WI: Second Punic war ends in a draw?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

I've been having the idea of the second Punic war ending in a draw that leads to Cold war between Rome and Carthage similar to the Byzantines and the Sassanids along with both sides taking decisions to get the upper hand leading in innovations in military technology.

Thoughts? Plausible?
 
Anyway, at the end of the second punic war, there was no longer any kind of balance of power between Rome and Carthage. Rome snatched carthaginian possessions in Spain, and was much stronger.

In fact, Rome was already fundamentally much stronger than Carthage at the beginning of the second punic war. If Rome was able to resist to the stunning victories won by Hannibal in the years 218/216, it is because its human military ressources were without equal. That's even the main reason why Rome conquered the whole mediterranean world. It could theoretically mobilize up to 700000 men (250000 roman citizens ans 500000 italian allies).

So Rome could lose 50000 men in Cannae in 216 or in Arausio in 105. It could quite easily replace them. Rome had the means to suffer the defeats inflicted because of incompetent generals while the other powers did not have these means. Even with one of the best generals of all times, Carthage had no room for error.

Before Hannibal suffered his first and only defeat on the field, that's to say before Zama, Carthage had already lost the war. That is why Scipio, before the battle, proposed peace conditions that were as harsh as they came out to be after the battle. Scipio wanted his glorious great victory agains Hannibal in a pitched battle and he knew he had the advantage. So he wanted Carthage to bet one last time on its genious general in order to be the one who had defeated Hannibal, the man which had terrorized the roman people as nobody had ever done and would never do again before Attila.

And I wonder what could be technological innovations in the military field. Tactical innovations, yes I can see.

Hannibal was the best tactician of his time. But when young Scipio matured and became able to equal the master's tactical and strategic talents mixed with specifically roman tactical innovations, due to the organization of the troops (manipular tactics) and not to an improvement of the material, the roman army became better than anything Hannibal could get.

So if there had been a third punic war, it would certainly have ended the same way as our third punic war ended.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Than could you instead prevent the second war and go straight to cold war?
 
Than could you instead prevent the second war and go straight to cold war?

wasn't the Cold war caused by MAD, (Mutual Assured Destruction)? In history class I was taught that the Soviets and the Americans didn't go to war because each side had enough nuclear weapons to blow each other to bits even if one had launched all of theirs first.
 
wasn't the Cold war caused by MAD, (Mutual Assured Destruction)? In history class I was taught that the Soviets and the Americans didn't go to war because each side had enough nuclear weapons to blow each other to bits even if one had launched all of theirs first.

Well obviously its not going to be anything like our Cold War..

I think what he means is, more of a "neither side can crush the other" scenario.

Anyway, I already shared my thoughts in a pm. I might post it here if its fine with you Soverihn, just to see what the others think.
 

Deleted member 67076

Well obviously its not going to be anything like our Cold War..

I think what he means is, more of a "neither side can crush the other" scenario.

Anyway, I already shared my thoughts in a pm. I might post it here if its fine with you Soverihn, just to see what the others think.
Basically that. A Byzantine-Sassanid Scenario comes to mind.

Slydessertfox, you can post it here, I don't mind
 
Basically that. A Byzantine-Sassanid Scenario comes to mind.

Slydessertfox, you can post it here, I don't mind
Righteo.


Hmm. A Second Punic War ending a la the first Punic War basically, except with Rome not getting anything in return like how they got Sicily? Interesting. I'm not sure Rome would go for it, but it might work. The POD might have to be Hannibal doesn't invade Italy. But then you have the problem of Rome's original plan: Invade Spain and North Africa simultaneously. Have that fail (The Romans never did have any good luck invading North Africa until Scipio) and have the invasion of Spain fail (Hannibal should be able to take care of that) and then you still have the problem of what Hannibal's going to do next. Unless of course, you have Hannibal die in battle or in some freak accident after crushing the Roman forces.

Then you might still have the problem of the Romans just pushing on anyway after raising a new army. You could just have the war go on and on like the first punic war, except have the battleground be Spain instead of Sicily. Carthage would have to wise up and build a large navy again though, to prevent more invasions of North Africa. That's the best way I see it going.

Or of course, you can have an entirely different Second Punic War (or none at all until much later) by simply not having the Romans seize Sardinia in Corsica in 237, and thus not creating large anti-Roman resentment in Carthage and especially in Hamilcar and the Barcas, as this was a direct violation of the treaty established that ended the First Punic War. Prior to the second Punic war, seeing a Punic merchant in Rome was not all that uncommon, so it's not like the Romans absolutely despised everything Punic and all Punic people. Of course again, Carthage needs to rebuild its navy, and that itself might spark a war later. Spain would also be important for their economy (it was a good replacement for Sicily in terms of wealth) and that could be used to finance their shipbuilding.

Carthage would still have the problem of not being a militaristic society, so you would need them to have a stream of talented generals able to control a vast array of different cultures and languages and styles of fighting present in their army. All in all, I can see something like this playing out if the cards are played right by both sides. This area isn't my strongest point however, so I suggest creating a thread about it to see what other people think and see if they give you some ideas.
 
Top