Punic War vs the Jugurthine War

[duncan.gill]

If Carthage had faced off against the Romans as they were at the time of the Jugurthine War do you think that they would have won? With their vast amounts of money and the level of the Roman's greed they would have been able to bribe their way to victory.

[Matinius Brutus]

What do you mean by victory? Carthage's survival or the destruction of Rome? If it is the first option, they might have managed to keep the Romans at bay for some time through bribery, but it wouldn't have lasted long. Pompey might have managed to get another special commission as pretty much Marius did in the Jugurthine war; or Ceasar might have found another direction for his conquests instead of Gaul. And even if the Carthies didn't give the Romans a reason to go to war, those two above could have found casus belli (sp?) easily and still fight them. And as for the destruction of Rome- it was impossible by that time. No matter how great and numerous the bribes, no one would have allowed it. And finally do not forget that the Numidians were defeated, and it wasn't because their coffins went dry, but because some generals wanted them defeated for reasons beyond money, power, authority and so on.

[Cbvani]

This is an impossible to answer question. Without their spanish holdings, I doubt Carthage would have had the money to stop Rome. Also, Rome was basically THE power in the western Med, and was only threatened by things like a horde of dirty Germans from far, far away.

[SwissBarbar]

of course carthage could have beat rome, we've seen that in the second punic war.

if the carthagians would not have been such cowards and supported hannibal till the end, the could have won.

[Matinius Brutus]

SwissBar, the Second Punic war was the moment for the Carthies, but they missed it. After that Rome was too much for them. Maybe another genius would have had a chance for some victories, but he wouldn' have had the resources for a eventual defeat of the Romans.

[General Appo]

of course carthage could have beat rome, we've seen that in the second punic war.

Excuse me? How does the Second Punic War, a war where the Romans beat the Carthaginians, prove that the Carthaginians could beat the Romans?
You might argue that Carthage had won had the Carthaginian Senate offered greater support (doubtful) but in no way is this proven. Besides, the senate of Carthage was like that, to say that Carthage would rightfully have won without its unwillingness to support Hannibal is like saying that the Gauls would have won if it wasn´t for Rome´s professional legionnaries.
It´s true, but hardly a valid point.

Edit: You know what, lets just skip having this discussion. Until Carthage beats Rome in a war, there´s no proof that Carthage could feasibly beat Rome in a war. There´s a possibilty they could have, yes, but to say as you did in your qouted post...well, as the EB team say whenever someone brings forth a theory: Show me the evidence.

[Pontius Pilate]

After the end of the second Punic War Carthage had pretty much lost its final chance to defeat Rome in a conventional war. It simply did not have the resources or manpower to combat the Romans. Rome had seized much of Carthage's mercenary recruitment areas and forced it to pay heavy tribute. The third Punic War wasn't even fought for necesity on the part of the Romans, they just wanted Carthage out of the picture once and for all. So I don't think Carthage could have beat Rome in any war after the 2nd Punic, let alone the Jugurthine War. It is also true that Rome was nearly destroyed in the 2nd Punic, but history turned out different. Still, it would be interesting to think about how much the world would be different today if Carthage defeated Rome.

[Matinius Brutus]

After the end of the second Punic War Carthage had pretty much lost its final chance to defeat Rome in a conventional war. It simply did not have the resources or manpower to combat the Romans. Rome had seized much of Carthage's mercenary recruitment areas and forced it to pay heavy tribute. The third Punic War wasn't even fought for necesity on the part of the Romans, they just wanted Carthage out of the picture once and for all. So I don't think Carthage could have beat Rome in any war after the 2nd Punic, let alone the Jugurthine War. It is also true that Rome was nearly destroyed in the 2nd Punic, but history turned out different. Still, it would be interesting to think about how much the world would be different today if Carthage defeated Rome.

I don't had even Carthage managed to win they would be able to secure an empire. Most probably the Italians would have managed to overthrow them and then - who knows? And an earlier invasion of Europe by the Germanic tribes would have been successful and so on and so on.

[General Appo]

Not even during the very darkest hours of the Second Punic War was Rome ever close to final defeat. Even after Cannae Hannibal could not even dream of actually taking Roma itself, nor ever really threaten Rome´s system of subjugated allies, especially not the vital Latin allies, of which pretty much no one switched sides.
At best he could have hoped that a quick march on Rome would finally break the legendary Roman stubborness and determination to never accept defeat, and hopefully work out a deal in Carthage´s favour. Of course, during the time it takes to make such an deal Rome other armies and allies would almost certainly be standing outside Hannibals camp with 5 times as many men.

[Reverend Joe]

Edit: You know what, lets just skip having this discussion. Until Carthage beats Rome in a war, there´s no proof that Carthage could feasibly beat Rome in a war.

Gotcha!

/starts filling his time machine with matchlock muskets








Edit: seriously, there's no way Carthage would have won the Second Punic War, like General Appo said. The problem ran much deeper than an unsupportive Carthaginian senate. It was almost a problem of basic willpower. So the muskets thing, if you didn't guess, is me being facetious.

[Pontius Pilate]

but at his height, hannibal and his army was extremely close to Rome. Some sources even go as far to mention that Hannibal could see the smoke rise from the city, he was that close. There is one historical battle in EB #1 that says if Hannibal recieved reinforcements then he might have been able to march on Rome itself. and yes, Rome still had many allies in Italy who were not willing to switch sides. but who knows what would have happened if Hannibal managed to successfully siege and sack Rome after recieving reinforcements

[General Appo]

To successfully take a city the size of Rome Hannibal would have needed...well, he´d needed his own army x4 plus a steady supply income. Seriously now, even right after Cannae the troops stationed in Rome and various smaller Roman and Italian contignents nearby likely matched Hannibal in numbers, and ancient sieges were rarely won unless the attacker outnumbered the defender at least 3/1, regardless of the quality of the attacking troops.

As for reinforcements...well, it´s not like Carthaginian senate had a dozen well trained armies standing by able to board the next ship to Italy at any time.
Recruiting an army, especially consisting of various mercenaries and subjugated peoples takes time, and training them into an even half-decent army takes even longer. Most of Carthage ready troops were bogged down fighting the Numidians in Africa or stationed in Iberia.
Plus, just sailing such an army across to Italy would be risky what with the Roman navy controlling the waters.

And this all just leads to the greatest problem of them all. Food. Where the hell would Hannibal get food enough for an army big enough to actually take Rome? Even if he somehow outnumbered the Romans 10/1 it would still take months to take the city.
It´s just not feasible for Hannibal to have taken Rome at any time. The most he could have hoped for was admitance of defeat from the Romans side and a deal favouring Carthage.

[Mindaros]

It's true that reinforcing Hannibal would've required a route between Africa and Italy. Carthage did try to create this, but failed. There was another route obviously between Spain and Italy - the one used by Hannibal - but Rome managed to bring war into Spain, effectively blocking this route as well. Superior Roman navy and control of the strategically important islands were the crucial factors in Carthage's defeat.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

The main problem was that Hannibal came from north and lost a lot of men while he crossed the Alps. Also, if the Carthaginians would have attacked Sicily in the same time then things would have gone differently.
But the Second Punic War was actually Hannibal vs. Rome and not Carthage vs. Rome. If the Carthaginian Senate would have supported Hannibal and IF they would have created another army to capture Sicily then there could've been a small chance for the Carthaginians to win the war.
Another mistake that Hannibal made was that he believed that all the subjugated people in Italy would rise up. This was not a conquest he made but just an attempt to defeat Rome and 'free' the people in Italy thus eliminating a threat to Carthage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, something no one has touched on is the fact that the degeneration of Roman society was directly linked to the defeat of Carthage and the romoval of all viable and dangerous enemies.

so the OP's actual question is a bit of a red herring.