>>1156344
I think Carthage was in a general decline, it had been going for near 1000 years. It had the problems that the Roman Republic had, lots of corruption, dodgy politics, power plays etc, but Rome busting its balls at the same time it couldn't compete.

>>1156344
Rome had a higher population than Carthage and many more pools to draw soldiers from. Italia was really highly populated. So no, they won because they could take blows.

>>1156349
Hannibal was basically Caesar, and would have restored Carthage if not for Rome forcing him to flee.

Carthago delenda est, buddies

>>1156349
>I think Carthage was in a general decline, it had been going for near 1000 year

Carthage was founded around 800 bc, it hadn't even existed for 600 years

>>1156396
suck my salty balls cato

phoenician 4 life

>>1156349
>I think Carthage was in a general decline, it had been going for near 1000 years.
First, this
>>1156406
>Carthage was founded around 800 bc, it hadn't even existed for 600 years
Second, "a general decline"? How come so? By controlling the most territories in it's history?

>>1156416
Ill smeck u cheeky cunt

>>1156419
Big country doesn't mean power...look at mine, it was small as fuck and ripped the shit out of Hannibal

>>1156421
ill spark you out then ding
am fukin dok hard m8

>>1156419
carthage was a colony of more powerful phoenician citys like tyre, sidon and byblos in modern lebanon
phoenician evolved into punic after the fall of these cities cut of carthage

phoenician: qart-hadasht = new city => carthage

like the greek colonie
neapolis = new city => naples

magna greacia is comparable if not on the same timescale

>>1156465
And? I don't really get what your point is, we already knew these things.

>>1156344
>I presume more resources and population (like Carthage itself was larger than Rome at the time)
Italy back then was already very densely inhabited tho. I really doubt Carthage had more population when you count the whole territory.

>>1156475
they wuz old un shiet

>>1156482
>>1156344

Quoting from Italian wiki "alla vigilia delle guerre puniche (270 a.C. circa), la città appariva già, con circa 187.000 residenti[1], come una delle grandi metropoli del Mediterraneo occidentale, seconda, per popolazione alla sola Cartagine."

"at the beginning of Punic Wars, Rome has 187.000 inhabitants, it one of the biggest metropolies of the West Mediterranean Sea, second for population to Carthago"

So Carthago also had more inhabitants

>>1156406
>>1156419
I just meant phoenicians in general. Carthage was just the New City. New Carthage was therefore New New City

>>1156530
>I just meant phoenicians in general

What the hell does this mean?

Phoenicians weren't a single entity, Tyre and Sidon were in conflict since the bronze age for instance.

>>1156518
But what about the rest of the territory?

>>1156465

By the time of the Punic wars, Carthage had far outstripped Tyre and Sidon in terms of hegemony.

>>1156544
Think that both countries were almost inhabitated, there were just little villagies that you could have counted with the fingers on your hand

>>1156548
Well no shit, Tyre was conquered by the Assyrians first around 600 bc, and by Alexander later.

>>1156559
>Well no shit

Eat shit and die, dickhole-ass bully. I was merely correcting an inaccuracy.

>>1156570
>I was merely correcting an inaccuracy

He never said Carthage was inferior to its predecessors in terms of population or military power, so you didn't correct shit.

>>1156570
yeah bitch i never said that shit nigger straight up

>>1156578
thank you anon

What's some recommended books if I want to read about the Phoenicians and Carthaginians?

Does anyone know any data comparing the population of the Roman Republic and the Dominion of Carthage?

>>1156627
Sadly no, I was looking for that kind of thing too (population of cities in my region during the Phoenician period) and it's extremely hard to get information on that sort of thing.

>>1156344
>It's clear that prior to the First Punic War Carthage controlled more land and I presume more resources and population
How is this clear? Rome had a significant numerical advantage in the first conflict.

Carthagian citizens were generally discouraged from joining the military unless they were the upper class nobles who joined the officer corps. They recruited chiefly from their African, Iberian, Numidian, and other foreign populations along with mixed race men. They also used a good number of mercenaries that were pooled from around the Mediterranean. Romans were more centralized in that they just needed to coerce/incentivize their socii Italic allies to fight with them and use native auxiliaries where they could (Spain, Numidia, etc.)

Implications of this for the Carthaginians are issues of morale (see the Mercenary War after the 1st Punic, Iberians were the center in Cannae because they were the most likely to run and Hannibal wanted to be able to spur them to battle there), issues of mobilization (takes longer to gather recruits, train them, ship them out), and issues of cost (related to mobilization, see Mercenary War).

These aren't the only causes, but some that should probably be considered as well.

>>1156640
Once I actually saw population comparision of the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire and it claimed the Roman Republic had actually sligthly larger population. Can't find it now though, but I found some estimates saying the Roman Italy had a population of 4,000,000 prior to the Second Punic War.
>>1156650
It's clear that they controlled more area and presumably more resources(mines in Iberia) but yeah, no idea about the population, probably Rome had the advantage there.

>>1156627
i have a feeling it would be pretty hard to find out the population of carthage accuratly if at all
there is barely any written record of punic (apart from inscriptions) even though plays and books where written in the language, only a handful of greek/latin translations remain
> carthago delenda est
i reckon it was much smaller than that of rome as north africa is much less fertile than roman lands not to mention the general lack of a hinterland as a thassalocracy

>>1156691
or simply they were more effective when it comes to recruiting the conscripts

File: roman skeleton.png (272 KB, 728x782) Image search: [Google]

272 KB, 728x782

I don't know much from the period or the conflict, but from what I've read the Romans the Romans somehow were able to muster hundreds of thousands of men.
Army after army was defeated by Hannibal and co.
How were the Romans able to replace so many men? Didn't these deaths also affect their economy? I'd imagine having such massive numbers of land holder die would do something.

>>1156691
Yeah Carthage had control over both the mines in Iberia and Sardinia, so basically the largest deposits of copper and silver in the Mediterranean, it's strange that they lost like that.

>>1156695
Carthage was capable of mustering hundreds of thousands of men aswell, though yes - Rome still was able to get the numerical advantage.
>How were the Romans able to replace so many men? Didn't these deaths also affect their economy?
They were dead set on winning the conflict. After they lost at Cannae they allowed peasants and even the slaves to join the army.

>>1156708
>After they lost at Cannae they allowed peasants and even the slaves to join the army.
What became of these people afterwards? Would they continue to be slaves and peasants?
Didn't troops have to pay for their own arms and armour? Didn't recruiting lower classes result in massive state-spending? How was this all financed?
Sorry for asking so many questions.

>>1156541
They were the same civilisation though.

I love the fact, that in my history book Third Punic War was called "An act of pure barbarianship by the Romans and a revenge for Hannibal"

I'm still furious that my history teacher stole the one on the 19th century.