Carthage PWNZ Rome

If Carthage manages to win the second punic war (I assume it's the one you mean)she would definitly retake her former possesions like western sicily, sardinia and corsica. The latin federation would have been broken and probably tha cartaginians would have tried to have some kind of protectorate over Magna Grecia.

Unless Roma is completely destroyed and razed to the ground, you are going to have a third war sonner or later, which outcome dependes on too many factors to be decided.

The most interesting question is about what happens in Carthago herself. The conservative party could be fearful of Hannibal and try to assasinate or, at least, to exiliate him. If they succeed, Carthago will revert to be a mainly commercial empire and the land conquest will be lost in following years.

If Hannibal manages to get the power, he could establish a monarchy (improbable) or an oligarchy that could be easily manipulated. His enemies would be killed or exiled. Then he would have reformed the carthaginian state (he actually tried to do this for a brief time IOTL).
Hannibal would have surely consolitaded his grip on western mediterrean sea, which could lead to wars agaist berbers in Africa and Gauls in Europe.
It's impossible to tell if any of his reforms would survive his death, though.
 
Who might a possible sucessor as "Counsel" (for lack of a better word) be?

Well, probably a member of the Barcid family, who could try to mantain intact Hannibal legacy. But you know the problem of dinasties: the heir is seldom as good as his predecessor
 
On the old board, Duncan Head and I came up with a timeline. I've got it in a Word document somewhere and I can post it here if people want to read it.
 
What if Carthage defeated Rome, how different would the world look?

Depends on which war, or an entirely new war, that you're thinking of. Since the concept of Carthage smashing up Rome in their third conflict enough to vastly change world history is almost ASB, we can drop that one.

So if Carthage wins in the first round, they keep their Mediterranean colonies, restricting Rome to the European mainland and possibly just the Italian peninsula. Carthage gets strong enough to send colonists and traders to Gaul and all over Spain. In time they might reach Britain and Germany. Militarily I'm not sure how strong they could be; they were primarily a naval and commercial power, so land armies are not their strong suit. Their empire may not reach the epic proportions that Rome's did.

If Carthage wins the second round (the Hannibal war) they might try to apply more of an iron boot to Rome's throat. Possibly the same things as scenario one only with more harshness for Rome. Carthage may retake the islands and that may mean hard times for the Latin colonists there but maybe not since those colonists just represent more trading opportunities for Carthaginian merchants. I suspect Macedon might get more land and indemnities, possibly a permanent relationship with Carthage to keep Rome down.

Naturally given centuries of this change Roman influence doesn't reach as far as it did IOTL. Architecture, customs, law, military traditions, etc. don't get passed down to succeeding European generations; Carthage's stuff does. If the bands from Asia still strike Europe in the 3rd-5th centuries CE the collapse of Carthaginian power (assuming it even lasts that long) might be more complete than Rome's.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Depends on which war, or an entirely new war, that you're thinking of. Since the concept of Carthage smashing up Rome in their third conflict enough to vastly change world history is almost ASB, we can drop that one.

So if Carthage wins in the first round, they keep their Mediterranean colonies, restricting Rome to the European mainland and possibly just the Italian peninsula. Carthage gets strong enough to send colonists and traders to Gaul and all over Spain. In time they might reach Britain and Germany. Militarily I'm not sure how strong they could be; they were primarily a naval and commercial power, so land armies are not their strong suit. Their empire may not reach the epic proportions that Rome's did.

If Carthage wins the second round (the Hannibal war) they might try to apply more of an iron boot to Rome's throat. Possibly the same things as scenario one only with more harshness for Rome. Carthage may retake the islands and that may mean hard times for the Latin colonists there but maybe not since those colonists just represent more trading opportunities for Carthaginian merchants. I suspect Macedon might get more land and indemnities, possibly a permanent relationship with Carthage to keep Rome down.

Naturally given centuries of this change Roman influence doesn't reach as far as it did IOTL. Architecture, customs, law, military traditions, etc. don't get passed down to succeeding European generations; Carthage's stuff does. If the bands from Asia still strike Europe in the 3rd-5th centuries CE the collapse of Carthaginian power (assuming it even lasts that long) might be more complete than Rome's.

Something ignored in that post is that Celtic and Germanic tribes would have had a chance to grow and prosper into true states, which would have blunted the attacks from Asia, had they come sooner or later.
 
Something ignored in that post is that Celtic and Germanic tribes would have had a chance to grow and prosper into true states, which would have blunted the attacks from Asia, had they come sooner or later.

Or Rome would have just focused due north instead of heading northwest into Gaul.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Something ignored in that post is that Celtic and Germanic tribes would have had a chance to grow and prosper into true states, which would have blunted the attacks from Asia, had they come sooner or later.

Celtic tribes, probably. Germans, no.

The solidification of the Germans into groups like the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Alamanni, etc. could very well be a reaction to the Romans.
 
If Carthage manages to win the second punic war (I assume it's the one you mean)she would definitly retake her former possesions like western sicily, sardinia and corsica. The latin federation would have been broken and probably tha cartaginians would have tried to have some kind of protectorate over Magna Grecia.

Unless Roma is completely destroyed and razed to the ground, you are going to have a third war sonner or later, which outcome dependes on too many factors to be decided.

We know something about what Hannibal´s terms were. The Romans intercepted an offer of alliance from Hannibal to Macedon. The terms clearly contemplated that Rome would continue to exist.

Can someone fill in the specifics?
 
I suspect it would have been something along the lines of disbanding the fleet, evacuating the islands off Italy, perhaps removing itself from the Ebro frontier. Maybe allow greater autonomy or outright independence for the other cities in Italy.
 
Celtic tribes, probably. Germans, no.

The solidification of the Germans into groups like the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Alamanni, etc. could very well be a reaction to the Romans.

Before 60 BCE, the Suebi group led by a warlord known as Ariovistus invaded the Gallic Aedui tribe's territory, located in modern Alsace. Caesar led his troops to confront them, since the Aedui were Roman allies.

In the Cimbrian War between 113-101 BCE, the Cimbri and Teutons, and their tribal vassals repeatedly defeated the Romans in many engagements, and were considered a serious problem at the time. It wasn't until Gaius Marius led his revamped Roman legions against the Teutons and Cimbri and destroyed them at the battles of Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae.

Tribes like the Bastarnae had lived as far as the western Ukraine, and migrations of Germanics are thought to have been occuring since around 800 BCE.

So I wouldn't quite count the Celts and Germanics out if I were you.
 
Last edited:
I stumbled into this post while looking for Hannibal stuff. I was planning about writing a timeline were Hannibal conquers Rome and was thinking about a great Carthaginian Empire. What if Hannibal had completely razed Rome to the ground, given his hatred of Roman people? Would it have been possible, in spite of his xenophobia, for him to have recognized the Roman legion model as superior? If so, would he have been able to reorganize the Punic army into a professional standing force based on the Roman army? My intended POD involves Hanno, leader of the anti-Barcid faction, dying during the Second Punic War. Without his leadership, his supporters are eliminated by the Barcids, who then give Hannibal the strategic resources to capture Rome. With the Barcids ruling Carthage, would Hannibal have been able to become something like a king or an all powerful dictator?

Any thoughts on this will be gratefully received.
 

Typo

Banned
The Roman legion was not a professional force during the time of the punic wars.

Carthage's mercenary army is arguably more professional than Rome's, at least at the beginning

And a citizen-army system simply does not work for carthage at all, it being a maritime trading empire and all
 
I know a Carthaginian citizen army wouldn't work. But would it have been possible for the Carthaginian officers to tighten their control over the mercenaries and turn all those Iberians, Gauls, Lybians, Numidians and Mauretanians into a more professional and organized force?
 
It all depends on the nature of Hannibal's victory.

If, after Cannae, the Italian states defect en masse to him (so maybe some leading ones like Capua break away from Rome and the rest follow suit) and they give him reinforcements (like the Cisalpine Celts did after he crossd the Alps) then he would have sufficient heavy infantry (they still fought as hoplites in that area) to besiege Rome. Rome's defences at the time were a low stone wall and a citizen militia, so it is entirely possible he could defeat them outrght. Knowing that he hated the Romans and that he wanted nothing better than to smash them to pulp, I'd say he'd be inclined towards annihilation of the city.

His peace terms in Italy would, I suppose, be pretty lenient towards the city states. He'd probably withdraw Carthaginian troops fairly quickly and just take Sicily (excl. Syracuse) as Carthage's as well as the Mediterranean islands. He'd probably make alliances under his own initiative (like Ptolemy did in Syrai IOTL) with the citie sof Magna Graecia and probably something like a League to defend against any Etruscan resurgance or Macedonian/Epiran interference.

At home, the Suffets (chief magistrates) would be furious, of course, that their power was taken by a general and might declare him an outlaw. However, having avenged the first punic war and brought Carthage great triumphs as well as plunder (from Italy which no doubt had a fair few bob behind the sofa) he would probably still be very popular. His soldiers would stick with him as he was personally very popular with them (being a great general who led from the front) and he could probably accomplish a 'March on Carthage' which the Suffets wouldn't be able to respond to-their mercenaries have revolted and the people support Hannibal. They'd either have to come to terms or run.

With Hannibal therefore no doubt in control of the city, he'd probably seek to consolidate power around his family and his supporters before going on. If he were wise, he'd then try and reform Carthage's army. It relied too much on mercenaries and there was relatively little of a martial elite. If he paid mercenaries in land and offered them a stable employment and got them to swear loyalty to him, Carthage would be much trogner and able to project power more effectively.
 

Typo

Banned
I know a Carthaginian citizen army wouldn't work. But would it have been possible for the Carthaginian officers to tighten their control over the mercenaries and turn all those Iberians, Gauls, Lybians, Numidians and Mauretanians into a more professional and organized force?
That's exactly what Hannibal did.

The thing is the nature of mercenaries makes it impossible for men of less ability to do so.
 
Saepe Fidelis has it right. A large part of how Post-War Carthage is constructed depends on how the conflict is concluded. If, as he suggests, the victory at Cannae triggers a general rebellion among the Italian States, then it is entirely possible that he could successfully march upon and probably take Rome itself.

I don't think that is likely without some kind of stimulus however, as Hannibal's entire strategy revolved around them doing just that, and they never did. In order for that to happen something else would have to occur first. I think a more plausible point of divergence would be the early death or political defeat of Quintus Fabio Maximus, who was the progenitor of Rome's policy of denying Hannibal open combat. If that strategy had not been implemented it is not outside the realm of possibility that Hannibal could have inflicted a string of defeats upon an unprepared and poorly led Roman army that would have caused the rebellion he was looking for.

In terms of post war, I think the treaties would proceed relatively close to what Saepe describes, with Hannibal personally arranging most of the post-war treaties. It's true that the Carthaginian Suffets would look poorly on a conquering general r usurping so much of their power and authority, but given their neglect of his army and efforts during the war this would be entirely in-line for Hannibal. It's probable that upon returning to Carthage Hannibal would make use of his veteran army to establish, if not a monarchy, then at least firm control over the city and it's proceedings. This would probably include rewarding his troops with land and citizenship as Saepe suggests. Given Hannibal's own disposition Carthage, wether imperial in fact or not, would begin to lean towards being an imperial power, exerting a much greater influence over the Mediterranean.
 
Top