WI Hannibal Barca was Emperor of Carthage

There is much evidence to argue that the Carthaginian Senate contributed as much to its defeat in the Punic Wars as did the Romans. Their senate purposefully withheld resupply and reinforcements from Hannibal Barca while on his famous campaign through Italy. What if the Carthaginian Republic was replaced by a monarchy under the Barcid Dynasty. With a unified strategy and the availability of the Empire's entire resources, could Hannibal have defeated Rome and established Carthage as the preeminent power in the Mediterranean?

I see the most likely POD as being a coup d'etat led by Hannibal's father Hamilcar Barca following the Mercenary War. Popular discontent aimed at the senate for their misconduct during the First Punic War and their inability to handle the mercenary crisis would allow Hamilcar, backed by his loyal and victorious army, to march on Carthage itself and reorganize its government. What sort of institutional changes would have to be made to enable Hamilcar, Hannibal and their successors to forge a stronger Carthaginian Empire? Could this involve adopting Roman style emergency conscription for citizens? Abolishing child sacrifice? The complete annihilation of the senate?
 
No matter who ruled it, Carthage was doomed to lose. The common notion of the Punic Wars as a battle between the superpowers, to decide who would dominate the Mediterranean, is profoundly erroneous. Roman had a far larger population base, an efficient system of mobilization, and a political leadership that was willing to fight to the last man. Carthage meanwhile, was a commercial power, dependent on mercenary troops, lacking any large reserves of manpower, with a political leadership that was weak and unreliable. No matter how brilliant a general Hannibal was, Carthage was outclassed on every level.
 
That's exactly the point of this thread. An early "revolution" in the political, social and economic make of Carthaginian society could alleviate all or some of the chronic problems you listed. That and Hamilcar specifically began his conquest of Iberia to counter the manpower discrepancy. It is undeniable that Hannibal came closer than anyone since the Gauls to conquering Rome, if he had but a few extra tools, such as the resources of a unified empire under his kingship, he could have reformed the military to the point of making it much more superior, and less based on mercenaries.

Consider the example of Alexander. If Macedonia had been a republic that concentrated on consolidating its gains in Greece, could Alexander have conquered Asia with mercenaries and a few loyal citizen/volunteers? No, but as king he marshaled the full strength of his country to do what most thought impossible. If Hannibal possessed those same resources and authority, he could have done the "impossible" and defeated Rome.
 
No matter who ruled it, Carthage was doomed to lose. The common notion of the Punic Wars as a battle between the superpowers, to decide who would dominate the Mediterranean, is profoundly erroneous. Roman had a far larger population base, an efficient system of mobilization, and a political leadership that was willing to fight to the last man. Carthage meanwhile, was a commercial power, dependent on mercenary troops, lacking any large reserves of manpower, with a political leadership that was weak and unreliable. No matter how brilliant a general Hannibal was, Carthage was outclassed on every level.

That isn't quite true. Roman manpower was probably only slightly greater than Carthage's; Rome + Italy had far greater manpower than Carthage. And therein lies the key to defeating Rome. Hannibal's problem was that he was not a great statesman, a great general and a great leader of men, yes, but not a great statesman. He could not persuade his Greek allies to contribute significant manpower for his armies. Capua alone could have supplied at least 30000 soldiers, soldiers he could have used to besiege Rome while his cavalry could protect his supply lines. Rome could raise more men than Hannibal could from just south Italy, but Rome could not use all of that manpower because Hannibal had cavalry advantage and therefore he could disrupt Roman supply lines if Rome brought a huge army to overwhelm his siege. Greek cities of Magna Graecia were populous and could have easily given him more than enough soldiers to reduce loyal Latin cities one by one. All he had to was to move from the nearest city to the next, using his allies to besiege while he would use his veteran army to defeat any attempts to relieve. Sack dozen important Roman allied cities, it's possible that the Latins abandon Rome.
 
There is much evidence to argue that the Carthaginian Senate contributed as much to its defeat in the Punic Wars as did the Romans. Their senate purposefully withheld resupply and reinforcements from Hannibal Barca while on his famous campaign through Italy. What if the Carthaginian Republic was replaced by a monarchy under the Barcid Dynasty. With a unified strategy and the availability of the Empire's entire resources, could Hannibal have defeated Rome and established Carthage as the preeminent power in the Mediterranean?

I see the most likely POD as being a coup d'etat led by Hannibal's father Hamilcar Barca following the Mercenary War. Popular discontent aimed at the senate for their misconduct during the First Punic War and their inability to handle the mercenary crisis would allow Hamilcar, backed by his loyal and victorious army, to march on Carthage itself and reorganize its government. What sort of institutional changes would have to be made to enable Hamilcar, Hannibal and their successors to forge a stronger Carthaginian Empire? Could this involve adopting Roman style emergency conscription for citizens? Abolishing child sacrifice? The complete annihilation of the senate?

The best, the most plausible scenario would be to keep everything, but for Carthage to have an elite force of marines, which would enable her to preserve her thassalocracy in the 1st war. This would be actually easy to imagine. Syracuse was a master of boarding tactics, and that was how Dionysius' navy contended with superior numbers of Carthage. What if, in the aftermath of Dionysian wars, Carthage decides to rectify her naval weakness by forming elite units of marines to offset Greek advantage in melee combat? So when the 1st punic war arrives, Roman marines do not kick Carthaginian marines' butts, and therefore superior Carthaginian seamanship proves decisive. Without a navy, Rome had zero chance of defeating Carthage.
There is an even easier scenario. If Rome had lost her last fleet to an accident while in route to battle, then Rome had to sue for peace. She absolutely had no means to create another fleet after another disaster that would sent 50000+ to watery grave. Her allies were close to revolting, and she had to resort to forced loans to raise that last fleet. With that gone, there would be no more money or will from her allies to create another fleet. Without that fleet to intercept reinforcements, Hamilcar would have enough manpower to kick Rome out of Sicily. Hamilcar was a genious soldier, the best of 1st punic war, and there was no Sciopio to match him.
 
If Rome is thwarted then in the long term the next rising power is likely to emerge in Gaul.

Gaul was highly disunited and did not gain any measure of sophistication for hundreds of years after the Punic Wars. The titanic struggle between Rome and Carthage, in hindsight, decided which power would eventually become the masters of the Mediterranean. A decisive Carthaginian victory and conquest of Rome/Italy would put Carthage in control of North Africa, Iberia and Italy. In OTL Rome began its empire-building in a similar fashion, by securing control of the western mediterranean before its forays into Greece and the East. Carthaginian expansion would likely follow a somewhat similar pattern to OTL Roman expansion. In Classical Antiquity, no northern barbarian peoples stood a chance against any of the well developed, highly populated societies in the Mediterranean basin.
 
Gaul was highly disunited and did not gain any measure of sophistication for hundreds of years after the Punic Wars. The titanic struggle between Rome and Carthage, in hindsight, decided which power would eventually become the masters of the Mediterranean. A decisive Carthaginian victory and conquest of Rome/Italy would put Carthage in control of North Africa, Iberia and Italy. In OTL Rome began its empire-building in a similar fashion, by securing control of the western mediterranean before its forays into Greece and the East. Carthaginian expansion would likely follow a somewhat similar pattern to OTL Roman expansion. In Classical Antiquity, no northern barbarian peoples stood a chance against any of the well developed, highly populated societies in the Mediterranean basin.

In the hundred years leading up to the Gallic Wars in the 50's BCE, Gaul was undergoing a steady process of political development and urbanization. Gaulish cities had strongly built stone walls, were connected to one another by a complex road system that spanned western and northern Europe, and were centres of trade and industry, and in particular, the Aedui tribe's capital of Bibracte (outside of modern Autun) was believed to have held up to 50,000 inhabitants. Not to mention that Gaul was rich in natural resources, such as gold, silver, lead, tin, and iron, and had been mining them on a vast scale for hundreds of years.

Both the Greeks and the Romans had started to adopt Celtic armour and weaponry from perhaps the Third Century BCE onwards. Chainmail is a Celtic invention. The Scutum shields of the Romans was adopted from the Italian Celts, while the similarly oval-shaped Greek Thureos shields introduced by the Galatians (Central Turkey) and the Scordisci (Serbia). The Romans would also employ the Coolus and Montefortino-style helmets, also variations of the Celts headgear.

Tribes like Arverni (Vercingetorix), the Aedui (Roman allies for the most part, whom were governed by a republican style form of government), and the Belgae, composed of powerful forces such as the Remi, the Bellovacae, and the Atrebates, all led throngs of smaller vassal tribes. In Gaul, these would be the main players. Without Rome present, whose to say that one of them wouldn't have surpassed its origins?!

If Rome was eliminated before the Second Century BCE, the Boii (Bononia) and Insubre (Milan) tribes of northern Italy would have taken advantage of the local power vaccuum. The Boii originated from what would later become Bohemia, and were one of the prominent Italian-based Celtic nations whom assisted Hannibal against the Roman Republic. If Hannibal succeeded in his labour, the Boii could have remained Carthage's main ally in Italy. The Insubres were allies and possibly once a branch of the Aedui.

Celtic warriors had been employed by Mediterranean cultures such as the Greek city states, Romans, Carthaginians, Hellenistic Seleucid Syrians, Ptolemaic Egyptians, Macedonians, Epirotes (from Epirus/Albania), Pergamum (western Turkey), and Pontus (eastern Turkey). They possessed top-notch wargear, and despite popular misconceptions, were actually well-disciplined soldiers.
 
Last edited:
While Carthage was a large urban centre with a huge population composed of Phoenicians, Puno-Libyans, Berbers, Greeks, Celts, Iberians, and Black Africans, the actual citizen body of Carthage, being the Phoenicians, was rather small in contrast to the various ethnic groups whom resided in their territory. Carthage had the same problem as Athens in that citizenship was mostly hereditary, and unlike the Roman Republic, which recognized the children of freed slaves as citizens, and awarded Roman citizenship to allies and auxilliaries, would draft its urban populace into the navy or the army, but never gave them the benefits of citizenship.

If Hannibal's mission was successful and Rome was sacked, and its inhabitants were killed or carted off into slavery, that would put Carthage back on the map almost instantly. The ships of the Roman navy would be quickly confiscated, and Carthage, seeing the lack of clear authority in both Italy and Sicily, would try to assert its military and economic hegemony over the surviving city-states, but with the lack of a large and devoted citizen body resembling the one that Rome enjoyed, there will not be many conquests.

With Rome gone, the Samnite League might try to reclaim its past glories in Italy.

The Hellenistic kingdom of Epirus, the home country of King Pyrrhus, might try to finish the job of invading southern Italy for him.

If Syracuse isn't destroyed by Rome first, it could become the potential rival for Carthage in its attempts to regain the eastern part of Sicily.

The Celtic Boii tribe in northern Italy might retain its friendship with Carthage as it gains its strengh to subdue the other tribes south of the Alps, and may eventually establish a powerful state.

One of the main confederations or tribal alliances in Gaul could achieve supremacy over its rivals, and unite the country by the beginning of the First Century CE.

Likewise, the tribes of the Lusitani or the Celtiberians in Spain could later challenge the colonies of Carthage in the south.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Carthage lacked the means to achieve the expansion of Rome if they were victorious. That is why this thread is not a simple "WI Hannibal Won". My theory is if there was an earlier political, social and military revolution in Carthaginian society than could Carthage harness its true potential in the way that Rome did in OTL. Having fought the Romans extensively in the First Punic War could Hamilcar Barca have emulated some of their successful policies after his coup d'etat in Carthage. If he successful reformed the citizenship situation in Carthage, reformed the military into a powerful, well manned citizen army like that of Rome's than Carthage could have continued expanding. By carefully and deliberately extending Carthaginian citizenship first to the Africans, then Iberians and eventually Italians, the Carthaginian Empire would possess a huge reserve of soldier-citizens to carry out wars of expansion. I'm talking about a sort of Marian reforms for Carthage before or during Hannibal's reign.
 
What if Hamilcar conciliates the Mercenaries by granting them Carthaginian citizenship then leads a takeover of Carthage? That might set the stage: fight for us and you get citizenship. As citizens they all get to share some in the benefits of the trading...

I am not an expert on that period, so is that feasible?
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Carthage lacked the means to achieve the expansion of Rome if they were victorious. That is why this thread is not a simple "WI Hannibal Won". My theory is if there was an earlier political, social and military revolution in Carthaginian society than could Carthage harness its true potential in the way that Rome did in OTL. Having fought the Romans extensively in the First Punic War could Hamilcar Barca have emulated some of their successful policies after his coup d'etat in Carthage. If he successful reformed the citizenship situation in Carthage, reformed the military into a powerful, well manned citizen army like that of Rome's than Carthage could have continued expanding. By carefully and deliberately extending Carthaginian citizenship first to the Africans, then Iberians and eventually Italians, the Carthaginian Empire would possess a huge reserve of soldier-citizens to carry out wars of expansion. I'm talking about a sort of Marian reforms for Carthage before or during Hannibal's reign.

I'm not sure that such sweeping reforms could be implemented so fast, unless Hamlicar completely decapitates Carthaginian society in his coup. Imagine the reaction the elites would have to radically expanding citizenship.
 
What if Hamilcar conciliates the Mercenaries by granting them Carthaginian citizenship then leads a takeover of Carthage? That might set the stage: fight for us and you get citizenship. As citizens they all get to share some in the benefits of the trading...

I am not an expert on that period, so is that feasible?

It would be a major upheaval for a very traditional and community-ruled society...that until not so long ago crucified unsuccessful generals, for example, and exiled overly-successful politicians.

But it's a timeline I'd love to see if done right.
 
Hannibal would have to completely overthrow the Carthaginian Senate, and use his army to help him establish himself as a permanent monarch. In eliminating many of the ruling families of Carthage, all the important administrative positions would be filled out by his brothers, in-laws and subordinate officers. As an incentive for the further help from his mercenaries, Hannibal would have to promise them land grants in Tunisia and Sicily, creating the origins of a new military caste loyal to him and his family. It may not be a strictly Phoenician society after this event, unless those former mercs in some way assimilate themselves to the local culture over time.

Hannibal apparently had Iberian ancestry on his mothers side, which earned his father Hamalcar some criticism in his time. Hannibal could have encouraged large numbers of Iberians to settle in and around Carthage, to counter balance the dominant Phoenician aristocracy.
 
If Hamilcar marched on Carthage after defeating the mercenaries, or gaining their allegiance, it would be like Caesar's march on Italy except with no Pompey or other Carthaginian general/army to oppose him. With complete martial control of the city he really could decapitate the entrenched aristocracy which hindered Carthage's success. By consolidating his position and establishing a monarchy under the Barcid Dynasty, the chronic problems that plagued the Carthaginian war effort could be relieved. Imagine how much more effective Hannibal's campaign in Italy could be if his entire nation and its many armies were unified in their support of King Hannibal I.
 
I was thinking that Hannibal's coup d'etat in Carthage would be more successful if this happened after his sack of Rome. That way once he returns, the people would be more supportive of the new regime. And many of Hannibal's troops would be die-hard loyalists, so he would use them to keep a presence in the city. And any other mercenary contingents could be bought off with some of the wealth looted from Rome.
 
Last edited:
An idea

Interestingly enough, I've given this some thought as well. I am BY NO MEANS an expert on this period, but it seems that the difference in population really means a huge difference in the number of people with a stake in the victory.

Perhaps if Carthage borrowed the Dictator tradition from Rome and appointed Hamilcar for, say, 3 years as dictator to deal with the troubles post-Fist Punic War, he could have recognized the threat and opend up Cathaginian citizenship to the other Phonecian cities in the area as a start. If that gains some obvios benefits, then use citizenship to co-op some of the LIbyan communities.

May not be realistic, but then again...
 
Interestingly enough, I've given this some thought as well. I am BY NO MEANS an expert on this period, but it seems that the difference in population really means a huge difference in the number of people with a stake in the victory.

Perhaps if Carthage borrowed the Dictator tradition from Rome and appointed Hamilcar for, say, 3 years as dictator to deal with the troubles post-Fist Punic War, he could have recognized the threat and opend up Cathaginian citizenship to the other Phonecian cities in the area as a start. If that gains some obvios benefits, then use citizenship to co-op some of the LIbyan communities.

May not be realistic, but then again...

I can't imagine why the Carthaginians would consciously adopt what was institutionally a Roman political practice. Plus after the First Punic War, Carthage's economy was crippled by having to pay war indemities to Rome. Because the mercenary companies were pissed that Carthage couldn't come up with the coin to buy them off, they began to rebel. Rome in that time took advantage the conflict to send troops to secure the Carthaginian colonies of Sardinia and Corsica.
 
Top