Timeline for Quart-Hadast

Propably my first thread here, I'd like to ask if anyone has a link or an idea for a timeline for Quart-Hadast's conquests. Surely it will not be that big as the roman one but I'd be interested when Qart-Hadast conquered the northwestern african cities as well as the spanish provinces. In the german wiki there is a map for 265 BC, which includes the northwestern african cities:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...thageMapDe.png

The english wiki includes a map of the conquests by 218 but that is some big amount of time and I'd like to know it more exactly.

It's hard to tell when Carthage got certain cities in N africa under their control, since in many cases it wasn't a conquering like the Romans used. Many cities were of phoenican origin, and once Carthage became the most dominant colony of all, the rest slowly got under Carthaginian sway. Carthage rarely sieged cities in N africa; Utica was always considered almost as equal to carthage, many times the Romans would say instead of just Carthage, Carthage and Utica.

The empire was based more on the fact that Carthage had the maritime power to keep the cities safe, in return they would pay a certain fee, or give some extraordinary priviliges to Carthage.
There has been some time since i read about Carthage so i could be wrong, but i don't think so.

Sorry i can't be of more help

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

It's hard to tell when Carthage got certain cities in N africa under their control, since in many cases it wasn't a conquering like the Romans used. Many cities were of phoenican origin, and once Carthage became the most dominant colony of all, the rest slowly got under Carthaginian sway. Carthage rarely sieged cities in N africa; Utica was always considered almost as equal to carthage, many times the Romans would say instead of just Carthage, Carthage and Utica.

The empire was based more on the fact that Carthage had the maritime power to keep the cities safe, in return they would pay a certain fee, or give some extraordinary priviliges to Carthage.
There has been some time since i read about Carthage so i could be wrong, but i don't think so.

Sorry i can't be of more help

---

Hm, okay, I thought the african cities could be troublesome. The best would be to bribe them to become part of Carthage but one - or at least I - has not enough money that early to buy some african cities. But it could be possible to know more about the Iberian conquests. If nobody knows a good link or source I'll have to search for it some more.

I believe it was Hamilcar Barca that brought much of Iberia under Carthaginian control.

https://i768.photobucket.com/albums/...thageMapDe.png

Dark Blue is conquered area

So, that dark blue is under direct Carthaginian control.

But would there be more territory that was Allied to Carthage? I.e. Type IV governments in EB terms?

On the west coast of Africa down to the colony Kerne, which was the southest carthaginian colony, but thats not on the EB map. The map above is dated before the end of the first punic (or roman) war (264 - 241).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheStranger

On the west coast of Africa down to the colony Kerne, which was the southest carthaginian colony, but thats not on the EB map. The map above is dated before the end of the first punic (or roman) war (264 - 241).

---

I'm quite sure that the dark blue area was occupied after the first punic war. Not really a good source but you can look at this map in the english wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...nianempire.PNG

It was those self-same conquests that led to the 2nd Punic War. The Romans were worried about the Carthaginian expansion and as their allies in Saguntum asked for help they told the Carthies to leave them alone or get smacked around some more. As it turned out Hannibal smacked them around in Italy and Scipio Africanus the carties in Iberia and later Africa. Rome's last real challenge and the indirect cause of their empire and superiority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

It was those self-same conquests that led to the 2nd Punic War. The Romans were worried about the Carthaginian expansion and as their allies in Saguntum asked for help they told the Carthies to leave them alone or get smacked around some more. As it turned out Hannibal smacked them around in Italy and Scipio Africanus the carties in Iberia and later Africa. Rome's last real challenge and the indirect cause of their empire and superiority.

---

Well, depends on your definition of superiority......

Beware, I have little patience with Romanoiktoi and would prefer to continue to take you seriously as you seem a nice fellow ;-)

Was Rome threatened after 2nd Punic? Really threatened (by non-Romans)? No. Did they rule supreme? Yes.

Now you have not been here for long, so you do not know what discussing the superiority or not of Rome can and has led to here with certain of those >Censored for the sake of Ludens< Romanoiktoi (Roman haters) and their spamshow of Roman-flaming... try looking back a few months and you will be appauled at the state of the forums.

Before I start an anti-romanoiktoi flame I better go to bed. Sleep well all, no matter who you are.

Well, I am not a real fanatic, I just dislike the blatant ignorance of many Philoromaioi:clown: But you seem like a nice guy too. I just like to combat the typical, 19th Century view that the Romans were utterly superior to everyone. Having ancestors which destroyed the Western Empire gives a bit of reason to stand against bias in favor of the over-rated Romans. Thank you for being smart enough not to start a flamewar, though it probably wouldn't have been me doing the talking(looks at cute wolf, Jebivjetar):laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Beware, I have little patience with Romanoiktoi and would prefer to continue to take you seriously as you seem a nice fellow ;-)

Was Rome threatened after 2nd Punic? Really threatened (by non-Romans)? No. Did they rule supreme? Yes.

---

They were threatened by the disaster at Arausio. Pillaging German warriors in Northern Italy were certainly cause for serious concern among the Romans.

Ah but Sir Robin. It was my ancestors who did in the Romans at Arausio, and if you do a search on the forums you will see who has written mosts posts concerning it. I bet you a balloon that it is I. And there is another one coming soon concerning Roman Manpower that includes it as it cost the Romans 20- 25% of their male citizens in two days.

But, though the Cimbrii Wars were serious defeats and threats for the Romans, the Cimbrians were not a competing superpower were they? They were more like a force of nature, a one-off. Even had they settled/been allowed to settle in the Po Valley they were not a serious threat to the might of Rome. Carthage in the two first Punic Wars were; they could economically, culturally and militarily threaten Rome. When they were removed nothing really stood in the way of the rise of Rome. One could argue that the Macs under Phillip and AS for a while could pose threats, and I believe that the experience from the Punic Wars made the Romans act as they did and squash any competing power ASAP and with ruthlesness. So I maintain that the Punic expansion led to the supremacy of Rome (supremacy being a better word than superiority, my native language is Danish and I am tired).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Ah but Sir Robin. It was my ancestors who did in the Romans at Arausio, and if you do a search on the forums you will see who has written mosts posts concerning it. I bet you a balloon that it is I. And there is another one coming soon concerning Roman Manpower that includes it as it cost the Romans 20- 25% of their male citizens in two days.

But, though the Cimbrii Wars were serious defeats and threats for the Romans, the Cimbrians were not a competing superpower were they? They were more like a force of nature, a one-off. Even had they settled/been allowed to settle in the Po Valley they were not a serious threat to the might of Rome. Carthage in the two first Punic Wars were; they could economically, culturally and militarily threaten Rome. When they were removed nothing really stood in the way of the rise of Rome. One could argue that the Macs under Phillip and AS for a while could pose threats, and I believe that the experience from the Punic Wars made the Romans act as they did and squash any competing power ASAP and with ruthlesness. So I maintain that the Punic expansion led to the supremacy of Rome (supremacy being a better word than superiority, my native language is Danish and I am tired).

---

I agree with everything you said. After the second Punic war, Rome was the dominant superpower in the Mediteranean; The Cimbri and Tevtones did what they did because of lack of a compitent Roman commander to face them.

Rome DID defeat the 2 of the 3 other superpowers in the Mediteranean with ease in the 15 years after the Second punic war. Of course, that Roman army was definetly the most experienced of the non-profesional Roman armies.

Carthage was definetly THE enemy of Rome, the last obstacle on the way.

I dunno what this has to do with the original post, but hack, i always love such debates

In fact only one of the legions in the 2nd macedonian was consisting of Evocatii, the rest were fresh recruits. Though you would imagine that most Centurions would be vets and that would have a significant impact.

Some people argue that the Gladius Hispanensis' high quality also made a difference to the effectiveness of Roman armies after Spanish Steel and smiths (still famous in the middle ages) had been added to the pool of Roman resources and that imitations made by others were not as high quality until much later. This I dunno, but it could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

In fact only one of the legions in the 2nd macedonian was consisting of Evocatii, the rest were fresh recruits. Though you would imagine that most Centurions would be vets and that would have a significant impact.

Some people argue that the Gladius Hispanensis' high quality also made a difference to the effectiveness of Roman armies after Spanish Steel and smiths (still famous in the middle ages) had been added to the pool of Roman resources and that imitations made by others were not as high quality until much later. This I dunno, but it could be.

---

I didn't know that only one of the legions was reenlisted. Very interesting, yet the presence of Centurions and other officers that served under Scipio Africanus must've drasticaly increased the power and efficiency of the Army. Against Hannibal there was no room for error, and Africanus knew that. Every error could cost the war, so the training of those men must've been superb.

Training, and experience! because there are much room in war to give to the ''unexpected''. One make his plan knowing that fact. And those oficiers experianced that. Maybe history would have be different if against a serious ennemy, rome would have put in command a new commer from rome, titeled because of his birth rather than experiance. or on the other side, history might have been different also if commanders were trusting each other and not looking for personal triumph, when the Cimbri invaded...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

I'm quite sure that the dark blue area was occupied after the first punic war. Not really a good source but you can look at this map in the english wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...nianempire.PNG

---

That's right but Carthage lost Sicily after the first war and only three years later Sardinia. So the dark blue could only mean that these are the future conquests under the Barcids.

According to my book (History, Enrico Cravetto, Rotolito Lombarda, 2007 Instituto Geografico De Agostin, book 3) Hamilkar Barca begun his conquests in Iberia in 237BC. He conquered zone around Gades, Andalusia, upper Baetis all the way to cape Palos. After his death (in 229.), Hasdrubal, who was his successor in Spain, founded Carthagena. After that Hannibal arrived, and crossed the Ebro river. That's what i''ve found concerning Iberia.

As for African colonies, in the book it's said that most of the colonies on the N. African coast were founded somewhere in 4CE BC, and after that Carthage started to spread her influence into South Africa (4-3 CE BC): in approx same time they founded Caralis, Nora, Sulci and Olbia on Sardinia.

If i find something more, i'll update this post of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebivjetar

As for African colonies, in the book it's said that most of the colonies on the N. African coast were founded somewhere in 4CE BC, and after that Carthage started to spread her influence into South Africa (4-3 CE BC)

---

Lol, I hope you're not saying Carthage went to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa :clown:

I'm getting slightly suspicious as of the accuracy of this claim. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur, king of the Britons

Lol, I hope your not saying Carthage went to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa :clown:

I'm getting slightly suspicious as of the accuracy of this claim. :P

---

Lolz!

Actually "southern" Africa would maybe be a better word for what i had in mind. In book it is said that Carthaginians subjugated coastal areas first, and after that they went more south, in hinterland.

Now I cannot see what Jeb is saying. But I suspect he means southern Africa, not South Africa. I did comme across the info that Punic ships and trade colonies did in fact reach the southern parts of the continent, but that most likely means the area around Cote de Ivoire, Niger, etc.

Under the expedition of Hanno the sailor (6th century) they sailed to modern day Cameroon, that is the farthest point of we know of. Carthage made another great expedtion to Britain under Himilco. These to expedtions are in my opionion just admirable.