|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Dec 12, 2022 15:15:23 GMT
OTL Carthage won the war and we know the consequences. How would our world be different had Rome won it? What things would change and which would stay the same?
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Dec 13, 2022 15:50:47 GMT
OTL Carthage won the war and we know the consequences. How would our world be different had Rome won it? What things would change and which would stay the same? Jan III Sobieski I think you are a bit confused. As I read history Rome won the 2nd Punic (Carthage) War although suffering some really terrible defeats topped by the classic double envelopment Cannae in 216 .
However, although Carthage won a lot of battles and killed a lot of Romans she did not WIN the 2nd Punic war.
Unable to defeat the Carthaginians in an open field battle and totally unwilling to concede defeat Rome adopted a brilliant defensive strategy conducted by Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator. Quintus harried the Carthaginians without offering battle. What they had was deadlock on the Italian peninsula until 211 BC, when Rome recaptured the city of Capua.
In 207 Hasdrubal, following Hannibal’s route across the Alps, reached northern Italy with another large army supported by large numbers of Ligurians and Gauls. Hasdrubal marched down the peninsula to join Hannibal for an assault on Rome. Rome, exhausted by war, nevertheless raised and dispatched an army to check Hasdrubal. Gaius Nero, commander of the southern Roman army, slipped away north also and defeated Hasdrubal on the banks of the Metauros River. Hannibal maintained his position in southern Italy until 203, when he was ordered to return to Africa. For the first time in a decade and a half Italy was free of enemy troops.
The Roman general Publius Scipio won a decisive battle at Ilipa in 206 and forced the Carthaginians out of Spain. He then invaded Carthaginian itself in 204 and established a beachhead. The Carthaginian council offered terms of surrender but reneged at the last minute, pinning its hopes on one last battle. The massed Carthaginian army, led by Hannibal, was defeated at Zama. The Carthaginians accepted Scipio’s terms for peace: Carthage was forced to pay an indemnity and surrender its navy, and Spain and the Mediterranean islands were ceded to Rome.
There was a 3rd Punic war fought 50 years after the end of the second. Carthage rearmed. There were many causes but the the Roman demanded the city of Carthage be torn down and rebuilt miles inland away from the sea was the last straw. Carthage refused and the third war began. Rome was much stronger and Carthage fell after three years, to an army led by Scipio’s son. The Romans razed the city destroying it once and for all.
Hope this was of help.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,128 
Likes: 7,188
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 13, 2022 18:54:31 GMT
OTL Carthage won the war and we know the consequences. How would our world be different had Rome won it? What things would change and which would stay the same? Jan III Sobieski I think you are a bit confused. As I read history Rome won the 2nd Punic (Carthage) War although suffering some really terrible defeats topped by the classic double envelopment Cannae in 216 .
However, although Carthage won a lot of battles and killed a lot of Romans she did not WIN the 2nd Punic war.
Unable to defeat the Carthaginians in an open field battle and totally unwilling to concede defeat Rome adopted a brilliant defensive strategy conducted by Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator. Quintus harried the Carthaginians without offering battle. What they had was deadlock on the Italian peninsula until 211 BC, when Rome recaptured the city of Capua.
In 207 Hasdrubal, following Hannibal’s route across the Alps, reached northern Italy with another large army supported by large numbers of Ligurians and Gauls. Hasdrubal marched down the peninsula to join Hannibal for an assault on Rome. Rome, exhausted by war, nevertheless raised and dispatched an army to check Hasdrubal. Gaius Nero, commander of the southern Roman army, slipped away north also and defeated Hasdrubal on the banks of the Metauros River. Hannibal maintained his position in southern Italy until 203, when he was ordered to return to Africa. For the first time in a decade and a half Italy was free of enemy troops.
The Roman general Publius Scipio won a decisive battle at Ilipa in 206 and forced the Carthaginians out of Spain. He then invaded Carthaginian itself in 204 and established a beachhead. The Carthaginian council offered terms of surrender but reneged at the last minute, pinning its hopes on one last battle. The massed Carthaginian army, led by Hannibal, was defeated at Zama. The Carthaginians accepted Scipio’s terms for peace: Carthage was forced to pay an indemnity and surrender its navy, and Spain and the Mediterranean islands were ceded to Rome.
There was a 3rd Punic war fought 50 years after the end of the second. Carthage rearmed. There were many causes but the the Roman demanded the city of Carthage be torn down and rebuilt miles inland away from the sea was the last straw. Carthage refused and the third war began. Rome was much stronger and Carthage fell after three years, to an army led by Scipio’s son. The Romans razed the city destroying it once and for all.
Hope this was of help.
Respectfully, Senior Chief, I think Jan already knows that.
In fact, it's more like he created this thread as a "DBWI" ("Double-Blind What If") scenario where he pretend he's someone from a different TL (such as one where Carthage won) and asks what'd happen if things turned out more like OTL instead? Sure, we already know how OTL history went, but I'd say the appeal of DBWI's is the chance to step outside of ourselves and consider what's plausible from a non-OTL perspective — and sometimes, it leads us to different predictions than what OTL gave us (again, ATL people having a limited perspective and all). Perhaps you'd find this list of AH acronyms and abbreviations helpful, if you haven't seen it already.  |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Dec 13, 2022 21:56:55 GMT
Jan III Sobieski I think you are a bit confused. As I read history Rome won the 2nd Punic (Carthage) War although suffering some really terrible defeats topped by the classic double envelopment Cannae in 216 .
However, although Carthage won a lot of battles and killed a lot of Romans she did not WIN the 2nd Punic war.
Unable to defeat the Carthaginians in an open field battle and totally unwilling to concede defeat Rome adopted a brilliant defensive strategy conducted by Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator. Quintus harried the Carthaginians without offering battle. What they had was deadlock on the Italian peninsula until 211 BC, when Rome recaptured the city of Capua.
In 207 Hasdrubal, following Hannibal’s route across the Alps, reached northern Italy with another large army supported by large numbers of Ligurians and Gauls. Hasdrubal marched down the peninsula to join Hannibal for an assault on Rome. Rome, exhausted by war, nevertheless raised and dispatched an army to check Hasdrubal. Gaius Nero, commander of the southern Roman army, slipped away north also and defeated Hasdrubal on the banks of the Metauros River. Hannibal maintained his position in southern Italy until 203, when he was ordered to return to Africa. For the first time in a decade and a half Italy was free of enemy troops.
The Roman general Publius Scipio won a decisive battle at Ilipa in 206 and forced the Carthaginians out of Spain. He then invaded Carthaginian itself in 204 and established a beachhead. The Carthaginian council offered terms of surrender but reneged at the last minute, pinning its hopes on one last battle. The massed Carthaginian army, led by Hannibal, was defeated at Zama. The Carthaginians accepted Scipio’s terms for peace: Carthage was forced to pay an indemnity and surrender its navy, and Spain and the Mediterranean islands were ceded to Rome.
There was a 3rd Punic war fought 50 years after the end of the second. Carthage rearmed. There were many causes but the the Roman demanded the city of Carthage be torn down and rebuilt miles inland away from the sea was the last straw. Carthage refused and the third war began. Rome was much stronger and Carthage fell after three years, to an army led by Scipio’s son. The Romans razed the city destroying it once and for all.
Hope this was of help.
Respectfully, Senior Chief, I think Jan already knows that.
In fact, it's more like he created this thread as a "DBWI" ("Double-Blind What If") scenario where he pretend he's someone from a different TL (such as one where Carthage won) and asks what'd happen if things turned out more like OTL instead? Sure, we already know how OTL history went, but I'd say the appeal of DBWI's is the chance to step outside of ourselves and consider what's plausible from a non-OTL perspective — and sometimes, it leads us to different predictions than what OTL gave us (again, ATL people having a limited perspective and all). Perhaps you'd find this list of AH acronyms and abbreviations helpful, if you haven't seen it already. Zyobot,there is always someone who does not get the message. This time it is me.  It is all to obvious to me that I have a lot to learn about Alternate Time lines.
BK BK
Jan; if I offended you with my unwarranted "lecture" I apologize. Roman classical history, especially the Legions, and classical ships, seamanship, navigation and construction techniques are, hobbies of mine.
Zyobot just gave me a badly needed lesson on "DBWI" ("Double-Blind What If") scenarios.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 18, 2022 8:26:54 GMT
I don't see how a state like Rome could have won. After all, Italy was a bit of a backwater and Rome just wasn't that wealthy. But, if they had somehow prevailed they would probably have razed Carthage to the ground, which would have taken away one of the few western forces capable of resisting the Greek powers.
So you would probably see one of the Successor States being more successful than OTL in their westward expansion. Which is to say, we would all end up speaking Greek.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Dec 18, 2022 15:26:05 GMT
I don't see how a state like Rome could have won. After all, Italy was a bit of a backwater and Rome just wasn't that wealthy. But, if they had somehow prevailed they would probably have razed Carthage to the ground, which would have taken away one of the few western forces capable of resisting the Greek powers. So you would probably see one of the Successor States being more successful than OTL in their westward expansion. Which is to say, we would all end up speaking Greek.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Dec 18, 2022 15:47:12 GMT
Well Rome was a highly militaristic state, so without the rebellions that crippled it OTL and helped Hannibal so greatly in his crucial 4 year campaign in Italy it might have ended up winning - especially since by then it had naval superiority in the western Med. However the idea of the Roman forces slaughtering their way across N Africa and possibly other areas of western Europe and the devastation they would leave behind!  The commercial empire that Carthage established generated a lot of wealth for all nations involved rather than the desert a successful Rome would have left behind. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 19, 2022 8:20:44 GMT
Well Rome was a highly militaristic state, so without the rebellions that crippled it OTL and helped Hannibal so greatly in his crucial 4 year campaign in Italy it might have ended up winning - especially since by then it had naval superiority in the western Med. However the idea of the Roman forces slaughtering their way across N Africa and possibly other areas of western Europe and the devastation they would leave behind! The commercial empire that Carthage established generated a lot of wealth for all nations involved rather than the desert a successful Rome would have left behind. Like other such highly militarised states I don't know if Rome could remain United instead of falling apart. Such a violent people will always be deeply hated. I mean, they did regular human sacrifice and things like that. And not just slave children either. Such a society would be brought down by others and from within so I don't see them lasting a century longer. A century during which they'll do a lot of damage of course. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Dec 19, 2022 11:55:00 GMT
Well Rome was a highly militaristic state, so without the rebellions that crippled it OTL and helped Hannibal so greatly in his crucial 4 year campaign in Italy it might have ended up winning - especially since by then it had naval superiority in the western Med. However the idea of the Roman forces slaughtering their way across N Africa and possibly other areas of western Europe and the devastation they would leave behind! The commercial empire that Carthage established generated a lot of wealth for all nations involved rather than the desert a successful Rome would have left behind. Like other such highly militarised states I don't know if Rome could remain United instead of falling apart. Such a violent people will always be deeply hated. I mean, they did regular human sacrifice and things like that. And not just slave children either. Such a society would be brought down by others and from within so I don't see them lasting a century longer. A century during which they'll do a lot of damage of course.
Can't remember the terminology for a comment outside the DBWI status but - Just curious but is that a reference to how we only really know of Carthaginian religious practices via their bitter enemies the Romans and hence its likely to be the reverse. Mind you their love of gladiatorial combat - which according to an old source derived from ancient Etruscan religious practices - could well be described as such.
Back in context - Agreed its likely to be a very bloody period with a lot of destruction. Probably would mean much of western and central Europe - if they reached that far would be further retarded in their cultural development compared to the Greek and Carthaginian dominated periods.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Dec 19, 2022 13:53:48 GMT
Well Rome was a highly militaristic state, so without the rebellions that crippled it OTL and helped Hannibal so greatly in his crucial 4 year campaign in Italy it might have ended up winning - especially since by then it had naval superiority in the western Med. However the idea of the Roman forces slaughtering their way across N Africa and possibly other areas of western Europe and the devastation they would leave behind! The commercial empire that Carthage established generated a lot of wealth for all nations involved rather than the desert a successful Rome would have left behind. "Where they marched they left a desolation and they called it PEACE." Tacitus, of course, was speaking of the Roman Legions. However, when my dear wife and I look at the shambles left by my 5 grand children; that line seems to fit all too well.  |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 20, 2022 7:11:02 GMT
Like other such highly militarised states I don't know if Rome could remain United instead of falling apart. Such a violent people will always be deeply hated. I mean, they did regular human sacrifice and things like that. And not just slave children either. Such a society would be brought down by others and from within so I don't see them lasting a century longer. A century during which they'll do a lot of damage of course.
Can't remember the terminology for a comment outside the DBWI status but - Just curious but is that a reference to how we only really know of Carthaginian religious practices via their bitter enemies the Romans and hence its likely to be the reverse. Mind you their love of gladiatorial combat - which according to an old source derived from ancient Etruscan religious practices - could well be described as such.
Back in context - Agreed its likely to be a very bloody period with a lot of destruction. Probably would mean much of western and central Europe - if they reached that far would be further retarded in their cultural development compared to the Greek and Carthaginian dominated periods.
It's partially based on that and I'd assume that the Carthaginians would do something similar in terms of propaganda. And, the Romans did make human sacrifices, both in forcing people to fight to the death and in actual sacrifices. Like during the first Punic war. I would assume that those events would get vastly exaggerated. I'm also assuming that Rome would be razed because they were notoriously bad at giving up. Back in character: the slaughter would be terrible and I just realised something else. To win, the Romans would actually need a good navy, which means that they could strike much further overseas as well. And with their anti-trade thinking, that could well mean that they cut off the whole western part of the sea from it. Especially with a Sicilian base to work from. And, without the strong seafaring cultures there, it might take centuries longer for the western continent to be contacted. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,128
Likes: 7,188
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 1, 2023 1:26:18 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but I recall skimming through this one "Rome triumphs!" TL that really jumps a bunch of sharks. Not only does Rome desecrate Carthage and emerge hegemon of the Med, it also experiences a series of civil wars over the next couple of centuries that turns the dying Republic into a mighty Empire. And if that's not enough, the Early Empire gives rise to this really bizarre monotheistic cult — a rogue offshoot of Judaism, if I remember correctly — that venerates some random schmuck who got crucified for defying the Pharisees and claiming to be the Son of God. Not sure where the author's headed with it now, but last time I checked, they seemed to be implying this new religion would one day supplant traditional Roman polytheism. No idea where they got that from, but it's a very "unique" choice, I'll give 'em that.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 1, 2023 12:25:26 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but I recall skimming through this one "Rome triumphs!" TL that really jumps a bunch of sharks. Not only does Rome desecrate Carthage and emerge hegemon of the Med, it also experiences a series of civil wars over the next couple of centuries that turns the dying Republic into a mighty Empire. And if that's not enough, the Early Empire gives rise to this really bizarre monotheistic cult — a rogue offshoot of Judaism, if I remember correctly — that venerates some random schmuck who got crucified for defying the Pharisees and claiming to be the Son of God. Not sure where the author's headed with it now, but last time I checked, they seemed to be implying this new religion would one day supplant traditional Roman polytheism. No idea where they got that from, but it's a very "unique" choice, I'll give 'em that.
Gods that author has obviously never read up on the ancient Jews! Their monotheism was so brutal and repressive, even more than the Zoroastrians in Iran and you know what they were like before they were eventually destroyed. You get a group that believes there is only one correct way and that all other options are flawed if not downright evil and you get a cultural desert with virtually all ideas and values destroyed. It would be a death culture as destructive as those savages we found in the western lands, albeit on a somewhat different basis.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,128
Likes: 7,188
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 1, 2023 18:46:15 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but I recall skimming through this one "Rome triumphs!" TL that really jumps a bunch of sharks. Not only does Rome desecrate Carthage and emerge hegemon of the Med, it also experiences a series of civil wars over the next couple of centuries that turns the dying Republic into a mighty Empire. And if that's not enough, the Early Empire gives rise to this really bizarre monotheistic cult — a rogue offshoot of Judaism, if I remember correctly — that venerates some random schmuck who got crucified for defying the Pharisees and claiming to be the Son of God. Not sure where the author's headed with it now, but last time I checked, they seemed to be implying this new religion would one day supplant traditional Roman polytheism. No idea where they got that from, but it's a very "unique" choice, I'll give 'em that.
Gods that author has obviously never read up on the ancient Jews! Their monotheism was so brutal and repressive, even more than the Zoroastrians in Iran and you know what they were like before they were eventually destroyed. You get a group that believes there is only one correct way and that all other options are flawed if not downright evil and you get a cultural desert with virtually all ideas and values destroyed. It would be a death culture as destructive as those savages we found in the western lands, albeit on a somewhat different basis.
Yeah, now that I think about it, our little bout of ATL roleplaying shows what a strange religion Christianity is, in terms of what's historically normal. Even IOTL, it basically got "WTF?!" reactions from traditional Jews and polytheistic Romans alike, so I'd imagine a world in which it's butterflied entirely would see some wayfaring carpenter-turned-preacher who got crucified for his activism — only to be venerated posthumously, deified by a critical mass of followers, and made into the greatest success story in the history of religion — as wild shark-jumping, if not downright impossible. Guess it's a testament to how unpredictable history can be, I suppose. |
|
The commercial empire that Carthage established generated a lot of wealth for all nations involved rather than the desert a successful Rome would have left behind.
