Of Peloponnesian and Punic: A thought provoking discussion

[Brennus]

Hello all,
Following in the guise of such threads as "The world without Rome" and "the most succesful sucessor" I wanted to post a thread to provoke some discussion. For this I would like people to discusss the similarities between two of the Mediterranean's most studied clashes: The Peloponnesian War and the First Punic war and hear whether people think they were effectively the same conflict but in different times, locations and between different peoples or if there are only superficially comparable.

For example, in favour of the former argument it can be said that both were ostensibly conflicts between naval powers (Athens, Carthage) and land based powers (Sparta, Rome) with victory being achieved by the land based power only when that polity had developed a sufficiently strong fleet. Also in favour of this argument is that it was Sicily not the various powers homelands which decided the outcome of these conflicts and that Syracuse played a vital role in both wars.

Alternatively it could be argued that apart from the comparison of naval versus land power, the Peloponnesian War and First Punic War were nothing alike. One was a regional struggle between fellow Greeks whilst the other determined the fate of the Mediterranean and was between two powers of completely different cultural and lingustic natures.

I open the floor to my fellow members....

DISCLAIMER: I am aware that the Peloponnesian War occurs outside of the EB timeline and thus would be better suited to being placed in the Monastery rather than the EB forum however I feel this thread would attract both more attention and a greater variety of arguments in the EB forum.