PC: Jewish Carthage replaces Rome, no Jesus

What needs to happen for Carthage to completely control, even for only a short time, the Mediterranean basin instead of Rome? Is that even possible?

I read a bunch of "Carthage wins" TLs and they all seem to conclude that Carthage, at best, will only dominate the Western Med. Which seems implausible to me - Carthage had conquered the old Phoenician colonies and was working on subjugating all of Africa's Med. coastline when it was destroyed by Rome. Rome conquered the Hellenistic kingdoms two hundred years ish after the Punic Wars. Even if Carthage doesn't have the raw manpower that Rome did, there must be something Carthage could do to mimic that political expansion.

On that note, in all of the "Carthage wins" TLs that I've found, Christianity isn't butterflied away. Which is just nonsense. Judean messianism, the theo-political independence movement that caused Jesus and Judas the Galilean and so many other would-be Messiahs, was a political consequence of Herod and Roman (mis)rule. And Paul's ministry, which OTL was more popular among the Roman Greeks than James' Jewish-focused ministry was, cannot be separated from the Greco-Roman cultural milieu in and to which he preached.

Consequently: if OTL Rome doesn't subjugate Judea, if Herod hadn't been named Tetrarch and then King of Judea, if Herod hadn't been a shortsighted despot so desperate for approval that he funded lavish construction with oppressive taxes, if Herod and the Romans hadn't disrespected the Judean religion by placing idols in the Temple, if Roman governors hadn't plundered the Temple for treasure because of Caligula's financial crisis ... then none of that would have happened. OTL Judean messianism, Jesus, the Roman-Jewish Wars, Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all butterflied away.

Furthermore, I contend that Carthage and the Jews would have gotten along much better than Rome and the Jews did. There is an extensive history of positive relations between Judea and Phoenicia before Cyrus the Great, which I can detail in a later comment. And the interaction of Punic religion and 2nd Temple Jewish monotheism would be fascinating to explore: an interpretatio carthage between the Jewish and Punic religions would not be terribly difficult, given their religion's similar histories and practices.

How could a dominant Carthage, upon conquering the Levant, eventually become Jewish? And I don't mean the Christian "we don't need to follow the Torah's laws because the New Covenant is post-Jewish" kind of Jewish-ish. I mean full-on Carthaginian adoption of Torah law (which I think it extremely likely to occur, if a Carthaginian Med. is friendly to the Jews & doesn't burn down the Temple) even if the Punic-Jewish syncretic religion equates YHWH with Baal Hammon and Melqart. Can it be done?
 
Last edited:
What needs to happen for Carthage to completely control, even for only a short time, the Mediterranean basin instead of Rome? Is that even possible?
Completly control the Mediterranean basin might be a bit outside Carthagian capacities, less because of resources, than the political structure (and mindset) of Carthage whom domination over the "old" colonial cities (in Africa, Sicily or Spain) was more lax and contractual than what existed among, for exemple, Latin cities and Rome. I think the hellenistic concepts of hegemôn or archê would be better descriptors.

It's partially what makes a Carthagian victory during Punic Wars realistically les of a "mirror Roman Empire" and more of an extension westwards of the hellenistic geopolitical model.
Let's take the exemple of a Barcid victory.

The problem of Hannibal wasn't the lack of men to besiege Rome, but relatively weak logistics. Rome is defendable and defended, with ancient sieges tending to be long (Sagontia being taken after eight months). Hannibal that searched for allies can't live on the land, and lacks siege engines to begin with.
As ancient war conventions didn't required annihilation or capture of the capital, Hannibal remains in an hellenistic perspective that Romans were among the first to ignore.

Let's not forget that, in the same way Carthagian rule is more of a coalized/confederal rule, Hannibal is "simply" a political leader in Carthage, and leading a rag-tag military coalition in Italy.
If he didn't want to be called back in Africa as a mere Algamacid in Greece (the "peace" faction in Carthage is still on the warpath*), he needs quick, unexpensive and clear results.

Admitting that consuls does accept the redditions condition made by Carthalo after Cannae : Rome would certainly keep dominion over central Italy and its colonies, as southern part of the peninsula pass over a more or less nominal Carthagian influence.
Any Caputan League-organisation was shaky at best, divided by alliegence (some pro-Romans), plurisecular conflicts (even with Hannibal present, his italian allies fought each other already), and with a still present Roman influence.

Carthage was much more interested having the "mediterranean shield" being reconquered : Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily from one hand; reducing Rome into a smaller power from the other. Influence over a barely unified southern ensemble in Italy is, mostly, a by-product of these ambitions and whom survival isn't that relevant to Punic geopolitics.
It wouldn't be impossible for Rome to recover quickly (thanks to a more tight network than Carthage's) and to take back some leadership in southern Italy and in the Padan plain.

For what matter northern-western mediterranean, it's a bit less clear. While some peoples as Elysices whom relation with Carthage may go as far as the IVth century could possibly englobed in an "outer" Carthagian sphere as mercenary, trade, and maybe political partners (a bit like Barbarians for Romans IOTL), I doubt you'd have much political presence outside Spain. Most of polities that Carthage could interact with at this point are more or less touched by the same hellenistic civilisation that Carthage growingly accepted since the IIIrd century BCE at latest : from coinage to army, passing trough material culture, Carthage is as hellenized (maybe more) than Rome was.

I would even tend to think, personally, that a Barcid total victory wouldn't have been that welcomed in Carthage by what we could call the aristocratic, "Africanist" (and more mercantile, so it seems) faction. It could even go on a Carthagian civil war, with an "Imperialist", popular Barcid power would have opposed traditional elites (which would have eventually favoured Roman shenanigans.

It's a long digression, but I think we should stress that :
- Carthage remained largely a "main" city, primus inter pares, in its relations with other Punic metropole; and an imperial control (even as it took the form of familial hegemons as for Barcids) wasn't really an obvious evolution to these complex relationships. We'd be closer to what existed in hellenized Asia in the same time.
- The characterization of a victorious Carthage would have been growingly hellenized : puno-hellenized as it was since centuries and growingly so, ibero-hellenized as it happened in Barcid Spain. The connection with a fairly untouched Torah-ic Judaism isn't unthinkable, but I don't see a direct adoption of what would probably be seen as foreign, and tribal (unhellenic) beliefs.
Maybe a victory of hellenizing Jews, against factions as Macchabees would help : a Tobiad-ic Judaism, passably hellenized, could have been more welcomed in a western hellenistic civilisation as tended to be Carthage.
 
The problem with the whole Judaism thing is that ancient Jewish law is very particular about who they allow to become Jews, with the strictest interpretations meaning that nobody who isn't a born Israelite could become a Jew. There's a reason Judaism spread so little in all its years.
 
There's a reason Judaism spread so little in all its years.
it's not an accurate description of classical Judaism : before the wars against Romans, you did have a fair conversion growth in mediterranean basin, as well growth of outer Judean communities. At the turn of the millenium, maybe something between 5% of 10% of the Mediterrenean basin population. That's not so small.

Without Romans doing their best "submit or desist" impersonation ITTL, with outer Judean communities being (as IOTL) fairly hellenized , especially if an hellenized/Tobiadic Judaism emerges victorious in Judea (altough it's not strictly necessary, it would greatly help the OP objectives), you might see a western Mediterranean hellenized Judaism being practiced in larger numbers than IOTL, without Christianic steams monopolizing more and more Gentile conversion.
 
Without Romans doing their best "submit or desist" impersonation ITTL, with outer Judean communities being (as IOTL) fairly hellenized , especially if an hellenized/Tobiadic Judaism emerges victorious in Judea (altough it's not strictly necessary, it would greatly help the OP objectives), you might see a western Mediterranean hellenized Judaism being practiced in larger numbers than IOTL, without Christianic steams monopolizing more and more Gentile conversion.

What is Tobiadic?
 
What is Tobiadic?
Tobiads were a family/party of Jews in the IIIrd/IInd centuries BCE, that are described as hellenizing Jews (including religiously) and that were opposed by the Maccabees. Admittedly, they appear to have fewer religious role in the Hasmodean revolt period, but they supported hellenizing priests nevertheless.

Not that Hasmonean didn't hellenized their rule eventually IOTL with Aristobolos, but an earlier hellenization not only of Jewish society but as well institutions (which didn't really happened IOTL), would certainly (while how and how much is to be debated) favour a stronger Hellenic Judaity IMO.
 
Carthage faced a key challenge that Rome solved very early on in their history. Rome was able to incorporate their neighbors into their political system in various ways. Most of Italy, for example, preferred to be under Roman hegemony than any alternative. This gave the Romans a huge resource advantage, on every possible measure. Carthage had no comparable relationship with the rest of North Africa.

As far as Jesus is concerned, thats an entirely different matter. Without dealing with the theological concerns, I'll just just point out that Jesus was much more moderate than many of his contemporaries.
 
Top