Alternate history - What if? Carthage, Roman, and Battle of the Metaurus

[Tran]

I'd like to add my views about "how the Europe will looks like" after Carthage has consolidated itself in both Italy and Spain (practically after Rome's defeat). Rex, I partly agree and disagree with your latest points, the Carthage will most probably just expand into Western Mediterranian and had easy time here, the Gauls were their ally during the war against Rome after all so why not continue their alliance and integrate them into the empire?

As for the spread of Christianity, looking back at our history Romans were pretty cruel to Christians during its early period, but I highly doubt Carthage will do the same. From one of the sources above it is said that if the Carthage won the war against Rome, Hannibal and Hasdrubal will give full military honor to show their respect to the dead Roman commanders. Unlike the Romans, in which they cruelly cut dead Hasdrubal's head after gained victory and throw it into Hannibal's camp. Therefore spread of Christianity is most likely peaceful and met little to no resistance. And who knows where Pope might reside? Maybe the Pope's homeland will be in Carthage instead of Rome?

However, the same can probably be said too during the expansion of Islam in 600s. Instead of military conquest, the Arabs most probably spread Islam by making friendship with Carthage and through trades, just like how Islam later expand to India and Southeast Asia. From there, probably you'll see a Carthage with most of its populations of mix Christians and Islam (kind of 7th to 9th century Spain).

As for Carthage's survival into modern age, that's something I think unlikely to happen. At least in its European provinces, where in later time (3th to 4th century) there are numerous invasions by 'Barbarian' hordes. But then Carthage has very different army and strong navy than Romans, and they could play bigger roles. And as during most of its time the Greeks are relatively free from foreign occupation (assuming the Carthage didn't expand there), the Greeks might get stronger, particularly in navy and made numerous raids but that's something Carthage navy should be able to handle.

Finally in my opinion two things are sure: Latin won't be the major language of Europe and Colosseum won't exist.

[Gurkhal]

I strongly disagree with you regarding the prospect of and easier spread of Christianity. Without a centralized government to help the spread, I think that it would be harder. Not easier to Christianity to spread as the Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods. I do belive that you are exaggertating the impact that Hannibal and Hasdrubal had on the Carthaginian society, in regards that it could simply have been the efforts of just two men. It’s also possible that with the lack of Rome the druids would maintain their hold over a Celtic western Europe, most likly also this acting like a hindrance to Christianity. I will not dabble with the regard to what would happen in the east, but I strongly feel that Christianity might have faced even more problems there without the Roman empire.

I do however agree that Latin most likly wouldn’t be a major language in the world, and that there wouldn't exist a Colusseum (sp?).

[AntiochusIII]

Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods.

That is disputed. The evidences are unclear -- those cremated babies could either be sacrifice, as is generally believed, or they could merely be a religious practice dealing with the remains of babies that died by other means, after all the ancient world's mortality rate for young children were extremely high -- and the only written records of such practice came from the Romans. They had every intention of vilifying their mortal foes.

and Colosseum won't exist

Rome wasn't the only culture that engages in barbaric pitfighting.

[Gurkhal]

That is disputed. The evidences are unclear -- those cremated babies could either be sacrifice, as is generally believed, or they could merely be a religious practice dealing with the remains of babies that died by other means, after all the ancient world's mortality rate for young children were extremely high -- and the only written records of such practice came from the Romans. They had every intention of vilifying their mortal foes

.

Like you said, it's generally belived that there was sacrifice going on. I am one of those adherents to that theory. I must confess that I do find the arguments against it not fully convincing.

Rome wasn't the only culture that engages in barbaric pitfighting.

I think that few cultures would build a such construction to pitfighting, and even less likly call if Colosseum (sp?) if they were not Romans.

[Sarmatian]

I strongly disagree with you regarding the prospect of and easier spread of Christianity. Without a centralized government to help the spread, I think that it would be harder. Not easier to Christianity to spread as the Carthage for example had some rather nasty rites, like sacrificing children in fire to the gods and crucify generals who lost if they were belived to have gained the anger of the gods. I do belive that you are exaggertating the impact that Hannibal and Hasdrubal had on the Carthaginian society, in regards that it could simply have been the efforts of just two men. It’s also possible that with the lack of Rome the druids would maintain their hold over a Celtic western Europe, most likly also this acting like a hindrance to Christianity. I will not dabble with the regard to what would happen in the east, but I strongly feel that Christianity might have faced even more problems there without the Roman empire.

I do however agree that Latin most likly wouldn’t be a major language in the world, and that there wouldn't exist a Colusseum (sp?).

Well, don't forget that romans used to suppress christianity. Christianity was accepted as official religion of the roman empire only when it became clear that not doing so could tear the empire apart.

[Gurkhal]

I'm not fully sure about what you're meaning that it would tear the empire appart. Could you please elaborate?

[Sarmatian]

I'm not fully sure about what you're meaning that it would tear the empire appart. Could you please elaborate?

I didn't have any particular event in mind.

People at that time were more religious than today. Population of roman empire was becoming more and more christian. When you have a ruling class of different religion than the population it rules, bad things are bound to happen... Expecially in an empire full of different cultures as roman empire was...

Roman empire was ideal for the spread of christianity. Although the empire itself was rich, it's population was very poor, and life was very hard for them. Since christianity favoured poverty (suffer in this life, so that you can enjoy in the next), it was expected that christianity would expand like wildfire in roman empire. Of course, romans accepting christianity did help in spreading of it later, but at first christianity expanded in spite of romans, not because of them.

[Tran]

Actually Gurkhal the spelling is right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum

Also the "barbarians from east" at that time (Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc) adopted Christianity pretty quickly after they encountered it, I wonder why Carthage would be harder apart from its "nasty rite" which I'm sure something's not much different occured on the barbarians, and I agree that the rite itself is debatable. There's barely any existing evidence about the baby sacrifice and other nasty stuff in Carthage's religion practice apart from the Romans sources which used these as excuse to burn Carthage city to the ground anyway (sinister!)

And to add to my latest post: Greek and remnants of Romans (its Balkan provinces) will be very likely to be overrun once the mighty Carthage and the later emerged Islamic Arab forces invade the region...one might ask "what's Greek?"

[Gurkhal]

People at that time were more religious than today. Population of roman empire was becoming more and more christian. When you have a ruling class of different religion than the population it rules, bad things are bound to happen... Expecially in an empire full of different cultures as roman empire was...

I disagree with this example as relevant to the Roman empire at the time when Christanity was taken under the wings of the emperor, in this case, it would probably be around Constantin the Great. As I've understood it, at the time when the empire started to take protection for the Christians, maybe 15% of its population was Christian. A notible minority yes, but far from making up a majority of the empire, not to mention that there was almost none Christians within the Roman army. The reson to take Christianity as favoured religion had more with its secular use for the empire and to use it as a focal point against seperatistic movements, rather than any "pressure from the people" forced the rulers to adapt.

Actually Gurkhal the spelling is right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum

I do not argue the spelling. I am arguing that only a Latin speaking people would name a such building a Latin name.

Also the "barbarians from east" at that time (Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc) adopted Christianity pretty quickly after they encountered it,

To my knowledge the Huns never became Christians. But then again I do not have much knowledge about the Huns so its entirly possible I'm wrong. The Goths and Vandals also most likly accepted Christianity as a mean for the rulers to gain more power, or ease their ruling over a Christian population. More pragmatism rather than idealism. Also most of the "barbarian" peoples who came to settle within the Roman empire didn't want to destroy the empire, they wanted to take part of the advantages it could provide. Thus adopting Roman custom and ways, like Christianity was a natural step for them in order to make themselves part of Rome.

, I wonder why Carthage would be harder apart from its "nasty rite" which I'm sure something's not much different occured on the barbarians, and I agree that the rite itself is debatable. There's barely any existing evidence about the baby sacrifice and other nasty stuff in Carthage's religion practice apart from the Romans sources which used these as excuse to burn Carthage city to the ground anyway (sinister!)

In what way Carthage would be harder or easier to controll rather than Rome is impossible to know for certain. There seem to have been some manner of misunderstanding regarding the Punic sacrifice of children as I to the fullest belive they did it. I would call upon the practices from both ancient authors, whom might have had reson to make exaggerated claims, but I do not belive that they are essentionally wrong. They might however of course have drasticly exaggerated the hole affair. I do also belive that the reson that also the Old Testament (the correct Hebrew title, Tankha or something, dosen't come fully to mind) and also makes claims that the inhabitants, from where the settlers who founded Carthage would've been drawned did practiced this rite.

To my knowledge the Romans never used the Punic rites of child-sacrifice as a pretext for destroy Carthage. It was purly political and emoitionel based on the fears of a new Second Punic War or a new Hannibal ravaging Italy.

And to add to my latest post: Greek and remnants of Romans (its Balkan provinces) will be very likely to be overrun once the mighty Carthage and the later emerged Islamic Arab forces invade the region...one might ask "what's Greek?"

I'm not 100% sure I understood this correctly, if I'm answering to some other question then feel free to correct me. I do not neceissery belive that Carthage would've come all the way to the Balkans. And with the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Middle East, Egypt and Greece I'm actually not even sure if the Arabs would manage to reach the Romans before some manner Hellenistic ruler would've gotten himelf rid of them.