Could Rome and Carthage have co-existed?

Indeed, however Carthage is the old power based on trade when the med was made up of small city states. The times had changed and Rome was smack dab in the middle of the medy. On top of that, they had armies and lots of natural wealth.

I find it hard to not have Rome and Carthage but heads when Roman merchants start trying to interfere in Hispanola. Carthage had power because they had money, like Britain and America by the 1900s all Rome had to do was build a descent navy and Carthage goes the way of, well Carthage.

Once Rome was able to look away from Italy, they are gonna start looking to expand there wealth at the behest of someone; and Carthage is THE merchant nation.

Either Rome stays in central Italy battling it out for control of peninsula until Gauls or Germans conquer them or Carthage ends up a Roman vassal.

Unless Carthage decided to say fuck all to the wealth pouring in from the sea and decided to look for wealth inland, then maybe they could get the manpower to fight the Romans. Mercenaries are only good when you have money, so all Rome had to do was build a navy and boom Carthage is without army.

EDIT: Carthage saying fuck all to trade wealth for even a few decades seems ASB, as the city was founded on said wealth.

To be fair, Rome was a city state as well, although by the time of the Punic Wars, they had a far larger citizen base than other Med city-state before, and an even larger military manpower pool from "allies".
Also, the "Carthaginian mercenary army" and "Carthaginian power based on trade wealth", while both partly true, are overblown because our sources tended to be either Greek or Roman, thus anti-Carthaginian by default (this is especially evident in the way Livy described the Carthaginian armies as heterogeneous and dubiously loyal). This is worsened by later modern filters that have not entirely disappeared from public perception, such as the emphasis on Phoenicians as "merchants" which was in harmony with alleged attitudes of another vaguely related Semitic group.
 
To be fair, Rome was a city state as well, although by the time of the Punic Wars, they had a far larger citizen base than other Med city-state before, and an even larger military manpower pool from "allies".
Also, the "Carthaginian mercenary army" and "Carthaginian power based on trade wealth", while both partly true, are overblown because our sources tended to be either Greek or Roman, thus anti-Carthaginian by default (this is especially evident in the way Livy described the Carthaginian armies as heterogeneous and dubiously loyal). This is worsened by later modern filters that have not entirely disappeared from public perception, such as the emphasis on Phoenicians as "merchants" which was in harmony with alleged attitudes of another vaguely related Semitic group.
well, I have only been studying Rome for a year :eek:

But from what I understand, Rome was a city, with colonies in locations that made their "allies" nothing but vassals at best. Even Hannibal failed at rallying the Italian City-States against Rome.

Rome was becoming more and more the "capital" of an Italian Federation in my view.
 
well, I have only been studying Rome for a year :eek:

But from what I understand, Rome was a city, with colonies in locations that made their "allies" nothing but vassals at best. Even Hannibal failed at rallying the Italian City-States against Rome.

Rome was becoming more and more the "capital" of an Italian Federation in my view.

Well, "Federation", like "allies" should go under quotation marks in this timeframe, although the word is etymologically very apt, as "foederati" (meaning, ironically, "allies") was the general term they used for non-citizen Italic vassals.
The Roman strategies of control of the peninsula were indeed flexible, complex and overall highly effective. In general, you have Roman colonies (of two different kinds with different legal status) and varying degrees of internally self-governing "allied" cities whose main duty to Rome was providing military manpower. In addition, the strictly Roman civic body and proper territory (as distinct from both colonies and "allies") was astonishingly huge by city-state standards, comprising most of Central Italy. This entailed the political problem of a lot of nominal citizens being denied the actual possibility to partake the political process due to distance, a mechanism for which the Roman state offered compensation mainly in the form of participation in booty of the loot from conquered provinces. When this system proved no longer tenable at the end of the Second Century, mostly because the elite was appropriating a larger portion of this loot (whose amount had meanwhile increased exponentially). Another important compensation was the possibility to get land in the colonies, initially at the price of forfeiting Roman citizenship for colonial one.
However, Roman law mitigated these effect since, according to usual Italic custom and unlike Greek (and probably Carthaginian) one, any colonial, or even Italic, who settled in Rome could re-obtain or obtain citizenship; call it ius soli if you want, opposed to prevalent Greek ius sanguinis.
 
Indeed, however Carthage is the old power based on trade when the med was made up of small city states. The times had changed and Rome was smack dab in the middle of the medy. On top of that, they had armies and lots of natural wealth.

I find it hard to not have Rome and Carthage but heads when Roman merchants start trying to interfere in Hispanola. Carthage had power because they had money, like Britain and America by the 1900s all Rome had to do was build a descent navy and Carthage goes the way of, well Carthage.

Once Rome was able to look away from Italy, they are gonna start looking to expand there wealth at the behest of someone; and Carthage is THE merchant nation.

Either Rome stays in central Italy battling it out for control of peninsula until Gauls or Germans conquer them or Carthage ends up a Roman vassal.

Unless Carthage decided to say fuck all to the wealth pouring in from the sea and decided to look for wealth inland, then maybe they could get the manpower to fight the Romans. Mercenaries are only good when you have money, so all Rome had to do was build a navy and boom Carthage is without army.

EDIT: Carthage saying fuck all to trade wealth for even a few decades seems ASB, as the city was founded on said wealth.

Right, that's what I was trying to make a point about. Maybe I was being a little unclear about it. Because of how wealthy it was, Carthage was the established power in the region (and would likely like to remain so) and Rome was the rising rival who wants to become the dominant (if not only) power in the region.
 
To be fair, Rome was a city state as well, although by the time of the Punic Wars, they had a far larger citizen base than other Med city-state before, and an even larger military manpower pool from "allies".
Also, the "Carthaginian mercenary army" and "Carthaginian power based on trade wealth", while both partly true, are overblown because our sources tended to be either Greek or Roman, thus anti-Carthaginian by default (this is especially evident in the way Livy described the Carthaginian armies as heterogeneous and dubiously loyal). This is worsened by later modern filters that have not entirely disappeared from public perception, such as the emphasis on Phoenicians as "merchants" which was in harmony with alleged attitudes of another vaguely related Semitic group.

During this time period, a lot of states used mercenaries (and in some cases used them as the core of their armies) and they were arguably the best troops around (certainly better than civilian levies) until the professional armies (like Rome) became more efficient (in terms of cost, not ability). And mercenaries hardly had dubious loyalty. If they did, no one would pay for their services.

I'd hardly say that the perception of Carthage being predominantly a trading power to be false. Like I stated before, most of the terrritory attributed to Carthage, was not actually owned, conquered, or vassals of Carthage. Therefore the logically inference is that it must have been a trading power and therefore have lots of wealth, or the leader of a coalition (unlikely given that most of its military might in mercenaries came from its ally Numidia, and its military was composed of mainly mercenaries which aren't cheap).
 
During this time period, a lot of states used mercenaries (and in some cases used them as the core of their armies) and they were arguably the best troops around (certainly better than civilian levies) until the professional armies (like Rome) became more efficient (in terms of cost, not ability). And mercenaries hardly had dubious loyalty. If they did, no one would pay for their services.

I'd hardly say that the perception of Carthage being predominantly a trading power to be false. Like I stated before, most of the terrritory attributed to Carthage, was not actually owned, conquered, or vassals of Carthage. Therefore the logically inference is that it must have been a trading power and therefore have lots of wealth, or the leader of a coalition (unlikely given that most of its military might in mercenaries came from its ally Numidia, and its military was composed of mainly mercenaries which aren't cheap).

I agree about mercenaries. Their use was hardly rare, and their loyalty rarely called into question. But the Roman historiographical lens has sometimes put Carthaginian use of mercenary troops in such light.

I wouldn't say that the perception is itself false, far from it. The basis of Carthaginian overall economy was probably agricultural, but of course they were a major trading power. I was saying, again, that this fact is colored by specific perception and historiographical trends, both ancient and modern, that overemphasise the (undoubtedly very important) trading dimension of the Carthaginian state.

I short, I am complaining about not having Carthaginian history books, if they ever existed.
 
I agree about mercenaries. Their use was hardly rare, and their loyalty rarely called into question. But the Roman historiographical lens has sometimes put Carthaginian use of mercenary troops in such light.

I wouldn't say that the perception is itself false, far from it. The basis of Carthaginian overall economy was probably agricultural, but of course they were a major trading power. I was saying, again, that this fact is colored by specific perception and historiographical trends, both ancient and modern, that overemphasise the (undoubtedly very important) trading dimension of the Carthaginian state.

I short, I am complaining about not having Carthaginian history books, if they ever existed.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from. Yes, very few states weren't operating on an agricultural based economy at the time, it just so happens that Carthage was a large center of trade as well. And yes, if such histories did exist, they were likely destroyed in the razing of Carthage at the conclusion of the third punic war.

And yes, the perspective that we get is from the victors (Rome) who happened to predominately use professional soldiers and as such, viewed mercenaries in a poor light. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the norm in such a case.
 
During this time period, a lot of states used mercenaries (and in some cases used them as the core of their armies) and they were arguably the best troops around (certainly better than civilian levies) until the professional armies (like Rome) became more efficient (in terms of cost, not ability). And mercenaries hardly had dubious loyalty. If they did, no one would pay for their services.

I'd hardly say that the perception of Carthage being predominantly a trading power to be false. Like I stated before, most of the terrritory attributed to Carthage, was not actually owned, conquered, or vassals of Carthage. Therefore the logically inference is that it must have been a trading power and therefore have lots of wealth, or the leader of a coalition (unlikely given that most of its military might in mercenaries came from its ally Numidia, and its military was composed of mainly mercenaries which aren't cheap).

I understand this, in fact most nations used mercenaries even as late as the American Revolution. However mercenaries are loyal to one thing, $$$. If Rome cuts off Carthage's supply of money (which came from their domination of the medy) they cut off their armies and you end up like Hannibal. He ran out of troops and what reinforcements he had were cut off by the Roman navy.

I believe he even had to loot towns across Gaul and Northern Italy to pay off his underpaid army.

Mercenaries can't be as loyal as someone fighting for their home.
 
Push back the POD and have Syracuse do better and dominate Sicily while Carthage ends up with more territory in the west and south (Africa, Spain, etc.) rather than Corsica and Sardinia. Rome ends up fighting long wars to subdue Syracuse and its league of Greek allies while Carthage goes off and does its own thing or even enters into an anti-Syracuse alliance with Rome.
 
Lets end it like this, Carthage was a city that survived off dominating trade in the med.

Rome was a nation attempting to dominate trade, this is sort of a US/SU analogue in all the posts i've seen; the only thing that can prevent them butting heads is a common enemy.

Take away the enemy and the only thing standing in either way of total domination is the other.

No, based on their histories and situations it doesn't seem that without a POD a century or so before that Rome and Carthage could co-exist without one dominating the other.

You would have to equal out their strength, Carthage didn't have manpower but had money; Rome had manpower.

Give Carthage more manpower and maybe they just won't be able to beat each other like one poster stated above Rome could co-exist in the same way it was forced to Co-Exist with the Persians, by not being able to decisively defeat them.
 
Top