WI: Carthage Conquers Iberia early?

Lets say that before the First Punic Wars, Carthage becomes super interested in expanding the Empires reach in Iberia. Either to the size of the Barcid holdings during the Second Punic Wars, or perhaps even more. Does this change anything about the fate of Carthage? Would Carthage have won the first Punic War with the resources of Iberia? Or would this simply be nothing as Rome continues to power through her rivals?
 
The first question is, why? Cartgafe began expanding into Iberia in order to compensate for their loss of Sicily, which was incredibly economically lucrative for them.
 
Carthage would need to be either completely ousted from Sicily for that to happen and have little hope of recovery or completely dominate it before the rise of Rome. To oust them from the island have the Syracusan tyrants Gelon or more likely Dionysius the Elder succeed at evicting Carthage completely after his destruction of Motya or Agathocles gains Sicily to leave Libya.

Though, what is to stop the Carthaginians returning during the weak rule of Dionysius the Younger or the chaos that followed? Given that Carthage is built on sea trade it will be difficult for them to overlook the waning control of the seas around Sicily.

There are further things to note though in Carthage itself. Two large factions pursued different directions of expansion after the 1st Punic War.

Hanno and his 'Hannid' faction pushed for further expansion into Africa proper and pursuit of a more powerful hinterland for agriculture and overland trade.

Hamilcar and his 'Barcids' (a name given to him during the 1st Punic War, so avoid if necessary) wanted expansion into Iberia for mining, iron and soldiers.

These two factions loathed each other to an extent that Hanno tried at every turn to scupper Hannibal's support and redirected fresh supplies and soldiers during the 2nd Punic War away from Hannibal (though he was against the war altogether anyway).

Carthage was a republic, like Rome, but more concerned with monetary gain than gaining Gloria. A defeated Strategos in Carthage is crucified for failure.

There is little scope for second chances, so military action is not to be pursued lightly.
 
Last edited:
One could imagine Carthage getting outed from sicily, investing in spain, and them seizing an opportunity to return to Sicily when Syracuse is weak and dealing with inevitable revolts. In that way they regain Sicily and are too invested in Iberia to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
One could imagine Cartgafe getting outed from sicily, investing in spain, and them seizing an opportunity to return to Sicily when Syracuse is weak and dealing with inevitable revolts. In that way they regain Sicily and are too invested in Iberia to ignore it.

The Hellenic Cities of Sicily were horribly under populated during the conflict after Dionysius the Elders death. Huge sections of Syracuse were left to nature to reclaim and other cities were left to ruin throughout Sicily.

Timoleon of Corinth sent out a call to the other cities back in Greece for colonists to replenish the population after the horrifying purges of the callous and arbitrary rule of Dionysius the Younger, following the final defeat of the Tyrants. When the people rose against him he sent his mercenaries out of the great fortress on the Ortygia to butcher the populace on several occasions and his father had concentrated many other cities populations within Syracuse's walls.

This period would be the perfect time for Carthage to return to Sicily if they had been evicted from Sicily by Dionysius the Elder, after building an overseas empire in Iberia.
 
Last edited:
If I wanted to write a TL based on this senario, do you know any good books or websites on the subject?
The Hellenic Cities of Sicily were horribly under populated during the conflict after Dionysius the Elders death. Huge sections of Syracuse were left to nature to reclaim and other cities were left to ruin throughout Sicily.

Timeaus of Corinth sent out a call to the other cities back in Greece for colonists to replenish the population after the horrifying purges of the callous and arbitrary rule of Dionysius the Younger, following the final defeat of the Tyrants. When the people rose against him he sent his mercenaries out of the great fortress on the Ortygia to butcher the populace on several occasions and his father had concentrated many other cities populations within Syracuse's walls.

This period would be the perfect time for Carthage to return to Sicily if they had been evicted from Sicily by Dionysius the Elder, after building an overseas empire in Iberia.
 
Polybius, "Carthage Mvst Be Destroyed","The Fall of Carthage" by Adrian Goldsworthy, "Carthage: A History" by Serge Lancel. What's left of Timaeus' work on Agathokles.

I second this. These are great books to start, but be warned Timeaus has a huge amount of hatred for Agathokles. "Carthage Mvst be Destroyed" has great sections on the inner workings of the Carthaginian Republic.

Also if you want to go into the Tyrants of Syracuse Jeff Champions "Tyrants of Syracuse" has a focus on their military campaigns in the latter chapters of Part 1 and earlier chapters of Part 2. Though only if you need it. They are ok, but unnecessarily split into two smaller books (read some Pen and Sword books before and an annoying amount of obvious mistakes popped up in some).
 
I forgot about Tyrants of Syracuse. If I remember correctly, his biography of Pyrrhus also talks about his campaigns in sicily, which is useful.
 
In the OTL conflict with Rome, how much of the outcome came down to population? I've got the impression that relative to Romans and Greeks, the Carthaginians had rather slowly growing, relatively stable populations, and that their method of gaining influence and wealth was mainly a matter of scouting out the existing power base in a region, making contact with whoever either ruled or was in a position to rule with a little bit of help and guidance, and, playing kingmaker as necessary, form a trading relationship with this local power. They sailed far, but settled very lightly, not disrupting the local relationships much, and spun a rather gossamer web of trade over very long ranges. The Greeks on the other hand, when colonists arrived somewhere, intended to take over everything in sight for themselves; this meant inevitable conflict but they'd generally win through high concentrations of force, and then having established a colony they'd expand it until limits of physical transport and regional carrying capacity were reached, thereupon beginning to accumulate people for a new colony. In the interim as regional opportunities for getting rich individually were preempted by those who got to the good land first, they became traders, functioning as the scouts who would choose a new territory to colonize. The Roman variation on this theme was that they were a local tribal power who resolved the conflicts they had with their neighbors by subjugating them and then incorporating them into a larger system that somehow remained focused on Rome as it expanded. But expansion meant larger and larger (spread over larger areas) populations of classes suitable for recruitment into the evolving legions; during the expansion of the Republic Roman armies were composed mainly of people who identified as Romans and served not primarily for pay (though it was of course essential that legionaries did get their pay) but because it was their duty as Romans to serve; in return they looked forward to getting land of their own in a Roman town.

Now these are impressions I have; I don't know whether any of what I have said thus far can be readily disproved or not. We suffer from a lack of information. Most of what we think we know about Carthage comes from fragments of writings about them that have survived, written entirely by their various enemies. Thus a classical work that conveys much detail about how Carthaginian politics worked is probably largely accurate but may contain some misunderstandings, there either by honest mistake or for propagandistic reasons. At this point, only archaeology can supplement these scanty sources, and we have a lot of blanks to fill in with speculation.

I've noticed when trying to find out more about any ancient society the huge gaps in knowledge we have. As a modern person influenced strongly by materialistic historical philosophy I assume that demographics is hugely important--just how many people, packed in how densely, contributed what sort of material production at what level of productivity to a given region? How much of the net productivity of the regions that the Carthaginians traded over was available as transferable wealth they could appropriate, and how economical was it to transfer these goods elsewhere in their sphere to be traded at what rate for what other goods, and so how much material wealth stuck to the fingers of the Punic middlemen? It is often stated that a huge weakness of Carthage relative to Rome, or even to prior rivals such as the Greeks, is that her armies were hired mercenaries. That's not so bad if the wealth available to hire them is fabulous though it does raise that infamous Roman question, "who shall watch the watchers?"--if Carthage could hire armies comparable to what a tyrant of half of Sicily or the Roman Republic could muster, what stops these professional soldiers from taking over Carthage itself and running it their way? Are suitable armies even available for hire?

And just why and how should a Classical era people such as the Punics differ dramatically from the Greeks or Romans in their attitudes and demographic patterns anyway? Did the Punics have a low rate of population growth, and if so, why? Were they more like the Greeks than I think, except they had reached their demographic limits in North Africa--and if so, why not colonize Iberia or even Italy? Because there were already Greek colonies in the way in Italy by the time a desire for new colonies would arise in Carthage? OK, but there are the various Mediterranean islands the Greeks didn't do much with, and of course a lot more North African coastland to the west, as well as Iberian shores. Why did the Carthaginians not preempt the Romans there by many centuries?

So to repeat, what it looks like to me is that somehow, the Carthaginians had a relatively slow rate of growth and tended to regard a rather small region of North Africa as their natural and adequate homeland, and all the people they sent out intended to return there. They augmented their limited numbers with hired forces of various kinds to assist them in far-flung operations, and then returned home to enjoy wealth and status in accordance with mercantile gain. In so doing they spread a broad but thin net--so thin apparently that even on vital and nearby Sicily they contented themselves with a few strongholds leaving the rest of the island open to ambitious Greek settlements that for whatever reason they did not stop and which grew into pesky threats that they could not later eradicate.

Now if nearby and obviously valuable Sicily was not tightly controlled and thoroughly Punicized before the Greeks showed up, why should be expect Carthage to be able to set up stronger and denser colonies in distant Iberia?

I suspect that the Baracid ability to do this later had to do with changes in Carthaginian society, very likely in reaction to the threats and challenges posed by the Greeks and Romans.

Was there in fact, as I am wildly speculating, some sort of demographic deficit in Carthaginian society relative to Greek and Roman patterns? If there was, I might suspect that at the basis might lie degrees of patriarchy. A high birth rate takes a toll on the women of any society; the more polarized gender roles are along the familiar-to-us axis of typical modern patriarchy (by modern here I mean prior to relatively recent waves of feminism at various levels of society) the more society can demand of its women that they produce lots of offspring even if conditions are such that most of these babies die young. The upshot is limiting the roles of women in acknowledged public business and a high death and disability rate among them. Was it the case that Punic society, at least as it evolved in Carthaginian north Africa, allowed women more autonomy and respect, and did this cause a low birthrate that constrained these Punics to have the sort of far-flung but soft pattern of hegemony I speculated on? Classical Greeks certainly tended toward a possessive and authoritarian handling of respectable women, and the exemplary legends of the Roman Republic stressed the duties and submission of proper Roman maidens and matrons--so was the ultimate steamrollering of Carthage due to the more rampant misogyny of Greek and Roman societies, with associated militarism?

Do we have any data at all on these points or am I free to speculate widely--and pointlessly?

Anyway perhaps the Baracids drew from a new and rising faction of Carthaginian society that was belatedly able to colonize on Greek lines and consolidate regional control in Roman fashion, perhaps with that front-line warrior family having learned lessons from the peoples they fought against or side-by-side with as allies. Or conceivably, the Romans were the ones who learned some crucial lessons from Baracid inventions in policy, and having assimilated them and turned the tables later, chauvinistically failed to acknowledge the hated Punics as their teachers.

We know so little, I fear, it would be hard to say definitively why Carthage did not establish an iron grip many centuries before latter-day rivals showed up to plunder in their turn. In early days, the Punics might not have Greeks to worry about and the Romans were a single village, but the Etruscans are often mentioned in Western Mediterranean town histories as early actors on the scene, maybe the Etruscans were stronger than we now realize and displaced the Punics successfully before falling to Rome in their turn?

I suspect though, in view of the light hand that gripped Sicily, that for whatever reason--the relative power of women in society perhaps, or the scanty agricultural returns of their North African base, or a focus on merchant activity inhibiting and distracting from a focus on military capability, whatever--Carthage colonizing Iberia much earlier than the Baracids did, to similar levels of density and development, was simply not in the cards.
 
Is it possible to have Carthage rule Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, corsria, the Balearics, and North Africa west of cyrnacia?
 
Keep in kind, conquering take is going to take a century at the very least. It took Rome until 19 ad to complete the conquest of Spain and that was only after significant resistance was overcome.
 

Carthage was not the originator of Punic colonies throughout the Western Mediterranean, though it was the source of a few cities here and there some rather unimaginatively called Quart Hadasht (New City), it was the Romans that distinguished Carthage from Carthago Nova in Iberia. Gades, Motya and several other cities along the African coast are from the time before Carthages' Empire.

The Phoenician cities along the Levantine coast such as Tyre and Byblos scattered merchant adventurers throughout the seas and they met Hellenic settlers on occasion who they fought with for control of whole regions. Carthage picked up the pieces of this scattered empire after the Assyrians and other empires ended their home cities independence. A large group of nobles are recorded to have arrived in Carthage from Tyre in the 8th century BC starting the growth of their influence.

Corsica was purged of Hellenic settlers by the combined naval forces of Carthage and the Etruscans, wary of further Hellenic expansion into the Western Med. Other Hellenic adventurers set out to settle North Africa but were destroyed at every attempt by the wary Carthaginians. The myth of Hercules labours was seen by Greeks as their Manifest Destiny and Africa was were Hercules had been believed to have bested Atlas.

Carthage didn't weave a gossamer web between the Punic cities, but tossed out a thick fishing net and reeled them in. Their navy was concentrated and powerful enough to exact taxes and tribute from vessels passing by their city between the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. Just because they weren't constantly at war (war is expensive) like the Romans does not mean they were less imperial than the Romans or Greeks. Empires and kingdoms are essentially protection rackets made large. Whether the glove is silk or rough leather the iron fist remains close to the surface.

Scanty agriculture of North Africa? That is something more of a recent effect of climate change. North Africa was one of the most productive agricultural regions in the ancient world. It was in the waning days of the Roman Empire in the West that the desert began to swallow what became the Maghreb.

As for your speculation on a more female friendly attitude towards women by the Carthaginians, I am quite certain that you are incorrect. As much as we would like to understand the past through our own ideals, it is quite frankly impossible. Carthaginians were probably no less chauvinistic than the Greeks (and even they varied from the relative freedom of land owning Spartan women to the extremely restricted Athenian women who weren't allowed out of their homes). Personal ritual cleansing baths can be found in many ruins of wealthy Carthaginian families, not collective baths or gymnasia like the Romans and Greeks. This shows their Semitic cultural influences. It can be surmised from these baths a probability that women in Carthage could also have been seen to have been 'unclean' as they were in Assyria and in the Jewish kingdoms and held as lower than men.

Carthages' Republic operated with factions of merchants with specific interests. Possibly guilds, they offered support and influence for various ventures both mercantile and military. The Carthaginians discussed politics in the Council of 400 and elected ruling magistrates known as Suffettes.

I hope this has been of help to you.
 
Last edited:
Keep in kind, conquering take is going to take a century at the very least. It took Rome until 19 ad to complete the conquest of Spain and that was only after significant resistance was overcome.

Also avoid just painting Iberia in maps. Carthage preferred to skirt the edges of barbarian territory were they had little to gain, like in Sardinia. Certain regions were completely worthless to conquer or control. Lusitania being the prime example. The Romans noted that the region was so poor that the local tribes only means of wealth was raiding and Viriathus' guerilla campaigns kicked the Roman militarys' ass up and down the peninsula.

The Numantines were also incredibly great warriors, to the point that the Roman army never breached their capitals defences and were forced to starve them into submission in one of the most humiliating campaigns of the Republic.
 

scholar

Banned
Carthage had an early hold over Iberia, and Iberia was considered part of the sphere of Carthage well before the first Punic War. However, Iberia tended to be poorer and less lucrative than the Tyrrhenian Sea trade, where Carthage put most of its efforts. It was only after Sicily ceased to be an option that they moved towards their less rich territories. It might be possible to make an earlier attempt to secure the region if Sicily was a less stable and less lucrative area for the Carthaginians. Also, breaking their conceit over naval superiority would do wonders to put them into an intensive military build up, which also was partially responsible for greater control in Iberia.
 
Also another area Carthage might seek to control is Massalia. The Massaliotes are going to need protection, and if we assume Carthage has more presence here ITTL, they might begrudgingly seek it out from them, rather than Rome.
 
Carthage had an early hold over Iberia, and Iberia was considered part of the sphere of Carthage well before the first Punic War.
This is actually controversial in recent scholarship. The Phoenician cities in Spain tend not to show much clear Carthaginian influence before the First Punic War (unlike the Balearics).
 
This is actually controversial in recent scholarship. The Phoenician cities in Spain tend not to show much clear Carthaginian influence before the First Punic War (unlike the Balearics).
I thought common thought was until the Barcids rolled in Iberia had a few Punic settlements but nothing significant.
 

scholar

Banned
This is actually controversial in recent scholarship. The Phoenician cities in Spain tend not to show much clear Carthaginian influence before the First Punic War (unlike the Balearics).
As far as I'm aware, they were independent cities formed with connections to Tyre, but after Tyre lost prominence and the trade in precious metals and other materials from Iberia to the home city was damaged, the cities there for the most part suffered economic decline. This decline was offset only with the rise of the prominence of Carthage, and while Iberian cities would maintain unique identities, there is clear evidence for at the very least acknowledged leadership for Carthage. The relative ease and series of alliances through which Carthage obtained control of the Phoenician settlements also seems to support this view.

Do you have some of the more recent scholarship for me to take a look at though?
 
Top