How Powerful Can Carthage Get With A Rome Screw?

ben0628

Banned
Let's say that when Brennus defeats the Romans at the Battle of Allia River and then goes on to sack Rome in the 4th century BC, the city is burnt entirely to the ground with all its people dead and the city never recovers. Without Rome going on to conquer the entire Italian peninsula and then the entire Mediterranean, how powerful could the City of Carthage become without having a major rival in the Western Mediterranean Sea? Could Carthage go on to conquer the Italian peninsula? Could it expand into the Eastern Mediterranean?
 
Hadn't Carthage already seen the peak of its power around the time of OTL's Punic Wars anyway? It wasn't the up and coming power that Rome was at that point.
 
If Rome doesn't become the dominant power in Italy, would that possibly open the way for Capua or one of the other major cities to take the lead in ruling the peninsula? If it can't fill those shoes, then a butterfly-netted Hannibal would unquestionably be the power in Italy; maybe they knuckle down and conquer Sicily instead of Spain, and then begin to project power into southern Italy. Might also have Massalia on their shopping list if they aren't locked in a death struggle with the Romans.
 
Probably OTL Carthage was very close on peak during Punic Wars. Unlike Rome, Carthage wasn't expansionist empire. It was ratherly merchant nation not militarist conqueror nation. So Carthage wouldn't dominate Mediterranean.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Agree with Lalli, Carthage is different place from Rome.

it had different ideology/mode of expansion (difference between Merchant domination/tribute, and military conquest and occupation), it had different population base as source of manpower (Central Italy have more people than Tunisia), it had different relations with its citizens, different relations with its subject and ally, etc. I think its very unlikely Carthage could outright conquer central Italy or expand to eastern meditteranean even when Rome don't exist.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
A crushed Rome has some serious inplications for Italy. The Etruscans, far more than Carthage, were in decline at the time. With no Rome, there's a good chance of Celts overrunning larger parts of Italy from the north. In the south, the main rivals for Rome within Italy were for a long time the Samnites. They took control of several cities (including Capua, mentioned by @dandan_noodles) that Rome later had to wrest from their control. So without Rome, I see the Samnites as the major power in southern Italy, boxed in between a Celtic(-ruled) northern Italy and the poleis of Megale Hellas to the south. If history is any indication, the Samnintes would be most interested in annexing the wealthy poleis to the south, and would be less interested in fighting Carthage or the Celts first (or perhaps at all). In fact, since both Megale Hellas and Carthage claim Sicily, a Carthaginian-Samnite alliance against Megale Hellas may well make sense, resulting in the Samnites controlling all of mainland Southern Italy, and Carthage holding all of Sicily.

After that, if any conflict is going to arise in Italy, it'll more than likely be the Samnites versus the Celts. Carthage remains unbothered for the moment. They'll indeed want to expend their control in the west, which was their OTL goal. Outposts along the Mediterranean coast of Iberia; solidifying their hold on the Balearics, Sardinia and Corsica; annexing far western Hellenic poleis such as Massalia... The popular image of Carthage as some sort of non-militarist "merchant nation" is partially a fiction. Yes, their empire was a trade empire. Yes, they were centred on a strong navy and relied heavily on mercenary forces for action on land. But they didn't lack for ambition. Their OTL empire of city-states didn't come from nowhere. So without Rome to mess everything up for them, the Carthaginians would probably keep expanding, as they had in fact been doing before their OTL rivaly with Rome got in the way of smooth operations.

Of course, Carthage wasn't the highly expansionist-happy power that Rome was, and like @PhilippeO says, it's unlikely that Carthage will conquer Italy and found a vast empire like Rome did-- but on the other hand, Carthage wasn't some kind of meek peacenik state or something. Without Rome, I see them eventually controlling the Med west of Italy directly, and exerting considerable economic influence over the rest of the Med (since control of Sicily is rather valuable in that regard). The kind of overwhelming economic influence that allows for outright military intervention (though not conquest) when a rival seriously threatens trade profits.

Carthage may not be the power that controls all the Med; it may only be a strong regional player. But it might just be the player that keeps all potential rivals from growing too powerful, thus keeping the whole Med politically divided.
 
Last edited:
Could Egypt be on the shopping list for Carthage once it has a firm hold on the Western Med? Between North Africa, Sicily, and Egypt, they'd have all the best grain producing regions in the Med basin, and become even wealthier. From there, they can probably exert a lot of influence as powerbrokers in the East; think the Greek King's Peaces, where the Persians would settle disputes by threatening to just pour money into the coffers of whichever faction agrees to a peace that leaves them a substantial cut.
 

ben0628

Banned
Could Egypt be on the shopping list for Carthage once it has a firm hold on the Western Med? Between North Africa, Sicily, and Egypt, they'd have all the best grain producing regions in the Med basin, and become even wealthier. From there, they can probably exert a lot of influence as powerbrokers in the East; think the Greek King's Peaces, where the Persians would settle disputes by threatening to just pour money into the coffers of whichever faction agrees to a peace that leaves them a substantial cut.

I think Egypt is a bit more than what Carthage could chew. I think they could conquer it, but I doubt they could hold it for any long period of time.

I'm thinking Carthage could get all of North Africa, Eastern Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, the Belarics, Malta, perhaps southern Italy and southern France (Gaul).

Also, is there any way Carthage can completely conquer and culturally assimilate the Numidians?
 
It's unknown how seriously Carthage would even have pushed into Iberia without the Punic Wars. It's not so much that Carthage had 'peaked' as some are saying, but rather the nature of their society. It just wasn't as interested in pure territorial acquisition (from what we know) as somewhere like Rome, but rather more a mercantile/naval power. Now, internal dynamics might have altered that in time, and they certainly would have kept expanding to some degree, but mostly in terms of armed trading enclaves rather than just to conquer huge swaths of land/people. Think Greek city states as opposed to Macedon in terms of ambition type. That might have eventually morphed into de facto land rule, but I think much more gradually than Rome.

You might rather see one of the Diadocchi/offshoot powers expand westward, or another Italian power rises, or a different Gallic or Iberian dynamic. Power abhors a vacuum and all that. Maybe Magna Gracia unites or something. It's an interesting scenario no question.
 
I look at this question, and I keep coming back to Sicily: If Carthage can somehow hold onto Sicily all to itself, then they have a great breadbasket to boost N. Africa.

If that happens, then I see the city of Carthage having an even greater population base, which would help increased colonial expansion. I'm imagining that these colonies would be independent or autonomous, like the Phoenician colonies were historically. However, given Carthage's power, I see them quickly relying on the mother city for guidance and protection, to a far greater degree than the older colonies looked to Tyre. If this is the case, I think Carthage would be very expansionist, but in a more... fluid fashion than Rome was.

So, look at the less urbanized areas of the Med and Europe and ask if Carthage could colonize enough of them to project power into the more urbanized areas.
 

Deleted member 97083

Could Egypt be on the shopping list for Carthage once it has a firm hold on the Western Med? Between North Africa, Sicily, and Egypt, they'd have all the best grain producing regions in the Med basin, and become even wealthier. From there, they can probably exert a lot of influence as powerbrokers in the East; think the Greek King's Peaces, where the Persians would settle disputes by threatening to just pour money into the coffers of whichever faction agrees to a peace that leaves them a substantial cut.
The Fatimids did conquer Egypt from the west, so it's possible.
 
A crushed Rome has some serious inplications for Italy. The Etruscans, far more than Carthage, were in decline at the time. With no Rome, there's a good chance of Celts overrunning larger parts of Italy from the north. In the south, the main rivals for Rome within Italy were for a long time the Samnites. They took control of several cities (including Capua, mentioned by @dandan_noodles) that Rome later had to wrest from their control. So without Rome, I see the Samnites as the major power in southern Italy, boxed in between a Celtic(-ruled) northern Italy and the poleis of Megale Hellas to the south. If history is any indication, the Samnintes would be most interested in annexing the wealthy poleis to the south, and would be less interested in fighting Carthage or the Celts first (or perhaps at all). In fact, since both Megale Hellas and Carthage claim Sicily, a Carthaginian-Samnite alliance against Megale Hellas may well make sense, resulting in the Samnites controlling all of mainland Southern Italy, and Carthage holding all of Sicily.

After that, if any conflict is going to arise in Italy, it'll more than likely be the Samnites versus the Celts. Carthage remains unbothered for the moment. They'll indeed want to expend their control in the west, which was their OTL goal. Outposts along the Mediterranean coast of Iberia; solidifying their hold on the Balearics, Sardinia and Corsica; annexing far western Hellenic poleis such as Massalia... The popular image of Carthage as some sort of non-militarist "merchant nation" is partially a fiction. Yes, their empire was a trade empire. Yes, they were centred on a strong navy and relied heavily on mercenary forces for action on land. But they didn't lack for ambition. Their OTL empire of city-states didn't come from nowhere. So without Rome to mess everything up for them, the Carthaginians would probably keep expanding, as they had in fact been doing before their OTL rivaly with Rome got in the way of smooth operations.

Of course, Carthage wasn't the highly expansionist-happy power that Rome was, and like @PhilippeO says, it's unlikely that Carthage will conquer Italy and found a vast empire like Rome did-- but on the other hand, Carthage wasn't some kind of meek peacenik state or something. Without Rome, I see them eventually controlling the Med west of Italy directly, and exerting considerable economic influence over the rest of the Med (since control of Sicily is rather valuable in that regard). The kind of overwhelming economic influence that allows for outright military intervention (though not conquest) when a rival seriously threatens trade profits.

Carthage may not be the power that controls all the Med; it may only be a strong regional player. But it might just be the player that keeps all potential rivals from growing too powerful, thus keeping the whole Med politically divided.
To add to this, basically Carthage's goal always included having a virtual monopoly on Western Mediterranean trade. So this included goals such as annexing eastern Sicily and Syracuse, something they were probably bound to achieve at some point. Also in time Massalia will need a protector from the Celts. IOTL that became the Romans, ITTL they might be forced to look towards Carthage. Control might eventually extend into the Greek poleis of the Iberian coast as well, such as Empoiriae. Depending on how things go they may at various points go for Rhegion in order to control the straits of Messana.


I also imagine as time goes on they might venture out more frequently along the western african coast, establishing some trade connections.
 

ben0628

Banned
Would anyone be able to defeat Carthage if its able to achieve complete dominance of the Western Mediterranean?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
If that happens, then I see the city of Carthage having an even greater population base, which would help increased colonial expansion. I'm imagining that these colonies would be independent or autonomous, like the Phoenician colonies were historically. However, given Carthage's power, I see them quickly relying on the mother city for guidance and protection, to a far greater degree than the older colonies looked to Tyre. If this is the case, I think Carthage would be very expansionist, but in a more... fluid fashion than Rome was.

and here it is one of important question. Rome expansion is followed by granting Roman, Latin, and Socii citizenship to Elite of conquered areas and soldier fighting for Rome. We have very scarce evidence of what status Carthage granted to its allies and daughter colonies in Libya and Spain. Will some big cities (Cartagena, Massalia, Syracuse) eventually break-up from Carthage ? will their elite gained Carthage citizenship ? intermarry with Carthage elites ? How loyal be its mercenaries, small cities and tribal groups to Carthage as a state (we know its possible to foster loyalty to Carthage family, like Barcids) ? will some Carthage great families seize power in Carthage or daughter colonies ?

Would anyone be able to defeat Carthage if its able to achieve complete dominance of the Western Mediterranean?

like Rome, Civil War will happen sooner or later. and some big CIties (Cartagena, Massalia, Syracuse) might eventually challenge its supremacy. There are also possibility of Desert Tribes resurgence (Berber, Tuareg, Numidian, some new desert faith?). With non-existence of Rome, some Eastern Power might get luckier and create Empire (Epirus Empire, Greater Ptolemaic Egypt) that eventually fighting Carthage in Adriatic and Sicily.
 
and here it is one of important question. Rome expansion is followed by granting Roman, Latin, and Socii citizenship to Elite of conquered areas and soldier fighting for Rome. We have very scarce evidence of what status Carthage granted to its allies and daughter colonies in Libya and Spain. Will some big cities (Cartagena, Massalia, Syracuse) eventually break-up from Carthage ? will their elite gained Carthage citizenship ? intermarry with Carthage elites ? How loyal be its mercenaries, small cities and tribal groups to Carthage as a state (we know its possible to foster loyalty to Carthage family, like Barcids) ? will some Carthage great families seize power in Carthage or daughter colonies ?



like Rome, Civil War will happen sooner or later. and some big CIties (Cartagena, Massalia, Syracuse) might eventually challenge its supremacy. There are also possibility of Desert Tribes resurgence (Berber, Tuareg, Numidian, some new desert faith?). With non-existence of Rome, some Eastern Power might get luckier and create Empire (Epirus Empire, Greater Ptolemaic Egypt) that eventually fighting Carthage in Adriatic and Sicily.
Hannibal himself apparently married the daughter of an Iberian king.
 
Could Carthage go on to conquer the Italian peninsula?

No, why should they? Also, this would end in a conflict between Carthage and the Hellenistic Empires (assuming the POD is after 323), a conflict Carthage can't win - for the same reasons it couldn't win a war against Rome.

Could it expand into the Eastern Mediterranean?

Even more conflicts with Hellenistic powers.

Carthage is a merchant Empire and will not expand unless it has to protect it's mercantile interests. What could be interesting is to see how they set up some colonies on the Atlantic coast and start to explore the New World.
 
No, why should they? Also, this would end in a conflict between Carthage and the Hellenistic Empires (assuming the POD is after 323), a conflict Carthage can't win - for the same reasons it couldn't win a war against Rome.



As i think has been stated many times Rome was an anomaly in terms of their attitude toward war. Most other nations gave up when they lost significant battles or their core territory was threatened, Rome simply ... didnt. Im not saying that Carthage would easily win or has any reason to conquer them. but the Greeks were an entirely different and in many ways a much more fragile beast than the Romans
 
As i think has been stated many times Rome was an anomaly in terms of their attitude toward war. Most other nations gave up when they lost significant battles or their core territory was threatened, Rome simply ... didnt. Im not saying that Carthage would easily win or has any reason to conquer them. but the Greeks were an entirely different and in many ways a much more fragile beast than the Romans

Rome during the PW was even anomalous unto itself. They had sued for peace in prior wars, though they'd invariably break it when sufficiently recovered. They had always been die hards, but against Carthage they took it to a whole new level.
 
Top