Lessons from Carthage

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2006/aug/g9.htm ^

[tobyprissy]

Lessons from Carthage Elyakim Haetzni August 22, 2006

Carthage was an empire that ruled from Libya in North Africa to Sicilia to Sardinia to parts of Spain. It was the center of world finance.

Rome stood in opposition, but encountered Carthage's naval superiority. The fighting between them continued for 200 years and ended with the destruction of Carthage.

Theodor Mommsen, in his classic "The History of Rome", describes the people of Carthage as a nation not driven by freedom, or even by power. All they cared about was money. And they tried to use their money to buy peace and quiet from Rome, but were systematically rejected.

[expatpat]

The Carthaginians were ancestors of the Arabs, and Rome had as much of a problem with anti-war splits in its leadership as Carthage. The author should remember what happened to Carthage at the end of the Punic wars -- it was levelled and the land sown with salt.

[txzman]

...and Rome was just as bloodthirsty for conquest as the Islamofascists.

[Fiji Hill]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[ichabod1]

I don't know about this analogy, but his conclusion is correct. Why WAS Rome so desirous of destroying Carthage?

[expatpat]

The main reason was that they had been fighting with them for many years, and the Carthaginians had broken treaties. Hannibal kept coming after them, even bringing elephants over the Alps. It was 6 of one and half-dozen of the other, though.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

and Rome was just as bloodthirsty for conquest as the Islamofascists.

The difference being, of course, that the Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.

[Grizzled Bear]

The difference being, of course, that the Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.
_______________________________________________________
And Plumbing. It was a real mess before we got that!

[CatoRenasci]

My Tagline says it all.

[John Will]

Hannibal made a major error in not going for a direct attack and taking the gamble.

[expatpat]

You will have to translate. For example, I don't get "iuvabit".

[expatpat]

Could be, but didn't he need to pick up mercenaries in what is now Provence, on the way?

[Lurker]

Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.

They also had such wonders as chattel slavery, mass murder as a form of public entertainment, and the 'representative government' you speak of was more akin to the Politburo under Stalin.

The Emperor could legally have just about anyone in the Empire murdered just for kicks.

Granted they had art and architecture but there really wasn't all that much to admire about Roman society.

L

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You seem to have confused the Republic with Imperial Rome. The first Roman Emperor was not in office until over 150 years after the war with Hannibal. In 150 years WE might have an Emperor! In addition, while gladiatorial combat did exist, it was rather a minor entertainment, as a ritual at funerals. The first permanent gladiatorial arena in Rome was built more than 250 years after Hannibal. While Rome did have slavery, that was true of all civilizations up to and including ours.

The Republic was real enough that it was the basis of much of the thought of our founders, and did not collapse into tyranny and chaos until more than a century after Hannibal. In addition it does seem that Carthage had retained the Canaanite practice of human sacrifice of their young, reviled by the Romans, and their original next door neighbors, the Jews, who referred to this as 'making a Holocaust'.

[infowarrior]

I don't know about this analogy, but his conclusion is correct. Why WAS Rome so desirous of destroying Carthage?

Originally, the Rome-Darthage feud was over who was going to be top dog in the Mediterranean Sea. Carthage had the initial advantage in seapower, but Rome quickly established a credible navy and the struggle for supremacy was on...

the infowarrior

[infowarrior]

The Republic was real enough that it was the basis of much of the thought of our founders, and did not collapse into tyranny and chaos until more than a century after Hannibal.

While this is true, as far as it goes, I believe I could reasonably contend, that the sudden influx of wealth into Rome, after having won their bid for supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea, was the root cause of the chaos, corruption, and tyrrany that lead to the destruxction of the Republic, and the establishment of the Empire. Just as the continued influx of wealth from the Empire's far-flung conquests lead to the chaos and corruption which lead to the fall of the Western portion of the Empire, similar to what happened to the newly united Spain post 1492...

the infowarrior

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I agree with the idea that the influx of wealth, and its unequal distribution, lead to the corruption of the Republic, but my understanding is that the later West Roman Empire had a shortage of wealth, not an excess.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Hannibal made a major error in not going for a direct attack and taking the gamble.

Read about the struggle to take Monte Cassino in WWII and you would know why no leader until Churchill was dumb enough to try a southern attack on Rome. I'm a Churchill fan, but there was no 'weak underbelly'. Just a few division of troops could hold back whole armies. The terrain is difficult for infantry and you can forgot siege machines (or even elephants.) The 'direct attack' was suicide. Ask any of the 250,000 troops who died there in 1943-1944.

[roaddog727]

Always remember this:

History is written by the victors.

The vanquished are always portrayed as evil and warlike.

[infowarrior]

but my understanding is that the later West Roman Empire had a shortage of wealth, not an excess.

I was referring to mid-Empire, not late Empire. By the late stages of the Empire, the wealth had been largely squandered, and administration of the Empire had suffered by the corruption and chaos in attaining what little wealth was left (the constant changes of Emperor, with more than a few reigning for as little as months, or weeks created an instability issue, as well...)

the infowarrior