Carthage Triumphant

Alikchi

I know only a little about the time period, so bear with me, but..

What POD would it take for Carthage to eliminate Rome as a rival in the Mediterranean? During the Punic Wars, most likely. The destruction of Rome itself? Total victory? And how exactly would Carthage attain that?

Have to consider, though, that the Romans had a different attitude than the Carthaginians. Once Rome sees a rival, a threat, it won't stop fighting until the threat is destroyed, treaties or no. I remember reading a quote somewhere that said "Hannibal knew how to win a victory, but not how to use it."

Was intrigued by the idea in the computer game "Rome: Total War".

If anyone's done a TL with a similar POD before, where could I find it? I did a search..
 

robertp6165

Alikchi said:
I know only a little about the time period, so bear with me, but..

What POD would it take for Carthage to eliminate Rome as a rival in the Mediterranean? During the Punic Wars, most likely. The destruction of Rome itself? Total victory? And how exactly would Carthage attain that?

Have to consider, though, that the Romans had a different attitude than the Carthaginians. Once Rome sees a rival, a threat, it won't stop fighting until the threat is destroyed, treaties or no. I remember reading a quote somewhere that said "Hannibal knew how to win a victory, but not how to use it."

Was intrigued by the idea in the computer game "Rome: Total War".

If anyone's done a TL with a similar POD before, where could I find it? I did a search..
Click to expand...

By the time of the Punic Wars it is probably too late. Rome by that time controlled a large alliance of Latin, Samnite, Oscan, Umbrian, and Etruscan cities, which gave it a huge manpower base which Carthage really had no hope of matching. However, there is a possibility earlier on. In the early years of the Roman Republic, Carthage and Rome actually had a good relationship. Several treaties were signed between the two cities. But it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

A POD might be possible between 500-350 BC. At that time, the Carthaginians had an alliance with a league of Etruscan cities against the Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily. Etruscan and Carthaginian fleets actually cooperated in battle against the Greeks, and gave the Greeks a hard time of it. Meanwhile, the Etruscan cities were also beginning to be engaged in conflict against Rome...but Carthage was at that time signing treaties of friendship with Rome.

So let's suppose that, in about 450 BC, the Etruscans and the Carthaginians sign a new treaty which commits them to support each other against not only the Greeks, but also Rome. The Carthaginians and Etruscans defeat the tiny Roman army, capture the city, slaughter the inhabitants (or sell them all into slavery) and destroy the town itself. Later Etruscan colonists re-settle the site, but the new town, like other Etruscan cities, is never able to form more than a temporary alliance with other Etruscan cities, and Italy never is united under one power. By 200 BC, in sometime cooperation with the Etruscans, Carthage has subdued the Greeks of Sicily and southern Italy, and rules the western Mediterranean.
 
Last edited:

MerryPrankster

On the old board, Duncan and I did a "Holy Republic of Tunis" TL with this very subject, but I could not find it when I leafed through the various topics of the old board. Is there a way to do a "search"?
 

robertp6165

Alikchi said:
Matt Quinn: Yep. It's up at the top, with both boards. Running a search for your TL now.. is this it? https://www.alternatehistory.com/discus/messages/4/5357.html

(Edit: robert's link works as well. Beat me to the punch.)

robertp6165: That seems plausible.. thanks. :) The ramifications for that would be huge, for sure.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :) The problem with Matt and Duncan's timeline is that I don't think Hannibal ever really had a chance of taking Rome after Cannae. Hannibal had no siege train, and his troops were simply not numerous enough to put Rome under effective siege. So the only way they were going to capture Rome was to take it by surprise before news of the defeat at Cannae reached the city. But Cannae is too far away from Rome, on the other side of the Apennine Mountains from Rome, for the Carthaginians to have gotten there quickly enough to capture the city by surprise.

Meanwhile, Rome's alliance with it's Italian allies...especially the Latin cities from which it got most of its manpower...held up even after the defeat at Cannae. So Rome was able to raise a new army relatively quickly. Rome never, even with the huge losses suffered against Hannibal, came close to running short of manpower. It fought...and won...a war in Hispania at the same time it was keeping Hannibal busy.

As I said earlier, you really have to have a POD prior to Rome's rise to a dominant position in Italy. Once it has control of Italian manpower, Carthage is toast.
 

MerryPrankster

Thanks for finding it, y'all.

The POD was Hannibal taking the city by surprise after Cannae, and if the Apennine (sp?) Mountains are in the way, that could make things VERY difficult, even for a military genius like Hannibal.

Darn it...I liked that TL. I thought about dredging it up from the Old Board and reposting it as a "Straight from the Vault" revival.
 

MattBrown

I think there may have actually been a chance during the first punic war. With time Rome's Italian allies would evenually become very loyal, but this loyalty was probably not nearly as firm during the first Punic war as it would be a generation later. This loyalty resulted from the fact that Rome exacted no tribute from her Italian allies, and required only the military alliance, and that the ally not conduct it's own foreign policy. (There was of course the land Rome would typically take after having initially conquered the area, but apparently the allies got over that.) In return Rome would defend the ally from all enemies. Rome proved very reliable in that reguard, which lead to the loyalty of the allies. But this took time to develop. The potential may well ahve been there during the first Punic war to turn more of Rome's allies against her.

But one doesn't need a total Carthagenian victory during the first Punic war. Carthagenian naval victory (definitely a possibility), and the resulting victory in Sicily, would have sufficed to radically alter history. This was the first war in which Rome got much involved in affairs outside of Italy. It was after this war that Rome began acting like an Imperial power, and began exacting tribute from newly conquered regions. Her previous military action was usually about defending herself or her allies. Previous to this war her senators did not dream of leading Armies in a foreign land for glory. Her small farmers had not come to economic ruin due to service in long campaigns in foreign lands. The Her upper classes had not yet been corrupted by the wealth that they would later accrue from lucrative gubernatorial appointments. These abuses, which tribunes would try to reform, which reform the senators would fight with force, which force represented a departure from the rule of law, which departure would eventually lead to the fall of the Republic, may have been prevented. Previous to this war she had little interrest in trade.

1. Rome may have never gained the interest in conquest outside of Italy that she evenually would.

2. If she did, her conquests may have been at a slower pace, or in such a way that it would have affected Roman society less dramatically. It may have continued more along the lines that her conquest of Italy did, with new provinces being treated as allies rather than as tributaries.

3. Another power in the mediteranian may have had a chance to rise.
 

Melvin Loh

Better followup to Cannae ?

WI Hannibal was better able to follow up his victories at Cannae and Lake Trariseme (sp?) better than he did in OTL 216 BC ? Could Rome have been wiped out then ?
 

Peter

The loyalty of the Italians were never firm. Remember the Social wars, Gnaeus Papius Mutilius march to the Colline Gate of Rome and the Third Servile War.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I wonder... could we keep Carthage around as a naval power? Perhaps it could last long enough to the social wars, funding the rebels with gold and naval support?
 

robertp6165

Peter said:
The loyalty of the Italians were never firm. Remember the Social wars, Gnaeus Papius Mutilius march to the Colline Gate of Rome and the Third Servile War.
Click to expand...

That is true of the non-Latins. The Samnites (some of them, at any rate) and a few others did defect to Hannibal. But the core of Roman strength...the Latin towns...never considered defecting. Even the non-Latins displayed a remarkable loyalty to Rome, given their second-class status in the Roman state at the time.
 

robertp6165

Melvin Loh said:
WI Hannibal was better able to follow up his victories at Cannae and Lake Trariseme (sp?) better than he did in OTL 216 BC ? Could Rome have been wiped out then ?
Click to expand...

see my posts below...Cannae was too far away from Rome, and on the other side of the Apennine Mountains. There is no way Hannibal could have gotten to Rome in time to capture the city by surprise, and he did not have enough troops to maintain a siege, even if he was able to get a siege train. Lake Trasimene is the same problem, too far away to have the element of surprise, and not enough troops for a siege.
 

robertp6165

Faeelin said:
I wonder... could we keep Carthage around as a naval power? Perhaps it could last long enough to the social wars, funding the rebels with gold and naval support?
Click to expand...

The Social War was fought fifty years after Carthage was destroyed in the Third Punic War. So, no.
 

Faeelin

Banned
robertp6165 said:
The Social War was fought fifty years after Carthage was destroyed in the Third Punic War. So, no.
Click to expand...

Really? Do explain why it could not last long enough, as I clearly stated.
 

Knight Of Armenia

robertp6165 said:
The Social War was fought fifty years after Carthage was destroyed in the Third Punic War. So, no.
Click to expand...

Faeelin said:
Really? Do explain why it could not last long enough, as I clearly stated.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!! Possibly the single funniest snap I have ever read in my entire life. Honestly. LMAO.
 

DuQuense

I had a idea for a TL thaat went something like this

Cannae is not the total victory as OTL but the Romans are forced back toward Rome. About a Half Day from Rome Hanabil Gets the Romans trapped, Cannae type total victory for Hanibal. in the morning. Before the Romans cam get word Hanibal is marching up to the Gates of Rome. The Romans slam the gates shut. This leaves lots of Small Farmers, and Merchants trapped outside. And the Mass of Romans trapped inside unprepared for a long Seige.

With the Small Farmers & Merchants outside Hanibal is able to live off the Country. Several weeks later the Romans Surrender. Rome gives up all claim to southern Italy [Greek/Latin line at Naples] . and Spain.


rome turns Northward. Conquering Gaul, a hundred years before OTL. and moving into Britain, some 50-60 years later. This allows them to take all Britian and Scotland. By about 50 BC Caeser is leading the legions into Germany. East from the Rhine, and north around the Alps.

From there they follow the Danube southeast to the Black Ses, and the Balkans. Entering Greece from the North , They pick off this Carthageian Ally. And setting the Stage for The third Punic War, And another Go at the Mederrterian.
 

Bill Cameron

Banned
robertp6165 wrote: The Samnites (some of them, at any rate) and a few others did defect to Hannibal. But the core of Roman strength...the Latin towns...never considered defecting. Even the non-Latins displayed a remarkable loyalty to Rome, given their second-class status in the Roman state at the time.


Robert,

Could that be the POD the original poster needs? Tweak the Roman relationship with the Latin towns for the worse?

Make the Romans a little more overbearing, a little more demanding, maybe a little more land and money grubbing, with their Latin and non-Latin allies and Carthage gets enough defectors within Italy to win the 1st or 2nd Punic War?


Bill
 

robertp6165

Faeelin said:
Really? Do explain why it could not last long enough, as I clearly stated.
Click to expand...

Because you are not suggesting a POD which would enable it to "last long enough" to still be around at the time of the Social War. By the time of the Third Punic War Carthage had NO chance of surviving when Rome decided that "Carthago delenda est." If Carthage is destroyed, it has no naval power. :rolleyes:
 

Alikchi

If Carthage does triumph over Rome, what do you think the life expectancy of their empire is? Does it have the potential to equal Rome, or are they just not that expansion-minded?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top