Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Carthage was never a threat to Rome.
Thread: Carthage was never a threat to Rome. This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 26, 2010 07:27 PM bonus applied by Mytical on 28 Dec 2010.

Carthage was never a threat to Rome.

Okay, before I start to defend this outrageous statement, I'll start with a little history lesson about what Carthage was.

Background:

Carthage was a Phoenician colony, first and foremost, located in what is now known as Tunis. Now, the Phoenicians where a people of seamen. They became one of the greatest seamen and traders, after the collapse of Crete (which, as you know, was one of the greatest mediterranean superpowers, after they were inexplicably wiped out) somewhere around 1000 BC. So, the Phoenician civilisation is older than the Roman one (unless you count their Greek origins, but that would be stupid). Originally, the Phoenicians didn't do much trading from their two big cities, Sidon and Tyre. They only exported wood to Egypt, because everything else would be intercepted by Crete until Crete's collapse.

Anyway, after the collapse of Crete, there came a power vacuum. The Phoenicians didn't fill it with military might, but with an economic one. The Phoenicians, much like the Greeks, established several colonies across the mediterranean. The difference between the Phoenicians and the Greeks was that the Phoenicians clung more to the shores of Africa, while the Greeks colonised everywhere. Their greatest colony, which became something of an independent nation, was Carthage on the shores of Tunis. The Carthaginians were excellent traders and became an economic superpower through the export of purple dyes and refined products (as opposed to raw products, like wood and ore) (furniture, clothes, etc.).

There's a story the Romans had about the origins of Carthage, which according to them was built some fifty to a hundred or so years before Rome (remember, it's only Aeneas' grandchildren that built Rome) and talks about how Dido (tragic a figure as she is) landed on the shores of Tunis in order to create a new colony. However, another tribe had already settled, close on these shores, the Numidians (you'll hear more about these guys). Dido asked the king of the Numidians for a chance to settle here. The king of the Numidians supposedly laughed at her middle-eastern face and told her she could have all the land she could cover with one cow skin. Supposedly, Dido took a cow skin, shredded it into tiny ribbons and encircled a big coastal area with it and that came to be known as Carthage. I tell you this not for the doubtful truthfulness of it, but it shows that the Romans saw the Carthaginians as a shrewd and cunning people and they did not take carthage by force from the Numidians (their later allies).

Anyway, I won't bore you to tears with more stories from the Aeneis, but I am going to talk about the expansions of Carthage and the loss of contact with the motherland, Sidon and Tyre, before I'm going to talk about this badass:



So the Carthaginians established a few more colonies on the Balearic isles, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicilia and Iberia (Spain). These colonies worked much as the british colonies in the 19th century. They were used as places to increase wealth via trade, more than anything else. Although, there was one exception: Iberia. You see, the Eastern rich nations, like Egypt, Persia and Greece already discovered the awesomeness of gold a long time ago and they had mined a lot of it in these respective nations, which made gold rather scarce in these nations. The carthaginians knew this, of course, since they themselves hailed from the eastern mediterranean. And what did they find? GOLD! Lots and lots of gold in Iberia, which they could sell in the east for huge profit. Suddenly, the Carthaginians got a taste for conquering land, much like the Romans.

Just one little historic note and we can start on the juicy Punic wars (The word Punic is derived from the Latin word for "Phoenician" by the way):

Around 330 BC a great force stirred. One man had conquered the Greek cities and Asia Minor and was now making his way towards Egypt. On his way, he encountered and squashed Sidon, something that the Persians or the Syrians had never done, because of it's inhospitable terrain. The other city, Tyre, supposedly was unconquerable as well. No man had ever even dreamt of taking Tyre, for its fortifications ran right up to the shores. Alexander then came with an insane idea: let's turn the island the island into a penninsula.
And so he did. This was the end of the Phoenicians in the middle-east.

The first Punic war

Okay, again, before we talk about this badass, let's talk about this badass:



Hamilcar Barca was the commander of the Carthaginian army in Sicily. He was also Hannibal's father and what causes him to lose will also be what caused Hannibal to lose. Now, let's get one thing straight: there is no such thing as "the Carthaginian army" in the sense there was a Roman army. The Romans and Gauls fielded large armies of their own people because they were largely an agricultural society (so they were large in numbers), but the Carthaginians on the other hand, weren't as populous a civilisation, but they had money and the means to get mercenaries from everywhere around the world, which they did.

So in Sicily, Hamilcar Barca commanded a great army of Southern Gauls, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Numidians an anything else you can think of. Now, as mentioned, Alexander's great (huge, like gigantic) expansion wasn't so long ago (it's about 280 BC right now), so the part of Sicily controlled by the Greeks (Syracuse) considered itself pretty big (which, in all fairness, it was) and contested control over Sicily with the Carthaginian army. As said, Hamilcar was more than up to the challenge and beat back the Greeks and conquered two thirds of Sicily. Syracuse called their own Italic mercenaries, a regiment of professional mercenaries, the mamertines, interfered with the conflict. Hamilcar whipped them too, but Rome had its eyes on Sicily now, after having recently conquered all of Italy from the Greeks.

Rome joined the conflict, posing as the allies of Syracuse on the pretense that they had to help their own people (the aforementioned mamertines). Rome took one third of the island and quickly made Syracuse their vassal, leaving only Hamilcar and Rome against each other. Notice how I said Hamilcar and not Carthage, because Hamilcar didn't necessarily act for the council of 104 (Cathage's senate) and initially paid most of the army out of his own coffers (him being Carthaginian aristocracy and all). Now, Hamilcar was inside a great mountain fortress with his army of veteran mercenaries fighting the Romans. He could not be conquered and he had the manpower to retake Sicily, certainly so if he had the backing of his homeland.

However, the Carthaginian navy has been smashed several times and the 104 don't see this war ending in its favor anytime soon, so they sign a peace treaty with the Romans. The Carthaginians have to pay a pretty big debt, surrender Sicily and are forbidden from recruiting Sicilian and Italic mercenaries. Hamilcar was very angry at this arrangement and told his son never to make deals with the Romans. Now, let's shift focus to Hannibal, because Hannibal spent his childhood mostly in those fortified cities and mountain fortress, among the mercenaries. It is believed Hannibal learned to speak several languages fluently and understand the cultures of the foreign mercenaries which will be an integral part to his own forces, later on.

This was also the first time Rome conquered a region outside Italy and created its own client state (Syracuse). They also employed divide et impera or saw the benefits at least of having a divided region where one side will join you after having worn out the other one.

Now, there was a small problem with this war debt Carthage incurred: they couldn't pay any outstanding mercenary bills, this caused several bands of Sicilian mercenaries to lay siege to Carthage in retaliation to this injustice. Hamilcar destroyed the army of mercenaries with a mix between Carthaginians and other mercenaries. Hamilcar then set his sights on Iberia (for it has gold and plenty of mercenaries/ barbarians), but before he left he made Hannibal vow to never trust a Roman and always pursue them.

Hamilcar pretty much spent the rest of his life subduing Iberians. Now, that was the first Punic war and the first Barca. Now, let's talk about the toughest and most exciting and most decisive of them:

The second Punic war, the second Barca and their legacy:



I have already told about Hannibal Barca's childhood, which, like William the Conqueror's childhood, was filled with fighting and mercenaries, only less French and more African. Now, Hamilcar was killed in Iberia in battle, presumably because God thought it was unfair towards the Iberians to face this guy. Now, Hannibal's uncle and Hamilcar's brother, Hasdrubal, was in charge of the whole Iberian operation. Hasdrubal tried to be friendly towards the Iberians and make peace with them. He also signed a treaty with the Romans that Carthage wouldn't even bother with conquering the north of Iberia as long as Rome didn't bother with trying to make life difficult in the south of Iberia. Then Hasdrubal was assassinated. Hannibal then rose to be in charge of Iberia and understood that these Iberian tribes understood power more than anything else (these were, after all, germanic/ celtic tribes). After two years he had subdued all Iberian tribes in the south of the Ebro and the Romans saw this and feared for Carthage's power. In the mean time, Hannibal also made an agreement with the king of Numidia that, as long as he saw money and war, he would support the Carthaginians with Numidians. The hammer of Hannibal's army, up to the battle of Cannae has always been his Numidian heavy cavalry.

Hannibal then does what Hannibal does best. He wages war against the Romans. The Romans claim an Iberian city, called Saguntum, under their protection. It was a pretty small gesture, but Hannibal goes forth and besieges Saguntum, out of the pretense that the Romans violated their treaty with Hasdrubal. This was one of the messiest and sloppiest battles Hannibal has ever fought. He got injured himself during the battle and the siege took about nine months. Hannibal learned from this that he should never lay siege to a well-fortified city ever again and this is something he has done til the very end.

He crosses the Pyrenees with some Iberian guides and all goes reasonably well. He enlists the Gauls from the south of Gaul, enemies of Rome and then he crosses the Alps. What's notable about this whole ordeal is that Hannibal decided to invade Rome via land and not via sea, which is weird, since after all, the Carthaginians have always had an impressive navy. Supposedly Hannibal learned not to rely on boats, since it happened more than once an entire floot got destroyed in an unexpected storm during the first (and second) Punic war (the Romans also had this problem). Anyway, Hannibal crosses the Alps, with acceptable casualties and crossed the north of Italy. This is where he encountered his first legion. This legion was quickly crushed, because the Roman general was stupid enough to allow Hannibal to decide where (hilly terrain with several of his men hidden everywhere)and when (early in the morning with a lot of fog) the battle would be fought. Hannibal's army then crossed a swamp area which caused all his elephants, except his own personal elephant (Suris) to die. Hannibal also lost an eye due to an infection here.

Then what Hannibal did was stomp around Italy for several years, defeating several over-eager Roman generals. One general managed to ward off Hannibal somewhat, the appointed dictator, Fabius. Fabius was dubbed "Cunctator" which is Latin and means "hesitator" for not being able to score decisive victories against Hannibal (nor did he suffer decisive losses, but the Romans want excellence, not adequacy). Now, I won't list his entire trip through Italy, because even I find that boring. Anyway, suffice it to say, there's a reason why Hannibal became a boogeyman in Rome for the coming century. The phrase "Hannibal ad portas" inspired fear in every Roman citizen. Hannibal had succeeded in marauding through Rome without a supply line, through pillaging the countryside. He beat several generals and escaped some generals who thought they had him cornered. He made several Italian cities (most notably Samnite cities) defect and, of course, there's also most famously the battle of cannae. An attempt of Rome to destroy Hannibal once and for all. Nearly 100,000 Romans against an army of 30,000 veteran mercenaries led by Hannibal. The Romans lost so hard, there's an entire wiki-page dedicated to that battle.

Now, this is all the work of one brilliant man: Hannibal. Now, I'll tell you of the misfortunes they suffered. There was another general en route to Hannibal, about 40,000 men and the leader was another Barca. Many a Roman consul's head would have exploded if this became reality. unfortunately, however, the runner that army sent to alert Hannibal of their presence was intercepted and the Carthiginian army was destroyed in an ambush. The only capable Carthiginian was Hannibal himself. The Romans captured Corsica and Sardinia, and New Carthage, the greatest city they had in Iberia, not through sheer force, because the legions in Iberia were cleverly kept at bay by the resident Carthaginian commander, no, the city was captured through cleverness, by taking the walls via the port, while the general and his army is out to play with the romans in the land.

A fleet with several elephants and Numidian heavy cavalry (numbering the thousands) was sent to Italy, but the fleet never made it, due to the weather.

Now, here comes the turning point. After the battle at Cannae, Hannibal was several miles from Rome and he just defeated the Roman army. There's a lot of discussion about it. Some people claim Hannibal should have gone ahead and taken Rome, but I think Hannibal really couldn't do it (this is a better explanation than: "he was momentarily retarded"). He was lousy at sieges, had no equipment to do it quickly and effectively and was in too precarious a position to try for a prolonged siege. So Hannibal turned south and started plundering there and trying to get more allies against Rome. Then, a man stood up and saw hannibal's one weakness: Carthage. Hannibal was unable to make the killing blow and take Rome and hoped to win through a war of attrition, but it was not Hannibal they were waging war against (even though, that's what Hannibal definitely would have wanted them to think), but Carthage and this man was Scipio and took the war to Carthage. Carthage immediately called Hannibal back once they realised the threat and Hannibal returned, leaving his mark (quite literally) (on a temple). The Numidian king had also turned against Hannibal by this time. Hannibal lost this battle very harshly. This is also the only battle in which he had disposal over his elephants and they did more damage to his own troops than anyone else's. Carthage was forced to sign a treaty, got a war debt for over forty years and Hannibal was exiled. The third Punic War was just the finishing move of Rome. Carthage was reduced to nothing.

Conclusion:

Carthage was never a threat to Rome. They were a nation of traders and did not have the capacity for war as the Romans did. The only threat Rome faced from Carthage were two men, one a grizzled veteran of the aristocracy, the other his son. Both had fought the Romans or done everything in their power to make life harder for the Romans during their entire life, but Carthage never fully invested in war and it was impossible to do so. During times of war they were still in a democracy, unlike the Romans, who elected a dictator. They did not have their own manpower to conscript, but mercenaries. Carthage lost to the Romans and it couldn't have turned out any other way, since it was impossible to maintain a victory in Rome itself.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jabanoss
Jabanoss


Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
posted December 27, 2010 12:32 AM
Edited by Jabanoss at 00:39, 27 Dec 2010.

Nice read, thank you!
I love history, but I rarely bother with the antic history of the Roman Empire and all that crap.

But I wonder when you say that Carthage was never really a threat to Rome. What if Carthage were given time to have a bigger grip of Iberia. Then Iberia could rely on an agricultural society, and later Carthage expand more north of Iberia. This is ofc just theoretical, but still
But otherwise I agree with you, Carthage was never as capable at war as the Romans, and Rome has always been a expert at crushing those kind of cultures that relied on trade and economy(Greek, Romanian)
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 27, 2010 01:21 AM

Quote:
Nice read, thank you!
I love history, but I rarely bother with the antic history of the Roman Empire and all that crap.

But I wonder when you say that Carthage was never really a threat to Rome. What if Carthage were given time to have a bigger grip of Iberia. Then Iberia could rely on an agricultural society, and later Carthage expand more north of Iberia. This is ofc just theoretical, but still
But otherwise I agree with you, Carthage was never as capable at war as the Romans, and Rome has always been a expert at crushing those kind of cultures that relied on trade and economy(Greek, Romanian)
You're welcome(hey, people read this!)

Of course, the big problem is that Rome had watched Carthage with eagle eyes after their encounter on Sicily, because they realised that if they teamed up with the Gauls in Iberia, bad things were going to happen and this is kind of what happened too. The Romans started to claim a city in northern Iberia and Hannibal saw it and immediately retaliated by doing what he does best.

Though, all this expanding was done under Hamilcar and Hannibal. The Carthaginians themselves never sought war with their allies and had 600 years to conquer more of Iberia and Italy, but they didn't,* because all they were interested in was money and trade. Rather than work on fields or something, they'd import it.

*The Romans had struggled with the other Italian tribes (the etruscans mostly) and the Greeks to conquer Italy during the time since its origin, while the Carthiginians just founded colonies and employed the warlike neighbours to help found colonies.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 27, 2010 02:37 AM
Edited by markkur at 02:47, 27 Dec 2010.

You know your history. It is nice to read something like this that is also well written. Good job QP in my book

Quote:
Now, here comes the turning point. After the battle at Cannae, Hannibal was several miles from Rome and he just defeated the Roman army. There's a lot of discussion about it.


What is most striking to me about this time is; Hannibal was there in Roman territory 12 years? 13? I think the fact that he was there that long and that Mother Carthage was unable to do a thing to assist him to deal the "final blow", (seige weapons, greek fire) I think bolsters an argument that Carthage "would never defeat Rome". I think that they were a "threat" but no more.

When was the battle of the 'Aegates Islands' spelling? 1st Punic war or 2nd?  If the Carthaginian admiral/general had not been so bold as to try and re-supply the army in Iberia, that sea-battle might have ended much differently. But again I still doubt that Carthage had what it would take to defeat Rome and that would be (as you pointed out) <IMO> more leadersip than just the Barcas.

The strengths that you mentioned that favored Rome were <IMO> big weaknesses in Carthage. i.e. I think it surprising that Carthage did as well as they did for so long with a mostly mercenary army and then having to depend on a Greek General to bail them out (can't remember the man's name nor the battle) just testifies to their weakness at leadership.

One thing I thought odd was their habit of putting defeated Generals to death. No wonder they had few to lead. I think they only had one good Admiral (Hanno). Even though they were a sea-power by nature<imo> it was their technology/wealth, not leadership that made them dominate the trade routes for so long.

When was that beached quinqireme? <sp> found by Rome? That really did them in when the Romans reverse engineered it.

Quote:
They did not have their own manpower to conscript, but mercenaries. Carthage lost to the Romans and it couldn't have turned out any other way, since it was impossible to maintain a victory in Rome itself.


I agree. Another plus for Rome is look where their power-base was...Italy. Versus Carthage being strung out all over the place. Once the Romans formed a serious Navy...it was just a matter of time.

Fyi, You can do the google earth bit and see the old harbor at Carthage. You can see the circle where approx. 200 war-ships were docked and the larger rectangle merchant docks just below. I think at least one drydock has been excavated and is visible. It's been a while or I'd give you the link.
____________
"Do your own research"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 27, 2010 03:21 AM
Edited by DagothGares at 03:21, 27 Dec 2010.

Quote:
The strengths that you mentioned that favored Rome were <IMO> weaknesses in Carthage. i.e. I think it surprising that Carthage did as well as they did with a mostly mercenary army and having to depend on a Greek General to bail them out (can't remember the man's name nor the battle) just testifies to their weakness at leadership.
Greek general was Xanthippos, I think. He was killed after a few successes by jealous Carthaginian aristocracy (was sent out on a boat with holes in it).

The wonderful thing about Hannibal, which he probably learned from his dad, was how he managed to have such a colourful collection of mercenaries fight effectively and as one (again, best demonstration is at Cannae). During winter time (when the Romans couldn't wage war due to logistical problems in the cold), he would stay in a city (one of those cities that defected from the Romans) and just train with these mercenaries, practice making formations and such. If Hannibal hadn't spent his childhood in Sicily, he never could have fought the Romans the way he did.

And, yeah, the only admiral I know by name is Hanno as well.

I think they found the quinquireme by the second punic war, but I never paid too much attention to the naval battles, because my main source almost always finished the description of the naval battle: "and the navy sunk due to the weather aftwerwards."

The fact Hannibal preferred the Alps over the sea is a sign of how unreliable it was at the time.

And I never stopped to think how much strength the Romans gained from being so centralised, actually, but you're right on that account. The Romans never had problems with defending their own territory, since reinforcements were always a few days away, while Carthage would have to defend its colonies with its fleet.

@Jabanoss: I don't know much about ancient history as well (well, except Rome between 300 BC and 50 AD) (and Carthage), but I had to make a presentation about Carthage in my Latin class once (Latin, as in the ancient language, nothing to do with Spanish or dancing or anything) and I read a biography of Hannibal and an account of the Punic wars, which I really liked. It's probably because Hannibal is such an underdog, but I have a lot of fondness for who he was, one-eyed, grizzled veteran and all.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 27, 2010 05:44 AM

So, you're saying that these foreigners of Middle Eastern origin weren't a threat to Western civilization? Why are you sympathizing with them? You're either with us or the Carthaginians.

Whose side are you on?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 27, 2010 08:36 AM

The Raven

I forgot about this device the Romans put on their ships nearly from the start of building a navy. Not only did it hold the ships of Carthage in place but it allowed Rome to use their superior land troops to fight at sea.

This was huge in helping the Romans defeat Carthage at sea, early in the war.

Quote:
...the Romans pin their hopes on a device which has already featured briefly in Greek naval warfare, but not to much effect. It is designed to give Roman soldiers, trained in the legions, a more stable platform from which to attack.

This device is a hinged drawbridge which can be released to crash down when an enemy ship is alongside. On its underside is a metal point, which will pierce the deck of the vessel and hold it fast while the Roman troops storm aboard. The lethal peck from this sharp beak gives the device its familiar name among the crews. It is a 'raven'. And it wins them battles.


Saw this while browsing: Good but not long enough for popcorn

http://www.ask.com/web?l=dis&o=13992&qsrc=2873&q=punic+wars

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bixie
bixie


Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
posted December 27, 2010 09:54 AM

the more I read, the more it seems like the romans were nothing but imperialistic bast@rds who were hell bent on conquering for gold and for land and for slaves, making up threats to the empire retrospectively to make them seem like the good guys.
I'm going to shut up now before I make any real world comparisons.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
VokialBG
VokialBG


Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
posted December 27, 2010 10:24 AM
Edited by VokialBG at 10:29, 27 Dec 2010.

Romans were village boys that made an empire. Thats what they are. Just village boys with from better class.

If Carthage was the winner in the wars, the world would be 99% different now.

- Law
- Religion
- Art
- Science
- Live style

The whole World, not only Europe. Good or not? No-one can ever say.

I mean, even when men wear formal clothing today, they would not have a tie if Carthage was the winner. Since the grandpa of the tie was used by the roman orators to protect their vocal chords.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted December 27, 2010 12:09 PM

Bixie, they were not the only ones.  After the political might of Rome started to fall, the Church and Religious might took off.  The church of the time was just as big of bullies..if not more so.  With the majority of the populace unable to read..they were easily led to such things as the Crusades.

Of course in history, lots of other groups were even more blood thirsty. Like the Huns.  Somebody is always after power.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 27, 2010 02:13 PM

When it comes to greed and power, no one back then was immune from it, as I think Mytical said <IMO> That is a big reason why Rome had an easier time expanding, than they could have, because in some regions like Gaul Iberia and Britannia, the Romans could easily come in and set the tribes or clans against each other. Roman bribes were very effective There are some villa ruins in central England and some would have been very impressive at that time. I think it was Alfred the Great that went to Rome as a boy and came back and did something good with that knowledge for his own people.

I thought the Punic wars were very interesting. The battle for Sicily was long and drawn out and there were more players involved.

I liked reading about the Peloponnesian Wars too. The birth of Democratic rule and the power/commerce struggles of the Greek-City-States led to pacts like, a back-then-N.A.T.O.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted December 27, 2010 03:14 PM

The Roman economy actually needed war later on to thrive, since a lot of the labour was slave labour (same thing for the Greeks FYI) and their politics/ military was intended for constant expansion. When Augustus declarde Pax Augusta, he actually broke his empire, because much of the political instability would come from a restless army and a stagnant economy (and, well, weak emperors and the inherent flaw with hereditary absolutist rulers).

Quote:

I forgot about this device the Romans put on their ships nearly from the start of building a navy. Not only did it hold the ships of Carthage in place but it allowed Rome to use their superior land troops to fight at sea.

This was huge in helping the Romans defeat Carthage at sea, early in the war.


It was also called a corvus and supposedly it was also the reason why the Roman fleets sank when they tried to cross the sea to get to Carthage, because it weighed the ship down too much on one side.

Quote:
So, you're saying that these foreigners of Middle Eastern origin weren't a threat to Western civilization? Why are you sympathizing with them? You're either with us or the Carthaginians.
Well, all I'm saaaaaaaaying is that NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!

@ Markkur: some of the greatest thinkers we consider now were fervent opponents of democracy. Though Greek democracy wasn't exactly democracy as it was nowadays (and we can all understand Plato for hating democracy since that's what killed his master).

And didn't the Romans turn many of the city states against each other through divide et impera?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jabanoss
Jabanoss


Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
posted December 27, 2010 03:26 PM
Edited by Jabanoss at 15:28, 27 Dec 2010.

Quote:
the more I read, the more it seems like the romans were nothing but imperialistic bast@rds who were hell bent on conquering for gold and for land and for slaves, making up threats to the empire retrospectively to make them seem like the good guys.
I'm going to shut up now before I make any real world comparisons.

Actually the Romans were the greatest barbarians of their time :/
If you want yourself some nice entertainment I suggest you see Terry Jones Barbarians. It's pure awesomeness and it show casts many of the "more civilized" cultures that the Roman Empire crushed.

I mean the Romans called other barbarians, but they were the ones making wars, having slaves and gladiator-games.

It was first after the fall of the Roman Empire that Europe would take its course towards science and progress, With the entry of the Enlightened Middle Age
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 27, 2010 03:55 PM

Quote:
The Roman economy actually needed war later on to thrive,


So did the wanna be rulers like Caeser. The slaves he got from Gaul made him wealthy and 8 years of war kept him out of the Senate's hands

Quote:
It was also called a corvus and supposedly it was also the reason why the Roman fleets sank when they tried to cross the sea to get to Carthage, because it weighed the ship down too much on one side.


I'd forgot about that defect. I think the Romans lost of good deal of ships through a few storms.

Quote:
some of the greatest thinkers we consider now were fervent opponents of democracy. Though Greek democracy wasn't exactly democracy as it was nowadays (and we can all understand Plato for hating democracy since that's what killed his master).


One of the best things the Greeks had with their version, that the U.S. doesn't have, was that ostricize vote. At least the Greeks could vote right back out the biggest lier that had been elected. Was it Socrates that had to drink the poison?

Quote:
And didn't the Romans turn many of the city states against each other through divide et impera?


Maybe Rome is where the saying originated; "United we stand and divided YOU fall"  I know...a groaner. Had to

@Jabanoss

Quote:
I mean the Romans called other barbarians, but they were the ones making wars, having slaves and gladiator-games.


They got the term from the Greek word for Celts. Rome "civilized" is pretty funny. Gorge-Puke, Gorge-puke, Gorge-puke. What a lovely party

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
VokialBG
VokialBG


Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
posted December 27, 2010 09:10 PM
Edited by VokialBG at 21:13, 27 Dec 2010.

Quote:
Carthage was never a threat to Rome. They were a nation of traders and did not have the capacity for war as the Romans did. The only threat Rome faced from Carthage were two men, one a grizzled veteran of the aristocracy, the other his son. Both had fought the Romans or done everything in their power to make life harder for the Romans during their entire life, but Carthage never fully invested in war and it was impossible to do so. During times of war they were still in a democracy, unlike the Romans, who elected a dictator. They did not have their own manpower to conscript, but mercenaries. Carthage lost to the Romans and it couldn't have turned out any other way, since it was impossible to maintain a victory in Rome itself.


The real conclusion is that your topic proof that not the masses of people and the folk is turning the wheel of history and time, but the great historical persons.

If we follow your logic strictly this mean that... let's say, Hitler was never real threat to the whole Europe, since All European countries and USSR have much bigger human and material resource.

And even if you say yes to that. What with Alexander the Great? Was he never real threat to the antique world? He was just king of a very, very, very small Balkan country, with a very, very, VERY small human and material resource. Why was he successful? So it means according to your logic that Macedon itself was never a real threat for the antique world, the real threat is Alexander, right? And in the case of your first post, the real threat to Rome were the Barkas, right?

If you say yes here, I can agree, but only in parts. I agree that the great persons lead the masses, that masses are helpless without them and that they can't do anything without them. But. If one man can make that mass to do something, whatever it is, the mass is also capable to do it, the great leader is the only element is a great deed.

So this mean. Is one man, the great historical person, can make one mass of people a threat to another, it means that this mass was a real threat, but not an active one. The threat is "sleeping", and waiting for someone to wake it.

=> One very small mass with very small resource, but with a great leader can be a threat. Without the leader, it can not.

Can Macedon be a threat for the antique world without Alexander III? No. But with him it is, and it was.

It like to say that when you have two sticks of wood they are not threat, but when you start rub the wood, you can start fire, and fire can grow to a conflagration.

Same - a small nation can be a threat with the right leading. It happened so many times.

Wallachia was never threat to the ottoman without Vlad III too.

Many, many others.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
baklava
baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted December 28, 2010 12:48 AM

Cool read.

Reminded me of this thing.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to revive it, though I don't know how much time I'd have to manage it properly.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jabanoss
Jabanoss


Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
posted December 28, 2010 02:09 AM

Quote:
Cool read.

Reminded me of this thing.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to revive it, though I don't know how much time I'd have to manage it properly.

haha that sounds awesome!

So if you would do something new like with the War of the Spanish Succession, Thirty Years' War or the Third Crusade
I would so join! (they are just proposals)
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mikkyld
mikkyld

Tavern Dweller
posted December 29, 2010 06:07 PM

Even had hamilcar and his son never existed, the Romans would have seen Carthage as a "threat" anyway - it was their predictable way of acting when they decided they wanted something.

Realistically of course, the biggest economic power in any era is also and actually a real threat to any other entity. Rome could have never allowed Carthage to stand as a rival whether Carthage ever wanted to be that or not.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mikkyld
mikkyld

Tavern Dweller
posted December 29, 2010 06:15 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Carthage was never a threat to Rome. They were a nation of traders and did not have the capacity for war as the Romans did. The only threat Rome faced from Carthage were two men, one a grizzled veteran of the aristocracy, the other his son. Both had fought the Romans or done everything in their power to make life harder for the Romans during their entire life, but Carthage never fully invested in war and it was impossible to do so. During times of war they were still in a democracy, unlike the Romans, who elected a dictator. They did not have their own manpower to conscript, but mercenaries. Carthage lost to the Romans and it couldn't have turned out any other way, since it was impossible to maintain a victory in Rome itself.


The real conclusion is that your topic proof that not the masses of people and the folk is turning the wheel of history and time, but the great historical persons.

If we follow your logic strictly this mean that... let's say, Hitler was never real threat to the whole Europe, since All European countries and USSR have much bigger human and material resource.

And even if you say yes to that. What with Alexander the Great? Was he never real threat to the antique world? He was just king of a very, very, very small Balkan country, with a very, very, VERY small human and material resource. Why was he successful? So it means according to your logic that Macedon itself was never a real threat for the antique world, the real threat is Alexander, right? And in the case of your first post, the real threat to Rome were the Barkas, right?

If you say yes here, I can agree, but only in parts. I agree that the great persons lead the masses, that masses are helpless without them and that they can't do anything without them. But. If one man can make that mass to do something, whatever it is, the mass is also capable to do it, the great leader is the only element is a great deed.

So this mean. Is one man, the great historical person, can make one mass of people a threat to another, it means that this mass was a real threat, but not an active one. The threat is "sleeping", and waiting for someone to wake it.

=> One very small mass with very small resource, but with a great leader can be a threat. Without the leader, it can not.

Can Macedon be a threat for the antique world without Alexander III? No. But with him it is, and it was.

It like to say that when you have two sticks of wood they are not threat, but when you start rub the wood, you can start fire, and fire can grow to a conflagration.

Same - a small nation can be a threat with the right leading. It happened so many times.

Wallachia was never threat to the ottoman without Vlad III too.

Many, many others.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted December 29, 2010 06:15 PM

Regardless of how much Carthage was a threat from a military point of view, it is not really interesting.
What is interesting is the tribute they was forced to pay for each lost war, each time it was batsnow insane amounts, and they paid it down quite fast. After the 3rd war i think it was, the Romans demanded more money from them than what Rome could circulate or something, the amount was completely mindboggeling, if I remember what I have been told: They paid it down in a few days or weeks. The senate then proceeded to a complete panic, after all: They had asked for more money than what they as a really wealthy state would be able to pay themselves!
Carthage had then been under a complete siege, a longtime war, it seems more or less illogical.
If Carthage just had used half a year to several years to pay the tribute the first time around, they would never have been suspected of being completely and utterly filthy rich. The same if they had done so later on.
The Romans was not "right" in doing anything, society and war is nothing more than we make it, they simply did what they did.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1401 seconds