Had there been no war between Pyrrhus and Rome,would Rome have lost against Carthage?

Had Pyrrhus never of come to Southern Italy's aid and come in a war against Rome, would the (presumably) inevitable Punic War against Cathage ended differently?

With a Rome with no experience of dealing with Elephants have caused things to turn out differently? I'm assuming that Cathage would have expanded into the tips of Southern Italy without an Epirus army there, causing additional problems for Rome.

Thanks.
 
Surely the southern italian cities had fallen in the hands of Rome quicker than in OTL (not Pyrrhus going in help of Tarentum), so Carthage had not could take these cities, respect to Sicily, the war between Siracuse and other cities against Carthage was more a war of atrittion than another thing, Carthage, at least during the First Punic War of OTL proved to be more a naval potence than a real land potence, their troops basically mercenaries were good but not precissely a match for the legions and confronted with the greek troops of the cities these proved to could have an equal match against Carthage army, so in fact is very probable than the First Punic War could have happened sooner and could be have been a more astounding roman victory (elephants would not be used against romans by the part of carthaginians in important way IIRC until the Second Punic War, in fact the First Punic War was a naval war with only a land theater: Sicily, and in the case of Hannibal, his crossing of Alps proved very fatal for his elephants, of the 37 elephants that he had, only one survived, little to made a difference, and naturally butterfly basic effects had made of the apparition of Hannibal with a POD in at least 280-279 BC very difficult...)
 
I had made a timeline about this period as well. :)
Now, we are assuming too much: Had Pyrrhus not been defeated by Rome, there probably would not have been a Rome-Carthage war in the first place!
The Carthagians and Romans were allies for the most part of their history, until after Pyrrhus. The Romans were a backwater until they defeated Pyrrhus. Defeating Pyrrhus gave them glory, gave them power, and gave them knowledge (that they had this power). The Pyrrhic War also showed Carthage's weakness. If the Romans had no Pyrrhus, they would've taken Magna Grecia for the most part. However, they would still see Carthage as powerful- and an ally.
Also, no Roma-Epirus War would lead to Pyrrhus adventuring in the East, not West. Failing in the West, Pyrrhus lost much of his glory (he was called the 'eagle' before, being a relative of Alexander the Great; Thewen he was called the 'fallen eagle'.) Here, he might have taken Macedonia and still be considered ther Eagle. He won't be happy that the Romans are now in Magna Grecia, and the Romans might feel danger from this seeming second Alexander the Great. So, I can't see Rome fighting a war with Carthage when Carthage still seemed great and there was still a danger from the opposite side of the Taranto Straits. This might give peace, for now. And this also might lead to Carthage shaping up and taking on Rome better later. But there would not be a similar Rome-Carthage War in this window of time.
 
Originally posted by Communist Wizard
The Romans were a backwater until they defeated Pyrrhus. Defeating Pyrrhus gave them glory, gave them power, and gave them knowledge (that they had this power).

This could be object of discussion, personally I think that the real moment where the romans begin clearly to get glory, power and knowledge were their victories against the samnites in the three wars against this people, in these wars romans showed the will to defeat difficulties, defeats and long wars, Pyrrhus was a clever, great general but we should remember that the romans had had such experiences fighting the samnites (and they had acquired clear knowledge of his real power and also the adquisition of a serie of tactics and weapons of their wars against the samnites).

Originally posted by Communist Wizard
He won't be happy that the Romans are now in Magna Grecia, and the Romans might feel danger from this seeming second Alexander the Great. So, I can't see Rome fighting a war with Carthage when Carthage still seemed great and there was still a danger from the opposite side of the Taranto Straits

Yes, this is a point that had not thought, the possible presence of a stronger than in OTL kingdom of Macedon in the other side of Taranto Strait, this could delay a lot a possible war between Rome and Carthage and in fact we could have a roman war against Macedon before a roman-carthage war.
 
Top