Child Sacrifice

**antisocialmunky** · 01-18-2009, 21:08

Like sacrificing your daughter so the gods don't sink your fleet so you can get your brother's whore of wife back.

Human sacrifice wasn't exactly uncommon in the ancient world. I don't really understand why people want to play devil's advocate for those who did. Does sacrificing less people make it less bad in the 21st century? It happened but no one knows really to what extent. Most everyone did some sort of human sacrifice.

**HunGeneral** · 01-18-2009, 21:43

Well I can't be sure but I have heard from several places that many cemeteries containig only the remains of (probably cremeated) children have been discovered around Carthage. This seems to support the claim of Child Sacrafice however we should think about the fact that child-mortality was very high in thoose days and cremation was a common form of burial. Besides as stated above: dead born or early died children could have been offered to the gods so they protect them in the afterlife.

I could also mention the case of Hamilcar Barcas "lost" son. Sources claim he had four sons however we only know the names of the first three - Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago.
Some speculate that the fourth son (whose name has never been mentioned anywhere) was sacrificed to win the gods help in war against the romans. If we think about it though: he could just have died of natural causes - in Antiquity children were only given a name at the age of 5 or later because it was very possible they wouldn't live to reach their teens.

Also as stated above human sacrafices were not very uncommen in the Ancient world. It is even suspected that the romans and the greeks made human sacrafices in some extent (above all Prisoners of War). After the punic wars the romans finally outlawed all forms of such practices.

**russia almighty** · 01-18-2009, 22:07

There is a possibility he could have given him to the priesthood too.

Was the sacred band around during the Second Punic War?

**Antinous** · 01-18-2009, 22:12

The whole baby sacrifice in mass numbers has to have been roman propaganda. I can see if their was a small amount of shild sacrifice, but for there to be huge numbers like the romans said is bound to be hate propaganda.

**russia almighty** · 01-18-2009, 22:16

Originally Posted by Antinous

The whole baby sacrifice in mass numbers has to have been roman propaganda. I can see if their was a small amount of shild sacrifice, but for there to be huge numbers like the romans said is bound to be hate propaganda.

Good propaganda is 100 percent true. That could have been based upon a trader seeing one particular incident of mass sacrifice out of nowhere. That one time only incident eventually spawned into, "dem Carthagians give millions of babies for their gods to eat!"

**Antinous** · 01-18-2009, 22:19

And if I was a roman hearing that I would hate the carthaginians.

**-Praetor-** · 01-21-2009, 22:53

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Like sacrificing your daughter so the gods don't sink your fleet so you can get your brother's whore of wife back.

I actually never saw it that way

**-Praetor-** · 01-21-2009, 23:27

Originally Posted by penguinking

Well, Carthaginian society was hardly designed for maximum military effectiveness.

I think it was. It was much more potent, militarly speaking, than Sparta, even though it didn't encouraged their own population to bear arms and to get good at it like the Lambda guys. However, they dedicated themselves to produce excellent generals and admirals, and to produce money destined to buy and equip the best armies available.

I think it's a very effective society, militarly speaking. They just did it differently.

**antisocialmunky** · 01-22-2009, 04:43

Well, I think he was alluding to the whole mercenary war thing.

**HunGeneral** · 01-22-2009, 12:53

Originally Posted by k_raso

It was much more potent, militarly speaking, than Sparta, even though it didn't encouraged their own population to bear arms and to get good at it like the Lambda guys. However, they dedicated themselves to produce excellent generals and admirals, and to produce money destined to buy and equip the best armies available.

I think it's a very effective society, militarly speaking. They just did it differently.

Thinking about it I have to say I find it quite true - The Carthaginians never had a large punic populace to serve as the basis for large armies they however had money to hire others to fight for them and willingnis to train, become great generals or officers to lead thoose armies (+ admirals and sailors who ruled the whole western mediteranian). It is even better then the Idea of the Spartans - they could never create a larger kingdom but the Carthaginians did.

By the way: the Spartans themselve "sacraficed" their own children very often - even if the brutal spartan educational system was used just for a short time...

**Dutchhoplite** · 01-22-2009, 13:41

Spartans did not sacrifice children...

And:

**Ibrahim** · 01-22-2009, 17:58

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

Spartans did not sacrifice children...

And:

I think he meant the practice of exposure: IIRC, them spartans would "expose" unfit babies.

**HunGeneral** · 01-22-2009, 23:18

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I think he meant the practice of exposure: IIRC, them spartans would "expose" unfit babies.

Youre right thats exactly what I meant

I believe it to be "sacrafice" because they sentence these children to die just because they don't look fitt to become warriors - It is for the best of the state you could say but the same could be sad about the "supposed" sacrafices he Carthaginians were claimed to do...