NationStates Jolt Archive

(watch how you spell that one. N and B are so close to each other :D)

Ok... fairly simple thread designed to discuss something rarely discussed. Ancient warfare between two nations. Fun, right? Eh, I'm an ancient history fanatic, sue me. Well, what I'm wondering, chiefly is, who do you think deserved to win the punic war (Carthage V Rome, with Syracuse appearing once in a while), and do you think that Carthage could ever have won it? What do you think of the two respective famous generals (Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus).

What do you actually know about Carthage, the political system, for example. Was it a dictatorship, a republic? Neither? (I'm pretty damn sure I know myself, just wondering what every body else thinks.

And the battles, Cannae, for example. Do you think it was an over-rated victory? dumb luck as opposed to command genius? Should Hannibal have went for Rome afterwards, or was he right to continue his journey up and down italy? I'm rambling here. Just comment about the punic war and enigmatic old Jordaxia here will respond and we might get some debate on one of my most favourite of topics. :D

Hannibal had rome. It was his. But Scipio managed to go and conquer carthage while the entire army was out. So Hannibal had a choice to make, and it was really a rather simple one. He could take rome, but without support from carthage, that wouldn't last. Not even to mention the eternal shame of losing his homeland. Or he could cross the mediterainian and fight Scipio. However, he lost this fight, and carthage was conquered anyway. So really, he should have taken Rome, knowing that carthage would fall no matter what he did. But he couldn't possibly know that.

Are you entirely sure of the chronology here? At Cannae, Scipio Africanus was AT Cannae, and was an upcoming Roman... after Cannae, and after Gaius and Cnaeus Scipio died, Scipio Africanus was sent to Spain... it took him quite a bit to manage to kick Carthage out of Spain, during which time Hannibals only hope of capturing Rome (the immediate aftermath of Cannae) was long gone. You have to remember the sheer amount of legions Rome recruited, going from its regular 4 (or 6, due to the war) to 25 legions... if Hannibal couldn't take Rome after he'd killed 4 legions, 2 being in Spain... he had less chance with 25.

Also, Carthage was not conquered until the third Punic war... Hannibal was out of the picture by then. It was, however, besieged twice.

Syracuse is my favorite participant in the Punic Wars because it was the underdog with all the cool gadgets built by Archimedes. I wish they had won the war and today we are all speaking Sicilian Greek.

Besides that, I think Carthage should've beaten out Rome because it had a better government, a better society, and its leading people (such as Hannibal) were much more interesting characters.

Also, Aristotle had a high opinion of Carthaginian government:

"The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan. Indeed, all three states---the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian---nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent. The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution. The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant"

Syracuse is my favorite participant in the Punic Wars because it was the underdog with all the cool gadgets built by Archimedes. I wish they had won the war and today we are all speaking Sicilian Greek.

Besides that, I think Carthage should've beaten out Rome because it had a better government, a better society, and its leading people (such as Hannibal) were much more interesting characters.



Yes, yes and yes. I like you. The claw and the *only slightly possibly true* laser are the greatest things ever. As well as all the different catapults. The Romans must've looooved Archimedes after that. Did you know that for a while, all the Syracusans had to do was put a big stick out from the side of the walls, the roman ships would think it was a claw, and run away? Genius.

I have a passing familiarity with the military history involved in this; my education in the matter has more to do with the political and sociological history behind it.

The Punic War was, funnily enough, one of those wars that was fought over an excuse. After Rome united all of the Italian peninsula and began to have true Imperial ambitions, it was almost inevitable that the only other rival in the region would eventually be it's enemy. It's just like the relationship between France and Germany or between Russia and Britain during the 19th century.

According to Livy, though, Rome went downhill after the Punic Wars; the Romans lost their metus punica. Without that, what did they have to fear anymore? The East was ripe for the picking, and after that, corruption was inevitable - the Romans lost their most treasured values, and changed from a rough-and-tumble agricultural-military society with republican institutions into the monstrosity we saw at the end of the Empire.

So, yeah. I'd've rathered Rome and Carthage had come to a stalemate and had a kind of Cold War going on for a few years; then maybe made peace and coexisted comfortably. Oh well.

As for Scipio Africanus, ever read The Jugurthine War?

I have a passing familiarity with the military history involved in this; my education in the matter has more to do with the political and sociological history behind it.

The Punic War was, funnily enough, one of those wars that was fought over an excuse. After Rome united all of the Italian peninsula and began to have true Imperial ambitions, it was almost inevitable that the only other rival in the region would eventually be it's enemy. It's just like the relationship between France and Germany or between Russia and Britain during the 19th century.

According to Livy, though, Rome went downhill after the Punic Wars; the Romans lost their metus punica. Without that, what did they have to fear anymore? The East was ripe for the picking, and after that, corruption was inevitable - the Romans lost their most treasured values, and changed from a rough-and-tumble agricultural-military society with republican institutions into the monstrosity we saw at the end of the Empire.

So, yeah. I'd've rathered Rome and Carthage had come to a stalemate and had a kind of Cold War going on for a few years; then maybe made peace and coexisted comfortably. Oh well.

As for Scipio Africanus, ever read The Jugurthine War?

I know more of the military history because I'm a bit of an armchair general, but if you want to go more into the political situation, then please do. If you can't be bothered, I'll just glare at my monitor a bit.
quickedit: had you not just finished such a large paper, I'd not be so forgiving. I'd rant in private also. maybe an angry letter.

Whilst I have not read Levy's account of the punic war, I have heard that theory, and it does seem to be readily believeable. Without a foe or a competitor, stagnation tends to be inevitable. Probably why the Greek cities were so vibrant. so many comparitively powerful peoples bound in such a small space.

And no, I have never heard of the Jugurthine War. I'll look into it though.

I don't think that Rome ever really "lost" it's great adversary Carthage. Rather, Carthage spurned Rome into growing from a rather backward little town into a big city, but even after it's defeat it remained some kind of useful bogeyman of Roman internal politics... whatever you wanted to push through senat, just link it to Carthage in any way and scare them into accepting your position.
I'm not sure if the Carthaginians really had a better social and political system... knowing the Romans, I think they would have copied that anyways and later sold it off as their own (they did so with almost everything else, after all)
It's almost impossible to tell what our world would look like today if Hannibal had succeeded. I think Hannibal and Scipio were both brilliant military thinkers, none really better than the other. One strategy worked out, the other didn't, I guess that's life

I don't think that Rome ever really "lost" it's great adversary Carthage. Rather, Carthage spurned Rome into growing from a rather backward little town into a big city, but even after it's defeat it remained some kind of useful bogeyman of Roman internal politics... whatever you wanted to push through senat, just link it to Carthage in any way and scare them into accepting your position.



That would be true if Carthage survived its war, and indeed it was true whilst it WAS still alive, but after the third punic war, Carthage did not exist as a political entity and its land was annexed. Connecting something to Carthage after that wouldn't really do anything... it was just a province of Rome.

That would be true if Carthage survived its war, and indeed it was true whilst it WAS still alive, but after the third punic war, Carthage did not exist as a political entity and its land was annexed. Connecting something to Carthage after that wouldn't really do anything... it was just a province of Rome.

I remember one Roman speach we once had to translate in Latin class (I think it was by Sallust, but I'm not sure, it was a while ago), where all he had to say was "Remember Carthage, don't let this happen again".... and it worked. Years after Carthage had ceased to exist.

And the battles, Cannae, for example. Do you think it was an over-rated victory? dumb luck as opposed to command genius? :D

The Battle of Cannae certainly involved an element of luck. I think it’s fair to say that the Romans didn’t help themselves too much that day. But it was still a work of genius particularly when you consider the make-up of his army, Gauls, Spaniards, North Africans. It was a real mix. Must have made commanding it very difficult. The fact that other generals throughout history have tried and failed to repeat Hannibal’s strategy at Cannae is testimony to his skill. Imitation is after all the sincerest form of flattery.

The strangest part of the whole Hannibal story, I think, is towards the end when he fled to the Seleucid Empire. What did King Antiochus III do with the greatest general of the age? He made him an admiral. Very odd.

Out of interest did the Carthaginians really sacrifice children to Baal or was this just Roman propaganda?

Out of interest did the Carthaginians really sacrifice children to Baal or was this just Roman propaganda?

Personally, I doubt that this was true and would put it down to Roman propaganda, but check out this link to get to know some of the facts and arguments:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/carthage_life.html#child_sacrifice

I remember one Roman speach we once had to translate in Latin class (I think it was by Sallust, but I'm not sure, it was a while ago), where all he had to say was "Remember Carthage, don't let this happen again".... and it worked. Years after Carthage had ceased to exist.

I misinterpreted, apologies. I thought that you meant the senator would point at Carthage or dramatically out of the forum and remind them of the menace just across the water in Africa, not as a reminder of what Carthage had done in the past. Yes, I do agree that Romans could do that for quite a while afterwards. They done the same with Hannibal, used him as a bogeyman for Roman children.

Hypocria. I agree with you to an extent. Remember that by Cannae Hannibal had commanded these men for a considerable amount of time... two earlier famous battles, Trebia and Trasimene, for example, used the same army, so they had meshed together by then. But I agree that luck was certainly involved and that managing to work such a variant army into a cohesive whole showed true skill. Hannibal is my favourite general of all time, after all.
It also shown how Roman stereotyping progressed. We hear of Gauls as fearsome barbarians, but they broke quickly when things didn't go their way. Not only did the gauls hold, but conducted an organised retreat right the way through their own ranks, battling Romans all the way, for several hours, before the trap was sprung. Not what the Romans would have us believe was typical Gallic behavior.

An odd fact to the punic war is that it was only officially ended by the mayors of Rome and Tunis (as a substitute for Carthage) in the 1980s. At least according to the For Your Information section in a Wargame Magazine.

Hannibal was a true great and the Romans hated him for it. Although he himself believed both Alexander and Pyrrhus were better generals.

Hannibal was a true great and the Romans hated him for it. Although he himself believed both Alexander and Pyrrhus were better generals.

I disagree with him on both counts, as a battlefield general. As a grand strategist, however, he let himself down, in my opinion. But he lost one battle in his career. And a lot of that was down to Scipios emulation (I believe) of Hannibals tactics. I'd say overall though, yeah, he's about third... which means I agree with him, I suppose.
Damn.
Battlefield general #1
Grand strategist #waay down the list.

I disagree with him on both counts, as a battlefield general. As a grand strategist, however, he let himself down, in my opinion. But he lost one battle in his career. And a lot of that was down to Scipios emulation (I believe) of Hannibals tactics. I'd say overall though, yeah, he's about third... which means I agree with him, I suppose.
Damn.
Battlefield general #1
Grand strategist #waay down the list.

When you say third do you mean behind the two mentioned or did you have someone else in mind?

Was Pyrrhus all that great? I don't know a lot about him i'll admit. But hasn't the term "Pyrrhic Victory" come to mean victory but with such huge losses it might as well have been a defeat?

When you say third do you mean behind the two mentioned or did you have someone else in mind?

Was Pyrrhus all that great? I don't know a lot about him i'll admit. But hasn't the term "Pyrrhic Victory" come to mean victory but with such huge losses it might as well have been a defeat?

I'm assured that Phyrrus is in fact all that great, and is regarded by the second alexander by some, despite having been the unfortunate originator of the term "phyrric victory"
Apparently in all of his campaigns, he only lost 2. the one against Rome, and the one in sicily. I'll get back to you on it later today, if I remember.

I'd say... above Hannibal I'd have Alexander and Saladin (more his politicking, but this is an overall thing.)

According to Livy, though, Rome went downhill after the Punic Wars; the Romans lost their metus punica. Without that, what did they have to fear anymore? The East was ripe for the picking, and after that, corruption was inevitable - the Romans lost their most treasured values, and changed from a rough-and-tumble agricultural-military society with republican institutions into the monstrosity we saw at the end of the Empire.


It would be interesting to determine how Rome lost its "metus punica," because Rome certainly did not lose a punic enemy. During Livy's life time seven Republican legions were wiped out at the battle Carrhae by Persia, a foe which turned out to be as worthy as Carthage. Starting in the 1st century BC and culminating in the 3rd century AD when the Sassanian Persian Emperor Shapur captured the Roman Emperor Valerian alive in battle, Persia was in a state of constant warfare with the Roman Empire. The tremendous difficulty and cost in maintaining the eastern frontier was one of the main reasons the empire eventually fell... Trajan's invasion of Mesopotamia strained resources and dealing with Zenobia's rebellion in Syria utterly drained the treasury. Maybe the reason Rome was not motivated by Carrhae as it was by Cannae because Persia did not directly threaten Italy and people were drunk with the past triumph over Carthage and the daily triumphs in Greece. But Livy and his contemporaries most definitely did not recognize the vast threat in the east.

It would be interesting to determine how Rome lost its "metus punica," because Rome certainly did not lose a punic enemy. During Livy's life time seven Republican legions were wiped out at the battle Carrhae by Persia, a foe which turned out to be as worthy as Carthage. Starting in the 1st century BC and culminating in the 3rd century AD when the Sassanian Persian Emperor Shapur captured the Roman Emperor Valerian alive in battle, Persia was in a state of constant warfare with the Roman Empire. The tremendous difficulty and cost in maintaining the eastern frontier was one of the main reasons the empire eventually fell... Trajan's invasion of Mesopotamia strained resources and dealing with Zenobia's rebellion in Syria utterly drained the treasury. Maybe the reason Rome was not motivated by Carrhae as it was by Cannae because Persia did not directly threaten Italy and people were drunk with the past triumph over Carthage and the daily triumphs in Greece. But Livy and his contemporaries most definitely did not recognize the vast threat in the east.

I read somewhere that Shapur had Valerian stuffed. That would be some war trophy.

It would be interesting to determine how Rome lost its "metus punica," because Rome certainly did not lose a punic enemy. During Livy's life time seven Republican legions were wiped out at the battle Carrhae by Persia, a foe which turned out to be as worthy as Carthage. Starting in the 1st century BC and culminating in the 3rd century AD when the Sassanian Persian Emperor Shapur captured the Roman Emperor Valerian alive in battle, Persia was in a state of constant warfare with the Roman Empire. The tremendous difficulty and cost in maintaining the eastern frontier was one of the main reasons the empire eventually fell... Trajan's invasion of Mesopotamia strained resources and dealing with Zenobia's rebellion in Syria utterly drained the treasury. Maybe the reason Rome was not motivated by Carrhae as it was by Cannae because Persia did not directly threaten Italy and people were drunk with the past triumph over Carthage and the daily triumphs in Greece. But Livy and his contemporaries most definitely did not recognize the vast threat in the east.


Parthia=Persia? I know they inhabited a similar area of land... but were they not different? or did you just make a mistake? I think it is the distance that made it seem less of a threat, and also Carthaginian demonisation... it may have been assumed by the average Roman that Carthage was trying to expunge Rome as Rome destroyed Carthage, whereas Parthia/Persia was defending its own territories, or at least what may have been contested?

Parthia=Persia? I know they inhabited a similar area of land... but were they not different? or did you just make a mistake? I think it is the distance that made it seem less of a threat, and also Carthaginian demonisation... it may have been assumed by the average Roman that Carthage was trying to expunge Rome as Rome destroyed Carthage, whereas Parthia/Persia was defending its own territories, or at least what may have been contested?

Shapur's father, the Sassanid Ardashir, was ruler of the city of Istakhr. He fought the Parthian king Artabanus in three battles. Killing him at Susiana in AD 224. This effectively ended Parthia and Ardashir seized control. He went on to declare that the Sassanids were the legitimate successors to the great Persian empire. This is when Parthia effectively became Persia.

Shapur's father, the Sassanid Ardashir, was ruler of the city of Istakhr. He fought the Parthian king Artabanus in three battles. Killing him at Susiana in AD 224. This effectively ended Parthia and Ardashir seized control. He went on to declare that the Sassanids were the legitimate successors to the great Persian empire. This is when Parthia effectively became Persia.


Ahh..... thank you. heh, this thread is proving useful for teaching me where I'm going wrong in my ancient history *clasps hands* excellent...

Carthage definitly deserved to win. Hannibal is the greatest general in the history of warfare. The Battle of Cannae is the most perfect victory in history. If Hannibal had had better support from Carthage itself and a reliable source of reinfrocements there is no doubting he would have eventaully won.

Parthia=Persia? I know they inhabited a similar area of land... but were they not different? or did you just make a mistake?
Yeah, Persia and Parthia are generally considered two entities due to cultural differences in the ruling dynasties... I only wrote Persia for continuity's sake but I should've written "Parthia/Persia." The two empires ruled basically the same land though... Sassanian Persia and Parthia both had their capitals at Ctesiphon (not the old Persepolis), and the Sassanians came to power through internal revolution in Parthia, so they inherited all of Parthia's land.

I think it is the distance that made it seem less of a threat, and also Carthaginian demonisation... it may have been assumed by the average Roman that Carthage was trying to expunge Rome as Rome destroyed Carthage, whereas Parthia/Persia was defending its own territories, or at least what may have been contested?
That was what I figured, although Rome certainly could make Persia a very good excuse for keeping the state in battle-ready condition... Persia constantly invaded the eastern empire and ROme's allies, and Rome's biggest campaigns ever have always been directed against Persia. Emperor Septimus Severus launched massive invasions where he burned the Parthian capital down although decades later the Persians were able to capture Emperor Valerian and his army. Persia was definitely viewed as Rome's main threat but it was never as frightening as Carthage likely due to the reasons you've listed.

Ahh..... thank you. heh, this thread is proving useful for teaching me where I'm going wrong in my ancient history *clasps hands* excellent...



Thank You.

It was just my understanding of the events so it's probably all wrong.

(Receives generous applause)

Thank You.

It was just my understanding of the events so it's probably all wrong. But please, carry on clapping.

Clapping? Good heavens no. I merely clasped my hand in a mr burns fashion. 'twas still appreciative though.

Clapping? Good heavens no. I merely clasped my hand in a mr burns fashion. 'twas still appreciative though.

Clasps not claps!

Of course. I feel suitably stupid.

One day i might even learn to read.

Although feel free to applaud at any point.