The Barcan Empire

After a long absence, preceded by barely any activity, I arrive once again to the shores of this site.

The concept of "What if Carthage won" is so played with that it's enough to make people sick. However, I think that is because most of the time, we're seeing "what if Carthage won and did something like Rome did." Frankly, I don't think Carthage had the capacity to do so, but I do know that if it won, the annals of history would be changed in drastic ways. I suppose in a way, this is more a "what if Rome lost" scenario than a "what if Carthage won" version, as the Carthaginian Republic itself soon collapses in on itself, brought down by its decentralized and mercenary nature.

The point of divergence in this particular universe starts with a sickness. In the year 222 BC, the consul Fabius Maximus comes down with a rather bad case of cholera, and dies after months of fighting the sickness. The Roman Republic mourns, but remains unaware of the great blow that has been done to them and the sands of time. Instead of the derided cunctator, a man named Marcus Minucius became the dictator of the Roman Republic in the heat of the Second Punic War. This is the gravest mistake the now doomed Republic had ever made.

But before we continue on the unseen death blow to the Republic, we must first look back a generation ago, to Hamilcar Barca. Barca had established himself and his family in Iberia, creating the port called Barcino in the honour of his family. There, he forged alliances and united what he could in the divided Iberian lands, forming a more centralized vassal to the Carthaginian Republic that would serve as one of the greatest suppliers of troops to the Second Punic War's Carthaginian Army. However, the Iberians were loyal to the Barcas, not Carthage, a fact that the shofets were quite aware of and not very pleased about. So were sewn the seeds of discontent among the two halves of Carthage -- the decentralized trade league in the south, and the semi-united kingdom in the North. But for the moment, there were more pressing matters at hand.

Now, before I continue on, I'd like to see feedback on what I've said so far. It's a start, but no where near the size I know it's going to be when I'm done. There will be transcripts, letters, bits of (alternate history) plays, and the like, all describing key events in this world's history.
 
we must first look back a generation ago, to Hamilcar Barca. Barca had established himself and his family in Iberia, creating the port called Barcino in the honour of his family. There, he forged alliances and united what he could in the divided Iberian lands, forming a more centralized vassal to the Carthaginian Republic that would serve as one of the greatest suppliers of troops to the Second Punic War's Carthaginian Army. However, the Iberians were loyal to the Barcas, not Carthage, a fact that the shofets were quite aware of and not very pleased about. So were sewn the seeds of discontent among the two halves of Carthage -- the decentralized trade league in the south, and the semi-united kingdom in the North. But for the moment, there were more pressing matters at hand..
For the Barcas to defeat Rome they need total support from both Spain and North Africa. This scenario increases the first, but not the latter. In fact, my reading of it is that it deceases it a bit.

Instead of the derided cunctator, a man named Marcus Minucius became the dictator of the Roman Republic in the heat of the Second Punic War. This is the gravest mistake the now doomed Republic had ever made.
So it is suggested that the only way for the Carthaginians can win is to put a complete idiot in charge of Rome. Well, they had idiots and they still won. One reason why they did was technological superiority. Few Romans scavenged for Carthaginian armour whilst many of African did the converse. In addition, the legionaries were armed to the best military practice of the time. In comparison some of Hannibal's troops such as the Gauls were a joke.

If the Carthaginians were going to defeat the Roman Republic the opportunity was in the First Punic War.
 
So it is suggested that the only way for the Carthaginians can win is to put a complete idiot in charge of Rome. Well, they had idiots and they still won. One reason why they did was technological superiority. Few Romans scavenged for Carthaginian armour whilst many of African did the converse. In addition, the legionaries were armed to the best military practice of the time. In comparison some of Hannibal's troops such as the Gauls were a joke.

If the Carthaginians were going to defeat the Roman Republic the opportunity was in the First Punic War.

The Romans did not have better technology than the Carthaginians or their allies. The soldiers with the best armour among the Romans were the Equites, Triari and possibly the Principes, maybe some Socii troops and everyone else affording lesser protection. Many of the Capite Censi so drafted wouldn't be above nicking the armour from enemy dead. While most of the Iberian and Libyan troops in Hannibal's army were used to fighting a different style to the Romans that favoured agility over personal protection, until they fought the Romans of course.

The part-time Roman milites of the Second Century BCE were not the same as the professional legionary personnel that were accredited to Gaius Marius. The main strength of the Roman state at war back then was the large pool of citizens at arms, further supplemented by their socii cohorts.

And why do you consider the Gaulish allies in Hannibal's army to be "a joke"? Do you not think that assessment, coloured possibly by Graeco-Roman prejudices of the time, to be a tad unfair? Hannibal might have had reason to distrust some of his allies, given the difficulties he experienced before crossing the Alps, but the Carthaginian working experience with the Celts pre-dated the First Punic War, while most of the Celts Hannibal commanded were basically peasants that were responding to the call to arms by their chieftains, with few possessing the same equipment or professional quality as those of the equestrian aristocracy, or them mercenary bands of Celts that had hired themselves out as far away as Carthage, Egypt and Seleucid Syria. Since when was it a sound argument to use the bigotry of one group of people as a measuring stick to judge the competence of another group of people?
 
Last edited:
And why do you consider the Gaulish allies in Hannibal's army to be "a joke"? Do you not think that assessment, coloured possibly by Graeco-Roman prejudices of the time, to be a tad unfair? Hannibal might have had reason to distrust some of his allies, given the difficulties he experienced before crossing the Alps, but the Carthaginian working experience with the Celts pre-dated the First Punic War, while most of the Celts Hannibal commanded were basically peasants that were responding to the call to arms by their chieftains, with few possessing the same equipment or professional quality as those of the equestrian aristocracy, or them mercenary bands of Celts that had hired themselves out as far away as Carthage, Egypt and Seleucid Syria.

The large majority of Celts in Hannibal's army or for that matter earlier and latter tribal levies and nothing more than a wooden shield and slashing swords with maybe a few with javelins. Even the Spanish with their helmets were better equipped. Yes, some Celts wore armour but they would be the wealthier ones who also own horses and thus did not fight in the main warband.

Compared with the Celts the Romans and the Africans were of the Hellenic tradition and so much better equipped as well as being trained to fight in formations.

Since when was it a sound argument to use the bigotry of one group of people as a measuring stick to judge the competence of another group of people?
If the accounts of the Romans defeating Celtic army after Celtic army makes me a bigot then I plead guilty. Yes, the Evil Empire did lose a few battles but in the main it won the wars. The fact is that the Roman legionary was one of the most successful fighting men in history in any era on any continent, period. No trying to be nice to non-Roman ethnic societies can ever disguise that.
 
The large majority of Celts in Hannibal's army or for that matter earlier and latter tribal levies and nothing more than a wooden shield and slashing swords with maybe a few with javelins. Even the Spanish with their helmets were better equipped. Yes, some Celts wore armour but they would be the wealthier ones who also own horses and thus did not fight in the main warband.

Simply concentrating on the tribal levies of the Celts does not tell you everything about the way they made war. Rome, prior to the Marian Reforms, would sometimes draft the Proletarii into the army to bulk up the numbers, and they weren't any better equipped than the Gaulish peasant levies.

And as for the Romans being "better equipped", its funny that they actually adopted much of their signature wargear from the Celts. Chainmail vests, the Montifortino and later Imperial Gallic helmets (how do you think it got it name?), the Gladius sword (called the Claddus in Gaulish) the oval-shaped Scutum of the Romans and the Greek Thureos were adopted after their conflicts with the Celts. Oh, and there's Noricum Steel, manufactured by the Celtic Norici in Austria, was highly favoured by the Roman Army.

And your comment on Celtic equites "not fighting in the main warband" is a bit puzzling. Its like saying that the Medieval knights weren't the main fighting force in their own culture.

Compared with the Celts the Romans and the Africans were of the Hellenic tradition and so much better equipped as well as being trained to fight in formations.

So much better equipped, that they...eventually adopted wargear that was manufactured by Celts?

One mustn't put to much stock in the image of the Celts as an undisciplined barbarian rabble. They fought as mercenaries abroad in service of the Carthaginians and Greeks for hundreds of years and would later fight as Roman auxiliaries. And the Galatians that entered Asia Minor in the early Third Century BCE would in the early years successfully see-off challenges by Hellenistic forces that outnumbered them by a wide margin. Having fought many such diverse foreign militaries, its unlikely that they would have survived as long as they did and spread as far as they had if they only had one strategy in mind.


If the accounts of the Romans defeating Celtic army after Celtic army makes me a bigot then I plead guilty. Yes, the Evil Empire did lose a few battles but in the main it won the wars. The fact is that the Roman legionary was one of the most successful fighting men in history in any era on any continent, period. No trying to be nice to non-Roman ethnic societies can ever disguise that.

The Roman Legionary always fought with the assistance of foreign Auxiliaries (Gauls being one example) in all his wars. They were not the "perfect soldier". Without the aid of the variety of specialized fighting branches, the Romans wouldn't have made it out of Italy. Those are the facts. It has fuck-all to do with "being nice" to Rome's neighbours.
 
Last edited:
Lets let Mr. Retro actually post at least the first chapter of his TL, including the POD, before we start jumping all over it for being unrealistic :rolleyes:
 
My apologies for not updating the past week -- I spend a lot of time rebounding between two houses and unfortunately I didn't have time to do any research. Expect an update by Tuesday at the very latest.
 
Top