Carthage

**caesar44** · 10-09-2005, 14:24

Segentum, by the way, was within the Carthaginian side of the Ebro. That was the key of the conflict and why Hannibal felt justified to attack it in the first place.

Correct , it was his standpoint , but according to the treaty of 241 , Carthage could not attack any of Rome's allys and Saguntum was in alliance with Rome .

he (or maybe, another Cato...) was the man who brought down the fortunes of Scipio Africanus, the Roman war hero.

Yes it was he , that is , Cato the Censor , in 184 (Africanus died in 183 , this conflict between Cato and Scipio Africanus have allways intrigued me but the sources are rather silence about it)

**cunobelinus** · 10-12-2005, 15:42

i am reading a book about the punic wars by adrian goldsmith and it is very good explains in detail about carthage and rome.good information on how they fort and the units they had .They are an interesting lot.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 10-12-2005, 16:45

"The War with Hannibal" by: Livy.

Penguin Classics.

Hannibal, son of a general who did very well in the first Punic War, decided to cross the Ebro and lay siege to Seguntum, a city allied to the Romans.

I think some others have stated this before, but it was closer to New Carthage then to the Ebro.

**caesar44** · 10-12-2005, 19:53

The War with Hannibal" by: Livy.

Penguin Classics.

Quote:
Hannibal, son of a general who did very well in the first Punic War, decided to cross the Ebro and lay siege to Seguntum, a city allied to the Romans.

I think some others have stated this before, but it was closer to New Carthage then to the Ebro.

Yes , Saguntum was "below" the Ebro , but Livy is right ! How ? He said "decided to cross the Ebro..." (that is one thing , and the second is...) "...and lay siege to Saguntum" . For example , one can say :he invaded Scotland and took Berlin" - there is no contradiction here , it is simply 2 different things .
I think we should look for a translator here , you really can look at it that way or the other . What do you think ?

**Red Harvest** · 10-12-2005, 20:17

Originally Posted by caesar44

Segentum, by the way, was within the Carthaginian side of the Ebro. That was the key of the conflict and why Hannibal felt justified to attack it in the first place.

Correct , it was his standpoint , but according to the treaty of 241 , Carthage could not attack any of Rome's allys and Saguntum was in alliance with Rome .

Rome had violated the treaty by siding with them against Carthage in what was to be Carthage's domain according to the treaty. Hannibal didn't let them get away with the violation.

**edyzmedieval** · 10-12-2005, 20:51

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Rome had violated the treaty by siding with them against Carthage in what was to be Carthage's domain according to the treaty. Hannibal didn't let them get away with the violation.

Battle of river Trebia.

Thanks guys. Any good books about the complete history?!

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 10-12-2005, 22:43

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Battle of river Trebia.

Thanks guys. Any good books about the complete history?!

Get hold of Adrian Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage. It's a very good overview, and covers all three wars. Goldsworthy is eminently readable as well.

**caesar44** · 10-12-2005, 20:52

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Rome had violated the treaty by siding with them against Carthage in what was to be Carthage's domain according to the treaty. Hannibal didn't let them get away with the violation.

Here are some reasons not to think that the Roman violated the treaty of 241 -
1. The treaty of 241 did not forbade the Romans from concluding alliances with communities South of the Ebro .

2. "About 225 BC, the Romans, disquieted by the growth of Carthaginian power in Spain, concluded an alliance with the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal that guaranteed the independence of Saguntum and required his forces not to cross the Río Ebro." (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/)

3. "This ‘River’ causes a problem to modern historians. If, as thought by the majority of scholars, the river is the Ebro, in northen Iberia [Spain], then Saguntum is a Greek colony allied with Rome, but a hundred miles inside the Carthaginian sphere of influence. If the River was the Jucar, then Saguntum was the southern outpost of the Roman Empire, but within the territory ceded to Rome. This second choice, the Jucar south of Saguntum, makes much more sense, considering the faulty geography of the ancient world." (http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/saguntum.htm)

4. "Earlier, while Hamilcar was still establishing control of Spain, Rome was concerned over Carthaginian resurgence. In the 220’s BC, they established a treaty with Carthage limiting expansion to anything south of the Ebro. Saguntum, a small town in that territory, had entered into an alliance with Rome, giving the Romans a small stronghold in the heart of Carthaginian lands." ( http://www.unrv.com/empire/second-punic-war.php)

So , as I have said - 1. the treaty of 241 did not forbid a roman alliance with saguntum , 2. - Some say that the "river" was not the Ebro and 3. By all reports , the Carthaginians knew that Saguntum is not for them to take . Many scholars suggests that Hannibal knew exactly what he was doing by taking Saguntum , he wanted an excuse for his war .

Edit : Polybius - "This being so, it is an acknowledged fact that the Saguntines, a good many years before the time of Hannibal, placed themselves under the protection of Rome. The surest proof of this, and one accepted by the Carthaginians themselves, is that when a civil disturbance broke out at Saguntum they did not call in the mediation of the Carthaginians, although they were close at hand and already concerning themselves with Spanish matters, but that of the Romans, and with their help set right the affairs of the state. Therefore, if we take the destruction of Saguntum to be the cause of the war we must allow that the Carthaginians were in the wrong in beginning the war, both in view of the treaty of Lutatius, in which it was stipulated that the allies of each should be secure from attack by the other, and in view of the convention made with Hasdrubal, by which the Carthaginians undertook not to cross the Ebro in arms."

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 10-12-2005, 22:16

"The War with Hannibal"

That's the best one...it's by Livy...

**Red Harvest** · 10-12-2005, 22:39

caesar44,

I've heard it all before. It's called revisionist history...by the Romans.

All of this was of course written later. Rome had already committed violations by snagging Sardinia and such, this appears to be another example of their strong arming a weakened Carthage (the 226 "agreement" being yet another example.) There is no way I'm going to believe the Roman justification. It smacks of typical Livy theater (he knew his audience.) The city was in the Carthaginians sphere. Considering Rome's history at the time, I'm satisfied that the Romans were the aggressors and their supposed justifications ring hollow. They reaped what they had sown.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 10-12-2005, 22:43

They were scared of Hannibal, so they got him...

**Red Harvest** · 10-13-2005, 01:45

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

From what i've read of Polybius, neither side technically violated the treaty, and both were eager to fight.

Polybius is, at least compared to Livy and Herodotus, which I'm reading atm, very objective, concise, and as factual as was within his limits.

Polybius is one of the most reliable there was in the era, but he was still tied directly to the Roman viewpoint. His sources were primarily Roman. No matter how objective he might have tried to be (and let's not forget how strong his ties were to the Scipios) one can only expect so much.

Don't get the idea that I'm anti-Roman. There is much about the Republic that is appealing. Each of the societies of the time had its virtues and flaws. The claims of Carthaginian treachery by Rome are heavily hyped. Rome was opportunistic, and certainly not alone in that regard. Where it differed from many of its neighbors was in how consistent it was in expanding its reach, yet without over reaching. (There are some parallels to the way the U.S./colonists dealt with the native americans--although I would actually describe Rome of the Etruscan/Samnite/Punic/Greek times as being *less* ruthless overall.)

**conon394** · 10-13-2005, 02:58

Red Harvest

[QUOTE] I've heard it all before. It's called revisionist history...by the Romans.[/QOUTE]

I don’t know that it does, it seems to me you are assuming the Ebro treaty was reciprocal. As far I as I can see Rome asked for and received an assurance from the Hasdrubal that he had no interests north of the Ebro (I would suspect mostly on behalf of their firm ally Massilia), they never offered any balanced assurance that they had no interest south of it. In any case, it was clearly an agreement of convenience; Hasdrubal seems to have been acting in a quasi-independent capacity since the Carthaginian government later claimed the undertaking was not even binding on them.

Carthage was to some extent burned by a dangerous game of bait and switch; the home government seems to have largely ignored the Barca’s Spanish Empire as long as the profits were rolling in (and perhaps slept better at night thinking about the large Barca professional army that was comfortably far away, but near enough to Rome). In the end they failed to really keep a close eye on (or any real means to check or influence) the Barca’s; would they precipitate a conflict with Rome or offer up unilateral promises.