What if?

[JRG]

I have always wondered what would have happened if Hannibal had been able to capitalize on his field victories over the Romani. Would he just have allowed the various peoples of Italy to become their own independent states, with the power of Rome being significantly diminished? Or would Italy come under more direct Carthaginian control? And assuming the latter, would Carthage become the master of the known world as Rome did? Would we all be speaking Punic today?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Pyrrhos wasn't the first Epeirite to fight wars in Italy. His father had before him.

Carthage didn't seem to have any desire to control Italy or much of anything. They were more of a trade empire made from colonies rather then conquered peoples and territories.

[JRG]

Carthage didn't seem to have any desire to control Italy or much of anything. They were more of a trade empire made from colonies rather then conquered peoples and territories.

That is true, but control, whether through allied trade colonies or direct rule over Italy would certainly have given them an immense amount of money through trade throughout the whole Western Mediterranean, and may have been in the interests of them. Besides, Italy and/or Spain could have become the semi-autonomous Barcid Empire, with more direct military control over their territories, to the benefit of Carthage or not.

[Megas Methuselah]

Italy and/or Spain could have become the semi-autonomous Barcid Empire, with more direct military control over their territories, to the benefit of Carthage or not.

I agree. The Barcids were a new breed of Carthaginians in that they began to conquer lands rather than just found new colonies. Of course, I'm not a professional historian (not yet, anyways, until I graduate from university 4-5 years from now with a minor in history. I registered for my first history class for the fall semester last week, yay! Can anyone gimme balloons?), so feel free to correct me.

[Timoleon]

I think that Pyrrhus involvement in the Greek affairs didn't change the course of history. He did won a few battles and captured and sacked Makedonia, but very quickly Antigonos Gonatas managed to recover. The main problem for Makedonia wasn't Pyrrhus and Epeiros, but the Aitolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as the desire of the Greek city-states to remain independent.
As far as the Romans are concerned, I really think that the war with Pyrrhus forged their iron determination and their famous denial to accept defeat. These virtues made them withstand the Hannibalic war and bounce back after so many crushing defeats.

[JRG]

I think that Pyrrhus involvement in the Greek affairs didn't change the course of history. He did won a few battles and captured and sacked Makedonia, but very quickly Antigonos Gonatas managed to recover. The main problem for Makedonia wasn't Pyrrhus and Epeiros, but the Aitolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as the desire of the Greek city-states to remain independent.
As far as the Romans are concerned, I really think that the war with Pyrrhus forged their iron determination and their famous denial to accept defeat. These virtues made them withstand the Hannibalic war and bounce back after so many crushing defeats.

Good point. IMO, it made Rome cast an eye eastword while consolidating its control over the west.

[Long lost Caesar]

All interesting points. But, forgive me if I seem a bit ignorant here, am I right in assuming that, by and large, history wouldn't have been much different without Phyrrus?