>>Carthage was the aggressor, Carthage invaded Italy, Carthage lied and cheated
Posted on 07/26/2005 1:20:19 AM PDT by onja
If this isn't appropiate please cut it.
I'm trying to get my facts straight so I don't mind correction if I'm wrong.
Carthage was an important figure in history. They were the heirs of Phoenicia and were the main traders of the Mediterranean. They controlled Northern Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, and Spain. They posed a very real threat to Rome and its allies. So much that the Romans destroyed them with no pity at all in the Third Punic War with absolutely no pretense other than that the Carthaginians were regaining the trade business. I went to my local library found a several bookcases full of Roman history. Most of another with Greek. Many more with all the Mesopotamian cultures, European, a whole shelf of Egyptian, another of Chinese, most of another of Indian. And not a single book on Carthage.
Some mercenaries captured a city in NE Sicily. They butchered the men and enslaved the women. The leader of Syracuse was tired of the mercenaries raiding him so he prepared to attack them. The mercenaries asked for help. Carthage responded but attacked the mercenaries instead. Rome ignored it till Carthage had captured the city. They then made an alliance with the mercenaries, who recently had been the enemy of all, and attacked the Carthaginians. It was a fairly even fight but after 23 years the Carthaginians gave up. They relinquished control of Sicily and paid a lot of money. They were at a loss then to pay their armies so the mercenaries revolted. In the chaos Rome took Sardinia and Carthage couldn’t stop them.
Seeking to regain wealth they conquered most of Spain. Spain was divided between the two and Carthage was told to not bear arms above a certain river. Sarguntum was well below that mark so Rome had no legal right there or even having an alliance there. Also the Sarguntums had attacked Carthage’s allies and massacred their own pro-Carthage citizens. So, rightly, Hannibal attacked and captured the city. The Romans demanded Hannibal and of course they didn’t get him and declared war. Hannibal crossed the mountains, allied with Gaul, and defeated many armies (Cannae anyone?). He lost because he had planned to have Northern Roman peoples to side with him. They would have but they hated Gauls. Rome, cunningly, invaded Carthage, won ONE battle, and so won the war. Carthage lost Spain, Hannibal, and all their remaining wealth.
Rome was very harsh with Carthage. They were not allowed to declare war or do almost anything. But, miracle it is, they became wealthy again and paid back the debt. Still, militarily they were by no means a threat. The Numidians attacked Carthage. Carthage tried (Unsuccessfully)to defend themselves and Rome told them to pay a lot more money and declared war. After pleading and diplomacy they were told to send 300 noblemen’s children as hostages and they would have peace. They did. The Romans ignored them and landed at the traitorous city of Utica. They were told they would stop if they gave up their weapons. They did and Rome ignored them again. The entire city worked hard and built new weapons soon. Slaves were freed and enthusiastically fought. The city of Carthage resisted the siege and general attack for three years. The Romans then took it after 6 days of harsh fighting. The Carthaginians fought bravely. The very last stand was made though by Roman deserters who fought to the death. Out of over 700,000 only 50,000 survived. Many of these were enslaved. The city was burned for 10 days. The harbor was destroyed. The fields sown with salt.
Fascinating era of history!
Livy is the best I've read on Rome 700BC til about 150.
Like the Romans, the Carthaginians built alliances, and had enemies. Rome had been sacked by the Gauls long before Hannibal's time, and Julius Caesar eventually eliminated that threat, which, like the invasion by Hannibal, hung over Rome. It is understandable that the Romans didn't want the threat to recur, and wanted an ally (an ally which approached Rome about alliance) in an area then being colonized by Carthage.
More links in the following topic, but some of them are pulled.
Quest for the Phoenicians (National Geographic special)
PBS | Oct 20 2004 | National Geographic
Posted on 10/17/2004 7:53:23 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1247854/posts
read it. really good. Thank you.
What does that have to do with this thread?
"What does that have to do with this thread?"
I don't know, but I don't care. ;')
Agreed :)
By the way anyone have any good book suggestions for the Punic Wars?
Thanks in advance.
The article begins near ancient Tyre in Lebanon, where the fishermen are hauling back their nets, chanting "el-leee-sah". One of the sources interviewed by the author of that story is quoted as saying, "If you ask them why they do it, they can't tell you. They don't know... Elissa, Princess of Tyre..."
She must've been quite a babe to be remembered for over $2,000 years. There's a preserved 'tall ship' named Elissa at Galveston.
Makes you wonder if 2,000 years from now, people will be chanting: Jay...Lo. Somehow I doubt it.
Lost in this nice little piece about Spain is the fact that the people of Spain were neither Carthaginian nor Latin.
It is all very well for the Romans and Carthaginians to come in, declare some sort of river the boundary, and then cheat on treaties. But the tribes of Spain had a different idea as to whose land it was, and who belonged there.
So, when Spaniards revolted and then relied on one or the other to get help in turning the other out, it hardly seems that the Carthaginian or the Roman side was really in "the right", at least not if we're going to try to give the Carthaginians the "moral high ground" because the Romans aided a Spanish revolt.
If one's going to play the game of "rights", then the Spaniards had the right to kill Romans AND Carthaginians, and they both were bad invaders, and if the Romans sided with revolting Spaniards against Carthaginians, well, that's a bit like, say, the French siding with revolting Indians against English colonists back in the day.
It should be noted that the Carthaginians were pretty brutal, as all ancient peoples (and most moderns are, when push comes to shove) were.
Well, not exactly...
The Phoenicians in Spain:
An Archaeological Review
of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E.:
A Collection of Articles
Translated from Spanish
ed by Marilyn Bierling
assoc editor Seymour GitinPhoenicians and the West:
Politics, Colonies and Trade
by Maria Eugenia Aubet
tr by Mary Turton
That's me! CARTAGO DELENDA EST! [And it was]
:')
That comes under AVE, IMPERATORUM! Morituri te Salutamus! [In the sense that that's worth dying for]
General Patton - "Through a Glass, Darkly"
The Patton Society | General George S. Patton, Jr.
Posted on 10/09/2001 12:22:10 AM PDT by StoneColdGOP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/543355/posts
Maybe the Spanish did have a right to fight. But in aiding them the romans broke their treaty. Just like the French. But the French were wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
