WI: Hamilcar of Carthage wins the Battle of Himera?

I noticed there are few threads involving an early Carthaginian empire, most focusing on the campaigns of Hannibal which I personally feel are a bit too late for a strong Carthage (that dream ended with the First Punic War imo), so I wanted to ask those of you who know what I'm talking about on the ramifications of King Hamilcar I of Carthage achieving victory over the coalition of Syracusan-Akragasi coalition at the Battle of Himera. There would be several clear ramifications of this, and here they are.

1. The Carthaginian Monarchy would not lose power to the Senate as happened in the aftermath of OTL's Battle of Himera, with the Senate increasingly taking power from the Kings. In the aftermath of a great victory in Sicily, Hamilcar's power at home may well even be increased further.
2. Carthage's army would still be a citizen's army based around hoplites, with some mercenaries of course, probably being influenced by Philip's reforms in the next few centuries and adopting the sword and thorax later on. This is because there would not be a large number of Carthaginian fighting men killed at this battle as there were in OTL, damaging the city's fighting strength and forcing it to use mercenaries.
3. Carthaginian power in Sicily would undeniably be increased further. Several Sicilian city-states such as Selinus, Himera, and Rhegion, with them most of the native Sicels and the Ionian Greeks in Sicily, sided with the Carthaginians, and would become their vassals in the aftermath of the win. Akragas would undeniably be conquered and sacked as Selinus wanted blood for Akragas' destruction of its mother city, Megara Hyblaea, and that brings us to the question of the consequences for Syracuse.

Always the most powerful state in Sicily up until the Punic Wars, Syracuse will have been brought to their knees by this loss. With no assistance available from the homeland due to a certain invasion happening there as well, the Carthaginians could either consolidate their positions, having restricted Syracuse's power to nowhere beyond the walls of their city, or avoid hedging their bets and take the chance to conquer all of Sicily, the Sicels and Ionians joining them for the chance to expel the Dorians from Sicily for the rest of time. Syracuse is, for the intents and purposes of this POD making Carthage the dominator of Sicily, captured by the alliance, and Carthage gains all power in Sicily.

Where does Carthage expand next? Magna Graecia? Spain? Massilia? Would love to hear your thoughts.
 
Carthage now has an empire over most of Sicily. Will Carthage send settlers to colonize Sicily? Unless they can vastly overwhelm the Sicilians (I think this is impossible in the time frame) the Carthaginians will need to go gently and offer them lots of autonomy in a federalized structure to not offend them.

If Carthage destroys Syracuse can the Greeks invade, and reestablish a city state? Does challenging Syracuse in a war of conquest risk the same devastation of Carthage's army that you seek to avoid with an alternative result for the Battle of Himera? Can Carthaginian controlled Sicily coexist with Syracuse, or does it present a weakness to be exploited by Rome? How can Carthage build sufficient strength to resist its destruction by Rome, without exposing itself to the instabilities of Empire?

These are the considerations. Rather than expansion, perhaps Carthage would be better served by building connections and friendships, maintaining strength, and denying the foe battle.

EDIT
You bumped while I was typing this reply, for what that is worth.
 
At least according to legend, the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily occurred at the same time as Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. Perhaps if the Greek mainland gets successfully overrun and a new Persian administration is set up that restricts freedom of migration, Carthage’s hold on Sicily could be further tightened.
 
Carthage now has an empire over most of Sicily. Will Carthage send settlers to colonize Sicily? Unless they can vastly overwhelm the Sicilians (I think this is impossible in the time frame) the Carthaginians will need to go gently and offer them lots of autonomy in a federalized structure to not offend them.

If Carthage destroys Syracuse can the Greeks invade, and reestablish a city state? Does challenging Syracuse in a war of conquest risk the same devastation of Carthage's army that you seek to avoid with an alternative result for the Battle of Himera? Can Carthaginian controlled Sicily coexist with Syracuse, or does it present a weakness to be exploited by Rome? How can Carthage build sufficient strength to resist its destruction by Rome, without exposing itself to the instabilities of Empire?

These are the considerations. Rather than expansion, perhaps Carthage would be better served by building connections and friendships, maintaining strength, and denying the foe battle.

EDIT
You bumped while I was typing this reply, for what that is worth.
You misunderstand. Syracuse had mobilized all available forces to throw back the Carthaginian armies at Himera, and in the case where Syracuse is defeated, this is the end for them, and the Carthaginians will overrun the island. Rome would also be unlikely to rise in this alternate world, as this makes for a much stronger Etruscan state as the Greeks of Southern Italy are not strong enough to resist the Etruscan campaigns in Campania. There is no need for a “federal structure” per se as the Doric Greeks will most likely be driven off by Carthage’s Ionian allies as was often seen in the years preceding the Battle of Himera. Whether this is possible with a city as large as Syracuse I am unaware, but there is no doubt that the Greeks of Sicily will be utterly crushed by this campaign, as the Carthaginians most likely outnumbered the Greeks 2 to 1.

Not trying to be a dick, but your reply seems to expect that nothing will change as a result of Carthage’s victory. The Greco-Punic Wars will still occur, Rome will still rise to kick Carthage’s ass, while this battle was of much more magnitude than your post seems to imply. Greek Sicily would be decimated by this loss, and Carthage would not permit their foes to have any breathing room to recover. If anything, Syracuse would be the country better suited to denying the foe battle and all that as you said at the end.

Also, Carthage already had a large group of settlers in western Sicily, who I would expect would expand further and further across the island if Carthage wins here.
 
I just have a couple points I'd like to throw out.

First, Carthage was rivaled only by Rome in terms of power by the second Punic War; during the war, they matched or exceeded Rome's mobilization (several times outnumbering them on the battlefield too) for much of the conflict. The problem was that they squandered their parity, overextending with projects in Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, and Liguria instead of the decisive theatre. To make it worse, these projects almost always failed or otherwise disappointed. Still, this shouldn't distract us from the remarkable energy and durability of Carthage; there's a reason Rome steamrolled the Hellenistic monarchies in a couple years, but took decades to overcome the Punic republic.

IIRC, the Carthaginian monarchy is kind of hypothetical for the Classical period; Greeks used the word basileus, but they also used that word when describing elected or republican leaders, such as the suffetes in later times or the Tagos of Thessaly.

Regarding Carthage's military system, I think that's a lot to hang on one battle. From what I recall, Carthaginian citizen troops make several more appearences in the Greek-Punic wars, and archaeologically, the epigraphic evidence supports the idea that Africans continued to make up the great bulk of Carthage's armies right down to the end. I don't think there's any archaeological attestation of non-african troops in Carthaginian armies.
 
I just have a couple points I'd like to throw out.

First, Carthage was rivaled only by Rome in terms of power by the second Punic War; during the war, they matched or exceeded Rome's mobilization (several times outnumbering them on the battlefield too) for much of the conflict. The problem was that they squandered their parity, overextending with projects in Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, and Liguria instead of the decisive theatre. To make it worse, these projects almost always failed or otherwise disappointed. Still, this shouldn't distract us from the remarkable energy and durability of Carthage; there's a reason Rome steamrolled the Hellenistic monarchies in a couple years, but took decades to overcome the Punic republic.

IIRC, the Carthaginian monarchy is kind of hypothetical for the Classical period; Greeks used the word basileus, but they also used that word when describing elected or republican leaders, such as the suffetes in later times or the Tagos of Thessaly.

Regarding Carthage's military system, I think that's a lot to hang on one battle. From what I recall, Carthaginian citizen troops make several more appearences in the Greek-Punic wars, and archaeologically, the epigraphic evidence supports the idea that Africans continued to make up the great bulk of Carthage's armies right down to the end. I don't think there's any archaeological attestation of non-african troops in Carthaginian armies.
It was a monarchy in the sense that power was centralized in one person, and passed through one family, the Magonids. After Hamilcar's defeat and death, the monarchy still existed in name until 308 BC, when Carthage officially became a republic, but the power was in fact held by an oligarchy known as the Council of Elders.

Also, this defeat and the mass deaths of pureblooded Carthaginian fighting men reduced Carthage's ability to rely on their citizens for their military and set them down the course to a primarily mercenary-based force as was seen in the Punic Wars. No decisive defeat at Himera, no reason to diverge from a system that works fine. Also, what? Are you unaware of the great historical attestations of Carthaginian armies recruiting massive numbers of mercenaries from Gaul, Spain, the Baleares, Numidia, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy and Greece to fight their wars? Polybius, for example, put great emphasis in his writings about the Carthaginians on their usage of mercenaries. Now, the change was not immediate, being a more gradual switch from a citizen force to mercenaries, and Carthaginian citizens fought throughout the length of the Greco-Punic Wars, but most sources I have personally seen describe the Carthaginian army in the Punic Wars of having a purely mercenary-based infantry component, with the cavalry being divided amongst Numidian mercenaries and the last of the Carthaginian citizens fighting in the wars. Some even go as far as to claim that only the upper officers, such as the Barcids and Hasdrubal Gisco were citizens, with the entire army being mercenaries. These sources also describe the "African" heavy infantry component of the infantry as referring to Libyans and Libyphoenicians rather than pureblooded Carthaginians.
 
Also, this defeat and the mass deaths of pureblooded Carthaginian fighting men reduced Carthage's ability to rely on their citizens for their military and set them down the course to a primarily mercenary-based force as was seen in the Punic Wars. No decisive defeat at Himera, no reason to diverge from a system that works fine.
Also, what? Are you unaware of the great historical attestations of Carthaginian armies recruiting massive numbers of mercenaries from Gaul, Spain, the Baleares, Numidia, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy and Greece to fight their wars? Polybius, for example, put great emphasis in his writings about the Carthaginians on their usage of mercenaries. Now, the change was not immediate, being a more gradual switch from a citizen force to mercenaries, and Carthaginian citizens fought throughout the length of the Greco-Punic Wars, but most sources I have personally seen describe the Carthaginian army in the Punic Wars of having a purely mercenary-based infantry component, with the cavalry being divided amongst Numidian mercenaries and the last of the Carthaginian citizens fighting in the wars. Some even go as far as to claim that only the upper officers, such as the Barcids and Hasdrubal Gisco were citizens, with the entire army being mercenaries. These sources also describe the "African" heavy infantry component of the infantry as referring to Libyans and Libyphoenicians rather than pureblooded Carthaginians.

Define mercenary. The Africans made up the bulk of Carthage's armies, and they were compelled to fight as part of their subjugation by Carthage. According to textual sources with no archaeological verification, in Spain, the native people were forced to fight through the taking of hostages. Many Gallic tribes were allied with Carthage, and provided fighting men out of enmity with the Romans. Mercenaries, in the sense of transnational fighters serving for pay, were a relatively small portion of Carthaginian armies; most of their forces came from coercion of subject peoples. Even Polybios, who is one of the most important sources for the 'mercenary armies' theory, fundamentally doesn't describe a mercenary process for Carthaginian mobilization.
 
Define mercenary. The Africans made up the bulk of Carthage's armies, and they were compelled to fight as part of their subjugation by Carthage. According to textual sources with no archaeological verification, in Spain, the native people were forced to fight through the taking of hostages. Many Gallic tribes were allied with Carthage, and provided fighting men out of enmity with the Romans. Mercenaries, in the sense of transnational fighters serving for pay, were a relatively small portion of Carthaginian armies; most of their forces came from coercion of subject peoples. Even Polybios, who is one of the most important sources for the 'mercenary armies' theory, fundamentally doesn't describe a mercenary process for Carthaginian mobilization.
Just about all of those are what I mean by mercenaries, when it comes to Carthage. It is the primary word used to describe those soldiers who were not Carthaginian citizens yet still fought its wars by just about every source of information on Carthage, and I see no reason not to argue with it. Could you elaborate further on your statements? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, and I also don’t believe it’s really even relevant whatsoever. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Carthaginian citizens declined as a portion of the Carthaginian military after the loss at Himera in favor of troops who were not citizens, which is my point, so you are making a pointless straw man argument for no particular reason. Make a point that is relevant to the discussion and I will contribute to that discussion, do not and I consider this issue closed.

Also, you are wrong, by the way. These men were mercenaries. They revolted in the Mercenary War of 240 BC when they did not receive their pay, thus it is erroneous to say they are not mercenaries. And even then, who was subjugating and forcing the Africans to fight in the Carthaginian army then? Themselves? They were the army, so your point fails to stand up. They were mercenaries. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
Just about all of those are what I mean by mercenaries, when it comes to Carthage. It is the primary word used to describe those soldiers who were not Carthaginian citizens yet still fought its wars by just about every source of information on Carthage, and I see no reason not to argue with it. Could you elaborate further on your statements? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, and I also don’t believe it’s really even relevant whatsoever. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Carthaginian citizens declined as a portion of the Carthaginian military after the loss at Himera in favor of troops who were not citizens, which is my point, so you are making a pointless straw man argument for no particular reason. Make a point that is relevant to the discussion and I will contribute to that discussion, do not and I consider this issue closed.

Also, you are wrong, by the way. These men were mercenaries. They revolted in the Mercenary War of 240 BC when they did not receive their pay, thus it is erroneous to say they are not mercenaries. And even then, who was subjugating and forcing the Africans to fight in the Carthaginian army then? Themselves? They were the army, so your point fails to stand up. They were mercenaries. Case closed.
Are the Roman Socii mercenaries by your definition? What about the Phoenicians and Assyrians who fought for their Persian overlords? Carthaginian armies bear much more resemblance to these structures than to i.e. the Cretans who hired themselves out to anyone who was paying. The reason Carthaginians seemed to use less citizens in their armies -they never made up a large proportion even at Himera if Herodotos is to be believed- is less their failure in battle and more that Carthage was able to carve out a territorial state in the Tunisian sahel and force the Libyans to do the fighting; if Carthage can do this in Sicily, they'll probably force Greeks and Sicels into a similar system. The only people we have contemporary inscriptions attesting to service in Carthaginian armies is the Libyans; all others are attested only through textual sources. From this, we can surmise that the bulk of Carthaginian armies were not hired mercenaries like Cretans, Tarentines etc., but conscripts from the land.
 
Are the Roman Socii mercenaries by your definition? What about the Phoenicians and Assyrians who fought for their Persian overlords? Carthaginian armies bear much more resemblance to these structures than to i.e. the Cretans who hired themselves out to anyone who was paying. The reason Carthaginians seemed to use less citizens in their armies -they never made up a large proportion even at Himera if Herodotos is to be believed- is less their failure in battle and more that Carthage was able to carve out a territorial state in the Tunisian sahel and force the Libyans to do the fighting; if Carthage can do this in Sicily, they'll probably force Greeks and Sicels into a similar system. The only people we have contemporary inscriptions attesting to service in Carthaginian armies is the Libyans; all others are attested only through textual sources. From this, we can surmise that the bulk of Carthaginian armies were not hired mercenaries like Cretans, Tarentines etc., but conscripts from the land.
Yes. That's what all of those ancient sources mean by mercenaries. Basically socii. Don't get what was so hard for you to understand there. Mercenaries as in not citizens of the state conducting a war but still fighting in it anyway to gain a profit, which is exactly what the definition of the war mercenary is. And the Phoenicians and Assyrians I believe were direct subjects of the Persian crown, not indirectly controlled like many of those who fought for Carthage who were inland Numidian tribesmen, Sicilian and Sardinian hill people, or Celtiberians from the interior of Spain, or the socii which were not Roman citizens but allied nations. And you seem to be saying that since they were conscripted (I do believe that those living under Carthaginian indirect control were conscripted) means that they can't be mercenaries at the same time, which I believe the Mercenary War, where the soldiers revolted after not being paid, conflicts with, as lack of pay was a common reason for mercenaries to revolt.
 
Carthage already had a large group of settlers in western Sicily, who I would expect would expand further and further across the island if Carthage wins here.
How small or large was the ratio of Carthaginian settlers to other people on Sicily at the time?

There is no need for a “federal structure” per se as the Doric Greeks will most likely be driven off by Carthage’s Ionian allies as was often seen in the years preceding the Battle of Himera.
After Carthage's victory the other people in Sicily will be faced with either dictates, or consideration and inclusion. If the ratio of Carthaginian settlers to other Sicilians is too low then the Carthaginian authority will be threatened by rebellions.

your reply seems to expect that nothing will change as a result of Carthage’s victory. The Greco-Punic Wars will still occur, Rome will still rise to kick Carthage’s ass
I have read that Rome's victory in the First Punic War was due to a larger army, an ability to produce a navy, and the funding of these ventures. Rome recovered faster from that war and began antagonizing Carthage. If a power can obtain dominance in Italy, then it has many of the components needed for those three factors. Carthage has a stronger position against an Italian foe with a loyally federalized Sicily than a Sicily which required suppression.

Out of curiosity, do you know if the state of agriculture and the ecology of North Africa was harmed by Roman rule? I'm inclined to think a continued Carthaginian state will have a salubrious effect on the environment of the region.
 
How small or large was the ratio of Carthaginian settlers to other people on Sicily at the time?


After Carthage's victory the other people in Sicily will be faced with either dictates, or consideration and inclusion. If the ratio of Carthaginian settlers to other Sicilians is too low then the Carthaginian authority will be threatened by rebellions.


I have read that Rome's victory in the First Punic War was due to a larger army, an ability to produce a navy, and the funding of these ventures. Rome recovered faster from that war and began antagonizing Carthage. If a power can obtain dominance in Italy, then it has many of the components needed for those three factors. Carthage has a stronger position against an Italian foe with a loyally federalized Sicily than a Sicily which required suppression.

Out of curiosity, do you know if the state of agriculture and the ecology of North Africa was harmed by Roman rule? I'm inclined to think a continued Carthaginian state will have a salubrious effect on the environment of the region.
The problem there is that it assumes that any old state that comes to prominence in Italy will have the same power of the Roman Republic, while ignoring the peculiarities of the Roman Republic compared to a continued Etruscan Confederacy. Rome was a centralized, militaristic nation that was fueled by conquest, while the Etruscan civilization was a trading, even somewhat maritime nation not unlike Carthage itself, of a military power that was lesser than Rome and thus likely unable to produce the same success that Rome achieved in the First Punic War. Carthage would not interfere with the Greeks or Sicels as long as they allow Carthage to profit off of Sicily, and I find it unlikely that they would have reason to revolt against Carthaginian rule if the economy is prosperous and the people are fed and happy, which Tunis' fertile farmlands can certainly provide for. Additionally, if they have managed to quell Sicily, Carthage may even begin to oppose the rise of the Etruscan League to ensure that a powerful Italian state cannot rise for them to eventually make war with, preventing the flow of commerce throughout the Mediterranean that supplied Carthage's empire.
 
Yes. That's what all of those ancient sources mean by mercenaries. Basically socii. Don't get what was so hard for you to understand there. Mercenaries as in not citizens of the state conducting a war but still fighting in it anyway to gain a profit, which is exactly what the definition of the war mercenary is. And the Phoenicians and Assyrians I believe were direct subjects of the Persian crown, not indirectly controlled like many of those who fought for Carthage who were inland Numidian tribesmen, Sicilian and Sardinian hill people, or Celtiberians from the interior of Spain, or the socii which were not Roman citizens but allied nations. And you seem to be saying that since they were conscripted (I do believe that those living under Carthaginian indirect control were conscripted) means that they can't be mercenaries at the same time, which I believe the Mercenary War, where the soldiers revolted after not being paid, conflicts with, as lack of pay was a common reason for mercenaries to revolt.

Lack of pay is a common reason for anyone to revolt. It's exceptional when unpaid troops don't mutiny; even Roman citizens mutinied after their pay fell into arrears. And nobody considers the Socii mercenaries, and for good reason: they weren't. The Italian Socii and the Libyan conscripts of Carthage did not sign up to make money and profit, but were compelled to fight because of the political arrangement of their states. Moreover, it's hard to argue Persian control of i.e. Syria was more direct than Carthaginian control of Libya; most Persian subject states kept their native rulers, including the Phoenician cities like Tyre or the kingdoms of Cyprus that kept their kings, and the Greek cities that retained their democratic governance even after their revolt against the Great King. Carthage took direct control of a large hinterland and compelled the inhabitants to fight for them. Going by the textual sources, they followed a similar procedure in Spain, directly ruling territory and this time compelling the inhabitants to fight through hostage taking. They're not citizens, but they check pretty much none of the other boxes that would qualify them as mercenaries.
 
Lack of pay is a common reason for anyone to revolt. It's exceptional when unpaid troops don't mutiny; even Roman citizens mutinied after their pay fell into arrears. And nobody considers the Socii mercenaries, and for good reason: they weren't. The Italian Socii and the Libyan conscripts of Carthage did not sign up to make money and profit, but were compelled to fight because of the political arrangement of their states. Moreover, it's hard to argue Persian control of i.e. Syria was more direct than Carthaginian control of Libya; most Persian subject states kept their native rulers, including the Phoenician cities like Tyre or the kingdoms of Cyprus that kept their kings, and the Greek cities that retained their democratic governance even after their revolt against the Great King. Carthage took direct control of a large hinterland and compelled the inhabitants to fight for them. Going by the textual sources, they followed a similar procedure in Spain, directly ruling territory and this time compelling the inhabitants to fight through hostage taking. They're not citizens, but they check pretty much none of the other boxes that would qualify them as mercenaries.
You keep emphasizing this non-issue which is completely and totally irrelevant to the question I asked, and I will no longer respond to anything else you say on the matter. You see, I don't fucking care whether they were mercenaries or not. I used that term for the soldiers in the Carthaginian army because that's the very same term used by just about all sources on Carthage's military. What I want to fucking know about is what would happen if Hamilcar of Carthage won the Battle of Himera, which you evidently don't seem to care about. So please, stop talking about that, and start talking about this. If not, then goodbye, and do not expect any further discussion on the usage of the word "mercenary" to describe the Carthaginian army.
 
At least according to legend, the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily occurred at the same time as Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. Perhaps if the Greek mainland gets successfully overrun and a new Persian administration is set up that restricts freedom of migration, Carthage’s hold on Sicily could be further tightened.

I don't think that restricting emigration would be a good idea for the Great King (which doesn't make it impossible that he'll do it anyway, of course) -- letting the Greeks who don't like Persian rule move somewhere else seems safer than having them stay at home and possibly foment revolt.

Out of curiosity, do you know if the state of agriculture and the ecology of North Africa was harmed by Roman rule? I'm inclined to think a continued Carthaginian state will have a salubrious effect on the environment of the region.

North Africa was the breadbasket of the Western Empire down to the fifth century, so I don't think Roman rule had a negative effect.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You keep emphasizing this non-issue which is completely and totally irrelevant to the question I asked, and I will no longer respond to anything else you say on the matter. You see, I don't fucking care whether they were mercenaries or not. I used that term for the soldiers in the Carthaginian army because that's the very same term used by just about all sources on Carthage's military. What I want to fucking know about is what would happen if Hamilcar of Carthage won the Battle of Himera, which you evidently don't seem to care about. So please, stop talking about that, and start talking about this. If not, then goodbye, and do not expect any further discussion on the usage of the word "mercenary" to describe the Carthaginian army.
Ease back
 
Top