The Carthage Thread

[Evie]

Not Classical Antiquity, but if we look at the sheer number of people, across history, whose endonym (self-given name) is some variant of words meaning "The People" or "The Real People" or "The Real Humans", that should make a pretty good starting point for it being a pretty common viewpoint.

 

[Patine]

Not Classical Antiquity, but if we look at the sheer number of people, across history, whose endonym (self-given name) is some variant of words meaning "The People" or "The Real People" or "The Real Humans", that should make a pretty good starting point for it being a pretty common viewpoint.

Exactly. And, even though, famously, Hellenes didn't mean that, Barbar (the root of barbarian) meant EVERYONE who WASN'T Hellenic or thoroughly Hellenized. Just like Yue meant something very similar to the Han in Chinese (and is often translated into English as, "barbarian").

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Please, North African elephant: there were two historical 'African' elephant species: Loxodonta africana, the 'bush' elephant from southern and central Africa, and the 'forest' elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) from the north coast to Ethiopia in Africa - that one is now extinct, having been used up in the Roman arenas by the 3rd - 4th centuries CE, but was used as a war elephant by both Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt (and, for an Alternate History scenario, could have been used by Ethiopia, Morocco or Nubia, since they shared territories with the animals).

Sorry. I did mean North African elephants, considering the Sub-Saharan ones were never domesticated, for military purposes, as far as I'm aware.

 

[pokiehl]

Not Classical Antiquity, but if we look at the sheer number of people, across history, whose endonym (self-given name) is some variant of words meaning "The People" or "The Real People" or "The Real Humans", that should make a pretty good starting point for it being a pretty common viewpoint.

If you’re responding to me, you’ve misunderstood my question. I’m not disputing that at all. See below.

Are you REALLY asking to give examples of how almost all civilizations in antiquity who had attestation of writing for themselves indulged in self-exalting rheotoric, like the claim of it's RARITY were credible and to be taken seriously? Is this question REALLY being asked?

No? Stay focused on what I am actually saying.

All you have done is state that others “indulge in self-exalting rhetoric”. I didn’t dispute that at all and I think you misunderstood my question to you.

I’m asking you to give a single solitary example to back your claims that the Egyptians were “incredibly nuanced” in their view of themselves compared with other civilizations’ views of themselves.

I have given you examples of how they “indulge in self-exalting rhetoric” like everyone else—your claim is that they are “more nuanced” than others. I disagree with you but am of course a reasonable person open to having my mind changed with evidence—hence my request for an example.

 

[Henri Christophe]

African War Elephants would probably only be unique to Hannibal. since they are associated with him. Other than that, any ancient era naval unit and Cothon harbor would fit both.

The only thing unique about Carthaginian war elephants is the way Hannibal only had one left past the start of the Italian campaign. Surrus (the elephants name) was, in fact, unique, a war elephant, and Carthaginian (though his name meant Syrian) that way.

Otherwise, pretty much everyone in the Ancient Mediterranean basin used them, if they had access to Asian or North African trade at all.

I can't believe elephants was just used by Hannibal to invade Rome. How Hannibal manage to learn how to ride an elephant if he never made it before on Africa?
I need to admit I'm weak in Carthagen history, but this sounds wrong.

Numidia was literally an ancient Berber Kingdom. When the Romans conquered North Africa they just kept the name for that region.

Numidia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I look Numidia better and it could be a cool civ, maybe it can indeed replace Carthage.

As I said many times, and you keep ignoring it, the race of the Ancient Egyptians is NOT unknown. It's known very well. It's just happens to not be Black African or European Caucasian, and that seems difficult for you to accept, because it means it couldn't, "just be declared Africam," and it doesn't conform to that racist German naturalist's three-race quackery you so cherish. But, it is, regardless, the fact of the matter, regardless of all your wistful thinking.

Okay, let's suppose egyptian ethinicity is well know, and they don't change ethinicity in their 3000 years of history. Still Ramsés of civ6 too white.

Moderator Action: Beware getting into a skin color issue in the game threads. This is not where we need this to go. leif

This is going downhill very fast and very weird

Please someone do an Egyptian thread where we can freely argue about Ramsés ethinic background

Moderator Action: Please, NO!! leif

 

[Patine]

Still Ramsés of civ6 too white.

I don't disagree. He needs to portrayed as his proper racial make-up - which is neither, "Black African," nor, "European Caucasian." I have never advocated for him looking White, despite that repeated implication I get from you about it.

 

[Evie]

Of course Carthaginians used elephants before Rome. But so did most Mediterranean state at that time - the Persians and the Greeks and the Greek Successors in Egypt and so forth. That's not a unique unit. That's a common unit that almost everyone who could use, did use. The Carthaginians didn't use them much more than anyone else.

The only reason people think of elephants as something "special" of Carthage is because Hannibal brought some over the Alps., Where they promptly all died except one, so for most of his famous Roman campaign, Hannibal had *one* elephant.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't believe elephants was just used by Hannibal to invade Rome. How Hannibal manage to learn how to ride an elephant if he never made it before on Africa?
I need to admit I'm weak in Carthagen history, but this sounds wrong.

As what was said above. Since it was Hannibal that used elephants to cross the Alps that would make it better suited for a potential leader unique unit. Carthage/Phoenicia itself should have an early naval unique, because they were primarily a naval/trading people.

 

[Patine]

As what was said above. Since it was Hannibal that used elephants to cross the Alps that would make it better suited for a potential leader unique unit. Carthage/Phoenicia itself should have an early naval unique, because they were primarily a naval/trading people.

Mind, a special unique mercenary unit would be also appropriate to either or both.

 

[reddishrecue]

I don't recall Greeks using elephants but the Persians did.

 

[Patine]

I don't recall Greeks using elephants but the Persians did.

The Ptolemaics and Seleucids were ruled by Greeks.

 

[reddishrecue]

The Ptolemaics and Seleucids were ruled by Greeks.

Who are they?

 

[BuchiTaton]

The Carthaginians are one of the best options for a civ with bonus for a significative mercenary/auxiliar troops system.
Historical punic forces like War Elephant, Numidian Cavalry, Balearic Slinger or Gaulish Swordman could be avaible to any playable civ through "minor civs"(CS+BC) that allow you to recruit them. Under that system the Carthaginian civ would shine with some good bonus about them like being cheaper, more numerous, combat promotions, etc.

Meanwhile the actual Carthaginian UU would be better as an ancient/classical naval unit.

 

[reddishrecue]

The civilization series couldn't get the elephant uu for Carthage that efficiently. Instead many civs were able to use the elephants because of the randomized starting positions. Carthage was just placed in that position where there were elephants and alps to cross, hey why not? But.. other civilizations could've done it also if they were placed in that geographic position. Examples in civ 2 everyone can use elephants in the classical era. Civ 4 had elephants with ivory. Civ 5 had more unique activity for civilization that got favored from elephants. I think it depends on the starting location and the resources around.

 

[Patine]

Who are they?

Two of the Diadochi Dynasties succeeding Alexander the Great's premature death with no viable heir. You know, Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemy rulers in Egypt.

 

[reddishrecue]

Two of the Diadochi Dynasties succeeding Alexander the Great's premature death with no viable heir. You know, Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemy rulers in Egypt.

Ahh. That's right, ptolemaic Egypt and cleo is familiar. Seleucids were later sort of like beginning of Macedon. I thought you guys meant Primitive Greece when the city states allowed liberty and a free people.

 

[Patine]

allowed liberty and a free people.

From a certain point of view. Like our Western World (though the point of view is different).

 

[Patine]

were later sort of like beginning of Macedo

No, the Seleucids were co-terminous with, and rivals of, the Ptolemies.

 

[Patine]

meant Primitive Greece

And Classical Greece has hardly, "Primitive," for Antiquity.

 

[reddishrecue]

No, the Seleucids were co-terminous with, and rivals of, the Ptolemies.

Ohh ok my bad I had to look up wiki for that.