Alternate history - What if? Carthage, Roman, and Battle of the Metaurus

Gentlemen and Ladies, time for another alternate history series. Unlike my previous Battle of the Teutonburg Forest alternate history, I believe this one has far-more long-lasting (or any words you put it) impact, since this decided the fate of one of the most important civilization in European history (if not world history), the Roman Republic/Empire. Let's go directly to the subject:

The battle of the Metaurus was fought in 207 BC by the Roman Republic and Carthage, who were then waging the Second Punic War. It took place near the Metaurus river in northern Italy, and it was fought between a Carthaginian army headed by Hasdrubal Barca, brother of Hannibal and a slightly larger Roman army headed by consuls Marcus Livius Salinator and Gaius Claudius Nero. When the latter found out that Hasdrubal was planning on joining Hannibal's armies in order to launch a final all-out attack on Rome, he hastily set out to join Salinator to intercept the Carthaginian armies. Hasdrubal, knowing that his forces were inferior in number and in fighting prowess, tried to avoid combat, but he was eventually caught at the banks of the Metaurus. There, the Roman legionaires were able to achieve an important victory, and Hasdrubal found his death at the end of the battle.

This battle prevented a full-scale attack on Rome to which the city would have fallen with all probability. Historian Paul K. Davis says:

Quote:

---

"For 11 years Hannibal had his own way in Italy, defeating every force the Romans could send against him. Still, the constant warfare and inability to recruit quality troops locally meant he had to have reinforcements if he was going to capture Rome itself and dictate terms. Hasdrubal's defeat near the Metaurus River meant that would not happen...had Hasdrubal joined with his brother, the resulting force could well have captured Rome and changed the fortunes of the Mediterranean Basin."

---

The success of Hannibal's military tactics, the defection of several allies of Rome and the political instability in Rome had brought it to the brink of defeat, but after the victory at the banks of the Metaurus, the current of the conflict shifted and the tide turned to the favour of the Roman Republic. Robert F. Pennel wrote in "Ancient Rome from the Earliest Times Down to 476AD" in 1980:

Quote:

---

"The war in Italy was now virtually ended, for, although during four years more Hannibal stood at bay in a corner of Bruttium, he was powerless to prevent the restoration of Roman authority throughout Italy."

---

Questions:

1. Can the Carthage actually won the battle? Is Roman's victory inevitable? Are these just Carthage (Hasdrubal Barca to be exact) defeat waiting to happen?

Now ignore question no.1 and whatever thinking of 'Romans Will Win':

2. Certainly Carthage victory will, with all probability as Paul Davis said, ended the Roman's existance? The same way Carthage met its fate in real history? Will the Carthage treat Romans (and its capital) the same way Romans (in real history) treated Carthage's capital? By burning it to the ground and wipe it out of existance?

3. How will the Carthage continue its expansion after Rome's fall? Will it just stop and had enough? Will it continue from then, the similiar way Rome did in real history (by conquering Balkans, Greece, France, Britain, Egypt, etc) ? If they did decide to conquer Greece, what will they did? Assimilate and incorporate just like Rome?

4. How will Europe be shaped from then on? Will, again with all probability, Carthage collapse just like Roman Empire? How long? Faster because they're "semi-barbarians" as Romans said? Or will it be longer? Disintegrate like Roman Empire? Maybe South Carthage (Africa) and North Carthage (Europe)?

5. What will today's Europe, from 1600s to today looks like? Certainly it will not be the same Europe as we know today, yes? Different cultures, technology, religion, etc. Paganism as main religion in today's Europe? Rome will be placed in history no different than those small kingdoms during that time?

EDIT: To help those who don't understand the battle or need further references, here are some I found:

http://www.historynet.com/wars_confl...s/3028111.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles..._metaurus.html
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Metaurus*.html
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/...nnibal_00.html

2. Probably not, unless ofcourse Rome falls in an assault since they where too bloody stubborn to realize when they where beaten. From Carthages point of view Rome could very well continue to exist, they weren't into the whole "all that oppose must be utterly crushed".

3. It would probably not expand in the same way. It may grow to encompass the western mediterranean, but they are IMO unlikely to attempt to completely crush the successor states. Humble them yes, defeat them in war, but as said before, Carthage was not as insistent as Rome too completely crush all enemies.

4. That is a difficult question, but they would not fall in the same way. During the Migration period they may lose their possessions in Europe, but they will probably better defend Africa.

5. As above it is extremely difficult to say. However no Roman Empire means there will be no Holy Roman Empire, however whose to say there isn't just the Frankish Empire (or Gallic Empire).

In all probability, not much would have changed. At most Rome would have had to wait a little while longer to expand. This I believe because Hannibal never waged war with destruction of Rome as his aim, rather to force Rome to accept his terms; the famous treaty with Philip V illustrates this.

In all likelihood such a defeat would have caused many Italics to defect and have caused Rome to be locked into another struggle for the Italian peninsula, but defeat at Metaurus would not have been the end of Rome as such. Whatever could happen in the longer term is pure speculation of course, and not something I can predict.

One BIG change in the timeline: America would have been "discovered" much sooner -- I don't know whether the claims that the actual Phoenicians made it across are sound, or how genuine the evidence, but certainly the Carthaginians were a major seagoing culture, and this is where their big impact would have been. If Rome had been beaten back, even for a while, then the Carthaginian fleet and naval superiority would have endured.

:2cents:

1. I don't think that without a miracle that Hasdrubal could've beaten the Romans head-on. His best beat was to try to avoid battle, which he also tried but, if memory serves, were tricked by his guides and got lost in the night when he tried to sneak away.

2. Like said before, Carthage wasn't seeking the destruction of Rome. If such a thing would happen, it would most likly be at the hands of former Italic allies who decided to destroy Rome while she was crippled from the war. This is of course that the Romans would truly be crippled, but according to the Roman practice of being really stubborn I don't think they would have accepted peace before a such situation. If even then.

3. This is pure speculation of course. But it will mostly depend on what Hannibal would do. Likly areas would however be Iberia and possibly, if the political situation changed to go into Siciliy again as well as Africa. Not to mention the islands of the Mediterannian (sp?).

4. As long as Carthage didn't overexstended themselves, they could probably hold out for some time. But due to their internal political policy against their subjects, internal rebellion would probably be a good call for their fall. otherwise I don't see them as really coming into conflict with the Hellenistic kingdomes of the east. They simply had different focuses and Carthage was a trade-empire and not a territorial empire foremost. This however is purly speculation.

5. This would be pure speculation with almost 1 800 years of development to put between them. I don't think it's possible to see with any degree of certinity what would, or would not have happened.

My thoughts:

1. Exactly as Gurkhal said, although it does surprise me that Romans managed to still gather larger forces than those of Carthage's (Hasdrubal Barca's), because after all many of Roman allies have either fleed or changed side. Either the Romans too smart, Hasdrubal Barca too eager to sack Rome and can't wait any longer, or Hannibal a bit too slow...

2. That's new to me, I always thought that Carthage was going at least to march and Rome and sacked it (if not totally destroy it), or maybe if the Romans are too stubborn as you all said, the Romans burn their own city to the ground and flee to surrounding area (hills and mountains)? Just like what Russia did to Moscow during Napoleon's invasion?

3. Might as well expand from sea, Carthage are sea-faring nation after all, at least much more sea-lovers than Rome did in our history. My predict is that Sicily will of course be target of expansion, they're located exactly between city of Rome and Carthage after all.

4&5. I'll leave it later, it'll be interesting to see many viewpoints regarding these

Hasdrubal proved to be excellent general. He outmanouvered roman garrisons in spain. He got on friendly terms with Gauls and many of them joined his army. Hannibal lost not a small part of his army while marching to italy. Hasdrubal's army, however, got bigger. Romans were amazed by this, and were very afraid of him.

Hasdrubal could have taken romans head on, if it had been only one consul. Romans fielded 6 legions, 3 under command of Nero who was sent south to contain hannibal, and 3 under command of livius, who was sent to confront hasdrubal. It was a stroke of luck that nero intercepted hasdrubal's message to hannibal. He left small part of his army to fool hannibal (several thousands) and marched with the rest and joined forces with livius. Hasdrubal noticed that he had not one, but two roman consuls ahead of him so he decided to withdraw. Unfortunately, he was betrayed by his guides during the trip. His army was tired of trying all night to find a way across the river metaurus. Also, gauls got drunk. So in the morning, he had a tired army which left wing was comprised of drunken gauls. He was vastly outnumbered and still he managed to give a strong resistance to almost 6 roman legions.

Had he not been betrayed by his guides, who knows how things would have worked out. I think Hasdrubal could have beaten livius. If his march to italy is a merit to his skills, he proved to be a general on par with his brother...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tran

or maybe if the Romans are too stubborn as you all said, the Romans burn their own city to the ground and flee to surrounding area (hills and mountains)? Just like what Russia did to Moscow during Napoleon's invasion?

---

I think that it is extremely unlikely that the Romans would burn their own city to the ground under any circumstances.

It is interesting to think that if Hannibal did succeed in conquering the Romans, he might find himself in a position like that of Julius Ceasar 150-or so years later. He would be popular enough (and have the military means) to challenge the Carthaginian governing body (they had something like a Senate i think) and crown himself the first Carthaginian emperor.

From there, Hannibal's heirs could continue to conquer new lands around the Mediterranean for trade and wealth, and the Carthaginian Empire could look quite similar to the Roman one (which, ofcourse, would never exist.) As they expand East, they would absorb more Greek culture. For a while they might maintain a predominantly mercenary army like the one that gave the First Divine Emperor Hannibal his great victory over the Romans, but in time they might even go through a "Marian Reform" of sorts, and over time develop a professional, standardized army. However, this alternate "Imperium Carthagenesis" would probably have similar weaknesses to the Roman Empire, and be overrun at the same time, if not sooner.

I'd like to add some interesting points I've read from the first source

1. About Hasdrubal's guide who "betrayed" him, according historynet.com:

Quote:

---

The Metaurus was in flood, probably from spring rains and snow melt, and Hasdrubal was trapped on the south shore, unable to ford the river. The ancient historians say he was deliberately led astray by his guides, but this is absurd. An army leaves a wide track, and surely Hasdrubal would have had no trouble finding his way back down a road he had already traversed. Also, what guide would be fearless enough to lead an army up against an unfordable river, with no means for the guides themselves to escape?

The unexpected barrier of an uncrossable river threw the Punic forces into disorder and confusion. Frantically, scouts searched up and down the riverbank for a place to cross, to no avail.

---

I'm not too sure, but that does make sense

2. And the messengers factor:

Quote:

---

He sent messengers to his brother with strict instructions that, should they be in peril of capture, his letters be destroyed. The messengers traversed nearly the entire route in safety, but by mischance, when almost within reach of Hannibal, they were seized by a Roman detachment. It happened so swiftly that they were unable to destroy the letters in time. Thus Nero, rather than Hannibal, had in his hands the entire plan of the Punic campaign.

---

Which again made me wonder, if I get it right, why instead of trying to disperse the messengers and send them into different routes (in case one group get captured), he decided to send them all together instead?

I dont see how a Roman defeat would have meant the capture of Rome. There were a total of 19 legions in the Italian theater (which would be maybe180K to 200K men)and around a 20-25% of them were involved in the battle.

There should have been enough legions to quickly reinforce Nero's remaining troops, that checked Hannibals army, in case a victorious Hasdrubal marched south to join Hannibal.

Although Rome certainly felt the strain after a long war (several allies had complained that they could not send more troops just a few years earlier) Hannibal had still been more or less cornered with no hope of winning the war, while Carthage was about to lose their hold in Spain.


CBR

But the thing is, if Hasdrubal had manage to join with Hannibal then Hannibal's forces would be heavily reinforced, and probably powerful enough to protect their allies. But most importently, the psycological impact would be great. The Romans had already suffered heavily under a single Punic army ravaging Italy. Now there would be two. I think that would have made a very great effect on everyone present. Possibly enough to make even more Italic allies of Rome jump ship. Which after all was what the entire campaign was about. Getting, or keeping Rome's Italic allies on one's own side.

The threat could even had been seen as great enough to recall Scipio to save Rome. Of course these are merly speculations and not truth set in stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I dont see how a Roman defeat would have meant the capture of Rome. There were a total of 19 legions in the Italian theater (which would be maybe180K to 200K men)and around a 20-25% of them were involved in the battle.

There should have been enough legions to quickly reinforce Nero's remaining troops, that checked Hannibals army, in case a victorious Hasdrubal marched south to join Hannibal.

Although Rome certainly felt the strain after a long war (several allies had complained that they could not send more troops just a few years earlier) Hannibal had still been more or less cornered with no hope of winning the war, while Carthage was about to lose their hold in Spain.


CBR

---

AFAIK, there were six legions under the commandof two consuls, two in rome, and another 20,000 men in brutium. That is about 10 legions.

Hannibal had lost Capua and Syracuse in 212 (Sicily was under full Roman control by 210 BC) and Tarentum in 209 BC. Yes there would have some kind of impact by having the two armies combined but how big an impact? The Romans had been satisfied with limiting Hannibals power and had slowly grinded him down for nearly a decade after Cannae.

Even with a stronger army Hannibal would have needed at least one major victory (Cannae like) to have any real impact on the allies of Rome. And he would still have been outnumbered by Roman forces, even if Hasdrubal had won at Metaurus and not just slipped through the net without a fight.

The Romans were more careful and experienced compared to 218-216 BC, where Hannibal had his greatest victories. What were the chances for him to get a big victory again instead of just more years of attrition? Remember that the Romans managed to keep him down in southern Italy, his brother Mago in Gaul (who invaded with a small army in 205 BC) while still preparing for Scipio to invade Africa.

Hannibal might have been able to outwit most Roman generals to prevent being forced into battle unless he had an advantage, and occasionally lashing out and hurting a Roman army by surprise, but he was still outnumbered in hostile lands against a foe who had more resources than he had.

I dont see gaining 30K men from Hasdrubal really would have changed his position that much.

If we to trust Livy he says:

Quote:

---

[27.36]..The total military strength amounted to twenty-three legions and were thus distributed: each of the consuls had two; four were in Spain; each of the three praetors had two in Sardinia, Sicily and Gaul respectively; C. Terentius had two in Etruria; Quintus Fulvius had two in Bruttium; Q. Claudius had two in the neighbourhood of Tarentum and the Sallentine district; C. Hostilius Tubulus had one at Capua; and two were raised in the City for home defence.

---

That leaves 15 legions on the Italian peninsula and another 4 close by on Sicily and Sardinia. It also appears that additional forces were sent from Spain and Sicily as well as volunteer slaves were used.


CBR

But with another ammount of reinforcements, the Roman grinding down process would almost have to start all over. As well as provide a great marginal for Hannibal to conduct operations and sustain casulties. While I do not belive that Hasdrubal WOULD change the course of the war, I do belive that his unification with Hannibal COULD have change the war.

Romans were in pretty bad shape. It would be hard for them to raise another army. Their coffers were pretty much empty. Also, their italic "allies" could rebel after seeing another win of the carthaginians. Expecially since rome would have to recall some troops from other regions. It could have changed the course of the war, imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

It is interesting to think that if Hannibal did succeed in conquering the Romans, he might find himself in a position like that of Julius Ceasar 150-or so years later. He would be popular enough (and have the military means) to challenge the Carthaginian governing body (they had something like a Senate i think) and crown himself the first Carthaginian emperor.

---

Hannibal did take power after the defeat of the Second Punic War. He took it the classic Greek tyrant way -- with popular support over the decadent aristocracy/oligarchy blamed for the defeat and the "betrayal" of the war hero. Of course, it wasn't something like a "revolution" overthrowing the aristocrats' power, which he might have been able to achieve should he somehow succeeded in the Italian campaign.

Supposedly he did quite a few really good things with the whole governing thing until the Romans decided they couldn't possibly stand having their old nemesis actually ruling their number one rival anymore, especially since he was actually effective at it, and forced Carthage -- with the aristocrats' support, naturally -- to expel him. They couldn't possibly tolerate a revived Carthage capable of -- and probably willing to -- taking revenge on Rome after, say, a consolidation in Africa coupled with some radical changes in the extremely flawed Carthaginian social structure or something.

He was a defeated Caesar.

1. All the battles can be won... If he would have had knowledge of the terrain and the ability to use this to his advantage, he could have won !

2. Yes, Rome would probably be destroyed as a state. Howewer, i doubt the fact that the Carthaginians would have exterminated the settlement. They would have installed rather a sort of puppet guvernment.

3. It would have expanded into the western Mediteranean, but not further, as there was no interest to them. Succsesor states where to powerfull for them, and another war would be too costly.

4. I think Carthage would have remained strong for quite a while, and probably they would have been the first one to make the major geographicall discoveries. They would have survived to the modern age - Africa was not subject to so numerous invasions like other countryes.

About religion, christianity would have been the dominant religion, howewer it would have looked somewhat differently in terms of traditions and ritual than modern braches of christianity are. It would have had an even greater influence from the greek philosophy and way of thinking.

I'd like to add my views about "how the Europe will looks like" after Carthage has consolidated itself in both Italy and Spain (practically after Rome's defeat). Rex, I partly agree and disagree with your latest points, the Carthage will most probably just expand into Western Mediterranian and had easy time here, the Gauls were their ally during the war against Rome after all so why not continue their alliance and integrate them into the empire?

As for the spread of Christianity, looking back at our history Romans were pretty cruel to Christians during its early period, but I highly doubt Carthage will do the same. From one of the sources above it is said that if the Carthage won the war against Rome, Hannibal and Hasdrubal will give full military honor to show their respect to the dead Roman commanders. Unlike the Romans, in which they cruelly cut dead Hasdrubal's head after gained victory and throw it into Hannibal's camp. Therefore spread of Christianity is most likely peaceful and met little to no resistance. And who knows where Pope might reside? Maybe the Pope's homeland will be in Carthage instead of Rome?

However, the same can probably be said too during the expansion of Islam in 600s. Instead of military conquest, the Arabs most probably spread Islam by making friendship with Carthage and through trades, just like how Islam later expand to India and Southeast Asia. From there, probably you'll see a Carthage with most of its populations of mix Christians and Islam (kind of 7th to 9th century Spain).

As for Carthage's survival into modern age, that's something I think unlikely to happen. At least in its European provinces, where in later time (3th to 4th century) there are numerous invasions by 'Barbarian' hordes. But then Carthage has very different army and strong navy than Romans, and they could play bigger roles. And as during most of its time the Greeks are relatively free from foreign occupation (assuming the Carthage didn't expand there), the Greeks might get stronger, particularly in navy and made numerous raids but that's something Carthage navy should be able to handle.

Finally in my opinion two things are sure: Latin won't be the major language of Europe and Colosseum won't exist.

I strongly disagree with you regarding the prospect of and easier spread of Christianity. Without a centralized government to help the spread, I think that it would be harder. Not easier to Christianity to spread as the Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods. I do belive that you are exaggertating the impact that Hannibal and Hasdrubal had on the Carthaginian society, in regards that it could simply have been the efforts of just two men. It’s also possible that with the lack of Rome the druids would maintain their hold over a Celtic western Europe, most likly also this acting like a hindrance to Christianity. I will not dabble with the regard to what would happen in the east, but I strongly feel that Christianity might have faced even more problems there without the Roman empire.

I do however agree that Latin most likly wouldn’t be a major language in the world, and that there wouldn't exist a Colusseum (sp?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurkhal

Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods.

---

That is disputed. The evidences are unclear -- those cremated babies could either be sacrifice, as is generally believed, or they could merely be a religious practice dealing with the remains of babies that died by other means, after all the ancient world's mortality rate for young children were extremely high -- and the only written records of such practice came from the Romans. They had every intention of vilifying their mortal foes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tran

and Colosseum won't exist

---

Rome wasn't the only culture that engages in barbaric pitfighting. ~;)

Quote:

---

That is disputed. The evidences are unclear -- those cremated babies could either be sacrifice, as is generally believed, or they could merely be a religious practice dealing with the remains of babies that died by other means, after all the ancient world's mortality rate for young children were extremely high -- and the only written records of such practice came from the Romans. They had every intention of vilifying their mortal foes

---

.

Like you said, it's generally belived that there was sacrifice going on. I am one of those adherents to that theory. I must confess that I do find the arguments against it not fully convincing.

Quote:

---

Rome wasn't the only culture that engages in barbaric pitfighting.

---

I think that few cultures would build a such construction to pitfighting, and even less likly call if Colosseum (sp?) if they were not Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurkhal

I strongly disagree with you regarding the prospect of and easier spread of Christianity. Without a centralized government to help the spread, I think that it would be harder. Not easier to Christianity to spread as the Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods. I do belive that you are exaggertating the impact that Hannibal and Hasdrubal had on the Carthaginian society, in regards that it could simply have been the efforts of just two men. It’s also possible that with the lack of Rome the druids would maintain their hold over a Celtic western Europe, most likly also this acting like a hindrance to Christianity. I will not dabble with the regard to what would happen in the east, but I strongly feel that Christianity might have faced even more problems there without the Roman empire.

I do however agree that Latin most likly wouldn’t be a major language in the world, and that there wouldn't exist a Colusseum (sp?).

---

Well, don't forget that romans used to suppress christianity. Christianity was accepted as official religion of the roman empire only when it became clear that not doing so could tear the empire apart.

I'm not fully sure about what you're meaning that it would tear the empire appart. Could you please elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurkhal

I'm not fully sure about what you're meaning that it would tear the empire appart. Could you please elaborate?

---

I didn't have any particular event in mind.

People at that time were more religious than today. Population of roman empire was becoming more and more christian. When you have a ruling class of different religion than the population it rules, bad things are bound to happen... Expecially in an empire full of different cultures as roman empire was...

Roman empire was ideal for the spread of christianity. Although the empire itself was rich, it's population was very poor, and life was very hard for them. Since christianity favoured poverty (suffer in this life, so that you can enjoy in the next), it was expected that christianity would expand like wildfire in roman empire. Of course, romans accepting christianity did help in spreading of it later, but at first christianity expanded in spite of romans, not because of them.

Actually Gurkhal the spelling is right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum

Also the "barbarians from east" at that time (Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc) adopted Christianity pretty quickly after they encountered it, I wonder why Carthage would be harder apart from its "nasty rite" which I'm sure something's not much different occured on the barbarians, and I agree that the rite itself is debatable. There's barely any existing evidence about the baby sacrifice and other nasty stuff in Carthage's religion practice apart from the Romans sources which used these as excuse to burn Carthage city to the ground anyway (sinister!)

And to add to my latest post: Greek and remnants of Romans (its Balkan provinces) will be very likely to be overrun once the mighty Carthage and the later emerged Islamic Arab forces invade the region...one might ask "what's Greek?"

Quote:

---

People at that time were more religious than today. Population of roman empire was becoming more and more christian. When you have a ruling class of different religion than the population it rules, bad things are bound to happen... Expecially in an empire full of different cultures as roman empire was...

---

I disagree with this example as relevant to the Roman empire at the time when Christanity was taken under the wings of the emperor, in this case, it would probably be around Constantin the Great. As I've understood it, at the time when the empire started to take protection for the Christians, maybe 15% of its population was Christian. A notible minority yes, but far from making up a majority of the empire, not to mention that there was almost none Christians within the Roman army. The reson to take Christianity as favoured religion had more with its secular use for the empire and to use it as a focal point against seperatistic movements, rather than any "pressure from the people" forced the rulers to adapt.

Quote:

---

Actually Gurkhal the spelling is right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum

---

I do not argue the spelling. I am arguing that only a Latin speaking people would name a such building a Latin name.

Quote:

---

Also the "barbarians from east" at that time (Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc) adopted Christianity pretty quickly after they encountered it,

---

To my knowledge the Huns never became Christians. But then again I do not have much knowledge about the Huns so its entirly possible I'm wrong. The Goths and Vandals also most likly accepted Christianity as a mean for the rulers to gain more power, or ease their ruling over a Christian population. More pragmatism rather than idealism. Also most of the "barbarian" peoples who came to settle within the Roman empire didn't want to destroy the empire, they wanted to take part of the advantages it could provide. Thus adopting Roman custom and ways, like Christianity was a natural step for them in order to make themselves part of Rome.

Quote:

---

, I wonder why Carthage would be harder apart from its "nasty rite" which I'm sure something's not much different occured on the barbarians, and I agree that the rite itself is debatable. There's barely any existing evidence about the baby sacrifice and other nasty stuff in Carthage's religion practice apart from the Romans sources which used these as excuse to burn Carthage city to the ground anyway (sinister!)

---

In what way Carthage would be harder or easier to controll rather than Rome is impossible to know for certain. There seem to have been some manner of misunderstanding regarding the Punic sacrifice of children as I to the fullest belive they did it. I would call upon the practices from both ancient authors, whom might have had reson to make exaggerated claims, but I do not belive that they are essentionally wrong. They might however of course have drasticly exaggerated the hole affair. I do also belive that the reson that also the Old Testament (the correct Hebrew title, Tankha or something, dosen't come fully to mind) and also makes claims that the inhabitants, from where the settlers who founded Carthage would've been drawned did practiced this rite.

To my knowledge the Romans never used the Punic rites of child-sacrifice as a pretext for destroy Carthage. It was purly political and emoitionel based on the fears of a new Second Punic War or a new Hannibal ravaging Italy.

Quote:

---

And to add to my latest post: Greek and remnants of Romans (its Balkan provinces) will be very likely to be overrun once the mighty Carthage and the later emerged Islamic Arab forces invade the region...one might ask "what's Greek?"

---

I'm not 100% sure I understood this correctly, if I'm answering to some other question then feel free to correct me. I do not neceissery belive that Carthage would've come all the way to the Balkans. And with the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Middle East, Egypt and Greece I'm actually not even sure if the Arabs would manage to reach the Romans before some manner Hellenistic ruler would've gotten himelf rid of them.

After reading your post, I got to agree with most of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurkhal

I'm not 100% sure I understood this correctly, if I'm answering to some other question then feel free to correct me. I do not neceissery belive that Carthage would've come all the way to the Balkans. And with the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Middle East, Egypt and Greece I'm actually not even sure if the Arabs would manage to reach the Romans before some manner Hellenistic ruler would've gotten himelf rid of them.

---

Apology for my rather ambiguous post, what I meant is that while Carthage as a whole might just sit and stay and have no need to expand further, it might do some incursions (slow but for long time) just like how Germanic tribes and "east barbarians" sneak and create some havoc on Romans territory in our timeline, into Greek and the surrounding territory. And while these incursions weren't too damaging, the final blow will come to the Greek (since they've never been occupied by Romans) when later the Arabs invade the region (just like how Huns ravage through Roman territory and into Italy) but then the period of time will be too long, in fact longer than in our timeline between Carthage's start incursion in 200 BC to Arab emergence in 600 AD (800 years) than Germanic's incursion in 0 AD to Huns invasion in 400 AD (400 years). Too long to wait for some foreign powers to invade and sack while the nation itself might have already engulfed in civil war and then become ruins. So my latest point is probably incorrect.

But basically what I'm trying to say is that Greek itself will collapse without Romans there (that's my theory and can be incorrect too), and Carthage will prevail

You're right in that 800 years is plenty of time for things to change radically. It's really not possible to predict how the hellenistic kingdoms would have progressed without Roman intervension. Also the Gauls may be able to survive since there would be no Caesar to conquer them. But would they be able to resist pressure from germanic peoples long enough to forge a strong, solid kingdom?

Regarding the success of the islamic expansion, it really comes down to the political situation in the lands bordering Arabia. With the Byzantines and the Sassanid Persians having bled each other dry, there was a perfect opportunity for conquest. The outcome may have been very different had the invaders faced strong, vigorous states instead.