The Carthage Thread

[reddishrecue]

Carthage had much more success commercially than militarily, so, no, I don't think they can be equated.

Their diplomacy and politics were also largely centered on advancing colonial and economic interests.

I find the overemphasis on Hannibal in some ways comparable with the "Tragic Indian" take on US history - the overfocus of Native history on Native American leaders who led valiant, sometime even successful in the short term, but ultimately doomed resistance to American expansion, as part of the "manifest destiny" of America. Hannibal's place in popular history (and Vercingetorix's, for that matter, among others) are essentially much the same reductive view of a tragic adversary who could not stop the destined rise of Our Empire (tm), just with Rome instead of America.

I guess you could agree that Hannibal was a barbarian to the Romans but to the Carthaginian he wasn't. It's part of that propaganda that Romans used to run against Carthage. Sort of like the US to the Indians and other adversaries it had.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Phoenicia can be focused on trade and science (representing the importance of the Phoenician alphabet in other languages, and how it spread via trade). The unique infrastructure could be a royal necropolis.

Carthage gets the Cothon and a militaristic focus.

I don't know about that. A royal necropolis does not feel very Phoenician to me and would be better suited towards someone like Egypt. The Cothon is Phoenician in origin anyways, considering the most famous one from Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The only other thing I could truly think of for them is something along the lines of a "Dye Industry".

I still think if people want a military focus, go the alternate leader route with a militaristic leader whose capital is Carthage, while also having trade/science focused leader from another city like Tyre.

Again, my point was never that we couldn't find a way to do Carthage separate from Phoenicia ; it was that Hannibal-land-military would not be a good representation of Carthage (1) and that I don't really see a need to separate Carthage from Phoenicia.

Hannibal focusing on recruiting mercenaries, whether it be land or naval, with the gold acquired from trading would be how I would do it.

 

[pokiehl]

A royal necropolis does not feel very Phoenician to me and would be better suited towards someone like Egypt

It’s a reference to this well known historical site in Byblos: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_necropolis_of_Byblos

There are other necropolises in Phoenician colonies as well—even as far flung as Spain.

The Cothon is Phoenician in origin anyways, considering the most famous one from Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The only other thing I could truly think of for them is something along the lines of a "Dye Industry".

Huh? A cothon is a harbor, not a colony. And of course Carthage itself was a colony. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The most famous cothon, as you’ve said, is Carthaginian. That another cothon exists elsewhere doesn’t make it less emblematic for Carthage anymore than the acropolis is for Greece.

Not sure where you’re going with “dye industry” there. Is that an actual building found in Phoenician sites or a gamefied representation of their dye trade? Either way it seems pretty banal… (and if it’s the latter, I prefer if infrastructure sticks to actual physical spaces that the civilization created, not approximations of concepts; the dye trade would be better represented in their ability or something)

Hannibal focusing on recruiting mercenaries, whether it be land or naval, with the gold acquired from trading would be how I would do it.

That would also be cool. I don’t think we have any mercenary-related civ abilities in Civ 6.

 

[Patine]

Either way it seems pretty banal

I find the notion of one-trick pony civ's based on focusing overly one or two things that are big in a pop culture history portrayal, and neglecting the rest, to be banal, myself. And, I'm pretty sure I'm not nearly alone among Civ players in that...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Huh? A cothon is a harbor, not a colony. And of course Carthage itself was a colony. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The most famous cothon, as you’ve said, is Carthaginian. That another cothon exists elsewhere doesn’t make it less emblematic for Carthage anymore than the acropolis is for Greece.

My point was that the Cothon is Phoenician in origin, and they were found all over the Phoenician world. I was referring to Carthage being the Phoenician colony. I think the Cothon is fine if you are having a singular Phoenician/Carthaginian civ.

Not sure where you’re going with “dye industry” there. Is that an actual building found in Phoenician sites or a gamefied representation of their dye trade? Either way it seems pretty banal… (and if it’s the latter, I prefer if infrastructure sticks to actual physical spaces that the civilization created, not approximations of concepts; the dye trade would be better represented in their ability or something)

It was the best alternative, in my opinion, to a Royal Necropolis if Phoenicia and Carthage were to be separate civs and Carthage got the Cothon.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I find the notion of one-trick pony civ's based on focusing overly one or two things that are big in a pop culture history portrayal, and neglecting the rest, to be banal, myself. And, I'm pretty sure I'm not nearly alone among Civ players in that...

You’re not the only one with that agreement, Patine

 

[reddishrecue]

If I remember correctly, in civ 1, some Carthaginian cities were in Rome. For example, Rome had Carthage as its third city but now with all the expansions they made Carthage out of Rome.

 

[Patine]

If I remember correctly, in civ 1, some Carthaginian cities were in Rome. For example, Rome had Carthage as its third city but now with all the expansions they made Carthage out of Rome.

That's an unusual way of viewing it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We could have the Pop History Carthage: big fleet, Hannibal and his elephant (because, for those not paying attention, he only got one elephant across the Alps, and from that the gaming industry has been running the poor beast ragged), The Anti-Rome as a motif.

Snooze Fest.

On the other hand, Carthage fought the Greeks in Sicily for centuries - far longer than they were engaged with Rome - on both land and sea, and from that conflict emerged the Carthage that relied almost exclusively on mercenary land troops and saved its own citizens for naval crews and defense of the city. And yes, Carthage used its naval domination of the western Mediterranean to keep anybody else out of the Spanish trade and any trading out on the Atlantic coasts, but Carthage also spent a lot of effort building up trading relationships with the Spanish tribes and cities and what in game terms would have to be called Tribal Huts and Barbarian Camps all down the African coast - trade that remained exclusive to them until their very end, and then apparently was never taken up by Rome or anyone else.

So first, to dispose of the elephants, as stated, Hannibal managed to get a single elephant into Italy, and it is not mentioned in any account of any of his battles there. On the other hand, the one time he used an actual 'corps' of elephants, at Zama, the Romans stampeded them back through his own army and crushed it. If Hannibal is still in some form of Carthaginian Valhalla, I suspect he's still cussing about those Perfidious Pachyderms or the Carthaginian equivalent.

The core of the Carthaginian land forces as they had developed from the Greek wars in Sicily were mercenaries, primarily Libyan/Numidian, Spanish and Gallic, but occasionally with some Greeks and possibly Macedonians mixed in (they may have been simply troops with Macedonian weapons and formations rather than actual Makedonai). That's just about every militant group in the western Mediterranean plus some, and from the accounts, under Hannibal and other Carthaginian leaders they gave as good or better account of themselves against the Romans as they did when fighting for themselves.

So, I suggest an Alternative to the Pop History Carthage:

Lose the Elephant. Instead, give Carthage the Unique Ability - derived from the current Barbarian Clans mechanic - to hire troops regularly from the Barbarian Camps, and also from City States and other Civs. Barbarian (NOT City State or other Civ) units get, say, bonus to their combat factors when fighting for Carthage. IF you also want a specifically Unique Unit for Carthage, it should not be the Pachyderm of Infamy, but Libyan Cavalry (light or heavy or a unit combining some of the attributes of both) with which Hannibal trapped and massacred the Roman Army at Cannae or, for a naval Unique, the Quadrireme, which they were one of the few naval forces to use at all.

Their other Unique set of abilities would be the ability to establish trade with not only other Civs and City States, but also Barbarian Camps somehow, representing their lucrative trade along the African coast for Gold and Ivory among other things, and their trade with the Spanish tribes for mineral resources like iron, copper, gold and silver.

I've already listed some 'alternative' Leaders for Carthage which could 'double-down' on the naval, trading, diplomatic or exploration side of the Carthaginian experience. Depending on which one(s) were picked, that would potentially give the gamer some variety of potential play with Carthage compared to simply crossing the mountains with an oversized pack animal.

 

[pokiehl]

If you’re referring to my posts, which it seems like you are, I never once suggested “elephants crossing mountains.”

The closest I came way suggesting a militaristic focus, which I was then attacked for as banal or boring or something, and now which you have also suggested

In fact I made the exact same argument about their extensive military history…

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If you’re referring to my posts, which it seems like you are, I never once suggested “elephants crossing mountains.”

The closest I came way suggesting a militaristic focus, which I was then attacked for as banal or boring or something, and now which you have also suggested

In fact I made the exact same argument about their extensive military history…

I was not referring to any individual or personal post on these Forums, but to the general popular view of Carthage, which revolves around, and generally ends with, Hannibal crossing the Alps and fighting the Romans.

A militaristic focus for Carthage is certainly possible, but, as has been remarked, a militaristic focus could be used for almost every civilization of the Mediterranean classical world, and Carthage has been cast as the Anti-Roman Military Civ for so long in some many different guises that I'd like to see something else, at least in part, emphasized for a change - like Carthage's extensive trade with Non-Civ, Non-City-State entities and, if a military emphasis must be included, her use of Mercenaries and cavalry rather than Hannibal's lonely elephant.

 

[AffineConstant]

I was not referring to any individual or personal post on these Forums, but to the general popular view of Carthage, which revolves around, and generally ends with, Hannibal crossing the Alps and fighting the Romans.

A militaristic focus for Carthage is certainly possible, but, as has been remarked, a militaristic focus could be used for almost every civilization of the Mediterranean classical world, and Carthage has been cast as the Anti-Roman Military Civ for so long in some many different guises that I'd like to see something else, at least in part, emphasized for a change - like Carthage's extensive trade with Non-Civ, Non-City-State entities and, if a military emphasis must be included, her use of Mercenaries and cavalry rather than Hannibal's lonely elephant.

Carthage was certainly far more associated with trade than Rome, at least as an intentional focus by the rulers. They had far less of a military tradition, thus the copious use of mercenaries. That the city was founded while searching for trade routes, and an opportunistic spot for a new city had been found and taken up by *someone* just helps solidify it should be the "trade" civ.

But then civs also get some of, a lot of, there stuff from specific leaders as well. One could give Augustus Ceasar (as he styled himself) something about building amenities and world wonders, as the man that came to a Rome of brick and left it a Rome of marble (as he boasted, in exaggerated fashion) would better represent. After all it was Augustus's boyfriend that did all the fighting for him in the lead up to crowning himself emperor, and after it was a relatively peaceful time in Roman history. So the same with Carthage should apply, Hamilcar the First was pretty militarily focused for much of his reign; while Hanno the Navigator on the other hand has an entire translated story about how how he was a great explorer looking for new trade routes.

Speaking of, an exploration based set of powers would be cool, I can't remember any leader/civ that especially seemed so as of yet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But then civs also get some of, a lot of, there stuff from specific leaders as well. One could give Augustus Ceasar (as he styled himself) something about building amenities and world wonders, as the man that came to a Rome of brick and left it a Rome of marble (as he boasted, in exaggerated fashion) would better represent. After all it was Augustus's boyfriend that did all the fighting for him in the lead up to crowning himself emperor, and after it was a relatively peaceful time in Roman history. So the same with Carthage should apply, Hamilcar the First was pretty militarily focused for much of his reign; while Hanno the Navigator on the other hand has an entire translated story about how how he was a great explorer looking for new trade routes.

That's why I made my design with alternate leaders in mind.

Speaking of, an exploration based set of powers would be cool, I can't remember any leader/civ that especially seemed so as of yet.

I mean the Maori and Norway do get early ocean access, and exploring is emphasized with Portugal along with their agenda, but I agree that there isn't a civ that gets inherent bonuses for exploring and discovering in Civ 6.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's why I made my design with alternate leaders in mind.

I mean the Maori and Norway do get early ocean access, and exploring is emphasized with Portugal along with their agenda, but I agree that there isn't a civ that gets inherent bonuses for exploring and discovering in Civ 6.

In the case of Carthage, the twist would be, perhaps, not a bonus for 'just' exploring and discovering, but for establishing some kind of trade with those they discovered - including even Barbarian Camps on the coast - almost immediately, which would be a useful model of their excursions down the African coast and the Atlantic coast of Spain and the Bay of Biscay (at least: whether they had regular trade with Cornwall and the British Isles is still debated because they might have worked through local 'middle men' and not actually sailed that far on a regular basis)

 

[reddishrecue]

The Carthaginians had such good ships that the romans found a Carthaginian ship abandoned and copied it's design. Romans later learned from Carthaginians how to use such good ships.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

For a last note on elephants, both general and specific:

The earliest evidence for Elephants as work animals is from the Harappan or Indus Valley civilization, around 2000 BCE.

The earliest evidence for elephants as war animals is much later, 550 - 540 BCE in the Magadha Kingdom of central - northern India and by the Derbices, a tribe living east of the Caspian Sea who used them against Cyrus the Great of Persia - and who got their elephants from India. A bit later, in 506 BCE the Ch'u state in southern China used elephants in battle. These were all Asian ("Indian") elephants, (Elephas maximus) which therefore have the longest history of working with humans (Note that since elephants are tamed and trained, but rarely bred in captivity except in modern zoos, they are not considered Domesticated like dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigs, or horses)

It isn't until about 326 BCE that there is any evidence for towers or 'howdahs' on the war elephants' backs: before that men simply sat astride the elephant's back with no protection or cover.

324 BCE Alexander the Great brings hundreds of elephants back to Babylon from India and the Diadochi ("Successors" - Seleucids, Lysimachids, etc) start using them in 'western' warfare by 321 BCE and with towers to protect the men on them by 317 BCE. Having no direct access to India, Ptolemaic Egypt starts using the North African elephant species a few years later.

Virtually everyone who could get their hands on them used elephants, including Pyrrhus of Epirus, who introduced them to Rome and the Italian states and, by 278 BCE, to Carthage, who also started catching North African elephants and training them, and had its own 'elephant corps' by 264 BCE.

The first evidence of elephant armor, in the form of large iron plates, doesn't appear until the first century BCE, in northwestern India.

By 500 CE the White Huns (Ephthalite) of Central Asia are said to have had over 2000 elephants in their armies, all obtained by trading with India.

By 1023 CE Mahmud of the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan has over 1300 elephants and among the missile weapons used by the elephant crews are 'naptha' grenades (incendiaries), In the same century the Khmer of (modern) Cambodia are using double-bow siege crossbows from elephant-back.

1388 CE saw the beginning of the end of elephants in battle when a charge by elephants was stopped by MIng Chinese gunpowder weapons firing in volleys - one of the first instances of the use of that technique with gunpowder firearms (the Chinese were already using volley firing with crossbows from multiple ranks)

And the first use of 'Gun Elephants'? what is a biggest gun possible to mount onto elephants back (including with howdah platforms). is it a jingal superheavy musket or any kind of field cannons or at least swivel guns of any kind?

And about an elephant duel between King Naret of Ayutthaya and Prince Mang Sam Kiat (?) of Hanthawaddy Kingdom? is it a last recorded (and confirmed) elephant duels (or did the duel itself romaticized by nationalist historian who read Romance of the Three Kingdoms too much?).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Carthaginians had such good ships that the romans found a Carthaginian ship abandoned and copied it's design. Romans later learned from Carthaginians how to use such good ships.

This is more of an indication of how backward the Romans were in naval architecture than how good the Carthaginians were. Yes, the Carthaginians apparently invented the Quadrireme as a fast, shallow-draft warship, but the bulk of their fleet in the Punic Wars (and the ship that was copied by the Romans) was Quinqueremes, invented by the Greeks (in Syracuse, Cathage's great rival in Sicily), and there's no indication that the Carthaginians innovated anywhere else in naval developments. They made very good use of what they had, but didn't spawn entirely new ships like the various polyremes and even Siege Ships like the Hellenistic kingdoms did.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is more of an indication of how backward the Romans were in naval architecture than how good the Carthaginians were. Yes, the Carthaginians apparently invented the Quadrireme as a fast, shallow-draft warship, but the bulk of their fleet in the Punic Wars (and the ship that was copied by the Romans) was Quinqueremes, invented by the Greeks (in Syracuse, Cathage's great rival in Sicily), and there's no indication that the Carthaginians innovated anywhere else in naval developments. They made very good use of what they had, but didn't spawn entirely new ships like the various polyremes and even Siege Ships like the Hellenistic kingdoms did.

I don't really understand why TWO developers chose Quadriremes? while Quinqueremes were more numerous in the First Punic War.

Is Quadrireme a 'Shock Polyreme' like Trireme or also 'Heavy' like Quinqueremes?
And what is an impetus why Diadochi kingdoms developed Super Polyremes bigger than the Six (Hexaremes), something neither Carthage nor Roma likes to do (The biggest Carthage have is Quinqueremes, The biggest of the Roman Republic was Deciremes, though Hexaremes were considered flagships rather than a generic 'Ships of the Line', smaller than Diadochi standards)?