TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
What if the superpower of Carthage never fell to the other superpower in the region, the Romans? What would modern history look like?
What if Carthage Never fell?
- Thread starter TheLastOne36
- Start date
~Corsair#01~
Deity
Carthage's problem was essentially organisational. It operated on a decentralised system dominated by competing merchant families who often put their own interests first. There was no strong, united citizenry like there was in Rome because the true Phoenician part of the population were essentially a thin crust on the top of society and the plebs who were mostly libyans and numidians were never going to be able to penetrate the political world. This division in society prevented the kind of tight political organisation like there was in Rome, where the senate was at least somewhat accountable to public opinion.
In the end, any long-term conflict against an enemy who could not be quickly defeated or bought off was bound to end the Carthaginian system, either by forcing a strong central government into being or through destroying Carthage.
The other great potential problem was the reliance on mercenaries that Carthage had. However, this only came to the fore when they couldn't be paid. As history showed, Carthage was always able to pay the expense and keep control, except for the brief period after the 1st Punic War when the state was crippled by reparations.
My point here is essentially that which seems to be the first made in any "what if?" scenario. That the scenario is virtually impossible. Hannibal, or possibly his father, was the only man who could have brought about the creation of a decent system of centrally controlling a war effort, and he barely set foot in Carthage his entire life until after the 2nd war was lost. The magnates who ran the city would not have welcomed some general from "the ends of the earth" coming to take away their power and threaten their commercial interests.
In the end, any long-term conflict against an enemy who could not be quickly defeated or bought off was bound to end the Carthaginian system, either by forcing a strong central government into being or through destroying Carthage.
The other great potential problem was the reliance on mercenaries that Carthage had. However, this only came to the fore when they couldn't be paid. As history showed, Carthage was always able to pay the expense and keep control, except for the brief period after the 1st Punic War when the state was crippled by reparations.
My point here is essentially that which seems to be the first made in any "what if?" scenario. That the scenario is virtually impossible. Hannibal, or possibly his father, was the only man who could have brought about the creation of a decent system of centrally controlling a war effort, and he barely set foot in Carthage his entire life until after the 2nd war was lost. The magnates who ran the city would not have welcomed some general from "the ends of the earth" coming to take away their power and threaten their commercial interests.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
^ ^ ^
Absolutely right. Carthage's system of government could never have competed against Rome. Only a change in government could have saved Carthage from eventual collapse, and there were only really two men - if we include Hannibal's brothers, who were less talented than he was, but certainly far more able than the average Carthaginian, we get five(?) - capable of doing that, neither of whom ever tried. The only real chance of Carthage defeating Rome without changing its system of government was Hannibal's army.
Assuming that Hannibal actually conquered Rome, then what? Hannibal is now clearly the most powerful man in the Mediterranean world. He has a loyal army, the most experienced and skilled in the entire world at this point, and the prestige that comes from avenging the losses of the First Punic War. The Carthaginian people are unlikely to praise him, heap glory upon him and be thankful for his skill, as the Romans were to their great generals. They would fear him. They would hate him. And they would try to eliminate him.
They would likely attempt an assassination. If this succeeded, Hannibal's brothers would take their mighty army and make their home city pay for its actions. If it failed, Hannibal would do the same. I doubt there would be any sacking, rape or looting of Carthage, as both Hannibal and his brothers were too disciplined to let their troops do this to their home city, regardless of their feelings for its leadership. But essentially, you now have the Barcas as an oligarchic military leadership over Carthage.
I would assume that this opportunity would be seized by every group in the Carthaginian Empire, particularly Rome, which would rebel. But I doubt the Barcas would allow such rebellions to get far, and would probably leave a sizeable force at Capua's disposal to end any revolts in Italy anyway, let alone their sizeable forces in Spain. There is the possibility that Hannibal may move his capital to Cartago Novo, but I think he's too strategically minded for this. If anything, he may take Syracuse and turn it into his capital.
Carthage would probably consolidate its position, and continue its expansion, but Hannibal was no politician, and most of his conquered territories would chafe under his rule. I don't see a Carthaginian Empire such as this lasting long beyond Hannibal's death. There is the possibilty that an able man in the Barca family, or even an usurper, might institute reforms which prolonged the life of the Empire, but I honestly don't see Carthage surviving as a whole for long... Unless it adopts a system very similar to that later used by Augustus, which took a lot of change for the Romans to bring about, let alone a vastly different people like those of Carthage.
All in all, unless Hannibal actually genocided Rome, I still see it as eventually becoming the strongman in the region, although this would likely take a lot longer, be less effective and total, and probably not last as long either. But the barbarian invasions would still have come, and I don't see the world being terribly different from what it is today.
Absolutely right. Carthage's system of government could never have competed against Rome. Only a change in government could have saved Carthage from eventual collapse, and there were only really two men - if we include Hannibal's brothers, who were less talented than he was, but certainly far more able than the average Carthaginian, we get five(?) - capable of doing that, neither of whom ever tried. The only real chance of Carthage defeating Rome without changing its system of government was Hannibal's army.
Assuming that Hannibal actually conquered Rome, then what? Hannibal is now clearly the most powerful man in the Mediterranean world. He has a loyal army, the most experienced and skilled in the entire world at this point, and the prestige that comes from avenging the losses of the First Punic War. The Carthaginian people are unlikely to praise him, heap glory upon him and be thankful for his skill, as the Romans were to their great generals. They would fear him. They would hate him. And they would try to eliminate him.
They would likely attempt an assassination. If this succeeded, Hannibal's brothers would take their mighty army and make their home city pay for its actions. If it failed, Hannibal would do the same. I doubt there would be any sacking, rape or looting of Carthage, as both Hannibal and his brothers were too disciplined to let their troops do this to their home city, regardless of their feelings for its leadership. But essentially, you now have the Barcas as an oligarchic military leadership over Carthage.
I would assume that this opportunity would be seized by every group in the Carthaginian Empire, particularly Rome, which would rebel. But I doubt the Barcas would allow such rebellions to get far, and would probably leave a sizeable force at Capua's disposal to end any revolts in Italy anyway, let alone their sizeable forces in Spain. There is the possibility that Hannibal may move his capital to Cartago Novo, but I think he's too strategically minded for this. If anything, he may take Syracuse and turn it into his capital.
Carthage would probably consolidate its position, and continue its expansion, but Hannibal was no politician, and most of his conquered territories would chafe under his rule. I don't see a Carthaginian Empire such as this lasting long beyond Hannibal's death. There is the possibilty that an able man in the Barca family, or even an usurper, might institute reforms which prolonged the life of the Empire, but I honestly don't see Carthage surviving as a whole for long... Unless it adopts a system very similar to that later used by Augustus, which took a lot of change for the Romans to bring about, let alone a vastly different people like those of Carthage.
All in all, unless Hannibal actually genocided Rome, I still see it as eventually becoming the strongman in the region, although this would likely take a lot longer, be less effective and total, and probably not last as long either. But the barbarian invasions would still have come, and I don't see the world being terribly different from what it is today.
Hannibal was actually Suffet of Carthage a few years after the Second Punic War, and did a surprisingly good job at it, introducing a number of reforms until his many enemies forced him into exile. If they had had the chance the Barcas would've been quite capable rulers, although with more than a touch of autocracy.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Capable rulers of a city, I don't doubt. A massive empire? That's something else entirely, as the Romans discovered. I don't think they could have instituted the reforms necessary for such an empire to last beyond their lifetimes.
Similar threads
