Costa e Silva
Caudilho
About technology i completely agree with you...
Kal-el's Unit Concept Sketches
- Thread starter Kal-el
- Start date
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
certainly some interesting veiw points there...
I still like the idea of thier military turning out to be light and manueverable though...
I still like the idea of thier military turning out to be light and manueverable though...
Phoenician culturte is hardle unique, its influenced by just about evey other culture in the regiuon, and by the 4th century BC, the only thing Phoenican abotu carthage was the language, and religion, everything else had gone Greek
Germanic invasions would come anyway, the only difference is, Rome would be expanding to encomss all the med. sea not taken by carthge, and all of Europe
this assumes they would still have control of the straight of Gibralter, somthing I for one doubt would last considering the Spanish natives didnt like them, and niether did the natives of marutuania, both of which help Rome in the Punic wars
in a future with an Indipendent Carthage there is no garuntee Christianity would arise either
I doubt it, considering that monarchies arose in the first place because of the power gap left by the fall of the western portion of the Roman empire, a void filled by local cheifs, and slowlly grew into a real monarchy- if Carthage survived, its likell that the oligarchin, and Republic ideal the citizens held in terms of government would have stayed with carthage, as the citizens were violentlly opposed to restoration of the carthaginian monarchy
doubtful at best, Sicilly yes, they would shoot for it, but mainland Italy? no that lso assumes therte would be a war equivlient to a world war at all, not very likelly either I might add
that assumes alot, like colonies ever got a precedent for freedom in the first place, lets take an example fo another power, abotu what it in all likelyness would have done in the new world- lets say Roma established colonies in the new world, now lets take a look at the basic method of Roman colonial responsibility- we see that colonies dont get a precedent for indiependence, but it is in fact a direct stepping stopn for full incopreration, and citizenship of a territory intot he Roman goverment, now lets look at carthage- we see that colonies are basically an area founded by Carthaginian citzens, overseeing, rather harshlly, the local population, but under no means were the colonies ever given even a hint of indipendence... if Rome, or carthage had survived the is no reason to think they would have started letting the colonies go free, in fact I doubt it, and I for one think colonies would eventually become fully incorperated parts of the empire for most of the ancient empires
the tech development in arms for carthage is simple- yes it would be light, yes it would be manuverable- why?
simple, carthage is a maritime power, and if tey had survived, unless they were pushed inland, would have continued to be a maritime power- and so would have developed land units to help take even more advantge from it... to be honest, I dont see modern UK forces being at all out of the question for a basic frame of units
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Some Possible Civilpedia entries...For units and the alternate universe civilizations they belong to...
Knight of Anubis/Anubis Guardsman
Attack: 2 Defense: 5 Movement: 1
The ancient Egyptian peoples had long held a sacred belief in an afterlife. One of the prime responsibilities of the priesthood was to oversee the mummification process for the nobility and the wealthy.
Threwout history, these priests were never a target in war, for it was believed to harm a priest was to anger the gods that priest served.
This changed in the year 650 A.D. with the coming of Islam. Not only were the priests a target, but they were often a priority for the invaders.
Therefore, a specially trained armored corps was created to protect the priests, temples, and other holy sites sacred to the Egyptians.
The result was the Knights of Anubis, an order of armored warriors whose patron diety was Anubis, Judge of the dead.
Orginally the Knights of Anubis guarded only holy sites, but eventually was given the responsibility of guarding all of Egypt from foreign invaders.
The Knights of Anubis were unsurpassed as defensive units until gunpowder dominated the battlefield, and a medival Egyptian tradition and cultural icon sadly took its place in the annals of history.
Knight of Horus
Attack: 5 Defense: 2 Movement: 3
In the constrast to the Knights of Anubis, the Knights of Horus were fierce, offensive warriors dedicated to punishing those who would attack and kill the Egyptian peoples.
Which armor made to resemble that of a falcon, the Knights of Horus much resembled their patron diety, the Egyptian God of Vengeance, Horus.
First deployed in 578 A.D. against barbarians from the north, the Knights of Horus quickly became a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield.
The Knights were used even moreso after Islam began spreading into Africa, and the Knights were forced to defend their country against increasing agressive foreignors.
The Knights of Horus remained a fierce opponent on the battlefield even after firearms began to dominate the field, and didn't dissapear until all armor and melee weapons went obsolete in the 18th century with the coming of the Rifle.
Knight of Anubis/Anubis Guardsman
Attack: 2 Defense: 5 Movement: 1
The ancient Egyptian peoples had long held a sacred belief in an afterlife. One of the prime responsibilities of the priesthood was to oversee the mummification process for the nobility and the wealthy.
Threwout history, these priests were never a target in war, for it was believed to harm a priest was to anger the gods that priest served.
This changed in the year 650 A.D. with the coming of Islam. Not only were the priests a target, but they were often a priority for the invaders.
Therefore, a specially trained armored corps was created to protect the priests, temples, and other holy sites sacred to the Egyptians.
The result was the Knights of Anubis, an order of armored warriors whose patron diety was Anubis, Judge of the dead.
Orginally the Knights of Anubis guarded only holy sites, but eventually was given the responsibility of guarding all of Egypt from foreign invaders.
The Knights of Anubis were unsurpassed as defensive units until gunpowder dominated the battlefield, and a medival Egyptian tradition and cultural icon sadly took its place in the annals of history.
Knight of Horus
Attack: 5 Defense: 2 Movement: 3
In the constrast to the Knights of Anubis, the Knights of Horus were fierce, offensive warriors dedicated to punishing those who would attack and kill the Egyptian peoples.
Which armor made to resemble that of a falcon, the Knights of Horus much resembled their patron diety, the Egyptian God of Vengeance, Horus.
First deployed in 578 A.D. against barbarians from the north, the Knights of Horus quickly became a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield.
The Knights were used even moreso after Islam began spreading into Africa, and the Knights were forced to defend their country against increasing agressive foreignors.
The Knights of Horus remained a fierce opponent on the battlefield even after firearms began to dominate the field, and didn't dissapear until all armor and melee weapons went obsolete in the 18th century with the coming of the Rifle.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I agree.
I think that they would significantly adopt Rome's culture, considering the nearby proximity of the large Roman empire (Carthage adopted Greek culture during their wars with Syracuse). This includes the adoption of Roman culture in many ways. I've used the comparison to Byzantine, and I think that seems to be logical.
That's an interesting point. While I'm not sure that Carthage could regain their lands in Spain, I don't doubt that colonial expansion overseas would have taken place. I don't think Spain would disapear as an entity, but I wonder how the expansion of islam would take place, with a major road block on the West coast of Africa.
Carthage does have a major disadvantage over Venice and Byzantine commercially. Although they are in a fairly central location, trade with Europe would still head to Venice (although Carthage would probably be the center of trade in Africa). Because of this, the Rennesance can still take place in Venice, and world history doesn't have to be dramatically effected by Carthage existing. The reason I thought of that was because of the discovery of the New World, which can also still happen the way it is supposed to. Carthage, like most other Western nations, would have been sailing to the East Indies, but Carthage can now head west. I expect them to have treated the new world much the way France did (Not intending to occupy the new world, but use it as a place for trade). Depending on where they settled, I expect them to have clashed with some other European power at some point and have used a significant amount of Native American soldiers to help their limmited amount of own troops (assuming the style of Carthage continues).
I think your assuming Rome lost the Punic Wars. I'm going on the assumption that the third Punic War never happened. Although Carthage could get bullied around by Numidian tribes (They were not allowed to fight in Africa without Rome's permission), they could continue to grow wealthy through trade. As Rome's power weakened, it had less and less power to stop Carthage from making war, which it did to regain African land that was lost to them. Rome would still have controlled most of the territory they actually controlled (just not the peninsula Carthage was on). I think they could have been as religious as any where else, or just as likely not very religious. I'm going to believe that they didn't become Muslim, but they would have had to constantly fight Islam from Egypt.
I think Carthage would have continued to hire Mercenaries. Britian hired Hessian Mercenaries in the American Revolution, so it isn't an uncommon thing during this time period. Although more and more troops would be of Carthaginian origin as time progressed, a significant portion would be African troops living in Carthage's growing territory.
How could they have no side, yet invade italy? I think they would have been like most other European powers during the time period. They would settle African lands like they owned it, and I'm sure they would also go after land in China, India, etc. It is possible that they stayed out of the Napoleonic War, but it is very difficult to stay out of making an alliance before World War I. I don't know who they would make an alliance with, but they don't necessarily have to fight on the same side in the Second World War. Its possible that they didn't get much out of supporting the allies in the first war (like Italy, which, although part of the victorious side, was not among the major powers during peace negotiation). With the Great Depression hitting America, the whole world, including Carthage would get dragged down, but I don't think Carthage would suffer as much as Germany, and may not become facist (I definately don't think they'll become communist). Since this is leading towards the second World War as an allied member, its quite possible that they will head in that direction (which will have major impact on the war in Africa, although I think Carthage, like France, would loose to an invasion by Nazi Germany). They would obviously help with the allied invasion of Sicily and Italy (The actually allied invasion was launched from the region where Carthage once stood. I think it had some name having to do with Carthage as well).
I don't think this will happen at all. Carthage was known to be cruel to its colonies (forcing them to pay heavy tribute, so Carthage could support its army). Except for Uttica, no Carthaginian city could have walls, and had to depend entirely on Carthage for support. This doesn't sound like a nation that will allow its colonies to become free. I think it is more likely that their colonies would be lost to a foreign power, or rebel. They might even manage to keep some colonies.
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
interesting comparison, Im not sure I completely agree with it but I wont argue as we are going the same place...
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
Louis: I agree with you in general and you have point important things.
Only three answers:
1- About the second world war. I said that because i think that Carthage will be in no side... It would be rival of England, and wouldn't have intersting in Germany fast grow in power... I sayd that punics will invade Italy because i believe they would use the war scenario to get some "bite" in europe... Hehe
2- About religion i'm totaly with you... About my "Vitorian Britain" comparation, what i wanna mean is that Carthage would use same methods and system... Not the monarchy structure... Carthage will never had this...
3- About the colonies: The "centralization" was the central thing that i had point about what would need to change to Carthage don't fall... So, they will negociate with the colonies, because they would became more comercial and less oligarchy... At least i think they would make his own army, but i don't say that they would stop to hire mercenaries... The only thing i say is that they will have their own troops, they only hadn't before because their population wasn't large enough to make an armie...
Only three answers:
1- About the second world war. I said that because i think that Carthage will be in no side... It would be rival of England, and wouldn't have intersting in Germany fast grow in power... I sayd that punics will invade Italy because i believe they would use the war scenario to get some "bite" in europe... Hehe
2- About religion i'm totaly with you... About my "Vitorian Britain" comparation, what i wanna mean is that Carthage would use same methods and system... Not the monarchy structure... Carthage will never had this...
3- About the colonies: The "centralization" was the central thing that i had point about what would need to change to Carthage don't fall... So, they will negociate with the colonies, because they would became more comercial and less oligarchy... At least i think they would make his own army, but i don't say that they would stop to hire mercenaries... The only thing i say is that they will have their own troops, they only hadn't before because their population wasn't large enough to make an armie...
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
One more thing: You are right, they wouldn't be Facists or Comunists. They would be Liberalistic and commercial - like england...
I think Carthage will be very funny... Some kind of Portugal with no Spain to smash him...
About Spain, i'm with you... Would still have Spain, but not like we know, Because muslin will never get the south of Iberic Peninsul...
More: Carthage would certainly be enemy of muslin neighbors... So it would be really "damage" in commerce in comparation to Venezia and Eastern Rome... What would precipitad the mercantilism and the "discoveries"...
I think Carthage will be very funny... Some kind of Portugal with no Spain to smash him...
About Spain, i'm with you... Would still have Spain, but not like we know, Because muslin will never get the south of Iberic Peninsul...
More: Carthage would certainly be enemy of muslin neighbors... So it would be really "damage" in commerce in comparation to Venezia and Eastern Rome... What would precipitad the mercantilism and the "discoveries"...
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
But my start point was:
Kal-el, i think you could draw punic units, not only the "fictional", but the historical, to give to then some padron, because they are represented, always, with sensible diferences...
You could make a padron in shields and armour...
What do you think?
Thank you anyway...
Kal-el, i think you could draw punic units, not only the "fictional", but the historical, to give to then some padron, because they are represented, always, with sensible diferences...
You could make a padron in shields and armour...
What do you think?
Thank you anyway...
@Costa e Silva
A)I'm ready to debate quite a long while at the Carthies keeping anyterritory in spain, as in a realistic veiw, it just would not have happend
B)I agree with Louis, its FAR more feasible that the third Punic war would have just never happend then Carthage winnign the first two Punic wars
C)again, i doubt Carthage would go after Italy, for sinple fact its not profitable- it IS profitable to go after spain (or whoever cotrols it) so that they can gain sole control fo the precious straight of Gibrlater, gateway into the Medsea, and so in any post industrial European wars, I think that would have been the goal
D)Carthages Populatiom was more the large enough to make its own armies, with over 100,000 thousand people in the 4th century, riveiling Athens in size, it was the simple fact that the carthaginians did want to do the actual soldireing in there own defence which made them switch to mercenaries
A)I'm ready to debate quite a long while at the Carthies keeping anyterritory in spain, as in a realistic veiw, it just would not have happend
B)I agree with Louis, its FAR more feasible that the third Punic war would have just never happend then Carthage winnign the first two Punic wars
C)again, i doubt Carthage would go after Italy, for sinple fact its not profitable- it IS profitable to go after spain (or whoever cotrols it) so that they can gain sole control fo the precious straight of Gibrlater, gateway into the Medsea, and so in any post industrial European wars, I think that would have been the goal
D)Carthages Populatiom was more the large enough to make its own armies, with over 100,000 thousand people in the 4th century, riveiling Athens in size, it was the simple fact that the carthaginians did want to do the actual soldireing in there own defence which made them switch to mercenaries
immortals84
The Mark
Im not a computer animator but those are really cool, i need to get me a scanner.
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
A) I really don't wanna "debate" with you.
B) I never said no. And i don't wanna argue.
C) I disagree with you, and this point is not important to change the concept put in here.
D) Numbers are relative, it depends of contest... The point is: I know what population Carthage had, i put that the punics never reach 300 000, and i don't think that this is expressive against Rome - that hold all Italic peninsul in the time of the Second Punic War. Athens could have an armie to fight against other city, but they wouldn't make an armie to fight against Persia - Alexander had a 50 000 men armie.
But i'm sure that you will think that this is all bulls... so why you wanna argue? You know whats happen, and what would happen, so you don't deserve to listen my simple thoughts...
I will sayd again: I will not drive my words to you. Make the same move...
Please Louis, don't get me wrong, i like to point things about Carthage, but only to give more information to Kal-el, for who i am asking to do sketches of carthagians. I just don't wanna "scape" from the point, my prime objective is to convince Kal-el to draw the historical units to give then a "padronization".
B) I never said no. And i don't wanna argue.
C) I disagree with you, and this point is not important to change the concept put in here.
D) Numbers are relative, it depends of contest... The point is: I know what population Carthage had, i put that the punics never reach 300 000, and i don't think that this is expressive against Rome - that hold all Italic peninsul in the time of the Second Punic War. Athens could have an armie to fight against other city, but they wouldn't make an armie to fight against Persia - Alexander had a 50 000 men armie.
But i'm sure that you will think that this is all bulls... so why you wanna argue? You know whats happen, and what would happen, so you don't deserve to listen my simple thoughts...
I will sayd again: I will not drive my words to you. Make the same move...
Please Louis, don't get me wrong, i like to point things about Carthage, but only to give more information to Kal-el, for who i am asking to do sketches of carthagians. I just don't wanna "scape" from the point, my prime objective is to convince Kal-el to draw the historical units to give then a "padronization".
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
most of the history is beside the point regarding how the units will look...both of u have shown that they would be a maritime power....so in logical progression they would have land units that would support the navy...thus they would be light and manueverable
Right: cf. the 20th century forces of both Great Britain AND Japan.
-Oz
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
Perfect comparation Ozy. I had mentioned England, but Japan is well thinked too.
Costa e Silva
Caudilho
You're right Bobby.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
I think all of the hypothetical situations put forth, especially the ones of the Carthage in World War I & II fail to take into account other huge factors. I mean, Carthage's mere existence may have prevented these wars, and indeed some of the countries of Europe, from ever coming into existence in the first place.
Their existence was not a foregone conclusion.
This is especially true if Carthage had successfully managed to stand as a bulwark against Arab expansion into North Africa and ultimately into Iberia, think of the changes that would've made! A Spain without the Reconquista would have been very different and would have had dramatic influences on the rest of Europe as well, ultimately, on colonization in the Americas.
And since Rome would likely have taken over everything else in the Mediterrenean that Carthage didn't control, it would have expanded southward where the opposition was relatively weak. And sure, the policy of hiring mercenaries and not allowing fringe cities to have city walls may have been the choice when it actually existed, time would have revealed better or at least different strategies.... and if it meant costly defeats, then sobeit. And as Rome declined, Carthage could have been ready to snatch up areas it lost to Rome or areas it never held but which Rome could clearly no longer control.
You look at Carthage as though it would not change from the time of its demise. Like any nation, it would grow, develop, learn from past mistakes, or else be subdued either by Romans, Arabs, or any number of later conquerors.
Their existence was not a foregone conclusion.
This is especially true if Carthage had successfully managed to stand as a bulwark against Arab expansion into North Africa and ultimately into Iberia, think of the changes that would've made! A Spain without the Reconquista would have been very different and would have had dramatic influences on the rest of Europe as well, ultimately, on colonization in the Americas.
And since Rome would likely have taken over everything else in the Mediterrenean that Carthage didn't control, it would have expanded southward where the opposition was relatively weak. And sure, the policy of hiring mercenaries and not allowing fringe cities to have city walls may have been the choice when it actually existed, time would have revealed better or at least different strategies.... and if it meant costly defeats, then sobeit. And as Rome declined, Carthage could have been ready to snatch up areas it lost to Rome or areas it never held but which Rome could clearly no longer control.
You look at Carthage as though it would not change from the time of its demise. Like any nation, it would grow, develop, learn from past mistakes, or else be subdued either by Romans, Arabs, or any number of later conquerors.
... Actually, had Carthage survived (meaning Rome had not triumphed in the Punic Wars) then a "four-cornered" standoff might very well have ensued amonst Carthage, Rome, the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic Kingdoms ... Not a bad idea for a mod 
.
-Oz
.-Oz
not so fast- carthage surviveing ONLY means that the third Punic war never happend- not at all a far fetched idea actually, as even though ROme was itching for a fight, with out legal grounds, the senate couldnt ratify it- if Carthage hadnt broken its trewaty with rome (and that means humiliatinglly bowing down to the Numidians for a while) the third Punic war would not have happend
Similar threads
