Carthage Would Not Have Replaced Rome
Which, possibly, would make it a better foundation for Western Civilization
Everyone knows about the Punic Wars, especially the second one, where the fate of both republics was arguably sealed. Two giants clashing for decades on multiple fronts and involving numerous allies to decide the fate of the Western Mediterranean. Rome ended up winning in our timeline (unfortunately), but it’s not surprising that many like to speculate what would have happened if the outcome of the war was the opposite. It’s not very far fetched, after all, since at one point Hannibal Barca was quite close to his final victory - having crossed the Alps and defeated Romans several times in a row, the general marched on their capital in 211 BCE. If he had succeeded, Rome truly might have been finished, at least for a good while, and forced to sue for peace (which is the exact premise in my series Heirs of the Mediterranean, and I assume many other Carthaginian victory timelines).
So it follows that if Rome defeated Carthage, its main enemy in the Mediterranean, and proceeded to conquer the whole region and establish a massive empire, Carthage would do the same if it had been the victor, right? Some tend to think so. Take this example:
Or this:
Or even this mother of all Carthaginian power fantasies:
No disrespect to any of these guys, these are great maps (much better than whatever I can cook up during my struggle sessions in GIMP), but I wouldn’t say they are the most realistic ones, and most people in the comments agree. Again, I’m definitely not trying to throw any shade at them - who doesn’t want a merchant republic thrive? Even I had a similar concept in mind when I made the very first, very basic draft map for what would eventually become Heirs of the Mediterranean:
For reference, this is what the finalized one looks now:
Keep in mind that in this last one Carthage controls the light purple states very loosely, so it’s more of a sphere of influence than anything. But I don’t think it’s too far fetched, since all the gains are either small advanced in northern Iberia, or islands (Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica) that the republic already partially controlled before the Punic Wars. Further than that, however, and I believe it would become difficult to justify how they managed to expand that much.
So why do I think that? Has ol’ Sobek turned into a Romaboo? Does he no longer believe in the splendor and glory of Carthage and wants to demean it at every possible turn? No, of course not. I just don’t think Carthage had the military chops to become some large all consuming empire. But what it did have is, arguably, even better than just being an unstoppable war machine.
Let’s start with why Carthage could not have made Mediterranean into its inner lake and expanded even further:
Carthage was, at its core, a merchant republic. Most of what it had gained was through colonization, rather than warfare (the Barcids and their adventures in Iberia and Italy notwithstanding). Going around and razing every second city you come across to the ground, while depopulating whole regions and committing genocides is quite bad for business. There is a reason why Netherlands was not the one to forge a large empire in central Europe or why Venice was not the one to unify Italy.
Carthage also used mercenaries for its army. Citizens only served either as officers, sailors, or city guards. Sure, exceptions exist, but the majority of the campaigning army was always made up of countless mercenaries: Celts, Iberians, Numidians, Cretans, allied Italians, Balearics, you name it. Now that is pretty based, if I say so myself, being heavily against any form of conscription myself (matter of fact, I had to haul my ass to the conscription office just this week, but hopefully I am in the clear now). However, that may not be enough if you insist on forming and holding an empire, since mercenaries cost a lot and may not be that reliable for long periods of time. Guards, sailors, and officers might be enough for peacetime, but constant campaigning would require a lot of manpower, and, in turn, conscription. Or at least a volunteer standing army, and I believe the political situation in Carthage would not have accepted that either.
Even if they wanted to expand further, Carthaginians would likely have just continued their colonization streak. Why waste manpower and gold on capturing some insignificant city when you can settle hundreds of new ones with way less effort. There is still West Africa, Western Europe, even the Americas. I doubt it would have been a significant challenge reaching those places, considering the Carthaginian focus on maritime affairs. Those are the directions I imagine Carthage would expand to in the (very) long run, not Italy, Greece, Egypt, or some other highly contested region in the Mediterranean.
And, finally - Carthage kinda sucked at warfare. I’m sorry fellow Carthabros, but it’s true. We have to accept this L. The merchant republic just wasn’t that good at fighting. Sure, you have the Barcids, who managed to conquer Iberia and wreak havoc in Italy, but it seems more of an anomaly than anything. And even they ultimately failed. Granted, everyone failed against Rome (except the Persians, though even that is arguable, depending on how you see the outcome of the last war, right before the Arabs stormed in), so maybe it’s not the most fair comparison, but it’s not like Carthage was having an easy time in war before them either. Sicily was a place where the Carthaginians were fighting for dominance all the way back in the 6th century BCE, when Rome was still in its semi-mythical kingdom era. Just look at the list of all the Sicilian Wars Carthage was involved in. Three centuries of fighting for that rock, and all Carthage had to show for it by the time the Romans got involved was the western half of the island. There were many victories, but also many losses, and while you could say that in total Carthage had more wins and continued advancing throughout the ages, that advance was glacial at best. At this rate, the Carthaginians would have to worry about the heat death of the universe before strategizing for a war with the Illyrians. And no, the naval warfare record doesn’t look any better than the one for land warfare - in fact, it may be even worse, somehow. Ultimately, even the Second Punic War was lost, utterly, despite all the decisive victories in the first years, so there clearly was something wrong. If only Hasdrubal and Mago had held the line in Iberia… Or the senate / council of 104 had sent Hannibal more reinforcements…
Alright, maybe I was a bit too harsh on the Carthaginian generals in this meme video I made years ago, but the sentiment still stands.
So, Carthage doesn’t get to replace Rome, instead remaining a regional power. Very influential, definitely, and economically dominant, but not marching its legions from Britain and Germania to Egypt and Mesopotamia. But, I dare say, that would have actually been preferable. The 14 year old me obsessed with painting the map in my country’s color in EU4 would have found that heretical, but luckily I have grown out of that phase years ago and realized that a great civilization is more than just conquering lands. Would be nice if certain world leaders realized that too, but alas.
Look at it this way - what we had was one massive empire conquering everything it could, razing countless cities (Carthage, Corinth, Jerusalem, Palmyra), committing genocides (Carthaginians, Gauls), and enslaving millions through their conquests, while we could have had a flourishing mercantile republic which would not have done that. At least not nearly to the extent the Romans went to. Also, Roman victories resulted in countless countries trying to emulate them and proclaim themselves the second, third, or whichever coming of Rome. Imagine if we had that, but for Carthage. Countries competing on which can trade the most instead of which can conquer some useless desolate wasteland. Yes, I’m the “the freer the market trade, the freer the people” kind of guy, but I would still vote for the populares equivalent rather than the optimates, if you catch my drift.
This would also likely reduce the number of Roman fanboys, due to this Apep’s plague upon the Earth being snuffed out centuries earlier and remaining a minor footnote in most history textbooks, and I believe that would be to the benefit of all mankind. Or maybe not - after all, somehow Sparta still has its followers, despite being possibly the most pathetic “civilization” in all of ancient history. All the worst excesses of Rome and beyond, while only managing to conquer half of a tiny peninsula and then being destroyed by an army of gay men, a fact which I imagine the right wingers don’t appreciate too much. Almost poetic. I guess Rome being defeated by a merchant republic that only uses mercenaries would also be similarly satisfying.
So if Carthage wouldn’t be the replacement to Rome, who would? Some countries would need to be the proverbial heirs of this Meditarranean power, right? Well, as you know, I just happen to have a version of events from one such timeline. Conveniently sent to ours in eBook, paperback, and hardcover formats at that. Don’t worry, I’ll lay off the advertisments in the future somewhat, but this seems too relevant of a post to not use the opportunity. And yeah, yeah, I know that I promised posts to be up on Fridays while it is already Saturday (and even Sunday in the far east), but this turned out to be a better time for writing and publishing. So expect posts on Saturdays now. Or Sundays. Every week. Or every other week. Or just pray to Horus for anything at all (not to Thoth though, his blessings go to my novels, just keep that in mind). Anyways, what was I about? Oh, right. Furthermore, I think that Rome must be destroyed.