Had Carthage defeated Rome in the Punic Wars, would it have created a massive Mediterranean Empire just like the Romans did?

Jun 2018
385
New Hampshire
#43
The native languages of the regions, examples being Iberian in Spain and various berber languages in north Africa.
Regarding the military, Carthaginians made up primarily the elite officer class and the navy, with the vast bulk of the army consisting of native conscripts and mercenaries. This is doubtful, but if they were so inclined the Carthaginians likely could have raised a large enough army to engage in aggressive military expansion.
 
Nov 2010
7,547
Cornwall
#44
I recall reading that there are Neo-Punic inscriptions from North Africa dating to as late as the fourth or fifth century AD. I came across it in the article 'Vandal North Africa and the Fourth Punic War' by Richard Miles.
Yes I've seen that quoted in a book quite recently, probably this one:

EL REINO PIRATA DE LOS VANDALOS | DAVID ALVAREZ JIMENEZ | Comprar libro 9788447218516

Personally I think it's a bit daft calling it the 4th Punic War , because the Vandals were Eastern European crossed with Roman in character at best. On the other hand I believe that the arabic/islamic nature of North Africa of today, steadily increasing since the 7th century, tends to mask all that went before to all but the most capable 'visualisers'. Though the berbers are a constant, working for and against Carthaginians, Romans and Vandals - those Punic folk didn't disappear from the face of the earth as far as I know. No reason to think there weren't Punic influences along the coast societies by the time of Vandal rule.

Carthage was a give-up people. Rome was a victory or death people.
Really? I thought they were quite brutal too and Hannibal certainly had a good go!


The Carthaginians were Phonecians. Carthage was founded as a Phonecian colony in circa 810 BC.
The link is not complete - there's a 50 year gap in Phoenician and Carthaginian presence in Iberia. I think the Phoenician colonies in Spain developed a de facto independence until the Carthaginians turned up. Despite their common origins
 
Likes: Futurist
#45
Yes I've seen that quoted in a book quite recently, probably this one:

EL REINO PIRATA DE LOS VANDALOS | DAVID ALVAREZ JIMENEZ | Comprar libro 9788447218516

Personally I think it's a bit daft calling it the 4th Punic War , because the Vandals were Eastern European crossed with Roman in character at best. On the other hand I believe that the arabic/islamic nature of North Africa of today, steadily increasing since the 7th century, tends to mask all that went before to all but the most capable 'visualisers'. Though the berbers are a constant, working for and against Carthaginians, Romans and Vandals - those Punic folk didn't disappear from the face of the earth as far as I know. No reason to think there weren't Punic influences along the coast societies by the time of Vandal rule.
It's a deliberately provocative title, but Miles doesn't actually argue that the Vandal-Roman war was a 'Fourth Punic War.' Rather, he argues that Vandal coinage and literary figures in Vandal Africa deliberately encouraged a comparison between the Vandal war with Rome and the Punic empire of times past. He also contextualizes this phenomenon by looking at the diverse ways in which people in Roman Africa saw themselves in relation to the land's Punic heritage. It's a fascinating article.

Really? I thought they were quite brutal too and Hannibal certainly had a good go!
I completely agree. The Republican Romans were unique among their neighbours in the sense that they simply would not give up, but that does not make the Carthaginians a giving-up people. As I noted in posts 24 and 34, Carthage was one hell of a tenacious enemy. I'll quote part of 24: 'When we think about the First and Second Punic Wars, we are transfixed by the impressive determination of Rome, forgetting about the incredible determination also showed by Carthage. No Hellenistic power fought Rome as fiercely as Carthage did. The First Punic War lasted for 23 years, and Carthage lost many battles throughout that war and made impressive comebacks before finally giving up in 241 BC, with Hamilcar Barca's Sicilian army left undefeated. As for the Second Punic War, no Hellenistic general attempted what Hannibal did. Carthage earned her place as the forge in which Rome crafted her greatness. In contrast, the Hellenistic powers would fight short wars, seek a treaty and move on. Polybius, a Greek himself, recognizes this difference between warfare in the eastern Mediterranean and the west (1.63-4-7): '(The First Punic War) had lasted without a break for twenty-four years and is the longest, most unintermittent, and greatest war we know of. Apart from all the other battles and armaments, the total naval forces engaged were, as I mentioned above, on one occasion more than five hundred quinqueremes and on a subsequent one very nearly seven hundred. Moreover the Romans lost in this war about seven hundred quinqueremes, inclusive of those that perished in the shipwrecks, and the Carthaginians about five hundred. So that those who marvel at the great sea-battles and great fleets of an Antigonus, a Ptolemy, or a Demetrius would, if I mistake not, on inquiring into the history of this war, be much astonished at the huge scale of operations. Again, if we take into consideration the difference between quinqueremes and the triremes in which the Persians fought against the Greeks and the Athenians and Lacedaemonians against each other, we shall find that no forces of such magnitude ever met at sea.'

I would add that it is very impressive that the Carthaginians responded to their loss of Sicily and Sardinia by re-orienting their power from maritime hegemony to land-based imperialism in Spain. That speaks to both tenacity and innovation.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,399
Portugal
#46
The link is not complete - there's a 50 year gap in Phoenician and Carthaginian presence in Iberia. I think the Phoenician colonies in Spain developed a de facto independence until the Carthaginians turned up. Despite their common origins
I have the idea, albeit I am not sure, that the Phoenician colonies were always independent. Something like the Greek ones in the Archaic and Classical periods. Independent but with strong links (commercial and “emotional”/cultural) to their mother cities. That independency ended with the Carthaginian hegemony over them. Thus the opposition of some.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,383
Sydney
#47
Mercenaries are good for short campaign , that was Carthage style , they just hated war , it was bad for business
I don't see Carthage going for the kill .........Rome on the other hand !!!!

Of course Empire suck their rulers to more conquests , they have an inherent tendency to grow

Carthage style was more like England and the continent , they saw themselves as a sea power
Rome style was more Prussia , raising its citizens soldiers , holding martial prowess as admirable
 

Similar History Discussions