He also signed a treaty with the Romans that Carthage wouldn't even bother with conquering the north of Iberia as long as Rome didn't bother with trying to make life difficult in the south of Iberia. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. There actually seems to be a fair amount of dispute on this. Unlike Caesar, Sulla, and Pompey, he had not come into and held power as a tyrant. Carthage didn't have to be annihilated because it was an existential threat to Rome, but because it stood in the way of Roman dominance and they preferred to speak, and more importantly to think, in terms of their Empire. Same - a small nation can be a threat with the right leading. They were used as places to increase wealth via trade, more than anything else.
This island was important strategically as its position helped to control the passage between the … eastern and the western basins of the Mediterranean and it had good farmland. It prevented Carthage from reinforcing their armies in Italy while allowing Romans to invade Africa with impunity and then supply their army there. And in the case of your first post, the real threat to Rome were the Barkas, right? Fabius was replaced by Caius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius who threw off caution and led their troops against Hannibal in the region of Apulia. But again, the Carthaginian and Roman governments were close to identical, with the only big difference that Rome was a land-owning plutocratic oligarchy and Carthage a mercantile plutocratic oligarchy. Quote: some of the greatest thinkers we consider now were fervent opponents of democracy. Thread: Carthage was never a threat to Rome.
The hairy sixth to enslave the State Shall be son, no son, of this hairy last. But just what is endlessly debatable. Carthage agreed and surrendered the weapons. And whatever the kings and elders bring before the people is not only heard but also determined by them, and any one who likes may oppose it; now this is not permitted in Sparta and Crete. After this, Carthage recovered by expanding westwards and taking control of northwest Africa and southern and southeastern Spain.
But again I still doubt that Carthage had what it would take to defeat Rome and that would be as you pointed out more leadersip than just the Barcas. Now, that was the first Punic war and the first Barca. Hannibal learned from this that he should never lay siege to a well-fortified city ever again and this is something he has done til the very end. It is a practice that tyrants rightly fear and seek to thwart. By participating in the corrupt practices of his time, he was thus not only benefiting from them but also strongly reinforcing the precedent of their use. It is believed Hannibal learned to speak several languages fluently and understand the cultures of the foreign mercenaries which will be an integral part to his own forces, later on.
It just seems like Rome never did what empires usually do, which is to just want a piece of land and conquer it for the sake of expansion, but that they were always somehow attacked. Carthage still lies in ruin in modern day Tunisia and remains an important tourist attraction and archaeological site. What with Alexander the Great? A government mouthpiece and propaganda machine can work wonders in getting citizens to volunteer for military service which is what Cato in his speech and official duties did for the Roman military. As long as greed isn't considered a virtue and it usually wasn't , people throughout the ages have been reluctant to admit that's their true motive for war. It depends on their commander and how veteran or green the legion. WhenCarthage made attempts to take over the Greek city-states inSicily, Rome saw its opportunity to further its influence andbacked a group of mercenaries in Greek service in Sicily whic … h hadrebelled, and so came into conflict with the Carthaginians whotried to put the revolt down.
Quote: Carthage was never a threat to Rome. The progression you suggest is just not nearly so clear. Both had fought the Romans or done everything in their power to make life harder for the Romans during their entire life, but Carthage never fully invested in war and it was impossible to do so. Further the Romans were superstitious and held certain moral qualities in high regard such as veritas, dignitas etc. Hannibal had succeeded in marauding through Rome without a supply line, through pillaging the countryside. Basically, at the end of the Second Punic War, Rome and Carthage had signed a peace treaty in which Carthage promised to pay a huge indemnity and not take aggressive action without Roman permission.
Hamilcar whipped them too, but Rome had its eyes on Sicily now, after having recently conquered all of Italy from the Greeks. Even his father was greatly over exaggerated in his military accomplishments agains the Romans. A modern myth has grown up that the Romans forces then sowed the ruins with salt but this story has no basis in fact. Their kings, unlike the Spartan, are not always of the same family, nor that an ordinary one, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority---this is far better. The problem is that once a piece of land has been conquered, it becomes a part of the Empire, and its citizen become Ethno-Romans. The Greeks called the city Karchedon and the Romans turned this name into Carthago.
Your question cannot be answered properly because the answer calls for speculation, not fact. All all, they had gone to war to protect the Mamertines, particularly from Hiero, and that had now been achieved. I mean, almost all we know of Carthage, we learned from the Romans - is it possible they didn't really understand or chose not to understand Carthaginian politics? If we follow your logic strictly this mean that. And while Jesus did not exercise conventional kinds of political authority, his actions and his message included threats to the status quo. There is debate on why Hannibal didn't exploit his victories over Rome by attempting to capture the city - whether he let his troops become lazy and plunder the surrounding farmland instead of going for a final outcome.
Carthaginian senate didn't seem to give it's generals as much support as Roman senate gave Roman ones. With a precedent set that eminence could be won through murder and bloodshed, anyone who aspired to greatness would feel the need to employ violence both to achieve power and to hold onto it. . So, in the years after that, the Numidians, who were Roman allies, kept attacking them. He was killed after a few successes by jealous Carthaginian aristocracy was sent out on a boat with holes in it. Pompey was also shown by Plutarch to be an individual willing to make use of violence to achieve a political goal.