WI: Romano-Punic Commonwealth

Suppose that, somehow, Rome and Carthage were united politically. Three conditions:

- It must not be done by conquest of one by the other.
- While absolute equality between the cities is not necessary, the weaker city should be relatively autonomous in its internal affairs, and have some say, however small, in the affairs of the polity as a whole. Compare to the Social Allies of Rome in Italy, but better off.
- Generally speaking, both cities should consider this arrangement to be acceptable under ordinary circumstances.

As for how this happens, thats the big question. The simplest explanation would probably be Alexander or Pyrrhus causing the two cities to strengthen their relations with each other. As it was, the two cities did have a treaty dealing with the possibility of an alliance against Pyrrhus.

So, lets play with this.
 
A commonwealth during this period just seems weird. At this point in history the only time I can think of different powers coming together are when they are all local and there is an external threat. Rome and Carthage have no real reason to join in union. Hell there is barely a practical reason for them not to be at war with another. The closest way I can see this is they are both conquered by the same power and then they rebel together and decide to stick it out with one another, and even then That's tough.
 
A commonwealth during this period just seems weird. At this point in history the only time I can think of different powers coming together are when they are all local and there is an external threat. Rome and Carthage have no real reason to join in union. Hell there is barely a practical reason for them not to be at war with another. The closest way I can see this is they are both conquered by the same power and then they rebel together and decide to stick it out with one another, and even then That's tough.
Maybe you could have an external threat- earlier steppe nomads sweeping through both Europe and North Africa? Or maybe a Celtic horde threatening both Rome and Carthage's Iberian holdings?
 

Rubicon

Banned
The Romans didn't even give citizens of other Italian cities the same rights as a Roman citizen, why the heck would they then do it with Carthage?
 
Maybe you could have an external threat- earlier steppe nomads sweeping through both Europe and North Africa? Or maybe a Celtic horde threatening both Rome and Carthage's Iberian holdings?

If both Rome and Carthage have Iberian holdings, that's already a problem. All that hypothetical would do is one of two things: cause one side to use it to their advantage against the other, or cause them to enter a temporary alliance a la how they did with Pyrrhus.
 
Maybe you could have an external threat- earlier steppe nomads sweeping through both Europe and North Africa? Or maybe a Celtic horde threatening both Rome and Carthage's Iberian holdings?

Its going to be hard to put Rome and Carthage as the same target, they have the entire Mediterranean separating them. If German hordes descended on Rome Carthage could easily say "Not our problem" and not be threatened in the least by said hordes
 
I think the way to do this is to avoid the Third Punic War and have Rome peacefully annex Carthage at some point for one reason or another. Maybe the POD can be to have Massinissa die earlier. Or it could be that the Carthaginians keep the "Popular" party that was more hawkish, more anti-Numidia and anti-Massinissa out of power. Or it could be that the treaty that ended the Second Punic War makes it explicit that Carthage cannot fight a war without Rome's approval indefinitely, rather than after the fifty year indemnity. And then maybe added on to one of these Rome has a tougher time subduing the Seleucid Empire, so finishing off Carthage isn't on the mind in 150 BC. However it's done, the effect should be to avoid the war that forced Carthage to rearm, and avoid as much as possible Rome being able to justify a war (although Rome was looking for ANY excuse to go to war at the time). Over time, Carthage becomes more and more reliant on Rome for protection and trade, until the time comes that Carthage votes for peaceful annexation. So kind of like Pergamum, except trickier to have happen because Carthage wasn't a monarchy. Ancient cities were largely self-governing anyways, so this settlement should fill your "relatively autonomous in internal affairs" requirement. Punic merchants were of course very wealthy, so within the empire maybe a few become prominent Roman citizens and maybe even senators - I'm thinking a situation like Arrian, who was a leading citizen of Athens and became consul. They'd be very Romanized Carthaginians, but it'd still be a (very small) Carthaginian voice in Roman government.

I admit, this is an unlikely scenario, but I think it's the most likely scenario that fits the parameters of the OP - ancient states of similar power and different cultures didn't merge, they fought. The alternative is to create a sort of two-city "league" like the Greek Achaean or Aetolian Leagues... except I can't imagine a scenario where there would be demand for such a thing. A threat that endangers both states might have the two become allies, but there wouldn't be any reason for the two to want to cooperate to the extent you desire after the war. I think it has to be a scenario where one city is overwhelmingly more powerful than the other and it becomes mutually beneficial for peaceful annexation.

On kind of an off topic note, I vaguely remember reading a summary of a book where Hannibal and Scipio teamed up to fight aliens. :D:rolleyes: Maybe that's the kind of threat needed for this to work! :p
 
As it happens, I've just been reading a general history of Carthage- so this is short on primary sources, but rich on Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

Well, in 280BC when Pyrrhus was threatening Rome the Senate came close to agreeing to peace. But in one of those great old Roman stories of defiance they listen to the old statesman Appius Claudius Caecus and decide to fight on.
But it was close.
That same year, the Carthaginians formally offer to intervene- supposedly they sent a fleet of 120 warships to Ostia to demonstrate they were serious. The Senate turned them down.

What if the peace faction is more powerful, so there's more pressure to accept outside assistance?
Let's say that stiffened by Punic support the Romans win at Ausculum (or wherever,) so Pyrrhus never gives his name to a pointless victory.
But, with the margin of victory so close the aftermath is much the same- Pyrrhus abandons Tarentum for Sicily.
This is bad enough for Carthage, especially as Pyrrhus's wife is the daughter of their old enemy Agathocles of Syracuse. They prevail upon Rome to help them defeat the Epirotes once and for all.
There was apparently another treaty in 279 between Rome and Carthage which mainly forbade either party from making a separate peace- ITTL it's stronger than that, and a couple of legions follow Pyrrhus to Sicily.
He never has the time to properly build up a Sicilian army and almost conquer Carthage's holdings on the island- let's say that eventually he's trapped in Syracuse when a Puno-Roman force comes over the walls.

Rome and Carthage don't immediately begin cooperating in everything, of course, but a consequence of all this is that Carthage now has unchallenged hegemony over all Sicily- so long as it keeps the grain flowing to Latium, there's not as much of a window for the Sicilian cities to play their traditional game of using powerful neighbors against each other. For the moment, Rome is happy with securing all of southern Italy.

Eventually this alliance will fall apart without a pressing external threat- let's say some kind of conflict with Macedon, maybe? Fleets landing mercenaries in Tunis and Tarentum, the need for Rome and Carthage to cooperate again.
This time the settlement allows greater access to each other's economy for traders, so there's less pressure to open up new markets in each others spheres.
And, yeah, I don't know what then.
 
The Romans didn't even give citizens of other Italian cities the same rights as a Roman citizen, why the heck would they then do it with Carthage?

Note that I did not say that they need to have the same rights as a Roman citizen. Just that they be somewhat better off than the social allies, or the Latin league members, etc.

As for the general point of the outside threat, chickpea's point about Pyrrhus is dead on. As I suggested in the opening proposition, Pyrrhus or Alexander would be the greatest potential threats to both Rome and Carthage. Such existential threats as the greatest leaders of their age could warp what we perceive as the natural progression of the political climate.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Note that I did not say that they need to have the same rights as a Roman citizen. Just that they be somewhat better off than the social allies, or the Latin league members, etc.
.
That part annoys me. Either write Latin allies or socii Latini. "social allies" would basicly mean allied allies.....

Now why the heck would the ruling class of Carthage agree to an unequal partnership with Rome? Doesn't make any sense.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Because they did. The Latins had Latin Right citizenship, which was not extended to the other allies in Italy until after the Social War.
You completly misunderstand me, Romans refered to their allies wheter Latin or Italic as socii latini, however yes Latin cities had more rights then other Italic citites, but the romans didn't care and refered to them all as socii latini.

Further on calling anything on the Italian peninsula social allies is just plain weird, if you feel an anal retentivness to distinguish between Latin allies, Italic allies and Greeks. Refer to them as that, but the problem is that most "Latins" had already gotten or were close to getting Roman citizenship by this point and the Romans kept refering to all their allies as socii latini.

And no the ius Latii was not extended to Italic allies after the Social war, instead those that had not supported the enemies of Rome were granted Roman citizenship, without having to go through the hoops of ius Latii, through two different laws (lex Iulia and Lex Plautia Papira).
 
As it happens, I've just been reading a general history of Carthage- so this is short on primary sources, but rich on Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

Well, in 280BC when Pyrrhus was threatening Rome the Senate came close to agreeing to peace. But in one of those great old Roman stories of defiance they listen to the old statesman Appius Claudius Caecus and decide to fight on.
But it was close.
That same year, the Carthaginians formally offer to intervene- supposedly they sent a fleet of 120 warships to Ostia to demonstrate they were serious. The Senate turned them down.

What if the peace faction is more powerful, so there's more pressure to accept outside assistance?
Let's say that stiffened by Punic support the Romans win at Ausculum (or wherever,) so Pyrrhus never gives his name to a pointless victory.
But, with the margin of victory so close the aftermath is much the same- Pyrrhus abandons Tarentum for Sicily.
This is bad enough for Carthage, especially as Pyrrhus's wife is the daughter of their old enemy Agathocles of Syracuse. They prevail upon Rome to help them defeat the Epirotes once and for all.
There was apparently another treaty in 279 between Rome and Carthage which mainly forbade either party from making a separate peace- ITTL it's stronger than that, and a couple of legions follow Pyrrhus to Sicily.
He never has the time to properly build up a Sicilian army and almost conquer Carthage's holdings on the island- let's say that eventually he's trapped in Syracuse when a Puno-Roman force comes over the walls.

Rome and Carthage don't immediately begin cooperating in everything, of course, but a consequence of all this is that Carthage now has unchallenged hegemony over all Sicily- so long as it keeps the grain flowing to Latium, there's not as much of a window for the Sicilian cities to play their traditional game of using powerful neighbors against each other. For the moment, Rome is happy with securing all of southern Italy.

Eventually this alliance will fall apart without a pressing external threat- let's say some kind of conflict with Macedon, maybe? Fleets landing mercenaries in Tunis and Tarentum, the need for Rome and Carthage to cooperate again.
This time the settlement allows greater access to each other's economy for traders, so there's less pressure to open up new markets in each others spheres.
And, yeah, I don't know what then.
Rome needs someway to cross the straits of Messana first. Pyrrhus at this stage does have a strong fleet of Greek sicilian allies, and they are going to be much better than Carthage at preventing a Roman crossing.



Monopolists idea is really the only plausible way to go about this. It would help also if you kill off Cato.
 
Top