What if carthage had won?

[carthage_supreme]

What if hannibal had eradicated rome and carthage had presisted during the punic wars. See this as an alternative historical scenerio, how would our world look today if carthage had won?.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I don't think Hannibal ever intended to completely destroy Rome, just defeat them and make them suffer. Plus, the Romans are tenatious, you would have to kill off nearly all of them to completely stop them from comming back.

But as for the question, the whole world would have been completely different. Modern western society is based off of Roman and Christian origins.

I doubt Carthage would have taken Rome's place in history, but without Rome the Parthians and Sassanids would have been more powerful and may have tried invading Europe at some point. Also, the Gauls would have someday become united and powerful.

[Redmeth]

Also, the Gauls would have someday become united and powerful.
You know what that would've meant right?

Torques and poligamy for everyone :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

[keravnos]

The big question for me, is had Hannibal defeated Roma, what would Antiochos 3 do then?

[Sarkiss]

The big question for me, is had Hannibal defeated Roma, what would Antiochos 3 do then?
there would never be great Parthia then.

[Bava]

The big question for me, is had Hannibal defeated Roma, what would Antiochos 3 do then?


He certainly would have found another opponent to loose against.

j/k

But this is really the more interesting question. Quart Hadasht wasnt an expansionist empire (the conquest of iberia was some sort of "self-defence") and the complete destruction of Rome was never an option for hannibal imo.

But the Seleukids certainly would have tried to expand into western europe, given the right opportunity.

[Primus Inter Duces]

"If" (the laconic answer)

[Moros]

...Rome would have lost...:creep:

[Beefy187]

Then the Greeks would be still fighting each other I guess. Eventually Makedon will unite them again.

[woad&fangs]

The number of people attending church(or temple, whatever) would skyrocket:beam::knuddel: :knuddel: :knuddel:

[hoom]

I'd like to think something like this:
Without Romes high availability of slaves, the Hellenes would have kept on with their technological improvements & brought about the industrial revolution 1000+ years earlier.
There may have been no Christianity or Islam & so no monotheism wars.
Polytheism would probably still be widespread in the West.
I'm pretty sure its been said that modern Western Justice has more to do with Celtic & Hellenic Justice than Roman so that side of things may have been not too different.

[Maeran]

I'd like to think something like this:
Without Romes high availability of slaves, the Hellenes would have kept on with their technological improvements & brought about the industrial revolution 1000+ years earlier.

Unlikely IMO. Without monotheism getting a boost through the Roman empire, the mindset needed for the development of science wouldn't have been widespread enough to make a difference. So while Greek technology became highly sophisticated- and it did, look at Hiero's steam engine- science as a way of developing ideas and furthering technology would never have happened. To the Greeks whose opinion has survived, technology was at best an interesting toy. To the enlightenment scientist, scientific principles held the key to changing the world. Better yet, there were people with money willing to back these ideas, which I don't think the Greek philosophical (or worse, polytheist religious) classes would have done.

Philosophy would have probably developed in a completely different way though.

[antiochus epiphanes]

you would be reading about how attlila the hun decimated the sassanids, then advance towards the seleucid kingdom, then going strait thru the sarmatians, and ending in a stalemate against the combined forces of the punic and gaullic empire

[Son of Perun]

Ok, so maybe Hannibal would have won.
Rome would become a vassal state of Carthage and certainly it would try to rebel (unsuccessfuly, by the time Carthage would be dominant power in the western meds). In the end, Rome would become an insignificant city in Italy.

Maybe Hannibal would continue conquering. With his army and possessions he would become a dominant political power in Carthage. There would be a huge opposition against him that would either lead to an assassination of Hannibal or to civil war. In the case of civil war, Hannibal would certainly win. Maybe after defeating his opponents he would proclaim himself king and create Barcid Empire. There would be no need for Carthage to remain a trade empire, with the economy and military possibilites it would have, the expansion would be a logical consequence. Soon, the Barcid empire would become an imitation of Roman empire.

Nothing would be the same. As today Europe is based on antic Roman and Greek culture and laws, the alternative world would be based on Phoenician.
Maybe right now we would write about "What if Rome had won" in phoeni alphabet.

If the Hannibal had won...

[Zaknafien]

There is no, "if hannibal had won". Hannibal DID win. The Romans were defeated again and again during the second punic war, only the Romans were a people that would not accept defeat. Destroy a legion, they would raise another. Even earlier examples in their history, when Rome itself had fallen to her enemies, the Romans fought on, and eventually expelled the occupiers. It was in the Romans' 'national psyche' that they would lose battles, but never lose a war. the war would go on until eventually Rome won. Even if Hannibal had marched on Rome after Cannae, I doubt he would have been able to consolidate power there for any significant period of time.

[Son of Perun]

So maybe he would have done to Rome what Rome historically did to Carthage...:skull:

[pseudocaesar]

I think Hannibal had a sort of Greek look on war, what i mean by that is... He defeated the Romans in battles, so they should surrender. Greek warfare was very much about single battles and small losses (the notable exception being the Peloponnesian war of course). If two Polis were quarrelling they would march out, a few hundred would die, the loser surrenders and they all go back to the farms. Rome simply wouldnt die, i mean...80 000 odd men lost in a single battle, and not just on one occasion. Thats ridiculous really, and it became part of the Romans reputation in the following centuries, tenacity and perseverance is what it was about to be Roman.

[konny]

I'd like to think something like this:
There may have been no Christianity or Islam & so no monotheism wars.
Polytheism would probably still be widespread in the West.


When Konstantin made Christianty the major faith of the Roman Empire, it was already one of the three main religions in the East, while the West remained very much pagan even after Konstantin, in some cases until the Barabrians' invasion of whom many - like the Goths - were already Christians. In fact in Western Europe the people outside the Roman Empire were much more willing to become Christians than the (West-)Romans themselves; think of the Irish for example.


For the political aspect: Karthago was usualy satisfied by placing a trading outpost there and there. So Rome might have had a strong Karthagian garrison for some time, but Italy would have never become an Karthagian colony, leave alone the idea of an 'Karthagian Empire' in the West. On the other hand, Karthago wasn't alone in the world. For example, Pyrrhos is said to have been more or less on his way to Africa when setting sails for Sicily.

There might have been other Hellenist leaders searching for lands and glory in Italy if that would have been just a collection of Karthagian allied tribes and towns. And, for sure, their first address for help when fighting the Karthagians and their allies would have been...... Rome.

So history would have been as it was, with just a few centuries delay.

[The_Mark]

To the Greeks whose opinion has survived, technology was at best an interesting toy.
Which was due to the enormous amounts of slave labor used back then. Had the supply diminished (as hoom suggested), the Greeks would've figured out how to compensate. The mindset would've developed in parallel.

[Son of Perun]

What a bunch of determinists. This is a "what if" thread, you should not take it too seriously.:inquisitive:

[konny]

You mean something like "There would have been a Karthagian Empire from the Rhine to the Nile (and the text in the 'Location' marker under my name would have a lot of Q'). And for Christmas we would roast children"?

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't think Carthage would have been able to forge an empire as large as Rome. Carthage was IMO far less stable as a basis for an Empire than Rome was at the time. Besides, they would have had great trouble keeping their empire together because:
1. they relied heavily on the numidians for their military strength, yet the numidians were probably not too reliable allies and could very likely have revolted also after victory
2. Italy isn't very easy ground to control when/if there's a potential for revolts/guerilla warfare.
3. Hannibal winning in Rome would still have been a close call, and Carthage would have been very weak right after such a victory. It's likely that there would have been revolts in many existing territories. Rome kept fighting not mainly because romans were more hardnecked defenders than others, but because they had a very solid control over the Italian peninsula and the economical capabilities of keeping to create new armies over and over again after defeats. Thus, roman revolts would have been likely. Carthage probably could not have afforded to keep a large enough permanent garrison in the Italian peninsula to be sure of keeping it.
4. the Carthaginian empire would have to keep together the already difficult to hold areas by frequent naval transports. But at the time of Hannibal's expedition the Carthaginian fleet was not as strong as the roman, and this would have created even more difficulties in holding together a Carthaginian empire, as the romans would probably be able to avoid having the fleet captured by moving it around between ports where the Carthaginians couldn't get enough land troops to take it over. Finally, a conquest after such a close and marginal victory usually is not a good way to keep a province - rather it would keep the fighting spirit of the opponent (the romans) high. The romans, at this time, held mostly land with loyal population, while Carthage had brutally conquered in Iberia, and needed to rely on the unreliable Numidians. The romans didn't reach the same level of internal unrest until much later.

In short, I doubt Carthage would have become much larger than its historical maximum extent.

[Zarax]

IMHO, Carthage would have tried to expand along its existing trade routes, logical step for a thalassocracy...

[Andronikos]

There is another good question - what if Alexander had lived 30 years longer?
He would have attacked China and west. Culteres would be more mixed and perhaps there would be faster progress due to the civilisation contact.

:focus: I believe that the fall of Rome would have lead to development of Helenes, Celts and of course Carthaginian culture. But prhaps there would be monoteism because India and Egypt had such ideas and successor kingdoms would have spread them.

[Bootsiuv]

IMHO, carthage would have created a superior race of "space monkeys" which would have colonized the moon by 0 AD. Their monkey children would now be our overlords. Crap throwing and banana peeling would finally be made into olympic events (something I've been yearning for for years).

Just my 234,287,878,730,002 cents.

[Spoofa]

There is another good question - what if Alexander had lived 30 years longer?
He would have attacked China and west. Culteres would be more mixed and perhaps there would be faster progress due to the civilisation contact.

:focus: I believe that the fall of Rome would have lead to development of Helenes, Celts and of course Carthaginian culture. But prhaps there would be monoteism because India and Egypt had such ideas and successor kingdoms would have spread them.

O.o, how would monotheism come from India and Egypt who were both polytheistic? we would have a monotheistic religion regardless of rome's rise or fall due to Judaism.

[CountArach]

We would be asking ourselves:

What if Rome had won?

[Spoofa]

We would be asking ourselves:

What if Rome had won?


Lol, so true :2thumbsup:

[Slim_Ghost]

There is another good question - what if Alexander had lived 30 years longer?
He would have attacked China and west. Culteres would be more mixed and perhaps there would be faster progress due to the civilisation contact.

:focus: I believe that the fall of Rome would have lead to development of Helenes, Celts and of course Carthaginian culture. But prhaps there would be monoteism because India and Egypt had such ideas and successor kingdoms would have spread them.

Nah....Alexander would never attack India ever again. By the time he tries to invade India a second time, the Indians over there have been united under Chandragupta Maurya. Apart from being very numerous they also employ anti-Diadochi tactics involving greatly armoured elephants and mass iron bowmen.

The phalanx would simply be broken by the cataphract elephants and then showered to pieces by the mighty iron longbows of the Indian infantry.

Alexander would rationaly instead expand his empire to the west. He already made plans to invade Rome and Carthage, remember? At that time, Italy and Carthage is a lot weaker compared to the Mauryan Empire or even the Archaemid Persia. Subjugating them would be easy.

Then later he would either continue to conquering Iberia and Gaul, or amass a force of 5 million men and march again to India.

[Reverend Joe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

[Rodion Romanovich]

O.o, how would monotheism come from India and Egypt who were both polytheistic? we would have a monotheistic religion regardless of rome's rise or fall due to Judaism.
Funny thing is, a lot of religions before the romans were originally monoteistic. A lot of the city states around the world had their own city god and believed in no other gods, then conquests and diplomatic unifications led to a lot of combined polytheistic religions. Monotheism wasn't an as uncommon thought as it may seem. There were also various monotheistic religions circling around in the Middle and Far East, that reached the roman empire around the time before and after Constantine embraced Christianity...

[Moros]

There is no, "if hannibal had won". Hannibal DID win. The Romans were defeated again and again during the second punic war, only the Romans were a people that would not accept defeat. Destroy a legion, they would raise another. Even earlier examples in their history, when Rome itself had fallen to her enemies, the Romans fought on, and eventually expelled the occupiers. It was in the Romans' 'national psyche' that they would lose battles, but never lose a war. the war would go on until eventually Rome won. Even if Hannibal had marched on Rome after Cannae, I doubt he would have been able to consolidate power there for any significant period of time.
Not if Hannibal had destroyed the city and almost all of it citizens...:egypt:

[The Internet]

To be honest, i don't believe Carthage would of gone on to become the empire Rome created and i think that if Rome had been wiped out then chances are the Germans (who would of taken over Gaul IMO) would of lead a coalition down into Italy and taken a good chunk of it until someone like the Greeks or Macedonians stepped in around Southern Italy who could well of gone on to take Sciliy and had an epic war with Carthage.

[Zarax]

IMHO Carthage would have gotten Sicily, maybe a chunk of southern Italy, Iberia, some colonies on the western gallic coast and a few others up in southern england.
What I also suspect is that they might have also colonized western africa and basically be just an huge trading empire reliant on local levies.

[Mindaros]

I think that taking Rome itself would probably have been enough for Hannibal to win the war. But Hannibal is not among the very greatest of generals, since he knew how to win battles, not how to win wars. Tactically he was great, strategically he wasn't. He was never even close to defeating Rome. And he found no way of taking the city. Strategically Rome was not beaten despite the lost battles. So it made sense for Rome to be resolate, which would have been useless had Hannibal been able to strip them of the sources of their might. So Hannibal's victories didn't lead to a strategic victory for him, but only postponed his eventual defeat. Like Napoleon later, who suffered a crushing defeat without losing a battle in his Russian campaign, Hannibal had no way of defeating his enemy.

[johnhughthom]

Do you think that was due to his own weaknesses though, or was it a situation that Carthage just couldn't win due to Romes refusal to "play by the rules"? Could someone like Caesar, for example, have done better?
I'm not arguing with your point by the way, genuinely curious.

[Son of Perun]

But Hannibal is not among the very greatest of generals

He is NOT? Then who is?!

[Zarax]

Hannibal was (along with Phirrus and Alexander) one of the greatest tacticians of the antiquity.
His strategic failure is not totally his fault but rather a series of mismanagements in resource allocation by the carthaginian senate.
Had they sent reinforcements where it was due rather than dispersing them among various theathers like Sardinia and Iberia (the sardinian expedition was supposed to be reinforcements specifically for Hannibal) the war would probably have taken another course.

[Mindaros]

I agree with Zarax completely, although I wonder whether Hannibal was completely innocent to this dispersion of resources? Anyway, it was truly one of the reasons why Hannibal lost, and also evidence of a lack of a viable strategy on the part of Carthage. But did Hannibal also waste his troops because of the fact that he crossed the Alps during cold weather?

Undoubtedly Hannibal's greatest strategic opportunity was right after Cannae, when Rome itself looked as if it was crumbling. His strategy was to isolate Rome from its allies, but that didn't work out well enough. What made him think this strategy would work? In war one always has to know one's enemy. Before Cannae Roman strategy had been bad, but they had really learnt their lesson, no longer providing him an opportunity for another Cannae. A war of attrition was working on their behalf. Instead it was Hannibal that was slowly being isolated in Italy with his army. Not to mention the great Roman strategic decision to invade Africa, thus bringing the whole war to a close. Hannibal didn't benefit much from his allies, like Syracuse and Macedon, either. So clearly Hannibal had no viable strategy after Cannae. Unlike Caesar who had one when crossing Rubicon.

It's hard to tell whether another strategy would have worked out better for Hannibal. He might, for instance, had marched against Rome itself, even though he had no siege equipment, making the most of the effect of Cannae. And could he have constructed siege equipment in Italy? This strategy would've been risky, but risks he hardly could've avoided. Time was not on his side. Secondly, why didn't wealthy Carthage attempt to improve its navy prior to the Second Punic War? They won the war on land, lost it at sea. Tactically Hannibal was great, but it was Scipio Africanus whose strategic skill the Second Punic War testifies.

By the way, there's a new Finnish study related to this subject. Being a Finn myself, I think I'll mention it: The Roman Republican Navy : from the sixth century to 167 BC. Steinby, Christa. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts, Department of Classical Philology Wadham College, Oxford. 2007-10-12