Carthage conquers Egypt AHC

So with a POD of 300 BC have Carthage conquer Ptolemaic Egypt?

Is this possible? What are the consequences? If not why not?
 
So with a POD of 300 BC have Carthage conquer Ptolemaic Egypt?

Is this possible? What are the consequences? If not why not?

Carthage was a trading power, not bent on territorial conquest like Rome. It had no impetus to seek direct conquest over others until Hasdrubal and Hannibal Barca took initiative and began subjugating the Iberian tribes. Ptolemaic Egypt was an OTL friend of Rome and pulling resources to use against Egypt would mean an opportunity for Rome to attack Carthage's territories in the western Meditterranean. Also Egypt was a trade partner of Carthage - why would they attack the people buying their goods?
 
Carthage was a trading power, not bent on territorial conquest like Rome. It had no impetus to seek direct conquest over others until Hasdrubal and Hannibal Barca took initiative and began subjugating the Iberian tribes. Ptolemaic Egypt was an OTL friend of Rome and pulling resources to use against Egypt would mean an opportunity for Rome to attack Carthage's territories in the western Meditterranean. Also Egypt was a trade partner of Carthage - why would they attack the people buying their goods?
Perhaps it's an honor thing? The Egyptians insult them?

Perhaps to ensure control of the eastern med?
 
Carthage itself can never do this. However, let's say Alexander were to conquer Carthage, and a successor state based in Carthage emerges after his death. I could imagine this state could end up in conflict with a successor state in Egypt over Cyrenaica. Maybe at a weak point in that Egyptian state's power, an enterprising Hellenistic king in Carthage sends over an army to try and conquer Egypt. They probably wouldn't be able to hold onto it long, though.
 
We'll say that Rome was destroyed in its cradle by a Gaulish invasion or war with the samnites or something.

We'll say because of this the Carthaginians rule the roost in the western med.

Does that make the scenario any more plausible?
 
We'll say that Rome was destroyed in its cradle by a Gaulish invasion or war with the samnites or something.

We'll say because of this the Carthaginians rule the roost in the western med.

Does that make the scenario any more plausible?

Nope, not at all.

Ptolemaic Egypt would take a few raids and looting, but the Carthaginians aren't getting a conquest unless they have a guy who can win three on one pitched battles.

Your best bet is for the Cathaginians to convince Potolomies to send their sons to Carthage for education. Then indoctrinate them so that over 3 or so generations, they feel like they are Carthaginians who happened to be kings of Egypt, just as William I "the conqueror" felt he was a Norman who just happened to be King of England. Then you get kind of a Hapsburg like merge.
 
Nope, not at all.

Ptolemaic Egypt would take a few raids and looting, but the Carthaginians aren't getting a conquest unless they have a guy who can win three on one pitched battles.

Your best bet is for the Cathaginians to convince Potolomies to send their sons to Carthage for education. Then indoctrinate them so that over 3 or so generations, they feel like they are Carthaginians who happened to be kings of Egypt, just as William I "the conqueror" felt he was a Norman who just happened to be King of England. Then you get kind of a Hapsburg like merge.
What if they become rivals for control of the eastern med?
 
If they became Rivals, Carthage might collide with Egypt just like they did Rome. In this case, neither is in a position to overrun the other. Carthage can just hire a bunch of mercs (like they did in real life), while to win against Egypt, they would need to win against a 3 to 1 ratio thanks to population differences. They might be able to win local territorial concessions or stuff. Is there something wrong with the indoctrination merge?
 
Top