AHC:Carthage survives the Punic Wars

Possible for Carthage to survive?


  • Total voters
    36

All Rounder

Gone Fishin'
Any earliest POD so that Carthage could survive the Punic Wars and was able to survive up to at least 300 A.C.E?
Bonus if possible to get beyond 875 A.C.E and survive to colonization period.
 
390--Have the Celts burn Rome to the ground.

Otherwise, don't lose the first two Punic Wars.

War one-- don't let the Romans capture your boats.

War two-- Give Hannibal more skill in siege warfare. Basically take Rome after Cannae.

Institutionally-- Carthage's Senate seemed to have a faction that was half hearted in the pursuit of their wars. Find a way to neutralize this faction.
 
Last edited:
You could have Rome deciding to intervene in the Mercenary War if Carthage was at the brink of falling and instead of torching it to the ground, it becomes a de facto part of Rome.
 

jahenders

Banned
Three main options I see:
- Instead of trying, and failing, to take Rome, Carthage makes some gains and then agrees to peace with Rome. They agree to operate in different spheres of influence.
- After the 2nd Punic War losses, Carthage doesn't get involved in anti-Roman agitation in Hispania and Greece. Roman anger at this Carthaginian interference led to the 3rd Punic War -- the siege and destruction.
- Both Rome and Carthage simply focus in different directions so their interests don't so directly collide. In general, if Carthage focused on North Africa and Spain and avoided Sicily (and Sardinia), Rome and Carthage would have far less conflict.
 

All Rounder

Gone Fishin'
Three main options I see:
- Instead of trying, and failing, to take Rome, Carthage makes some gains and then agrees to peace with Rome. They agree to operate in different spheres of influence.
- After the 2nd Punic War losses, Carthage doesn't get involved in anti-Roman agitation in Hispania and Greece. Roman anger at this Carthaginian interference led to the 3rd Punic War -- the siege and destruction.
- Both Rome and Carthage simply focus in different directions so their interests don't so directly collide. In general, if Carthage focused on North Africa and Spain and avoided Sicily (and Sardinia), Rome and Carthage would have far less conflict.
I agree with your options, especially the third option.
 
Three main options I see:
- Instead of trying, and failing, to take Rome, Carthage makes some gains and then agrees to peace with Rome. They agree to operate in different spheres of influence.
- After the 2nd Punic War losses, Carthage doesn't get involved in anti-Roman agitation in Hispania and Greece. Roman anger at this Carthaginian interference led to the 3rd Punic War -- the siege and destruction.
- Both Rome and Carthage simply focus in different directions so their interests don't so directly collide. In general, if Carthage focused on North Africa and Spain and avoided Sicily (and Sardinia), Rome and Carthage would have far less conflict.
1.) This is what was essentially Hannibal's strategy, he had no illusions of being able to successfully siege Rome. His idea was to pick apart Rome's armies, win over her allies, and force Rome to negotiate a crippling peace. Which he almost succeeded at.

2.) Rome's problem with Carthage after the Second Punic War was the crime of merely existing. More importantly, existing and becoming economically prosperous as a commercial city state that didn't need to worry about maintaining an expensive army or fleet. When the indemnity imposed after the Second Punic War ended, it was only a matter of time before Carthage was attacked by Rome again.

3.) Sicily is the lynchpin of the Carthaginian commercial empire, Carthage will always fight like hell to maintain it. Spain was only pursued as an attempt to make up for the economic losses incurred by losing Sicily. It's far easier to keep Rome out of Sicily than Carthage.
 
The roman republic of the 3rd century BC will never stop to expand. Until expansion ruins this republic finally.
Therefore a conflict between Rome and Carthago is unavoidable.

PS: @Kerney: I am sure, that Hanninal was perfect in siege warfare. But as an almost perfect general he knew, that sieging, plundering and burning Rome would lead to nothing.
 
Top