What is safe to destroy?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that all the other Punic cities the Romans took didn't get the same "raze to ground and salt the earth" treatment Carthage got singled out for.

But during the Punic Wars, the only truly Carthaginian city was Carthage itself. The other 'Carthaginian' cities were allied Numidian, Spanish, African, and Libyan cities, under Carthaginian domination. Not actually Carthaginian cities.

Just like the Romans at that time. The only truly Roman city was Rome itself. The other 'Roman' cities were allied Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Etruscan, Ligurian, Gallic and Spanish cities, under Roman domination. Not actually Roman cities.

So with that attitude in mind, it makes sense for the Romans to only destroy Carthage itself and treat the other former Carthaginian-controlled cities as being 'liberated' from Carthaginian 'tyranny' and now safe under the 'protection' of Rome.

For the record: the Romans were not entirely opposed to human sacrifice. They did it themselves after Cannae. And their resistance is somewhat hypocritical to modern eyes, as the Romans did celebrate human slaughter in the form gladiatorial games (which also had a religious origin).

But the Romans sacrificed a Gaul and a Greek after Cannae. Enemies, in other words. Not their own people. And then only in the direst of emergencies. Unlike the Carthaginians, who routinely sacrificed children of their own blood. In Roman eyes, that was a key difference.

Gladiatorial games, again, a different matter, because gladiators were just slaves, not Roman citizens. Slaves in the arena were mostly captured enemy warriors, who deserved nothing better. So that wasn't hypocritical, in Roman eyes.