesn't arise).

215-20 BC-Hannibal returns to Carthage and continues his OTL reforming policy. He remembers his father's experience after the First Roman War and decides to lessen Carthage's reliance on mercenaries by creating a professional army which only Carthaginian citizens can join. The on-hand mercenary units from the Second Roman War are used to finish up with Spain (and hopefully reduce their #s so they're not a threat...sort of like what happened with the Samurai in the "Composite ATL"). The mercenary conquest is generally brutal and there is much oppression.

70BC: Ariovistus leads a coalition of Suevi and other German tribes across the Rhine into Gaul.

60BC: Ariovistus falls out with his former allies the Aedui, one of the dominant Gallic tribes. He defeats them and they call for help from the Carthaginians with whom they, in turn, are nominally allied. Bomilcar, the governor of Carthage's small Gallic province (centred on Massilia) leads an army north but is defeated and killed by the Germans. This is usually taken as marking the beginning of the age of migrations.

59-58BC: Pressed by the Germans, the Helvetii migrate from Switzerland to Aquitania. The displaced Aquitani in turn invade Punic Spain. They devastate the north of the country but are eventually wiped out.

4 BC-Jesus born to Mary in Bethlehem, sort of as in OTL (owing to the different political situation, perhaps there will be room at the inn or some other changes).

3 BC-Political instability leads to a Parthian incursion in support of Herod the Great, an Idumaean claimant to the throne of Judah against an Egypt-backed Hasmonean coup. Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus flee to Egypt to escape the mayhem; the cruel Parthian commander orders the killing of all male children in Bethlehem after a unit of pro-Hasmonean militia raised in Bethlehem kills one of his key commanders (he doesn't want another generation of Bethlehem-ian men).

1 AD-Jesus and family return to Bethlehem (complete with Jesus's half-brother James). Christ's life goes as OTL pretty much.

33 AD-After offending the priests yet again, a mob (instigated by the priests) drags Christ to the Well of Bethseda, where He had recently healed a cripple, and drown him. They then cut up his hands and feet with knives in their frenzy. However, a dissident priest takes pity on Christ and buries Him in his newly-made tomb. According to Christ's followers, He rose from the dead 3 days later.

40 AD St Thaddeus brings Christianity from Egypt to the Carthaginian domains. He and his companions are traditionally portrayed as journeying along the Libyan coast on camel-back. While St Thaddeus did not historically introduce the camel himself, its spread at roughly the same time as the spread of Christianity leads to the two being linked in popular thought.

190 AD-The Goths begin migrating south and west into the lands north of the Black Sea and put pressure on some German tribes further west, who in turn put pressure on other German tribes, etc.

195 AD-The leaders of the Franks, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, and other lesser Germanic tribes convene, elect a renegade Gothic chieftain named Eberwolf as their king, and decide to move West. Their confederation takes the name of the Wandrin (wanderers).

200 AD-Accalon, a visionary chief of a small Celtic tribe in Gaul, sees Gaul's frontiers being steadily eroded by the Germans. He begins unifying the Celtic peoples to resist the Wandrin influx, a process that will take some time.

202 AD-Accalon proclaimed High King at Vesontio (present-day Basancon) after the defeat of several German-backed Celtic chiefs and begins preparations to expel the invaders from Gaul.

204 AD-Accalon begins his campaign to "cleanse" Gaul of the Wandrin invaders. He leads an army of Celtic people against the Germans, who've conquered all the way to the Meuse and upper Seine, forcibly assimilating the Nervii, Aduatuci, and Treveri Celtic tribes.

205 AD-Stung by a series of Celtic victories, Eberwolf marshals his forces and meets Accalon head-on at the source of the Rhone river in the territory of the Lingones tribe. Though Eberwolf is killed in single combat with Accalon, the enraged Wandrins carry the day and nearly obliterate the Celtic army. Accalon rallies the survivors and they flee to the lands of the Carnutes (between the Loire and the Seine) to marshal a new army. The Celtic peoples of the northern region are evacuated southward towards the Garonne River. The Franks and Saxons are settled in the area as a reward for their service by Eberwolf's son Winguric.

207-A two-pronged German offensive encircles the Celtic army at its base in the Carnutes' tribal area. The Celts managed to escape, but not before losing half their army. Accalon, grievously wounded in the battle, realizes that there simply aren't enough men in Gaul to raise a new army and that the war is essentially lost. Though barely able to walk due to his injuries, he leads the remaining Celts of Gaul into northern Spain.

207-Battle of the Spanish Marches. Commanded by a notorious cruel and decadent Carthaginian, Spanish conscripts are massacred by the battled-hardened Celtic armies. The Carthaginian commander, captured as he tried to flee (he ordered his troops and officers he didn't like in one direction and he and some of his favorites--in more ways than one--went in the opposite), is kicked to death by Spanish prisoners. The canny Accalon proclaims the end of "Aethiopian despotism" and the eventual liberation of Spain. However, owing to the losses from the wars in Gaul and the Battle of the Spanish marches, he has to settle down and replenish the ranks through more Celtic children and the recruitment of all-too-happy Spaniards. The Celts occupy the northern 1/3 of Spain, while continuing to raid the Wandrin who've moved further south almost to the Pyrenees.

208-The Carthaginian government raises taxes so high that fully 60% of the non-Punic population ends up as serfs. A huge percentage of these serfs are then conscripted to be used as cannon (sword?) fodder. Tacfrinas, a Berber chief who's skirmished with the Punic leadership over the taxes his nomadic people have to pay, is troubled, but cannot think of what to do besides killing tax collectors/impressors and fleeing the inevitable wrath into the deeper desert.

209-Massive Carthaginian offensive into northern Spain. It fails badly as at least 1/3 of the troops defect to Accalon, 1/3 desert, and 1/3 are obliterated. One of the dead is Tacfrinas's firstborn son, who was captured during a skirmish between Tacfrinas's tribe and the central gov't.

210-Shaken by all this, Tacrfrinas contemplates suicide, but a wandering friar persuades him to become a Christian. The idea hits on Tacrfrinas to use the new faith, which is spreading throughout the oppressed lower classes and even a few dissident Punic people, to destroy the cruel Carthaginian overlords.

210-11 AD-Tacfrinas's revolt. Berber riders bearing the flame of revolution ride throughout northern Africa, causing the people to rise up against the conscription, taxation, and casual cruelty of the Punic overlords. Punic Spain is wracked by revolution, but the utterly homicidal governor crushes it with hostage taking, public blood offerings to Moloch, and other doings. However, Carthage itself is taken by storm and destroyed amid brutal "frontier justice" for most of the Punic aristocrats in the capital (despite Tacfrinas's appeals for calm). The center of government is moved to Tunis and serfdom is abolished, though conscription will remain until the end of the "emergency."

212 AD-Tacfrinas dies from a scorpion sting as he prepares to lead the army across into Spain to deal with the Punic governor, who is marshalling an army of Punic peoples and mercenaries (he doesn't trust the Spanish now at all) to attempt to defeat Tacfrinas and retake Northern Africa. Tacfrinas's son decides against taking the war to Spain, but fights defensively and defeats the Punic couter-invasion.

213 AD-His army bolstered by the oppressed Spanish, Accalon see his chance and pounces on the Punic governor, destroying the remnants of his army and giving the governor himself over to his Spanish allies (where he is promptly torn to pieces, literally). The Tunisian military hops over the Straits and seizes a few outposts in southern Spain as a means of "saving face" and setting up a buffer against the Celts. Accalon, content with 90% of Spain, does nothing.

215 AD Tacfarinas's successors institute a state Christian church, bans public pagan worship and all forms of human or animal sacrifice. This "Koinon of St Thaddeus" (I don't know a suitable Punic or Berber term for a league or federation, so I'll go with the Greek, we've had enough centuries of Hellenistic civilisation for it to be plausible) is a federation of tribes and cities in Africa and the remaining Punic outposts in Sicily, some of the other islands, and a few coastal parts of Spain. It never establishes an effective central government, though Tunis retains great prestige as the spiritual centre, seat of the head of the Western Church.

c.250-300 Doctrinal civil wars split the koinon. (Probably this TL's equivalent of the Donatists: Africa was a bit of a hotbed of heresy in OTL.) Barbarian raids increase. Italian Celts take Sicily, Spanish Celts take all remaining Tunisian outposts except the Rock of Melqart (Gibraltar). An Italian Celtic naval raid sacks Utica, and Tunis is only saved in a brilliant counter-attack by the aristocratic Numidian general Jacob Masinissa, leading a semi-private army, many of the troops levied from his own estates or his fellow-tribesmen. A grateful Patriarch of Tunis is persuaded to appoint him First Shophet, that is chief magistrate of the Koinon. After further successes against barbarians and dissident cities, he establishes a firm centralised state over OTL Tunis and eastern Algeria, and is appointed First Shophet for life.

c.300-400 The Masinissan dynasty become hereditary Shophets, at first ruling in co-operation with the Council and the Church, and reconquer most of former Carthaginian Africa, from Morocco to Tripoli. Conspirators wishing to "restore the liberty of the Koinon", backed by Egypt (currently ruled by a Mamluk-style military regime set up by its Arabian mercenaries, and fearing a Tunisian attack on Cyrenaica, which has been quietly absorbed by Egypt during the decades of chaos), start a civil war. After defeating them, Judah II Masinissa is proclaimed Emperor of Tunis and crowned by the Patriarch.

1100 Cuman Khan Boniak defeats Khaqan Igor of the Rus outside Kiev. The city is sacked, and the Rus khaqanate reduced to a group of Cuman vassal-states. The north (OTL's Novgorod) moves back into the orbit of the Scandiavians.

1180-1220 The Kereits under Toghoril Khan unite the steppes north of China, defeating and absorbing rival coalitions including the Tatars and Monggols. The triumph of the Turkic-speaking Kereits leads to the disappearance of the Mongolian language-group. The Kereits win out because they have a greater sense of unity, coming from a national religion: I did think of this being Christianity (Nestorianism was influential in Mongolia in OTL, so it wouldn't take much change to have a version of Christianity being stronger there in TTL). However they could alternatively have picked up militant Mithraism from Persia.

1230-50 Kereit armies move West, overrunning Central Asia. They destroy Volga Bulgharia and the Cuman confederation. The Rus become Kereit vassals.

1260-80 Devastating Kereit raids into Eastern Europe. Cuman refugees establish a state along the Danube.

1300 Hannibal IV Thiudarik, king of the Asdings, defeats the Kereits on the Oder and begins the Gothic expansion eastwards.
 
The main stubling block I see is the human sacrifice practice.

How so?

At the time of the Second Punic War, Rome also practiced human sacrifice: several people were buried alive under the forum to satisfy the gods because of Hannibal's victories.

Later on mostly prisoners of war were sacrificed to primarily Mars, e.g. Vercingetorix.

And that's without taking into account the religious origins of the gladiator fights, which evolved from Etruscan funeral rites.
 
I am a firm believer in the butterfly effect..A POD that eliminates the Roman Empire totally alters the rest of history in the Mediterranean region at a very minimum.

There is no Roman intervention in Palestine..no Tiberias..no Sepphora..no economic disruption in the Galilee region. No Roman Co-opting of the ruling and priestly castes..no Romans to fool around with Mary and possibly get her pregnant..all sorts of changes to possible history.its most likely that the Maccabean revolt doesn't occur..with the POD back in the third century BC it is possible that the Jewish messianic movement never develops..remember Jesus wasn't the only messianic wannabe..he just had a good PR man in Paul...so if you stick to good AH development..you can't just pick and choose what events from OTL that you insert into an AH.
 
Carthage in Palestine

I am a firm believer in the butterfly effect..A POD that eliminates the Roman Empire totally alters the rest of history in the Mediterranean region at a very minimum.

There is no Roman intervention in Palestine..no Tiberias..no Sepphora..no economic disruption in the Galilee region. No Roman Co-opting of the ruling and priestly castes..no Romans to fool around with Mary and possibly get her pregnant..all sorts of changes to possible history.its most likely that the Maccabean revolt doesn't occur..with the POD back in the third century BC it is possible that the Jewish messianic movement never develops..remember Jesus wasn't the only messianic wannabe..he just had a good PR man in Paul...so if you stick to good AH development..you can't just pick and choose what events from OTL that you insert into an AH.

Instead Carthage, now more like a republic turning again into an empire conquers Palestine. The messianic movement takes hold just as it would have under Roman conquest.

Whoop there it is....alternate history with Carthage essentially replacing Rome as the bully of the east.:D
 
There is evidence suggesting that the Carthaginians were the only classical civilisation with real knowledge of the Atlantic islands. There is frequent mention of the 'Hesperides' and 'Antilles', with descriptions which correspond with the Canaries and the Azores. Unfortunately, nearly all punic literature was lost or destroyed, and what little survived was disregarded by the backward, conservative Romans.
I think that a more powerful Carthage, which lasted longer, would have continued to chart the Atlantic isles. Of course this knowledge would be jealously hoarded by the Carthaginian seafarers for financial reasons just like their Phoenician predecessors. It would however, be impossible for this knowledge to stay hidden for too long, and I think that classical civilisations may have become 'aware' of the fabled 'opposite continent' a thousand years before Columbus.
Seamanship and transoceanic navigation are the only technological advantages I can think of that a longer-lasting Carthage might, unwittingly, endow on classical civilisations.
 
Top