Rome loses the first punic war.

What would have been the consequences of a Carthaginian victory in the first Punic war? Would Carthage come to dominate? Would Rome be able to rise again and eventually win over Carthage or would maybe some third power be dominant? Or would the Mediterrenean be divided between two or more powers? What other powers than Rome and Carthage would you put your odds on? Egypt? A greek power? Macedonia? Another Italian power? A Spanish power? The Gauls? Could any other power than Rome have conquered the entire area around the Mediterranean?
 
It depends on how bad Rome loses. If it isn't much then they could possibly rise to challenge Carthage again but if it is like what Rome did to Carthage then they would be finished. If Rome falls then Carthage would more than likely be the unchallenged ruler of the Med for at least a while, much like Rome.
 

tenthring

Banned
Carthage was pretty shitty in the first punic war, and outside of Hannibal pretty bad in the second. Heck, many Roman casualties were from storms, not the cautious and ineffectual Carthaginian generals.

The Roman state was fundamentally stronger. With committed citizen soldiers and vast manpower resources. Carthage was a city of merchants who hired mercenaries to fight their wars and didn't approach things in the same zealous way the Romans did.

I just have a hard time seeing Carthage land an army in Italy and take Rome. Even a good outcome for them might be a negotiated peace where they get all of Sicily.
 
a negotiated peace where they get all of Sicily.

That would definitely count as Carthaginian victory.

However, it's hard to tell how this could happen.
While on paper Rome and Carthage were quite evenly matched at the start of the conflict, the was a basic asymmetry in the inability for Carthage to seriously threaten the Roman powerbase in any important way. Rome thus had a larger pool of manpower and treasury that was essentially unassailable by Carthage.
This means that in a conflict to exhaustion, Rome was always likely to outlast Carthage, as it was the case IOTL, although the toll taken upon Rome was very high as well.
Carthage was thinking in terms of a "limited" war for control of Sicily; the Romans came to conceive the war in a much more "total" way, although not to the degree it happened in later conflicts.
It is also unfair to Carthage to say the were shitty; after all, they managed to keeps the Romans more or less at bay for a generation, although they were greatly aided in this by the incompetence of the Roman admirals.
 
The best way for Carthage to do well is probably for them to remain allied with either Syracuse or (slightly more realistically) Rome. Or for Rome to just not join in in the first place.
 
If Rome somehow had been crushed totally at an early stage, either by Carthage, the Gauls or some other power, could some other power have been able to conquer the whole arera around the Mediterranean, and if so, which power? Would Carthage have been the mosty likely candidate? What other powers than Rome and Carthage would you put your odds on? Egypt? A greek power? Macedonia? Another Italian power? A Spanish power? The Gauls? What is the most likely candidate apart from Rome and Carthage?
 
Did Egypt ever try to conquer other areas around the Mediterranean?

Under the New Kingdom they controlled most of the Levant; under the Ptolemies, the did conquer/control important parts of the Levant, some areas of Asia Minor, and meddled extensively in Greece.
Both the Middle Kingdom and the Saitic Dynasty, let alone other isolated Pharaos in the Second and Third Intermediate Periods, tried to project power into the Levant without lasting success.
Yeah, Egypt has a fairly consistent history of attempts at dominance into the Eastern Mediterranean, although none of those was ever fully successful except under the Pharaonic XVIII-XIX dynasties and, to some extent, the Fatimids and the Burjid Mamluks in the Islamic period.
 
If Rome somehow had been crushed totally at an early stage, either by Carthage, the Gauls or some other power, could some other power have been able to conquer the whole arera around the Mediterranean, and if so, which power? Would Carthage have been the mosty likely candidate? What other powers than Rome and Carthage would you put your odds on? Egypt? A greek power? Macedonia? Another Italian power? A Spanish power? The Gauls? What is the most likely candidate apart from Rome and Carthage?

Short answer: nobody.
No single power had the foreseeable potential to unify the Med in the third century BC assuiming Rome was crushed then. This is not to say that some such a power would have emerged later on, but no obvious candidate was on the scene.
However, the First Punic War in itself never offered the potential for a possible total crushing of Roman power. At worst, they'd remain confined in the Penisula, preparing for Round Two (which might take some time; in the event of a Roman defeat, the Gauls could prove a very serious threat).
 
Did Alexander the great ever consider conquering areas in the western Mediterranean?
 
Last edited:
Did Alexander the great ever consider conquering areas in the eastern Mediterranean?

I guess you mean Western.
Some historians claim he did. Livy even goes full-on AH at a point trying to discuss "what if Alexander and the Romans clashed"? Short answer by Livy: Romans win.
There is some indication that he entertained the notion of conquering Carthage and that Alexander the Molossian's expedition in Italy was part of a concerted strategy to eventually put the whole known world under Argead rule, but I don't know any solid proof from contemporary sources.
One may assume that, had he lived, campaigns in the West could have been considered.
Nothing guarantees he'd succeed though.
 
Short answer: nobody.
No single power had the foreseeable potential to unify the Med in the third century BC assuiming Rome was crushed then. This is not to say that some such a power would have emerged later on, but no obvious candidate was on the scene.
However, the First Punic War in itself never offered the potential for a possible total crushing of Roman power. At worst, they'd remain confined in the Penisula, preparing for Round Two (which might take some time; in the event of a Roman defeat, the Gauls could prove a very serious threat).

But not even Rome were able to win the entire area around the Mediterranean in the third century BC. This happened much later. My question really was what power would be in the best position at this point in time apart from Rome and Carthage. I assume that Carthage would be number two, but which power would be third?


I guess you mean Western.
Some historians claim he did. Livy even goes full-on AH at a point trying to discuss "what if Alexander and the Romans clashed"? Short answer by Livy: Romans win.
There is some indication that he entertained the notion of conquering Carthage and that Alexander the Molossian's expedition in Italy was part of a concerted strategy to eventually put the whole known world under Argead rule, but I don't know any solid proof from contemporary sources.
One may assume that, had he lived, campaigns in the West could have been considered.
Nothing guarantees he'd succeed though.

Would Rome really have managed to win over Alexander, the man who conquered Persia, Egypt and may other areas in the east? Why was Rome so much stronger than other powers? It seems to me that Carthage would probably have won the second Punic war if he had got more money from the Carthaginian Senate.
 
What would have been the consequences of a Carthaginian victory in the first Punic war?

Depends when they win. Early on? As in, preventing Rome from landing and wiping out Rome's "fleet" (if you could call it that at that point) and the Romans just saying "screw it let's stick to land warfare" and bowing out gracefully?

Or in the middle, where you would have Sicily divided in 3 (not sure how you get Rome to bow out though at that point)?

Or at the end, with perhaps a victory at Drepanum leading to the Romans losing yet another fleet and deciding they will never take Lilybaeum, signing a peace that allows Carthage to keep that and nothing more?

Each scenario has wildly different consequences.
Would Carthage come to dominate?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Carthage had absolutely no interest in conquering large swathes of territory. They were interested in trade. Taking control of Sicily was only a goal because it would give them a complete monopoly on trade coming into the western mediterranean. Even then, its debatable how interested they were in actually ever taking over the entire island. They have no reason to take large swathes of territory.

Now Spain was an exception for 2 reasons. Reason 1, the loss of Sicily and the indemnity cut into Carthage's profit margin significantly. Spain had lucrative silver mines that were irresistable to try and go for. Secondly, it was mostly a Barca fiefdom, rather than a concentrated Carthaginian effort. Hamilcar wanted to use Spain as a base to boost his family's power and prestige.
Would Rome be able to rise again and eventually win over Carthage or would maybe some third power be dominant?
Possibly.

Or would the Mediterrenean be divided between two or more powers?
Most likely.


What other powers than Rome and Carthage would you put your odds on? Egypt? A greek power? Macedonia? Another Italian power? A Spanish power? The Gauls? Could any other power than Rome have conquered the entire area around the Mediterranean?
A multipolar Mediterranean. Makedonia continuing to increase its power over the Greek city states, Egypt and the Seleucids duking it out with the Seleucids probably getting the upper hand, a balkanized Anatolia with the Seleucids mostly holding the upper hand, Carthaginian western Mediterranean, Roman Italy....
It depends on how bad Rome loses. If it isn't much then they could possibly rise to challenge Carthage again but if it is like what Rome did to Carthage then they would be finished. If Rome falls then Carthage would more than likely be the unchallenged ruler of the Med for at least a while, much like Rome.
Carthage has a pretty crappy record militarily. Remember, this is the group that were getting their asses kicked by Syracuse up until about 20-30 years before the First Punic War. Also, see above for why this was not in their interests.
Canaan, possibly southeastern Anatolia. Otherwise, no.
Errr....Cyprus, Krete, meddlings in Greece...
If Rome somehow had been crushed totally at an early stage, either by Carthage, the Gauls or some other power, could some other power have been able to conquer the whole arera around the Mediterranean, and if so, which power? Would Carthage have been the mosty likely candidate? What other powers than Rome and Carthage would you put your odds on? Egypt? A greek power? Macedonia? Another Italian power? A Spanish power? The Gauls? What is the most likely candidate apart from Rome and Carthage?
No other power is conquering the whole Mediterranean. The Romans were unique in their mentality towards warfare, and more importantly, they were unique in the sheer massive manpower they possessed.
 
But not even Rome were able to win the entire area around the Mediterranean in the third century BC. This happened much later. My question really was what power would be in the best position at this point in time apart from Rome and Carthage. I assume that Carthage would be number two, but which power would be third?



Would Rome really have managed to win over Alexander, the man who conquered Persia, Egypt and may other areas in the east? Why was Rome so much stronger than other powers? It seems to me that Carthage would probably have won the second Punic war if he had got more money from the Carthaginian Senate.
No, it was just Roman propaganda spouted by an ardent Roman nationalist in Livy. Rome was so much stronger because of two things: their mentality towards war, which really only reached full maturity to what we know it as today (i.e. never give up until the other side is destroyed) after the Second Punic War when they came within a hairs breath of disaster.

As for the Carthaginians winning the second punic war, it's incredibly unlikely no matter what the Carthaginian senate does. Hannibal had maybe a couple chances to win, the best coming in a scenario where his brother wins decisively at Metaurus. If that happens, Carthage has won the war, but other than that no other POD really brings them certain towards victory.
 
But not even Rome were able to win the entire area around the Mediterranean in the third century BC. This happened much later. My question really was what power would be in the best position at this point in time apart from Rome and Carthage. I assume that Carthage would be number two, but which power would be third?

Well, after Pydna (168 BC) Rome was close enough, although it would take a couple of centuries more to turn the whole shore into Roman provinces.
As for the third, any of the Big Three Hellenistic states is a possibility, with Egypt as the better placed, if they can weather the troubles of the first half of the II century BC that plagued them IOTL. The Seleucids are a strong contender too without Roman meddling, but I don't see them very interested in the West. A quite realistic possibility is that you see a Carthaginian dominated Western Med and a Seleucid dominated Eastern Med with neither power having ability or interest in messing much in the other's sphere. Neither domination is likely to be as deep or as stable as the Roman one IOTL.

Would Rome really have managed to win over Alexander, the man who conquered Persia, Egypt and may other areas in the east? Why was Rome so much stronger than other powers?

This is for Livy to answer. His argument is that Rome would have been able to defeat an Alexandrian invasion of Italy thanks to the combination of home turf/better logistics+citizen army motivated by the unbeatable Roman martial spirit.
I agree it's questionable.

It seems to me that Carthage would probably have won the second Punic war if he had got more money from the Carthaginian Senate.

Carthage went closer to a decisive win in the Second than in the First Punic War. Hannibal was able to bring the war into the very Roman powerbase and threaten its viability closely.
There seems to be a consensus on this board that, had Hasdrubal managed to win at Metaurus and join with Hannibal, the Carthaginian forces in Italy would have been strong enough to deal the Roman power in the peninsula a decisive blow and possibly take the city itself.
While Rome clearly had a lot for it all along, its great success was not pre-ordained. By the way, the Hannibalic experience shaped the Roman mindset very, very deep, mostly toward paranoia.
 
By the way, the Hannibalic experience shaped the Roman mindset very, very deep, mostly toward paranoia.
This is important to stress I think. The mentality we attribute to Rome, that mentality that they will not stop until their enemy is thoroughly defeated to the point where they can't pose a threat anymore, really only emerged after Hannibal. From the Roman perspective, they had let Carthage off easy at the end of the First Punic War, and because of that Carthage was able to rebuild and nearly wipe them out merely a couple decades later. It was a lesson that stayed with them almost entirely throughout their wars of expansion-Macedon and the Seleucids being the clearest examples.
 
This is important to stress I think. The mentality we attribute to Rome, that mentality that they will not stop until their enemy is thoroughly defeated to the point where they can't pose a threat anymore, really only emerged after Hannibal. From the Roman perspective, they had let Carthage off easy at the end of the First Punic War, and because of that Carthage was able to rebuild and nearly wipe them out merely a couple decades later. It was a lesson that stayed with them almost entirely throughout their wars of expansion-Macedon and the Seleucids being the clearest examples.

Definitely.
However, i understand was only in the Spanish wars after 154 BC (when both Macedonia and to a lesser extent the Seleukids had been reduced to not-even-hypotetical-threats) that they established the principle that Rome would not make peace on any other basis than deditio - what we would render as unconditional surrender. A principle that more or less remained among the foundational notions of Roman foreign policy up to the crisis of the third century - with the notable and very glaring exception of the Parthians/Persians.
 

luiji79

Banned
I believe that Alexander is the answer to this question.(Lately the Greeks found a skeleton in Amphipolis which they believe it is Alexander's because has his height 1,65 and it is sent for DNA analysis )MOD DELETE to learn more.You should see this.I believe that finally we found him:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I believe that Alexander is the answer to this question.(Lately the Greeks found a skeleton in Amphipolis which they believe it is Alexander's because has his height 1,65 and it is sent for DNA analysis MOD DELETE to learn more.You should see this.I believe that finally we found him:D
Well, we know it is Alexander the GREAT, and all, still...

Five posts, all touting Alexander, mainly in threads that have nothing to do with him, mainly promoting some half assed web site. That seems to be trolling straight out of the box.

Thanks for stopping by.

We divorce you.

cl.png
 
Top