WI: Carthaginian victory in the 1st Punic War and its implications

What if Carthage won the 1st Punic War? The POD in this case would be better naval leadership and/or better marines leading to Carthage retaining its thalassocracy. While the Roman state was admirably resilient, its resources were not infinite, despite the impressions engendered at times during the wars, moreso in case of naval resources. Unlike land defeats, naval defeats tended to be far more decisive because they absorbed so much more in men and materiel. How many Drepana could Rome have taken before they sued for peace? What interests me is its implications vis-à-vis Greeks. Roman hegemony over the Greeks was achieved in a remarkably short period, and was contemporaneous with the Punic Wars. Between 1st and 2nd Punic Wars, both Macedon and the Seleucids were being reinvigorated under Philip and Antiochus, respectively. Antiochus especially ran out of time to consolidate and strengthen his realm before Rome cast its covetous eyes across the Adriatic. How do you think the Roman defeat in the 1st Punic War have affected the Greek world? Would the Romans have even engaged in the Illyrian Wars? I don't think Carthage, with its well-deserved reputation for inertia, would initiate another war with Rome without provocation, and if Rome went for a revenge, the Barcids with thalassocracy would've made Rome pay dearly. Assuming Carthaginian inaction for at least 241 - 210 BCE (perhaps even down to 188), how do you think Rome would've flexed its muscles in the meantime and how differently would it been treated in the power calculus of the East in light of its defeat, e.g., would Pergamenes, Aetolians, and other thorns in the flesh of Antigonids and Seleucids been so bold in their opposition, etcetera.
 
Well when do the Romans lose the war? If they are decisively defeated at the Aegates Islands, they can't raise another fleet as they had to resort to senators paying out of their own pockets to build it. I could then see a peace deal where Carthage keeps parts of Sicily like Lillybaeum and Drepana, and Rome keeping the northeast. Syracuse would probably remain independent of both powers as per the peace deal.

With that in mind, the stage is set for another epic encounter in Sicily. The Romans would likely still engage in the Illyrian Wars-getting rid of Illyrian piracy in the Adriatic was important to them. That said, the Hellenistic world may not see Rome in their territory for quite sometime. Since Antiochos should have stopped the Romans anyway (and Phillip could have too for that matter, don't let me get into the embarrassment that was Magnesia for Antiochos), I don't see why the Hellenistic kingdoms could not stave off Roman expansion given a competent enough ruler.
 
I'm thinking of a much more decisive scenario, where the Roman naval experiment fails spectacularly. If Mylae ended in Roman defeat and if Rome suffered more defeats afterward, especially if some of them approached Drepana, and to seal its humiliation, if it suffered catastrophic disasters like Camarina in addition to Drepana-esque military annihilations, I can see Rome conceding Sicily entirely to Carthage. And rather inevitable after Hamilcar enters the stage. With ample supplies for himself while the Romans are interdicted, it's reasonable to assume Hamilcar will eventually secure Sicily for Carthage in toto. It is in light of this scenario that the Greek world becomes interesting. IRL various Eastern Powers beseeched Rome for succor against Macedon and Syria; would they do the same here or will they turn to Carthage? And if Rome doe intervene, for example in Illyria, what if Demetrius goes to Carthage instead of Macedon and what reception will he find in Carthage where Barcid influence seemed to be ascendant or at the very least, prevalent? Furthermore, for the West, would Punic victory have accelerated or slowed the formation of Carthaginian Iberian empire? Etcetera etcetera.
 
They won't cede all of Sicily to the Carthaginians unless the Carthaginians can take it from them on land. The Romans were in a unique position where they were being supplied in Sicily by Hiero. You can knock the Romans out of the naval war and thus prevent their complete conquest of Sicily, but you need to have Carthage put more effort into the land war.

In this scenario though, Hamilcar won't be left out to dry by the Carthaginians so maybe he could pull it off. Though Carthage was just as drained as Rome was and wanted peace instead of total victory, so I can see them settling with giving Rome the western half of Sicily so they could rest.
 
Carthaginians were drained largely because of their naval defeats and the efforts to turn the tide thereon; without the IRL crushing defeats, the burden on Carthage would be less and in any case, I think Hamilcar was the Scipio of his generation, able to excel in adversity and to go for the jugular in strength, and thus able to fulfill the long-cherished dream of Carthaginian Syracuse.
 
Top