WI: Carthage Wins First Punic War?

In my original post, IIRC I qualified that claim with "it depends on what kind of peace Carthage imposes", and I believe that, regardless of who won the 1st Punic War, the 2nd Punic War was something of an inevitability, meaning Carthaginian troops in Italy would be a very real possibility. I was more or less speaking in generalities about the ideal political settlement from Carthage's point of view, even if its not the most plausible. But also, the Romans landed troops in Africa during the 1st Punic War, so I'm not sure I buy the idea it was "limited in scope". It definitely began as a limited naval war over Sicily, but after 20 years of fighting, the war expanded into a broad naval war over the entire Mediterranean, even if total dominance wasn't the final result

Yes, they landed troops in Africa, but for the purpose of forcing Carthage to give up Sicily. And I still stand on my assertion that it was limited. Compare it to the scope of the Second Punic War. Almost all of the fighting were concentrated in and around Sicily, and all the relevant and decisive actions occurred in Sicily.

So yeah, it's limited in scope, and goals.

And the experience of the Romans with Xantipphus would indicate that early on, an invasion of each other's home turf would be disaster. A similar result happened with Agathocles a half century earlier when he also invaded Africa but lost.
 
Not really. You cannot compare defeat of your army abroad with defeat of an army within walking distance of your home city.

All it took were an invasion of Africa, and two or three defeats outside Carthage itself to get them to surrender. The defeats abroad were irrelevant to their resolution, since none of it would threaten Carthage itself.

While almost all Roman defeats were in Italy, at the very heart of its territory, at it's doorstep.

And the defeats did not end at Cannae. They lost almost all their allies in Southern Italy, lost armies in many more battle in Italy at Herdonia etc.

No other state could endure what Rome endured, and survive and emerge victorious. Not even the Carthaginians.
You're right, it is different. Sustaining the war effort abroad in the face of repeated catastrophic defeat is in fact much harder than when the enemy's at the gates, as the lack of clear and present danger to home and hearth is no longer available as the most powerful possible motivation. The fact that the Carthaginians did anyway, and still wanted to continue fighting (though saner heads prevailed in that case), is a testament to the Republic's remarkable military strength. Rome is by no means categorically superior in terms of demographics; certainly not enough to guarantee victory. Let's imagine a second war with Rome, only this time Carthage starts with control of all the islands and the seas. They can raise at very least the ~120,000 men they had at the start of the OTL war, compared to the 60,000 the Romans levied at the start of the war. This time, though, instead of losing strength crossing half of Spain, the Pyrenees, Gaul, and the Alps, they can directly invade southern Italy with their full strength, and quickly reduce coastal cities with their superior navy, enabling a quick and secure advance up the peninsula.
 
Yes, they landed troops in Africa, but for the purpose of forcing Carthage to give up Sicily. And I still stand on my assertion that it was limited. Compare it to the scope of the Second Punic War. Almost all of the fighting were concentrated in and around Sicily, and all the relevant and decisive actions occurred in Sicily.

So yeah, it's limited in scope, and goals.

And the experience of the Romans with Xantipphus would indicate that early on, an invasion of each other's home turf would be disaster. A similar result happened with Agathocles a half century earlier when he also invaded Africa but lost.

Fair enough. I'll make one last point though, if Carthage won at sea and on land in Sicily and was able to impose a large indemnity or some other tribute to Carthage, its possible that, in order to disperse the burden of the reparations, they may increase taxes levied on the socii. Consistently rising taxes were a key factor in contributing to the eventual social war, although admittedly it was more than a century after the end of the 2nd Punic War. It's stretching plausibility, but when considering that the Samnites and other Southern Italians had only been subjugated for 25 years by the start of the 1st Punic War, it's not totally outside the realm of possibility that a loss in Sicily coupled with reparations might somewhat destabilize the situation in Italy by emboldening some of the socii to press for greater autonomy (or at least Latin rights). More or less the same thing happened to Carthage IOTL when the reparations imposed by the Romans compromised their ability to pay their Numidian mercenaries. Just food for thought tho, I'm partial to the Romans making a speedy recovery from a loss like that anyways, since they were just starting the upswing of their empire by this point and still had a lot of cultural energy
 
You're right, it is different. Sustaining the war effort abroad in the face of repeated catastrophic defeat is in fact much harder than when the enemy's at the gates, as the lack of clear and present danger to home and hearth is no longer available as the most powerful possible motivation. The fact that the Carthaginians did anyway, and still wanted to continue fighting (though saner heads prevailed in that case), is a testament to the Republic's remarkable military strength. Rome is by no means categorically superior in terms of demographics; certainly not enough to guarantee victory. Let's imagine a second war with Rome, only this time Carthage starts with control of all the islands and the seas. They can raise at very least the ~120,000 men they had at the start of the OTL war, compared to the 60,000 the Romans levied at the start of the war. This time, though, instead of losing strength crossing half of Spain, the Pyrenees, Gaul, and the Alps, they can directly invade southern Italy with their full strength, and quickly reduce coastal cities with their superior navy, enabling a quick and secure advance up the peninsula.

Overseas war is not harder. At all. Rome had several overseas wars where they suffered repeated defeats. Look at its efforts in Spain in the second century BC. It took until 133 BC to fully subdue it. And look at the Macedonian Wars. Rome suffered many defeats before it won. And of course, the First Punic War, which was overseas from Rome and Carthage's point of view, were much easier to wage in comparison to the Second Punic War, which involved devastation to their home countries.

The Romans had 700,000 pool of manpower in Italy, and the losses to the Second Punic War would bear that out. It would stay stay that they will win in Italy. They cannot invade with the 120,000 all at once, while Rome could sustain up to 200,000 men all at the same time. Keep in mind that the Romans sustained 25 legions during the War, and not all of them were in Italy. In this case, all of the would be in Italy.

As for the superior navy, I don't think so. Carthage had a superior navy at the start of the First War, and the Romans had no experience with the navy. Yet Carthage won only two battles, lost almost all the important naval battles, including Aegedes Islands, Cape Ecnomus, and Mylae, while Carthage only won Drepana and one other battle. Rome could easily construct a large navy from scratch and defeat the Carthaginians on their own element.


I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they could do so again in Second War.

But of course, I will concede that Hannibal could have won the Second Punic War had some things gone his way and if Roman nerve did not hold.

For example, it might be possible that Rome might make peace if Hannibal showed up under the gates of Rome while it was reeling under shock of Cannae.

So in the hypothetical second war, if Hannibal or someone of his genius would lead the army of Carthage, Carthage may win the war. But it could also lose.

If somebody else other than Hannibal or someone without his genius? The Carthaginians would lose.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I'll make one last point though, if Carthage won at sea and on land in Sicily and was able to impose a large indemnity or some other tribute to Carthage, its possible that, in order to disperse the burden of the reparations, they may increase taxes levied on the socii. Consistently rising taxes were a key factor in contributing to the eventual social war, although admittedly it was more than a century after the end of the 2nd Punic War. It's stretching plausibility, but when considering that the Samnites and other Southern Italians had only been subjugated for 25 years by the start of the 1st Punic War, it's not totally outside the realm of possibility that a loss in Sicily coupled with reparations might somewhat destabilize the situation in Italy by emboldening some of the socii to press for greater autonomy (or at least Latin rights). More or less the same thing happened to Carthage IOTL when the reparations imposed by the Romans compromised their ability to pay their Numidian mercenaries. Just food for thought tho, I'm partial to the Romans making a speedy recovery from a loss like that anyways, since they were just starting the upswing of their empire by this point and still had a lot of cultural energy

Maybe, but I think, though I may be mistaken, that for the socii, they were not taxed as such. All they were required is to contribute troops to Rome in war. The only financial burden is that they need to maintain those troops under Rome's control, but that is all.

The Social War happened within the context of the first century, when the socii were burdened with never ending war abroad with little benefit to them, and the land of the elite socii were encroached by Roman landowners. And Roman citizenship were far more attractive at this point in time than earlier, so their resentment of not being citizens were greater.

In this case, Roman citizenship were not as attractive until later, and the lack of it will not be resented that much since the benefits abroad in Roman possessions outside Italy of Roman citizenship would not exist yet.

I still think that the socii would only revolt if there is a victorious foreign army in Italy.
 
Overseas war is not harder. At all. Rome had several overseas wars where they suffered repeated defeats. Look at its efforts in Spain in the second century BC. It took until 133 BC to fully subdue it. And look at the Macedonian Wars. Rome suffered many defeats before it won. And of course, the First Punic War, which was overseas from Rome and Carthage's point of view, were much easier to wage in comparison to the Second Punic War, which involved devastation to their home countries.

The Romans had 700,000 pool of manpower in Italy, and the losses to the Second Punic War would bear that out. It would stay stay that they will win in Italy. They cannot invade with the 120,000 all at once, while Rome could sustain up to 200,000 men all at the same time. Keep in mind that the Romans sustained 25 legions during the War, and not all of them were in Italy. In this case, all of the would be in Italy.

As for the superior navy, I don't think so. Carthage had a superior navy at the start of the First War, and the Romans had no experience with the navy. Yet Carthage won only two battles, lost almost all the important naval wars, including Aegedes Islands, Cape Ecnomus, while Carthage only won Drepana etc. Rome could easily construct a large navy from scratch and defeat the Carthaginians on their own element.


I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they could do so again in Second War.
Waging wars overseas presents very different challenges from fight for home and hearth; you admit Rome was defeated many times abroad, just as they were on their home country, where they could rely on the support of the population, with short lines of communication and ready access to fresh manpower. Carthage maintained huge armies without these advantages.

There's more to war than burning through a manpower pool. There were 700,000 men of fighting age in Italy perhaps, but like you said, forces under arms can't all be employed at once, much less the entire manpower pool. It's possible to defeat the Romans before using up all the manhood of their Confederation. Firstly, as the Carthaginians advance, they'd be able to besiege cities more easily, since they'd have better lines of communication, and thus take them out of the Roman manpower pool. Second, being able to continually and securely 'choke up' on the peninsula marching up the Western coast means Rome itself is going to be directly threatened much sooner. Its fall would, if nothing else, dramatically disrupt Rome's ability to mobilize new armies, long before simple numbers would be a problem.

Regarding the navy, I think you have to chalk a lot of that up to chance; Rome won most of those victories while outnumbered OTL, so it's not like their superior resources were that superior. Moreover, given the Roman fleets' history with storms, I'd caution against calling building new fleets too easy, especially not with a major Carthaginian army in Italy. If Carthage won the First War, even the monumental challenges of the Second Punic War would pale before the 'Second Roman War'.
 
Whoops, guess it's been a while since I read up on Hellenistic history. If they did continue their decline however, I'm not sure Carthage would have the power projection capability of controlling Egypt. Rome was only able to do so after they had already conquered the rest of the Mediterranean, and historically, Egypt has only ever been conquered by a land power they are contiguous with (the British Empire being the only real exception). Carthage would have to be well-established in Libya or some other part of the Eastern Mediterranean before control of Egypt would be a real possibility. Alternatively, they could feasibly protect Egypt as part of an alliance system, but they would probably have to have a firm hold on both Rhodes and Cyprus before their navy could become a serious presence in the area. But conquering Rhodes and Cyprus would definitely bring them into direct conflict with the Seleucids, which would draw their resources away from their ability to manage the balance of power in Italy (which would undoubtedly be their first priority, since Italy would be their biggest existential threat).
You forgot Napoleon :D.
 
Top