DBWI : Rome defeats Carthage

[Dolan]

So, reading again about the Second Carthage-Roman War (OTL: Second Punic War), I just noticed something about this peculiar Italian Hegemon of this time, the Republic of Rome.

Sure, the conflict was started by the great statesman and general of Carthage, Hannibal Barca technically waging an illegal private war against Rome. But later on, the Barcid faction managed to convince the Carthaginian Senate to show their support to the invasion of Italy and give Hannibal much-needed troop replacements and Naval supports.

Rome did not go down easily despite their horrendous loses at the Battle of River Trebia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae, and they still get into a fight again and again, able to amass massive numbers of soldiers despite casualties they took.

In the end, it took a combined alliance of defected Italian City-States and Macedonian Army under Philip V (that keep his pledge to support Hannibal with Siege Engines after Cannae), to finally besieged and end Roman Hegemony for pretty much forever. The Siege of Rome has been noted to be one of the most drawn out and brutal battles during the Age of Diadochi, with the end result being Rome totally destroyed and their inhabitants being exterminated to the last man (according to Carthaginian accounts), or many Roman men choose mass suicides over enslavement (according to contemporary Greek accounts).

Sure, it was a rumor, and maybe a legend, but it was well worth investigating that the Hannibalic column system (that was later supplemented the much more widespread Alexandrian Pike Phalanx) was supposedly copied from how Romans arrange their troops, as it was noted that Roman soldiers fought in different, non-phalanx formations.

So, in a different, alternate world, where perhaps Philip V of Macedon did not fulfill his promise to Hannibal... How would the Hellenistic world evolve with Rome being one of the major players instead of Carthage?

 

[bob123456789]

Well maybe rome would conquer italy spain and north africa. Also a strong enough rome may conquer gaul and that would stop the germanic tribes from overrunning it. Rome would be a mojor regional power, but would likely rise and fall fast.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

The Roman "Republic" (a Latin form of government between demokratia and shophet) was so tough for Hannibal to take down, that if they survived I can only imagine what kind of juggernaut they would have formed in the Mediterranean.

Maybe Rome would have been a sort of "Western Byzantion" equivalent in power to the Lysimachids. Instead of conquering the Thracians they would conquer the Gauls.

But first things first, Carthage wouldn't have become such a major hegemon in the western Mediterranean, and without the subjugation of the Italian allies to Carthage there is no way that Carthage would have made their expeditions to Egypt and the "Return To Phoenicia". The Barcids wouldn't have their domain in Iberia from which to unite and hereditarize the Carthaginian state into yet another quasi-Hellenistic monarchy (like the similar Pontus).

 

[SpaceRome]

Well maybe rome would conquer italy spain and north africa. Also a strong enough rome may conquer gaul and that would stop the germanic tribes from overrunning it. Rome would be a mojor regional power, but would likely rise and fall fast.

A more interesting consequence than that is in the south. OTL, major states and empires in southern Hadasot (OTL west, northwest africa and hispania) sprang up due to carthagenian trade. I wonder what regions will be developed as such with a northern power unifying the Mediterranean. who knows, maybe even those Barbaroi in Brythonia have a chance to improve under a roman-controlled Mediterranean (although there's no gurentee the Romans will reach as far north as the Carthaginians did south)

 

[Dolan]

A more interesting consequence than that is in the south. OTL, major states and empires in southern Hadasot (OTL west, northwest africa and hispania) sprang up due to carthagenian trade. I wonder what regions will be developed as such with a northern power unifying the Mediterranean. who knows, maybe even those Barbaroi in Brythonia have a chance to improve under a roman-controlled Mediterranean (although there's no gurentee the Romans will reach as far north as the Carthaginians did south)

Sure, Carthage ends up having Rome's fate might end up reversing the long term trend of history. Europa, especially the Dark Forests of Germanoi (Central Europe) being the borders of contacts to civilized world, where the mysterious fog and rain Islands of Hibernia (British Islands), the frozen land of Scandia (Scandinavia), and the brutal nomadic plan of the Sakaeans (Eastern Europe and Russia) filled much of our popular culture of what is "Barbaroi".

Perhaps this time, in this alternate world, it would be the deeper Afrika past the Hadasot Desert (Sahara) who would be basically untouched and undeveloped instead of Deep Europa.

 

[SpaceRome]

Sure, Carthage ends up having Rome's fate might end up reversing the long term trend of history. Europa, especially the Dark Forests of Germanoi (Central Europe) being the borders of contacts to civilized world, where the mysterious fog and rain Islands of Hibernia (British Islands), the frozen land of Scandia (Scandinavia), and the brutal nomadic plan of the Sakaeans (Eastern Europe and Russia) filled much of our popular culture of what is "Barbaroi".

Perhaps this time, in this alternate world, it would be the deeper Afrika past the Hadasot Desert (Sahara) who would be basically untouched and undeveloped instead of Deep Europa.

I would not want to live in this world, honestly. how would these frozen barbaroi ever make something like the Saga of Mwindo (equivalent to OTL's ring of Nibelung)?

Back to the point, I wonder if the sakaean civilisation your describing would be capable of connecting Europa and Hadasot to Syn (Carthaginian name for China) through land? OTL it was only after the conquest of egypt that contact between the two civilized corners of the earth really became serious. taking the overland route might take centuries more, and imagine the wealth and philosophy butterflied by this simple delay alone! I shudder to think.

 

[avernite]

I would not want to live in this world, honestly. how would these frozen barbaroi ever make something like the Saga of Mwindo (equivalent to OTL's ring of Nibelung)?

Back to the point, I wonder if the sakaean civilisation your describing would be capable of connecting Europa and Hadasot to Syn (Carthaginian name for China) through land? OTL it was only after the conquest of egypt that contact between the two civilized corners of the earth really became serious. taking the overland route might take centuries more, and imagine the wealth and philosophy butterflied by this simple delay alone! I shudder to think.

Some conquerors on the steppe did briefly unite Europa and Syn, they just never broke past the Sakaians and Germanoi into any civilized realms. And so by the time Hadasot heard about those conquerors, they were already old news.

I believe the most famous were the Turanioi, who briefly held sway over Persia, pieces of Syn, and parts of Sakaia - and even held some Hellenic cities in Anatolia. Although what later became the Yuan dynasty in Syn did at one point wage war in Sakaia too, according to recent scholarship.

 

[Arcavia]

But first things first, Carthage wouldn't have become such a major hegemon in the western Mediterranean, and without the subjugation of the Italian allies to Carthage there is no way that Carthage would have made their expeditions to Egypt and the "Return To Phoenicia".

Connected to this, IOTL the petty kingdom of Judaia, known only for its peculiar Semitic monotheism, was destroyed following a rebellion against Qarthadashm's hegemony, and its people dispersed throughout the Mediterranean. Since they spoke a similar language to the Carthaginians, they were quickly and forcibly assimilated into Punic culture; some scholars trace the peculiar cult and mystical practices of El-Addon to the last remnants of their traditional practices. It would be interesting to see Rome rather than Carthage control the region; if a similar dispersion still happens, the greater language barrier might enable the Judaioi (as they are called in Koine) to preserve their customs much longer if not to the present day. It might be interesting to see a monotheistic practice of Semitic, rather than Hellenic, origin arise; butterflies might even make it so that the divide between monotheist Hellenic cultures and polytheistic Semitic ones disappear in the "West" as it exists ITTL.

 

[m0585]

Even if Phillip V hadn't honored his agreement with Hannibal, I don't see how Rome could win. It had suffered massive casualties (replaceable at best with green troops), lost the loyalty of its southern cities (and Sicily to boot), and kept putting total idiots in command of its legions (Fabian was probably the best they had but he was cast out due to his less than decisive tactics). At the very best, Rome might be able to obtain a stalemate, but the peace will belong to Carthage. The southern Italian city would ally with Carthage, Sicily and Hispania would go to Carthage, and Rome would be contained. Rome's best chance for survival is to make peace after Cannae.

 

[Dolan]

Even if Phillip V hadn't honored his agreement with Hannibal, I don't see how Rome could win.

If Philip V never come with siege weapons and engineers, how Hannibal will get the Helepolis and Catapults needed to keep the pressure on Rome?

The Romans, just like every other major city-state, has a fairly extensive defensive wall, and with an average amount of grain harvest, they might have stocked enough to resist even multi-year siege. And remember that Rome's archeological site did show that it was built on the perfect defensible ground, on top of the Hills with river providing access to the sea. Starve them out is possible without Siege Weapons, but it would took too long,and there's a chance that Ptolemaioi or Seleukeia might intervene by supplying them by ships.

Too bad, for some reasons, the Carthaginians either exterminated them so thoroughly or the Romans themselves committed mass-suicide rather than being enslaved. Having some surviving, first-hand Roman accounts of the events would be damn interesting thing.

 

[Arcavia]

If Philip V never come with siege weapons and engineers, how Hannibal will get the Helepolis and Catapults needed to keep the pressure on Rome?

The Romans, just like every other major city-state, has a fairly extensive defensive wall, and with an average amount of grain harvest, they might have stocked enough to resist even multi-year siege. And remember that Rome's archeological site did show that it was built on the perfect defensible ground, on top of the Hills with river providing access to the sea. Starve them out is possible without Siege Weapons, but it would took too long,and there's a chance that Ptolemaioi or Seleukeia might intervene by supplying them by ships.

Too bad, for some reasons, the Carthaginians either exterminated them so thoroughly or the Romans themselves committed mass-suicide rather than being enslaved. Having some surviving, first-hand Roman accounts of the events would be damn interesting thing.

Would Hannibal have been able to undermine the walls?

 

[Dolan]

Would Hannibal have been able to undermine the walls?

the problem is sapping requires engineering know-how, and that was supplied by Macedonian siege engineer as well.

There's a reason why Carthage basically let Macedonia took over eastern part of North Italy, especially the Venetia and thus having total control of the Illyrian coast. Without them, the war, instead of being a sixteen years long campaign in Italia, might be even longer.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Rome would have enjoyed many of the same advantages Carthage did when they embarked on their campaign of conquest in the east. Like their southern rivals, the Romans had almost equivalent manpower resources (if somewhat less developed financial methods), a central position in the Mediterranean to keep transport costs down, a highly flexible infantry fighting style to take advantage of the phalanx's weaknesses on rough ground, and a fleet battle naval doctrine, which reduced the number of heavy polyremems necessitated by the Hellenistic naval siege warfare oriented fleet doctrine. It's hard to say, though, if they would pull through in the end. Carthage established dominance over the Greek East in a little over a decade, but during his Eastern campaigns, Hannibal's army never outnumbered the enemy's main forces; in Cyrenacia, he destroyed an Egyptian army of 70,000 without half as many men. It's an open question if at the end of their war, the Romans would have a military chief and veteran army of similar caliber.

If Philip V never come with siege weapons and engineers, how Hannibal will get the Helepolis and Catapults needed to keep the pressure on Rome?

He could have just built his own; no ancient army carried complete engines with them on campaign, instead constructing them on site from known plans and with available parts. You don't need Philip present on the Italian peninsula for that.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

He could have just built his own; no ancient army carried complete engines with them on campaign, instead constructing them on site from known plans and with available parts. You don't need Philip present on the Italian peninsula for that.

You do realize Hannibal's army at this point was like half Guallic auxillery, right, with the remainder being primarily Iberian hillsmen? Neither of those were exactly crack engineers, even assuming he could have convinced the former (who weren't loyal to Carthage; their leaders were his allies not clients) to stick around for seasons on end to conduct a siege rather than go off into the countryside to claim the land and loot they were in the conflict for. No, Barca needed the Hellinic support.

 

[Hegemon]

What if after Romans conquered Carthange romans conquored spania and then the Macedon and Egypt and syria and then gaul empires with theyre awesome leigons and stuff how possible is that.

OOC: We all know one of 'those' people

 

[dandan_noodles]

You do realize Hannibal's army at this point was like half Guallic auxillery, right, with the remainder being primarily Iberian hillsmen? Neither of those were exactly crack engineers, even assuming he could have convinced the former (who weren't loyal to Carthage; their leaders were his allies not clients) to stick around for seasons on end to conduct a siege rather than go off into the countryside to claim the land and loot they were in the conflict for. No, Barca needed the Hellinic support.

He was able to keep the Iberians in hand for months on end to besiege Saguntum for eight months continuously; Gauls have also never displayed an unwillingness to lay siege. Engineering is not work for the common soldier, anyway; the small number of necessary experts are not hard to acquire, and Carthage certainly had the money to do it. Moreover, after the reinforcements of Mago, Hasdrubal the Bald, Himilco, and Hasdrubal Gisco, Hannibal had at least 40,000 Africans in his army, who were skillful engineers in their own right. Philip did not turn the balance; he joined the winning team out of a hope of sharing in the spoils.

 

[Dolan]

What if after Romans conquered Carthange romans conquored spania and then the Macedon and Egypt and syria and then gaul empires with theyre awesome leigons and stuff how possible is that.

OOC: We all know one of 'those' people

Rome already has presence in Spain, so Spanish mopping up is definitely within their reach. But then it requires Battle of Metaurus going in reverse for what originally happened.

Maybe Hadrusbal brought fewer than his 36 elephants, or not at all, so the Romans might be able to push the outnumbered Carthaginian line back instead of routing due to being trampled by elephants.

And then somehow acquire their own Elephants for the campaign against Egypt, as Ptolemaioi did have their own numbering in the hundreds.

Remember that there are reasons why Iron-Elephants (tanks) are named like that, they are what is basically internal combustion engine version of armored elephants. Every successful army since ancient age need their own armored division, and while Cataphracts could fill the gap between fast horses and Elephants, they are not quite the same.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

He was able to keep the Iberians in hand for months on end to besiege Saguntum for eight months continuously; Gauls have also never displayed an unwillingness to lay siege. Engineering is not work for the common soldier, anyway; the small number of necessary experts are not hard to acquire, and Carthage certainly had the money to do it. Moreover, after the reinforcements of Mago, Hasdrubal the Bald, Himilco, and Hasdrubal Gisco, Hannibal had at least 40,000 Africans in his army, who were skillful engineers in their own right. Philip did not turn the balance; he joined the winning team out of a hope of sharing in the spoils.

Unwillingness to siege if it was for their causes and their gain, sure. But for a forgeiner, when plunder, vengence, and domains safe from yet another wave of Trasalpine migration on which they could establish a lasting kingdom all at the expense of the hated Romans (you know, all the reasons they were there and fighting will Hannibal in the first place?) was ripe for the taking and the Romans unable to send out an army to stop them? I doubt it. You overestimate the unity the personal control Hannibal had over the Anti-Roman Cohalition this early in the Punic Hegemony; the thing was an impressive but jury-rigged alliance of Barcid loyal forces, allied Gaulic clans, hesitent Magna Graci cities, Fairweather Italians basically saying "please don't hurt me", and African forces his relatives had to basically pull teeth politically to get out of the old men running things back home.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Unwillingness to siege if it was for their causes and their gain, sure. But for a forgeiner, when plunder, vengence, and domains safe from yet another wave of Trasalpine migration on which they could establish a lasting kingdom all at the expense of the hated Romans (you know, all the reasons they were there and fighting will Hannibal in the first place?) was ripe for the taking and the Romans unable to send out an army to stop them? I doubt it. You overestimate the unity the personal control Hannibal had over the Anti-Roman Cohalition this early in the Punic Hegemony; the thing was an impressive but jury-rigged alliance of Barcid loyal forces, allied Gaulic clans, hesitent Magna Graci cities, Fairweather Italians basically saying "please don't hurt me", and African forces his relatives had to basically pull teeth politically to get out of the old men running things back home.

Barcid domination was a fact by the time Hamilcar conquered Baetica; the treasure that flowed back to Carthage stocked the senate with his friends, and his sons continued the tradition. Most of the major commanders through the war were either Barcid kinsmen, political allies, or officers detached from Hannibal's own army; they took their directions from the generalissimo, and the war only confirmed Hannibal's defacto position as Carthage's supreme warlord. As it regards the Gauls, it should be remembered they had an inveterate hatred of the Romans and were promised a generous share of the spoils when the Roman walls fell. What self respecting Gaul could resist the chance to plunder Rome itself for a second time? Plus, they weren't stupid; they could tell what would happen to them if the siege failed, the war was lost, and the Romans could get their revenge. Hannibal throughout the war exercised a considerable degree of control over them; they had no overall Gallic commander serving to forward discrete interests at his headquarters, and he successfully divied them up in small packets under other commanders of his army, like at Cannae where they alternated companies with the Iberians. If Hannibal told them to chop down trees for battering rams or siege towers or ballistae or mantlets etc., they'd do it.

It would take a lot more than Macedonian non intervention to turn the war against Carthage; either a complete defeat of Hannibal's army in Italy, or the total collapse of the Punic position in Iberia would be necessary to forestall their buildup of overwhelming force in the Roman homeland.

 

[Dolan]

It would take a lot more than Macedonian non intervention to turn the war against Carthage; either a complete defeat of Hannibal's army in Italy, or the total collapse of the Punic position in Iberia would be necessary to forestall their buildup of overwhelming force in the Roman homeland.

So what about the domino effect on the other Diadochi then? As far as we know, the ruinous Ptolemaioi-Seleukidai wars already happened but the Romans was noted to actually import grain from Egypt and having some sort of alliance with the Ptolemaioi.

What if, after Makedonian campaign to take over the North East Italy happened, the Ptolemaioi decides to relieve their Roman ally by invading either Carthage or Makedonia?

For extra fun, the Seleukidai would then try to attack the Ptolemaioi, but then Pontos and Parthoi end up attacking the Seleukidai in return, which caused Pergamon to attack Pontos and Parthoi being invaded by Scythian nomads.

It would be one hell of a World War.