How much of a threat Carthage was to Rome really?
Looking at the Pop History out there, they make it like that these two niggas were like the up and coming powers in the Med.
But there seems to be more powerful entities than Carthage in the region really
>Seleucids
>Ptolemaic Egypt.
>>1009544
Yes, they were up and coming powers. But it was each would serve to be the stepping stone into much greater glory. It just so happened that Rome won.
Also I'd say Carthage was a greater threat to Rome because of proximity, influence on surrounding entities (Iberians, Islanders etc) and economic power. The other Greek sons were fucking around with each other anyway and weren't an active threat to Rome as much as Carthage was.
>>1009563
poor b8
Had Hannibal stormed Romes wall during his siege, he could have won the war, and Rome would have been a detail in history.
>>1009563
>using a latin alphabet
As a Hispanic and cultural heir to Rome and the latins I resent your cultural appropriation. IT'S 2016!! MAKE YOUR OWN ALPHABET GERMANIC LANGUAGES!
>>1009544
I think they were a bigger threat to each other in the 1st Punic War than the 2nd and by the 3rd Rome was basically just curbstomping Carthage for old times sake.
Seleucids and Ptolemaic Egypt were locked in an eternal struggle and weren't going to be doing anything in the middle Mediterranean.
Carthage was a pretty big threat to Rome but Rome gives the impression that they were never truly in danger. After Carthage was defeated Rome was the big new kid on the block who beat the shit out of everything from Macedon to Seleucids.
>>1009594
>English
>Germanic language
>>1009591
Stormed Rome's walls with what equipment?
>>1009612
not that guy and just spitballing here, but at the time wasn't it common practice for siege equipment to be made on location and for immediate needs rather than speciality made at a city/production center and shipped to the front?
>>1009544
>up and coming powers in the Med
>Not Saying Western Med
Really Carthage was Romes only real competitor for power in the Western Mediterranean.
>>1009563
Wasn't Hannibal phonecian, making him white?
>>1009639
I don't think middle eastern people are considered white.
>>1009605
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
>English is a West Germanic language
>>1009654
But in reality...
>>1009630
Yeah when you're assaulting some shitty ass cities in the desert or something.
Rome was the most defended city in Europe by that time, not to mention that while Hannibal was waging war in Italy the rest of the republic was mobilizing
>>1009698
but the syntax and grammar are Germanic.
>>1009734
What exactly would Carthage have produced specifically for Rome that Hannibal couldn't have built in the woods and fields around Rome?
>>1009794
It's not about the resources, it's about assaulting the most fortified city in Europe by that time while an army is coming to relieve the siege.
His entire plan lay on having the Romans' Italian allies rebel
>>1009544
>How much of a threat Carthage was to Rome really?
Basically no threat. The biggest trouble would have been if Hannibal actually managed to raise the bigger of the italics tribes, like the umbri and veneti, directly against Rome. As it was, some wishy washy greek city state support was of no importance.
Beyond Hannibal's attempt Carthage never managed to pose any sort of trouble to Rome whatsoever.
Of course, if the wars didn't happen, Carthage *could* have certainly become a big source of trouble, particularly if they managed to get a firm hold on Sicily and Hispania. But fact is that Rome decided to stomp them before they could be trouble.
>>1009804
This. Hannibal could never take Rome and he knew it. The best he could do was bleed the Romans so bad the other Italian tribes/factions jumped ship and joined him. Only problem was they didn't do this. And while the Romans could raise army after army for the meat grinder, the closest Hannibal got to reinforcements was some troops sent to Iberia. Moreover, his little bro absolutely wasted said reinforcements when he tried meeting up with Hannibal in Italia and proceeded to get BTFO'ed. In short, Hannibal was outmanned and out of tricks by the time Scipio was leading legions, and it showed at Zama.
Given more men (and more competent leaders in Carthage) Hannibal may have had a chance, and that's a big maybe. Hope this helps OP.
>>1009850
>Given more men (and more competent leaders in Carthage) Hannibal may have had a chance
I hate these kind of arguments. You could just as well say that if Rome had sent Fabius and Scipio to lead the armies against Hannibal to begin with, he would have been a footnote in history.
>>1009804
Due, are you?:
>>1009612
If not please read the convo. Your point makes no sense in context.
>Guy is specifically saying the refusal to storm Rome was a consequence of a lack of equipment
>>1009630
I ask
>What equipment did he lack that he couldn't build outside of Rome
You (I assume):
>>1009734
>Rome was super defended though
>The implication being that while building the equipment outside was fine for some "shitty ass cities in the desert or something." it wouldn't have been enough for Rome
I ask:
>>1009794
>What equipment would that be?
You (I assume):
>>1009804
>It's not about the resources, it's about assaulting the most fortified city in Europe
I'm not arguing about how well fortified Rome is or even whether or not Hannibal could have taken it, I'm asking:
>>1009612
What equipment he thought Hannibal was lacking exactly.
Fuck man, either you're interjecting with irrelavant shit or you're shifting goal posts when you realized you were a retard, which is it?
>>1009895
Well no, because Scipio needed his experience in Spain to be able to defeat Hannibal. I hate those arguments too but that example wasn't too good.
>>1009544
Seleucids were on the way out by the time Rome was on the way up.
End of 2nd century B.C. they had lost almost everything to the Parthians.
Parthia was a threat to Rome, but only really at times when Rome was weakened by internal war or simultaneous invasions along the Rhine or Danube.
>>1009895
Don't take it so personally, Scipio. If you looked at my argument as a whole instead of one phrase you disagreed with, you'd see that we both hold the same opinion. For Hannibal to win in Rome it would take nothing short of a miracle.
>>1009950
Not the guy you're talking to, but I'd consider the whole situation rather than just the siege equipment: Rome is a very strongly fortified city where most of the male population is made of veterans, and has armies lurking around avoid an open battle but certainly ready to come and break a siege. Hannibal on the other hand has less than 50k men, no ready siege equipment (yes he could probably make it but that takes time) and is cut off from his own lines because of the roman navy. If he went and sieged Rome he would have basically just accepted battle against a numerically superior enemy while giving them the choice of battleground and initial positioning. Not exactly the kind of odds required to win a siege I'd recon.
Besides, there's something else to consider. If you wanna build anything more complex than an ram or a ladder, you're gonna need actual engineers. Hannibal's army was made up of mercenary numidians, gauls and spaniards. I wouldn't be so sure he actually had the capacity to build siege towers and shit.
>>1010035
>For Hannibal to win in Rome it would take nothing short of a miracle.
Or a good diplomat and planning. Changing the mind of the Roman Allies and launching the Social War a couple of centuries ahead of schedule probably could have tipped the the scales in his favor. Had Carthage made overtures to the Italian cities a decade or two before and strengthened ties while supporting separatist politicians, shit could have gotten real.
>>1009895
In due fairness, however, I phrased that part rather poorly. I did not mean to insinuate that Hannibal magically acquiring more soldiers or having more competent leaders as actual strategies. But rather, that the tools he needed to succeed were entirely beyond his control.
>>1010069
Could you elaborate more on this? Or point me in the direction of some good literature/articles that take this approach. I find it very intriguing
>>1010069
>Changing the mind of the Roman Allies and launching the Social War a couple of centuries ahead of schedule
...Would have required nothing short of a miracle.
The fatal flaw of Hannibal plan was, what reason do the italics have to wish for Rome's defeat? The peninsula is thriving under them, they're pretty much free and most certainly not oppressed, the interwarring between tribes has stopped, the gauls are kept at bay, every summer a chance to go rape and pillage some foreigners for lots of loot.. What would the point even be? Carthage would just become a different overlord, worse one without the interest and probably capacity to actually defend the peninsula beyond the southern cities.
Not to mention that the social war was more about giving all the italics equal footing with Rome rather than breaking up the peninsula anyway.
>>1010117
>Would have required nothing short of a miracle.
They did it on their own two a century and change later.
>What would the point even be?
The same as the REAL Social War, citizenship. I'm saying if you're smart and you rule Carthage use some of that Poeni moneies to exert some soft power and destabilize your neighbor and THEN invade in favor of the rebels.
>>1010069
>>1010069
>shit could have gotten real.
Imagine the Social Wars starting in 220 BC
>Samnites and Marsi rebel demanding equal representation of their people and considerations as citizens of Rome
>fight with Rome for a bit
>both sides exhausted but Rome starts to get the upperhand
>Suddenly A fuck huge Carthaginian army lands in Northern Italy pledging support for Marsi and the Samnites.
neat
>>1010142
So you think Carthage could just start meddling into italian politics for years without the romans doing anything to prevent it? The war would have started way sooner than it did, with a fuckload of legions in Tunisia instead of an army in northern Italy.
Also remember that the social war was about the italian aristocracy getting political power in Rome, not wrecking the city. That would have been directly against everyone's interests.
>>1010151
Brb, gotta go incite some Samnites to rebel against Roman overlords.
Ba'al-Hammon be praised.
>>1010176
>So you think Carthage could just start meddling into italian politics for years without the romans doing anything to prevent it?
Not blatantly, but no one does it blatantly now unless they're already sure they'll win.
>Also remember that the social war was about the italian aristocracy getting political power in Rome, not wrecking the city.
So you don't wreck the city you install a government that likes you and isn't adversarial towards you. Hannibal didn't want to wreck Rome itself anyway, he would have been satisfied with a peace settlement which is way less useful than what I'm proposing he'd get.
>>1010195
Who knows, a century after helping install the Italian Senate maybe Carthage who would be a true Friend and Ally of Italy would have had a merger of sorts with the Italian Republic instead of getting raped into the dirt by Rome because Cato is an asshole.
>>1010232
Yea really, what was Cato's beef with the Carthiginians?
>>1010254
He freaked out after visiting Carthage and seeing the city had almost recovered from the indemnity inflicted on it after Zama and feared it would regain its former glory and challenge Rome again.
>>1009651
Crossing the alps with elephants gives a person honourary white status.
At first they were a gigantic threat since Carthage was a naval power on par with Rome and they had colonies in Italy. Combine this with a respectable military and Rome shat itself at the prospect of a Carthaginian invasion.
>>1010275
Was this a realistic fear? Or was Cato being too presumptuous in assuming the Carthiginians would recover enough to challenge Rome? Btw, thanks for the insight. This is why I love coming to /his/
>>1010301
Fair point desu
>>1010314
With its location and connections Carthage was always going to be a powerhouse in the Mediterranean.
There just wasn't enough space for the two of them.
>>1009651
white is considered whatever you want it to be.
>>1010314
The difference between Rome and Carthage was that Rome had vast reservoirs of manpower while Carthage had vast reservoirs of money. It's why Rome had legions and Carthage had mercs. The benefit of mercs is that you don't need a huge city and huge territory to field a huge army.
That said there's no reason to assume that Carthage would have ever recovered to that level in the future especially with an ever present Rome in the western Mediterranean capable of foiling every economic turn. However that's not really how wars were conducted at the time so an economic war might not have been entirely understood by Romans thus making a Carthaginian rebirth a possibility even if in my opinion Carthage doing so would be a bit far fetched,
>>1010421
>raceisasocialconstructguise
>>1010407
>There just wasn't enough space for the two of them.
I disagree, I think a peaceful union would have been entirely possible, it's just that Roman politicians were cunts and enjoyed settling matters militarily.
>>1009744
Actually they are overwhelmingly Latin. In fact the same is true for all "Germanic" languages.
>>1010496
Not him but he's kind of right and I'm not even a leftie. In the 18th century these were the only ethnicities that colonial Americans considered white, for example.
>>1010528
>Not him but he's kind of right and I'm not even a leftie.
"kind of" being the important words there. We're simply shit at defining it as far as genetics have taught us. Terms like "white" and "black" aren't useful IQ tests and the like have shown that there's something there amongst populations and the differences persist despite changes in environments. We just don't want to explore it further because of politics.
>>1010301
this desu. White is less of a racial attribute and more of a philosophical conceit of greatness. If the mongols had hit western europe they would have been regarded as whites.
To reject whiteness is to embrace slave morality.
>>1010860
>If the mongols had hit western Europe they would have been regarded as whites.
But didn't you know that Genghis Khan was a caucasian?
>>1010879
Uh, no Genghis Khan was actually Minamoto no Yoshitsune, stormfag.
>>1009544
Considering Carthage was pushing Rome to the brink of extinction via Hannibal, I would say they were the biggest threat Rome ever faced, greater than the Persians/Parthians.
>>1009734
Hahaahahahahaa nope. It was fucking tiny still- still very early days, a league of allied city states. Look at urban population count for case and point
>>1010511
>This situation was possible if that group of people stopped behaving like they always do and did this thing contrary to their culture
That's not an argument mate. Given everything we know about the Romans, there was no way for them to coexist with Carthage.
One of them was going to have to go.
>>1010902
>Considering Carthage was pushing Rome to the brink of extinction via Hannibal
The fuck? Hannibal literally expected the Romans to sue for terms after Cannae so he could fuck off and go home. He was never fighting a total war for Rome's destruction, he just wanted to humiliate them.
>>1011658
Romans coexisted with plenty of states and client kingdoms and even absorbed some of them peacefully.
>>1011788
Powers that were too far away with to actually deal with.
If they could've dealt with the Germans and the Parthians the same way they did the Carthage they would've.
Carthage was too powerful to ever hope to maintain as a client state. And they were too close to the Roman power base.
>>1011788
The Romans fought a lot more than they were friendly.You can nitpick a handful of kingdoms that were absorbed peacefully, I can name a laundry list of kingdoms and tribes that were crushed under a Roman sandal.
>>1011788
their places of interest clashed
>sicily
breadbasket of italy
>hispania
money and colonies to be made
when i say colonies i obviously mean roman towns to establish and land to distribute
>>1011829
But most of Rome's acquisitions truly were cunts who were absorbed when the local power is defeated.
Rome's diplomatic capabilities are severely underrated in history because everyone and their plebby mothers thin MUH LEGIONS all the time.
>>1009544
In the first war Carthage was a real threat, influencing Sicily heavily.
In the second not so much, but still a strong and rising power, able to pay off its debts easily and exploiting Spain very well.
In the third war Carthage was fucked from the start
>>1009544
It's not all military, it's about trade. Carthage ruled mediterranean trade, and Rome wanted that position. When struggle broke out over Sicily, the trade crown of the region, the bitter rivalry was inevitable.
>>1009544
Why is Hannibal white in this?
>>1010528
>Thinking fucking Swedes were swarthy
>>1009605
Yeah, English is a Germanic language with Latin influence, just like, say, Romanian is a Latin language with Slavic and Turkish influence.
>>1009698
Means nothing, language isn't just vocabulary you know?
Did they really used kukri?
>>1012648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata
>>1009594
We do though
>>1010524
This is untrue
>>1009698
Nice mæmæ kinsman
>>1011815
>If they could've dealt with the Germans and the Parthians the same way they did the Carthage they would've.
I was...Wait, are those really the only two you think they coexisted with peacefully?
>>1012524
Not by the 3rd Punic War, At that point there was little chance some tiny city-state in North Africa would undermine the Roman Republic. It was just a fantastical boogeyman with little chance of manifesting itself. Long term, a peaceful absorption of Carthage by Rome was far more likely.
I love how behind such a great general as Hannibal, theres also great father & general like Amilcar. Happens the same with Alexander for example and Filipos
