Does Carthages victory in the 2nd Punic War need to lead to the immediate destruction of Rome? Or isn't it likely that they leave a Roman client state in place (to be destroyed in a 3rd Punic War)?
Plausible Carthage Wank?
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
Does Carthages victory in the 2nd Punic War need to lead to the immediate destruction of Rome? Or isn't it likely that they leave a Roman client state in place (to be destroyed in a 3rd Punic War)?
I'm not sure, but he DID swear to his father to never cease against Rome. In my mind, that means completely eliminating them as a threat.
The Seleucids and the Carthaginians are to territorially distiant to be stepping on each other's toes. And Hannibal still has to make his arrangements in changing Carthaginian society. Something which would take longer than his own lifetime to achieve. At best, he can only secure southern Iberia, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, keep the Numdians from uniting. Hannibal likely won't have time to go gallivanting around Gaul. He would probably just send garrisons to protect the Hellenic colonies like Massalia on the southern coast, and maintain his hegemony over the city-states of Italy.
You're confusing Antiochus III with Antiochus IV. And if He succeeds with the division of Ptolemaic territory with Phillip V of Macedonia, he'll have bought some time in crushing the native Persian uprisings in the eastern Satrapies.
Panium was won nineteen years after Raphia was lost. And in the wake of the Seleucid victory at Panium, Upper Egypt seceded from the Ptolemies under the native rulers Hugrunaphor and Ankmachis. While this may not exactly assure the future longevity of the Seleucid Empire, the next fifty years or so could probably entail the obliteration of Persian and Jewish uprisings and the marginalization of their cultures.
The rise of the Germanics and the arrival of the Turkics are centuries away. Plus, what specific outside forces provoked the Romans into becoming a powerful state? What led to the Persian and Hellenistic empires? The Gauls possessed the resources, the trade connections, a complex road system throughout northern and western Europe, and the unified religion, and were becoming increasingly urbanized since the Third Century BCE. Whats more, the Arverni tribe had achieved supremacy in Gaul until their defeat by the Romans in 120 BCE. If left unmolested, they could have gone further in the unification of the Immediate area of Gaul.
There could be... unlikely since we didn't see any evidence of this unity against the Romans - we saw one tribe played against another, we saw pagan Romans ally with some and grind others under their boots selling the survivors into slavery. This is a Carthage wank, remember? Not a Celt-wank. Make your own thread.
They had a similiarity in culture and religion, just as the Christian peoples of Medieval Europe had with each other. There is a difference between political unity and cultural unity. And Caesar was born in an era where his country was great superpower of the known world, while the traditional powers in Gaul were at each others throats, and were being pressured by Roman interference in the south, and steady Germanic expansion from the north. With Rome gone, this pressure is non-existant from the south. Also, the Germanics seemed to be emulating Celtic culture, examples being the powerful Cimbri-Teuton alliance that hammered the shit out of the Roman Army for six years leading up to the election of Gaius Marius as Consul. Biorix was a Celtic name, and he was the leader of the Cimbri.
And I'm not suggesting a fucking Celtic-wank, and just trying to make known the political situations in Europe and the Middle East that occured around the time of the Second Punic War, which is more than you've done.
While the Carthaginians may colonize Latium after the destruction of Rome, it won't become a powerful military complex overnight. The premise of this is a little presumptious. You're speaking of Carthage as dynamic military power when it based its expansion on economic gains. Its colonies were self-governing and based upon trade. If it was anything like Rome, then why didn't it conquer deep into Africa as well?
If a highly urbanized Celtic civilization through either military conquest, trade, or cultural influence, the Huns might find a different sort of civilization in eastern Europe. And you failed to account the OTL Dacians, whom demonstably urbanized and literate.
Like the Gauls in France, the Celtiberians were becoming increasingly urbanized as well, and therefore, would be a more immediate obstacle to Carthaginian expansion in Iberia.
At least you can admit it.
And you should get off your intellectual high-horse, and take your own advice. I only admit objecting to this "barbarians were too stupid and backward" crap.
Its not about "me want". The cultural and political circumstances caused by ATL Romes destruction in the Third Century BCE simply precludes their existence centuries after the fact. Antiochus III had some significant success in restoring stability to the empire after coming to the throne at eighteen. He did some some failures early on, but was so close to realizing his ambitions in the west, until Rome came along.
Christianity was founded by people whom lived during a time when the Roman annexation of Judea occured. Where would the impetus come from after Jerusalem is sacked and repopulated by Greeks?
The Battle of Cannae took place in August 216 BCE. After the battle, the major cities of southern Italy, notably Tarentum and Capua, repudiated their allegience to Rome. However, one possible reason why Hannibal didn't march on the city could have been due to casualties in his own army which would have made a direct assault on Rome untenable. One thing he could have done, other than presenting proof of his victory to the Carthaginian Senate, could be by promising something important to Rome's former vassals in the south. Something which could make the Italian city-states to pledge even more troops in Hannibal's service, which could encourage him to a direct assault against Rome.
I was always under the impression that after Cannae, Hannibal had his base, fresh troops and the resources he needed but he continued to ponder rather than heed his fellow Generals.
But what could he promise them in return for more troops? I already plan to make a Lucanian Republic, a Tarentine Republic, and an independent Capua a la Syracuse...
Perhaps he could allow them to seize territory in Latium, Umbria and Etruria. Offer to send enslaved Romans to them at a reduced cost, maybe. And perhaps some of the loot taken in the cities around Rome as well.
A couple of points:
The Carthaginians aren’t going to be posing any sort of threat to the Seleucid Empire. No matterwhat the form its victory over the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War takes, Carthage will still remain a thinly spread thalassocratic commercial empire focused on the western Mediterranean. The Seleucid Empire was an almost exclusively land-based empire focused on the eastern Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and the Iranian plateau. One might see the Carthaginians clashing with the cities and leagues of Greece proper, and the Ptolemaic Empire (which did have a large naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean). Even then, Carthage won’t have the strength to compete with the great powers of the Hellenistic east, on their own turf.
Secondly, although Gaul was gradually urbanizing, and perhaps on the path towards political unification, I cannot see it developing into a unified, continent-spanning Celtic empire. Gaul may gave been rapidly urbanizing, and shifting from small, tribal polities in larger quasi-imperial states, and was already highly advanced in the military field (apart from importing Celtic mercenaries, the later infantry types of the Hellenistic states, such as the thureophoroi and thorakitai owed much to Celtic infantry in terms of armor and equipment), but it was still very much behind in urbanization (Even during the apogee of the Roman Empire, the Gallic and Germanic provinces remained massively underdeveloped and under-urbanized when compared to the imperial core of the Mediterranean, places like Italy, Asia province and Syria.), and despite increasing literacy and advances in currency was still behind the great powers of the Mediterranean (i.e. the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and Carthage) in those areas.
The Carthaginians aren’t going to be posing any sort of threat to the Seleucid Empire. No matterwhat the form its victory over the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War takes, Carthage will still remain a thinly spread thalassocratic commercial empire focused on the western Mediterranean. The Seleucid Empire was an almost exclusively land-based empire focused on the eastern Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and the Iranian plateau. One might see the Carthaginians clashing with the cities and leagues of Greece proper, and the Ptolemaic Empire (which did have a large naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean). Even then, Carthage won’t have the strength to compete with the great powers of the Hellenistic east, on their own turf.
Secondly, although Gaul was gradually urbanizing, and perhaps on the path towards political unification, I cannot see it developing into a unified, continent-spanning Celtic empire. Gaul may gave been rapidly urbanizing, and shifting from small, tribal polities in larger quasi-imperial states, and was already highly advanced in the military field (apart from importing Celtic mercenaries, the later infantry types of the Hellenistic states, such as the thureophoroi and thorakitai owed much to Celtic infantry in terms of armor and equipment), but it was still very much behind in urbanization (Even during the apogee of the Roman Empire, the Gallic and Germanic provinces remained massively underdeveloped and under-urbanized when compared to the imperial core of the Mediterranean, places like Italy, Asia province and Syria.), and despite increasing literacy and advances in currency was still behind the great powers of the Mediterranean (i.e. the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and Carthage) in those areas.
I'm not so sure about that. It would be fairly hard to control all of that, especially with the south supporting Carthage while the north supported Rome. In any case, I made a map that I'll no doubt end up editing in the future, but this is roughly what I want Italy to look like after the Second Punic War...
Is the Carthaginian territory in Calabria and Bruttium meant to represent a formal annexation, or some sort of client-state?
I had intended for it to be annexed directly rather than be a client-state. If I recall correctly, some of Hannibal more loyal allies were to be found in the toe of Italy.
Okay, so attached is the text format version of my timeline thusfar and what I intend as a first post in the "Timelines and Scenarios" Forum after we continue to discuss and refine over the course of a few weeks. I'm quite interested to see what people think about it, but please be gentle. This is my first timeline after all.
If it's too difficult to read, I will take the time to post it within a post.
If it's too difficult to read, I will take the time to post it within a post.
For the record, I just want to make clear that when I suggest that Gaul might be unified by one of its more powerful tribal confederations, I mean that the immediate area of modern France could be ruled by a single polity as early as the First Century CE. And military expansion elsewhere may occur in the centuries following that time. They are not going to become an imperial power straight away, but bumping off Rome is going to buy them alot of time, just as it would Carthage.
Although an immediate threat to Carthage would be the Numidian tribes in North Africa, whom were united by the Massyli King Massinisa IOTL, a contemporary of Hannibal. Of course, with Rome gone, this may become more difficult for him to achieve.
The other immediate challenge towards Carthage in the western Med would be the powerful city-state of Syracuse, which was sacked by the Romans in 212 BCE IOTL. The reknowned engineer and mathematician Archimedes was slain during that sack. But if your Hannibal succeeds in destroying Rome in 216-5 BCE, then Syracuse will stand in Carthage's way to subdue the whole island of Sicily. Carthage might just manage to recapture the Punic-populated western part of the island that they controlled prior to the First Punic War.
Although an immediate threat to Carthage would be the Numidian tribes in North Africa, whom were united by the Massyli King Massinisa IOTL, a contemporary of Hannibal. Of course, with Rome gone, this may become more difficult for him to achieve.
The other immediate challenge towards Carthage in the western Med would be the powerful city-state of Syracuse, which was sacked by the Romans in 212 BCE IOTL. The reknowned engineer and mathematician Archimedes was slain during that sack. But if your Hannibal succeeds in destroying Rome in 216-5 BCE, then Syracuse will stand in Carthage's way to subdue the whole island of Sicily. Carthage might just manage to recapture the Punic-populated western part of the island that they controlled prior to the First Punic War.
Last edited:
I could see all that happening, but Syracuse did swithc over to Carthage's side during the Second Punic War. I believe it was Hieronymus who Hannibal found an ally in, and he was King of Syracuse shortly after the Battle of Cannae.
Right, similar to Cato's famous refrain "Cartago delenda est." Hannibal is undoubtedly more capable of unilateral action to that end... or is he? But that comes back to the basic question is eliminating them as a threat congruent with complete destruction. Or is reducing them to a client state without any Colonae or forced to pay tribute enough to that end?
If Hannibal were to let Rome live, it would be be ill-advised since Rome would carry that chip on it's shoulder for a long time and no doubt try to rise again. Also, a lot of Rome's allies stuck around simply because Rome was there. If we physically take Rome out of the picture, then we Italy become like Greece with the sheer madness of city states being everywhere and Carthage can march unopposed almost anywhere she wants.
Agreed on the latter, definitely not within his lifetime but should see the beginnings of transition from the Carthage we know of, versus the Imperial Carthage appropriate for the appelation "wank." In any case, I see it as almost a certainty that the victor of the Punic Wars would eventually find themselves in opposition to the Seleucids and eventually all the other Diadochi.
You don't think victorious Hannibal would take exception to that plan, particularly if he has imperial ambitions?
Right, I'm just saying the Seleucids appear to be disintegrating and roughly holding it together, but with a general degradation on each succession. I do expect it some peaks, as well as the troughs but it seems axiomatic that their power and influence are on a negative slope even before Rome. And that a victorious Carthage will eventually find their goals in conflict and desire to hasten that.
Right. i'm speaking in macro wrt the migrations, but bring them up as a long term factor that will detract from any idea of unified Celt or Germanic superstate forming (or surviving).
Well everything was a bit rough before Marius. And the external stuff got fixed with Marius only to have the internal tensions boil over. But that's neither here, no there. I have no doubt there would be significant power blocs form ing, but I dispute that they would be inclined to social unity on the level of Christendom or effectively more unified than they were against Rome. Much less, actually without that same persistent external threat from the south, but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.
lol, sorry didn't think this was an edjumacation thread. I was just pointing out where I disagreed with you (and vice versa), not general enlightenment of AH.
I'm definitely thinking that the purpose of this thread is the transition of pre-Punic War Carthage definitely shaped into something more aggressive following Hannibal's victory over Rome. I definitely don't expect it to be the same shape or flavor as Rome and see client states scattered throughout Europe, much the way the Roman Senate themselves were apparently happy with before Caesar did his own thing and conquered the whole enchilada. A bit less than the Roman Republic model and more Carthaginian "flavored" but similar.
I just didn't find them relevant to bring up yet. I expect them to stay distinct without Roman homogenization, though it could be an interesting theoretical discussions to bring them into the mix.
You're certainly taking every step to facilitate a conclusion that doesn't seem logical, particularly wrt Christianity and Islam never coming into existence.
The Seleucids were falling apart but even their survival doesn't mean they're going to become enormously successful beyond that. And conflict with the victor in the Punic Wars should be all but certain, particularly when you talk about carving up Egypt.
Because I don't think the death of the entire Jewish popualation to be replaced by ethnic Greeks is an accurate description. Seems to me that Antiochus was intereted in Hellenization of Jews and not in massacring all of them. Like I said, seems like much of a change at all, only with the most extreme orthodox Jews being purged (and their more timid fellows begruding and complaining about sacrifice to the Olympians, etc with some sort of council of Hellenized Jews maybe replacing the Pharisees. Thus Jesus preaches against them instead, is still killed and his followers still spread out. Or maybe Carthage decides to get involved and takes the place of the Romans and it's a Carthaginian analogy to Pontius Pilate instead of a Seleucid....
Hieronymus of Syracuse succeeded his grandfather, Hiero II, in 216 BCE, at the age of fifteen. His grandfather had certain misgivings about the boy's personal character and ability to rule, so he appointed a regency council of fifteen men, including his sons-in-law, Andrandorus and Zoippus. Both of whom, in contrast to Hiero II, favoured an alliance with Carthage in stead of Rome. This weak government in Syracuse could potentially work to Hannibal's advantage in the near future.
I could see a weak Syracuse being the next target of Hannibal.
As for this discussion as a whole, while I appreciate such vigorous debate on what the world would be like, it seems to be getting off-track from what this topic is about; Carthage Wank. If we could see some more debate about what Carthage itself is like, what her next targets are, who's going to oppose them, etc.
As for Antiochus III, was he not the one who granted Hannibal refuge in OTL? Also, Carthage could be involved in a three-way for Egypt. Carthage still hated Cyrene for limiting their expansion eastward into Libya so I could see Carthage taking Cyrene and environs, Macedon taking Cyprus, and the Seleucids taking the bulk of the rest.
Chances are there will be a nice little alliance between Carthage, Macedon and the Seleucids while they try to split the world between themselves due to Rome being out of the picture.
As for the Abrahamic faiths, I see them existing in some form or another, but being extremely marginalized.
As for this discussion as a whole, while I appreciate such vigorous debate on what the world would be like, it seems to be getting off-track from what this topic is about; Carthage Wank. If we could see some more debate about what Carthage itself is like, what her next targets are, who's going to oppose them, etc.
As for Antiochus III, was he not the one who granted Hannibal refuge in OTL? Also, Carthage could be involved in a three-way for Egypt. Carthage still hated Cyrene for limiting their expansion eastward into Libya so I could see Carthage taking Cyrene and environs, Macedon taking Cyprus, and the Seleucids taking the bulk of the rest.
Chances are there will be a nice little alliance between Carthage, Macedon and the Seleucids while they try to split the world between themselves due to Rome being out of the picture.
As for the Abrahamic faiths, I see them existing in some form or another, but being extremely marginalized.
Hannibal would be aware of the limitations of his own country before he even thinks about muscling in on the geo-politics of the eastern Mediterrean.
Any imperialistic ambitions he may have won't extend to Greece or Egypt. Besides, it would make little difference to them, as long as Punic merchants are still permitted to trade in Egypt.
Again, Carthage and the Seleucid are too much out of each others way to be threat to either side.
I'm not going to ignore the existing probability that changes in Gallic geo-politics would occur between Rome's destruction in the Second Punic War, and the arrival of the Huns in the Fourth Century CE. In six hundred years, alot can happen in western and northern Europe.
So, you're not willing to credit the cultures of the Balkans or Gaul with any independent political and cultural changes and advancements? Whatever! I'm trying to help someone out with this thread by forwarding realistic developments, and you can't shake the outdated notion that the historical peoples living north of the Alps and Danube were a bunch of Neolithic dropouts. Well thats your prerogative. Your not the one I'm actually helping out.
The intention of this thread may be "wank-oriented", but someone needs to point out the obstacles that stand in the way of it becoming a wank thread.
They were homogenized on a cultural level. But hey, I guess you're not interested in that!
It isn't logical to presume that they would exist anyway, despite changing the whole course of both western and Middle Eastern history with the removal of Rome in the Third Century BCE. Because of that, Islam and Christianity have been "butterflied away".
The Seleucids did have their problems, but as I keep trying to tell you, Rome's removal will erase alot of their problems in the west. Because of that, Antiochus III and his heirs could have the troop numbers to spare with dealing with thePartians and insurgent Persians in the eastern Satrapies, and an ATL Maccabee revolt.
I never said the "death of the whole Jewish population". At the end of the OTL Bar Kokba Revolt between 132-6 CE, Hadrian re-established the city of Jerusalem as a Roman Colonae, re-dedicated the Temple sanctuary to Jupiter, burned Jewish texts, executed the priesthood, and banned Jews from entering the city on pain of death. Judaism after that lacked the central spiritual authority that was provided by the Sanhedrin, and later paved the way for Rabbinic Judaism. Now, if the same thing was achieved during the mid-Second Century BCE, a century an a half before the birth of Christianity, what are the chances of it occuring?
Just how aggressive or brutal would the Greeks have been to the Jews? The same as the Romans, or could they perhaps be a little more apathetic?