Punic Wars: Did Carthage Have a Chance?

92
Punic Wars: Did Carthage Have a Chance?

Founded in 753 BC e. Rome during the first few centuries of its existence was a small state, occupying only the territory adjacent to the city. It did not stand out in anything special, and only neighboring tribes knew about its existence. Ancient Greek authors, for example, first began to mention Rome in their writings only in the 450rd century BC. BC e. In a word, during the first XNUMX years of its existence, Rome remained an insignificant state, not striving for conquest. But why has everything suddenly changed so drastically? Why did Rome suddenly quickly turn from a tiny peace-loving state with a republican form of government into an empire striving for new conquests, which conquered not only most of Europe, but also territories in Asia and Africa? A sharp turning point occurred during the Punic Wars.

But the thirst for conquest appeared even before them. By the beginning of the III century. BC e. During the Samnite Wars, Rome conquered almost all of Italy. The conquest of Italy showed the Romans that they could conquer territories beyond the Apennine Peninsula. This was confirmed by the Punic Wars with Carthage.



Carthage, like Rome, was considered a republic and was founded shortly before the founding of Rome at the end of the XNUMXth century. BC e. It was a powerful state, which, like Rome, strove for new conquests.

The first of the three wars between Carthage and Rome began in 264 BC. e. The wars were called Punic, since the Romans called the Carthaginians Puns. Carthage was located on the territory of modern Tunisia, so the main battles of the first Punic War took place in the Mediterranean Sea and its islands. At the beginning of the war, the Romans were able to defeat the Carthaginian fleet and even land troops near the walls of Carthage. But they could not take a well-fortified city. In 255, under Tunet, the Roman army was destroyed, so that Carthage had the first chance to do away with Rome. But, as is often the case, he was missed. And as a result, it was the Romans who won the war, who defeated the Carthaginian fleet and in 241 signed a peace with the exhausted Carthage.

Second Punic War


The Second Punic War began 23 years later, in 218. It was no longer just an armed conflict for certain territories, but a war of annihilation, from which only one of the opponents was supposed to emerge victorious. The Carthaginian army by this time had become more numerous and conquered Spain. It was commanded by the talented commander Hannibal, who at the age of 9 swore to his father, also a Carthaginian commander, that until the end of his days he would be an implacable opponent of Rome. His cherished dream was not just to defeat, but to destroy Rome once and for all, to wipe it off the face of the earth. And so, he had such a chance.

In 218, Hannibal captured the city of Sagunt, allied to the Romans, and moved to the Alps, passing through which he hoped to suddenly appear in Italy. He had every chance of success. Speaking on a campaign, he had 80 thousand experienced soldiers, and the Romans in Italy could oppose him at least half as much. Along the way, in southern France, the Gallic tribes joined Hannibal.


The Carthaginian Senate was afraid of Hannibal's victories, since in this case his power in the republic would have increased, which the Senate really did not want, and therefore prevented the campaign. Crossing the Alps, especially in winter, was fraught with many dangers, so it was easier to transport the army from southern France to Italy by ship. But this was not in the interest of the Senate, which did not send ships. Hannibal had to make a difficult transition through the Alps, which none of the generals had made before him.

The passage through the snow-capped peaks lasted a long six months. During this time, 36 Carthaginians died from hunger and cold. The lack of food supplies is also the "merit" of the Carthaginian Senate, which refused to supply Hannibal not only with provisions, but also with money. And yet, despite the huge losses during the crossing of the Alps, Hannibal still had a chance to conquer Rome. Having crossed the Alps, the Carthaginian army, now numbering 000 people, defeated the Roman troops at Trebbia. After this impressive victory, the road to Rome opened before Hannibal, but he was obviously afraid to storm it and turned north. Thus was lost the first chance to do away with Rome.


Possessions of Rome and Carthage at the beginning of the Second Punic War

After the victory at Trasimene Lake, a second such chance presented itself, but Hannibal retreated again, pursued by the defeated Romans. During the retreat of the Carthaginians, the Romans managed to gather a new army. According to some sources, it numbered 69 people, according to others - 000. And the tribes allied with Rome began to go over to the side of Hannibal.

The decisive battle took place on August 2, 216 near Cannes. The Romans twice outnumbered the army of Hannibal, but they had a serious drawback: the army was commanded by two commanders at once - consuls Aemilius Paul and Varro, who competed with each other and made decisions without consulting each other. And most of the Roman army consisted of recruits.

The first day of the battle did not reveal the winner. On the second day, Hannibal formed his troops so that the infantry was in the center and moved far ahead, and the cavalry, located on the flanks, was behind the infantry. The calculation was made correctly: during the attack of the Romans, the center retreated, and the cavalry went on the attack. As a result, the Roman army, twice the size of the Carthaginian, was surrounded and a significant part of it was destroyed. The rout was complete, Roman historians call huge losses - 48, and sometimes 000-60 thousand dead. But it is more likely that most of these soldiers did not die, but simply fled. Nevertheless, the defeat was complete, and there was practically no one to defend Rome.

But Hannibal again did not go to Rome. It was his third and, alas, his last chance to put an end to the "eternal city" once and for all. For the third time in a row, he did not take advantage of the fruits of a brilliant victory.


What was he afraid of? New losses during the storming of the city? But the tribes of Italy went over to the side of Hannibal, so that even in the event of heavy losses during the storming of Rome, his army would continue to replenish. And the capture of the city could raise an uprising against the Romans throughout the Apennine Peninsula. In this case, the power of the Roman state would have been dealt a serious blow, from which it would hardly have recovered. The result of the fall of Rome would be the dominance of Carthage throughout the Mediterranean. And it is possible that sooner or later Carthage would have created such an empire that Rome actually created.

But the chance was missed. The Romans soon gathered a new army, calling into it all who could wear weapon. Hannibal gave the Romans precious time, which they successfully used. Meanwhile, he himself went into politics and put together an anti-Roman coalition, which included the Macedonian king Philip V and the king of Sicily Hieron. They started a war with Rome, but Philip was forced to fight with the Greek states, not being able to help Hannibal directly in Italy, and the capital of Hieron of Syracuse was soon under siege by the Romans. The Romans besieged it for almost two years and finally took it in 212. During the assault, the outstanding scientist of antiquity Archimedes died, who during the entire siege invented various throwing weapons, which gave the city the opportunity to defend itself for so long.

Hannibal continued to stay in Italy. But over the next 8 years that he was in Italy, he failed to win new victories. And the Romans, meanwhile, began to take revenge for Cannes. Soon the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula began, and the Carthaginian fleet was defeated. But Hannibal still continued to hope for victory, although Carthage no longer had a chance to win this war.


Statue of Hannibal in the Louvre by Sebastien Schlodtz

In 203, when the Romans landed near Carthage itself, the Senate decided to recall Hannibal from Italy to defend the capital. Upon learning of the recall, Hannibal said:

“Already without tricks, those who have long been trying to get me out of here are already openly recalling me, refusing money and soldiers. Hannibal was defeated not by the Roman people, beaten and put to flight by me so many times, but by the Carthaginian Senate with their malicious envy. Scipio will not exalt himself and rejoice at my inglorious departure, like Hanno, who could not do anything with me, except by destroying Carthage, just to bury my house under its ruins.

Hanno is the same Carthaginian senator, the head of the pro-Roman party, who throughout the war put sticks in the wheels of Hannibal.

By this time, almost nothing was left of the former huge army, so Hannibal spent 9 months to form a new army.

Hannibal's recruits were now opposed by battle-hardened Roman veterans under the command of the talented general Publius Cornelius Scipio. He realized that it was possible to defeat Hannibal only by applying his own tactics.

The decisive and last battle of the second Punic War took place in 202 at Zama. In it, Hannibal suffered a complete defeat. Revenge for Cannes was still taken.


Battle of Zama. Painting by Cornelis Court, 1567

Hannibal, even after the defeat, wanted to continue the war, but in 201 the Carthaginian Senate made peace with Rome. According to this peace treaty, Carthage transferred to the Romans its entire fleet of 500 ships, and was deprived of all its former territories. Now the territory of Carthage was limited only to the city and its environs.

As for Hannibal, until 196 he held the highest positions and was preparing for a new war. But when the Romans suspected him of this, the Carthaginian Senate removed Hannibal from all posts and expelled him from the city. The state, which he defended for almost 20 years, expelled his hero.

Further, the former commander wandered around the Middle East for a long time, remaining true to his oath to be the eternal enemy of Rome. He first found shelter with the Syrian king Antiochus III, and when he was defeated by the Romans and had to hand over Hannibal to them, he fled to Bithynia. The Romans could not find and destroy it for a long time, and finally, in 183, found out its location. Not wanting to fall into the hands of his enemies alive, Hannibal took poison.

Third and last Punic War


"Carthage must be destroyed" - repeated half a century after the end of the war, the Roman senators. It was not enough for them to destroy Hannibal, they wanted to destroy and wipe out Carthage itself, which they had been so afraid of before. This thirst for revenge led to the third and last Punic War.

In 149 BC. e. she started. But even before it began, it was obvious to everyone that Carthage, due to the colossal inequality of forces, had no chance of winning it. Moreover, Carthage did not even have a chance to continue its existence, since the Roman senators had long decided to destroy the city to the ground, and sell all the inhabitants into slavery.

The Carthaginians understood that they would not be able to win, so they wanted to avoid bloodshed. They sent a delegation to Rome, which stated that Carthage, in order to avoid bloodshed, was ready to capitulate. The Roman senators gave them an ambiguous answer. They seemed to welcome the "wise decision" of the Carthaginians, but at the same time kept silent about the fate of the city itself. Meanwhile, the troops approaching Carthage put forward the condition to give out all the weapons stored in the city. This requirement has been met.

And only having disarmed the once formidable enemy, the Romans expressed the main demand: all residents must leave the city, and it must be destroyed. Of course, nothing was said about the future of slavery.

Having learned the Roman demands, the Carthaginians immediately killed the supporters of surrender and began to prepare for defense. In a short time, the Carthaginian workshops provided weapons for their soldiers and civilians. The women donated their hair to making ropes for catapults and jewelry to buy weapons. All city slaves were freed and drafted into the army. The inhabitants of Carthage were ready to die, but not to submit to the enemy.

While the Roman army stood under the city walls and stocked up on food, the Carthaginians had time to prepare for defense. The Romans did not expect that civilians would take up arms and put up a desperate resistance. Several assaults were repulsed with heavy losses for the Romans. The Carthaginian commander Hasdrubal struck at the rear of the Romans.

After that, the Romans began a long siege. A few months later, Hasdrubal defeated the Roman general Manilius. And the inhabitants of the city burned almost the entire enemy fleet. After that, diseases began in the Roman army, the war dragged on.

And only three years later, after continuous battles and assaults, at the cost of huge losses, the Romans were able to break into the city. But the townspeople continued their heroic resistance, the Romans had to take every house, every temple with a fight. City battles went on for more than a week, the Romans killed not only men, but also women, the elderly and children. The last defenders decided to capitulate. 30 men and 000 women surrendered, many of whom were wounded. All of them were sold into slavery. The number of survivors only indicates that about the same number of women died during the defense as men.

After several days of plunder, Carthage was literally wiped off the face of the earth, even the ruins were destroyed. Such was the ultimate revenge for the defeat of the Romans at Cannae.

So Rome began to create its empire, which after that will last another 600 years.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    12 January 2023 05: 47
    Punic Wars: Did Carthage Have a Chance?
    So did Carthage have a chance or not?..A brief overview of the Punic Wars.
    1. +13
      12 January 2023 07: 12
      Did Carthage have a chance, did Carthage have a chance ..
      It immediately came to mind:
      "Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars - science does not know"
      Well, history does not have a subjunctive mood, no matter how anyone would want otherwise - everything always happened like this, it happened like that ..
      1. +4
        12 January 2023 08: 55
        The same reaction. However, the cultural code is still the same.
    2. +5
      12 January 2023 08: 55
      “Whether Carthage had a chance, whether Carthage had a chance - this is not known to science” (almost (c)).
    3. +2
      12 January 2023 09: 58
      What is this movie about? Yes, about nothing! (c)
      Why break your head? Also, God forgive me, they will write down in the alternatives .....
  2. +6
    12 January 2023 06: 18
    I didn’t finish reading the article, the Senate didn’t send ships, and this is the first time I’ve heard such nonsense, the Senate was controlled by supporters of the barkids and fought the war as best they could and knew how with all their might.
  3. +6
    12 January 2023 06: 55
    The victory of Carthage in the Punic War is a fertile theme of "alternatives", quite prolific, original and talented authors in their own way. From the same clip - "The Fury of Sparta" and "Alternative Russia"
  4. 0
    12 January 2023 07: 15
    The article does not correspond to the title at all. The author, many people here know the history of the Punic wars better than your presentation. Where about chances?
  5. +7
    12 January 2023 08: 41
    Strange as it may seem, much attention was paid to the analysis of the Punic wars by V.I. Lenin, who openly called these wars imperialist, both on the part of Rome and on the part of Carthage.
    According to Lenin, the imperialist policy of both belligerents did not at all mean that they had capitalism, that is, literally literally - imperialism exists, but capitalism does not yet exist.
    F. Engels paid much attention to the wars between Rome and Carthage, but he was also very confused.
    1. +1
      12 January 2023 18: 40
      According to Lenin, the imperialist policy of both belligerents did not at all mean that they had capitalism, that is, literally literally - imperialism exists, but capitalism does not yet exist.
      Well, yes. Imperialist policy means that this is the policy of empires, and what kind of system is there is a tenth matter.
  6. +13
    12 January 2023 09: 16
    The main mistake of Hannibal is the expectation of negotiations with Rome on the terms of Carthage after the victories achieved. But Rome didn’t go to negotiations, dragged out time, formed new consular armies ....
    These are the "lessons of history" for the strategists of our days.
    1. +4
      12 January 2023 09: 46
      And here I agree, after Cannes, Hannibal relaxed a lot, believing that victory was already in his pocket.
      1. +1
        12 January 2023 22: 57
        to take a city of a million people with an inexhaustible mobilization reserve, ready to defend itself - that's another idea. Hannibal simply did not dare to storm or siege, waiting for ambassadors with peace proposals.
    2. +3
      12 January 2023 12: 56
      After the victories, Hanibal himself had problems with a lack of people. It is very difficult to take a well-fortified and large city. The Romans themselves, for example, also did not dare to try to take Carthage in the first two wars.
      1. 0
        12 January 2023 16: 47
        He had the opportunity to solve them, the Samnites willingly went to him, one could contact the Gauls who had just destroyed 2 legions. But Hannibal tied himself to Capua, and promised too much to the Kapunians.
    3. +3
      12 January 2023 13: 10
      These are the "lessons of history" for the strategists of our days.


      "Not in horse food" (c) request
    4. 0
      27 February 2023 19: 46
      It's just that Hannibal believed in the Minsk agreements.
  7. +2
    12 January 2023 09: 17
    Punic Wars: Did Carthage Have a Chance?
    I will say this: it was like that. For this, Hannibal needed to establish a personal dictatorship and be tough enough, have a wide circle of like-minded people .. Specific tasks, a clear plan for a military company, allies .. But history does not know subjunctive moods.
    1. +2
      12 January 2023 09: 53
      You won’t believe it, but the Senate of Carthage was completely under the control of Hannibal, and if he had established a dictatorship, he would have been killed, there were enough tyrants in the history of Carthage, and like-minded people, according to the plan, everything was in order with him.
      1. +1
        12 January 2023 10: 45
        I won’t even argue, because my comment concerns more alternatives, but what’s the point of discussing this? It happened, what happened.
  8. +2
    12 January 2023 10: 51
    The Carthaginian Senate was afraid of Hannibal's victories, since in this case his power in the republic would have increased, which the Senate really did not want, and therefore prevented the campaign. Crossing the Alps, especially in winter, was fraught with many dangers, so it was easier to transport the army from southern France to Italy by ship. But this was not in the interest of the Senate, which did not send ships. Hannibal had to make a difficult transition through the Alps, which none of the generals had made before him.
    Why was he afraid, if by this time Hannibal had not yet defeated anyone? Why, then, fight at all, if you immediately wish defeat for your main commander ?!
  9. +6
    12 January 2023 10: 58
    But for some time now I have been thinking about something else about the Punic Wars.
    Not about whether Hannibal needed to go to Rome, and if necessary, then when, not about what would happen if he managed to capture Rome (which is unlikely, the population there was many times greater than the size of his army, he even besieged Rome really couldn’t), not about what political or strategic mistakes Hannibal made, but about the fact that war is a confrontation between economies.
    I am interested in what would happen if Hannibal made it his main task to destroy the economic power of Rome, and not its armed forces? If he just carried out a total massacre in Italy, killing everyone who refused to go over to his side, burning what could not be carried away, if he methodically turned Italy into a desert (he had such an opportunity), after which he would return home and from there negotiated on the basis of the main message "I can repeat"?
    1. +3
      12 January 2023 11: 17
      And why couldn’t Hannibal besiege Rome? It’s still not imperial Rome with a million people.
      Turning Italy into a desert is not a real task, the country is rich.
      And I can repeat the statement, they would answer, well, try it.
      Another thing is if Hannibal went to Sicily, occupied it and from there would wage a war of attrition, returning Sardinia, would destroy Roman communications with Spain, but then the matter would again be decided in naval battles.
    2. +3
      12 January 2023 11: 29
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      I am interested in what would happen if Hannibal made it his main task to destroy the economic power of Rome, and not its armed forces?

      It seems to me that he was quite engaged in this: something like bathing horses in old wine, but I don’t know how much he could cause serious economic damage to an army of several thousand people (I don’t know how many there were): several years of his stay in Italy, apparently didn't have much of an effect. hi
      1. +10
        12 January 2023 12: 12
        As far as can be judged, the blow to the Roman economy was very heavy. The fields were devastated, tens of thousands of communal peasants served in the legions for many years. Farms in many areas fell into complete decline. When capturing New Carthage, Livy separately mentions the huge reserves of grain among the booty. value indicator.
        I believe that during the 2nd Punic period an irreversible deformation occurred. Despite huge losses, Rome fielded more than 20 legions. Due to the length of their service, they were paid a salary. Tens of thousands of people have lost their farming skills. In the second half of the war, when the turning point occurred, a huge stream of cheap slaves poured into the capital. They concentrated with the nobles, making small farms uncompetitive. A chain reaction began - more and more peasants went bankrupt, their lands were bought up or leased, more marginal crops were grown on them - grapes, olives, or given over to pastures. The richest and most fertile Italy irreversibly turned into a grain importer. Tens of thousands of people thrown out of the economy again went to the legions - a process that was gaining momentum until the reform of Marius.
        Hannibal killed the traditional Roman economy and set Rome on a track of continuous wars for resources and over-exploitation of the fringes.
        1. +1
          12 January 2023 12: 31
          So the blow was heavy because a heavy war was going on in Italy itself, the enemy occupied the most fertile lands of Campania, came into a situation, robbed and stole, it would be easier
        2. +3
          12 January 2023 12: 51
          Quote: Engineer
          Hannibal killed the traditional Roman economy

          Yes, all this is true, but in the long-term historical perspective, or at least in the medium-term: as a result of the Punic wars
          But still, the Roman economy withstood the blow, otherwise it would not have happened:
          Rome fielded over 20 legions

          и
          Due to the length of service they were paid a salary

          And all this is on the shoulders of the Italian economy, as far as I remember, there were no provinces yet. hi
          1. +8
            12 January 2023 13: 05
            Possibly in the short term too.
            Ever since childhood, I have been thinking why, having 20 legions, not to end the war in Italy by overlaying Hannibal like a wolf. Really after Cannes they were afraid of him to the point of sputum in his pants. Why send legions to Spain, Greece, Sicily, etc. if the war ends only with the defeat of the Punic leader. Much later, the thought came that there was simply a catastrophic lack of resources. To continue the war it was necessary to rob someone on a grand scale.
            It's like a financial pyramid continues to operate only by collecting primary money from investors, and Rome urgently needed to loot resources from easier production.
            1. +3
              12 January 2023 13: 27
              Quote: Engineer
              why not, having 20 legions, end the war in Italy by overlaying Hannibal like a wolf.

              In my opinion, that's exactly what they did. At the tactical level, at that time, the superiority of Hannibal's army was obvious.
              why send legions to Spain, Greece, Sicily

              A blow to the enemy's resource base: there will be no supplies - the war will end quickly, which eventually happened.
            2. 0
              12 January 2023 23: 04
              there were not only Cannes. Apparently realizing that the tactics of general battles did not justify themselves, they focused not on a peripheral war, so that Hannibal would be forced to leave to solve the problems that arose, which happened.
              1. 0
                15 March 2023 01: 29
                Quote: ecolog
                Apparently realizing that the tactics of general battles do not justify themselves, they focused not on a peripheral war,

                Hannibal was a talented commander, and after Cannes, in a field battle, he defeated the Roman armies more than once. The Romans tried to prevent Hannibal from requisitioning food and fodder by attacking small detachments sent for food. Approximately the same acted Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly and Blucher against Napoleon. Even in 1814, the allied command made a brilliant decision to attack only those French units that were not led by Napoleon, retreating before the forces led personally by Napoleon. Napoleon in 1814 won 14 victories over the Russians, Germans and Austrians in a few months. But having received information about Napoleon’s plan to make a deep raid on the rear of the allied armies, Alexander 1 and Blucher broke away from Napoleon and struck at Paris, which led to the collapse of the empire of Napoleon 1. The advantage of Rome is free and unpretentious peasants who can be called up under the banners and who are vitally interested in maintaining their freedom and the right to own land. Moreover, an army of free citizens is less susceptible to setbacks and heavy losses. .
        3. +3
          12 January 2023 14: 44
          Quote: Engineer
          As far as can be judged, the blow to the Roman economy was very heavy.

          Any war, especially on its own territory, will be a heavy blow. I said that Hannibal did not set himself the goal of destroying the Roman economy, did not do this on purpose. If the Roman economy was so badly damaged by a "traditional" war, in which Hannibal flirted with the Roman communities, trying to win them over to his side, instead of simply destroying everything that could not be taken with him, then what kind of damage would be , should he take up the ruin of the Apennine Peninsula objectively and methodically - from coast to coast? The disruption of agricultural work on a global scale for two or three years in a row, coupled with the total destruction of labor resources, would most likely turn Italy into a depopulated country with an insignificant military potential.
          I'm not trying to teach Hannibal to fight now, I'm just wondering if such an idea came to his mind and if it did, then why didn't he implement it in full?
          1. +4
            12 January 2023 15: 06
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            I said that Hannibal did not set himself the goal of destroying the Roman economy

            It still seems to me that it was an unrealistic task at that time: to trample down 300 thousand square kilometers with a population of several million people (actually, I don’t know how many, but I think there were several million) with an army of about 20 thousand (plus / minus not decides). He did what he could, there were not enough resources for more. (This is just my personal opinion.)
            The Romans, yielding to that moment in tactical skill, cut off his supply as a result and: he left. The result is logical: the battles are won, and the war is lost. hi
            1. +1
              12 January 2023 15: 54
              Well, let's say, not "destruction", but "causing maximum damage." It seems to me that an active organized movement of even several tens of thousands of aggressive men over the course of a couple of years along the Apennine Peninsula in order to leave behind maximum destruction, and, most importantly, in order to prevent the sowing and harvesting of the next crop, would still give corresponding effect.
              Rome had a hard time as it was. And what would happen if the damage from the invasion of Hannibal exceeded the real multiple?
          2. 0
            15 March 2023 01: 46
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            The disruption of agricultural work on a global scale for two or three years in a row, coupled with the total destruction of labor resources, would most likely turn Italy into a depopulated country with an insignificant military potential.

            During World War I, the tsarist government, seeing the outflow of workers from the countryside to the army, offered to use the labor of prisoners and peasants and landlords. Peasant farms rarely used the labor of prisoners, demonstrating their stability during the war years, but the landowners' farms widely used the labor of prisoners. That is, in the presence of a free peasantry and the absence of landlords, the economy of the state is very stable in conditions of wars and disasters. The revolution was caused by the unwillingness of the landowners to submit to the surplus appraisal program. The landowners, unlike the peasants, kept the grain and sold it after the end of active surplus campaigns. Later, the peasants began to hide the bread looking at the landowners, and then in the summer of 1 they defeated the landowners' estates throughout Russia. The Bolsheviks conducted the surplus appraisal more fairly, not allowing any groups in the countryside to evade it, and with the strengthening of power, they introduced a sane tax in kind. The current SVO also showed the venality of the parasitic class. The so-called backbone of Putin's Russia, the middle class, runs between Georgia, Turkey, the Emirates and Vietnam. Moreover, in Turkey, Russians, except for people with Uyghur roots, have already ceased to renew their residence permits, and from Georgia, part of the deviators, having not met the expected warm welcome, seeks to return to Russia in the hope that the fever of mobilization has passed and they can again conduct their business calmly.
    3. +4
      12 January 2023 11: 55
      To answer this question (Could Carthage have destroyed the Roman economy), it seems necessary to analyze and compare these economies. For example, did Rome bring grain from Africa or did it have enough of its own? Imported horses? What is the logistics? Maybe it was enough to cut the main transport arteries? True, even in the Middle Ages, basic products did not move overland in tangible volumes. The role of finance? Did Rome have a weak point, a "single point of failure"?
      1. +1
        12 January 2023 12: 14
        It is doubtful that Rome at that time was peasants, it is unlikely that they were heavily dependent on grain imports.
        Hannibal's strategy was to raise the Italics against Rome and many of them followed him, in every city there was a pro-Roman and pro-Carthaginian party, and in fact, in the struggle for the support of these parties, Hannibal wasted his strength. The trouble was that Hannibal did not capture a single Roman colony and the position of his supporters was not strong, even in his rear, so if Hannibal took some kind of Benevent and returned the colonists' lands to the locals, then they would already be tied to the punns without options.
      2. +3
        12 January 2023 14: 59
        Quote: balabol
        it is necessary, apparently, to analyze and compare these economies

        As far as I understand (not a specialist), the economy of Carthage at the time of the outbreak of the war was much more dependent on food imports than the Roman one. Sicily by that time had not yet become a Roman granary, so food products had to be produced locally.
        And the population of Carthage was significantly inferior to the Roman population precisely because Rome had vast fertile lands at its side, while the Carthaginians had only a narrow coastal strip along the sea for agriculture. Spain does not count - it has just come under the rule of Carthage.
        To destroy or paralyze for a long time the economic base of the enemy's military potential would be a good solution for the Carthaginians. Since Hannibal found himself in Italy in the position of an elephant in a china shop, it was worth a good deal in this shop. smile
        1. +3
          12 January 2023 15: 11
          This narrow strip subsequently fed imperial Rome, there was an episode before the third war when Cato brought huge African olives to the Senate and when everyone began to be surprised, he declared that the land they gave birth to in a week of sailing from Italy, but we do not take it.
          I may confuse the details, but the meaning is this.
          Carthage did not need food
          But Rome, Egypt helped with grain, after the Roman campaign of Hannibal.
          1. +2
            12 January 2023 15: 41
            After the Punic Wars, Sicily became the granary of Rome for a long time. The North African provinces, as far as I understand, never played a decisive role in providing Rome with food.
            Quote: Cartalon
            Rome, Egypt helped with grain, after the Roman campaign of Hannibal.

            And this despite the fact that Hannibal did not purposefully destroy the Roman economy.
            I, in fact, asked myself the question, what would happen if he began to pursue such a goal and why didn’t he do it?
            1. +2
              12 January 2023 16: 18
              Why didn’t he give this, everything was just Hannibal trying to raise the Italians against Rome.
              Could it be another question, in order to be able to freely rob Italy, it was necessary to get a seaside city as a base, he could not do this, then it was necessary to destroy the Roman fleet and only then, having the opportunity to receive reinforcements, it was possible to ruin everything, and when your army is largely composed of locals, it is not worth plundering their lands.
              1. +1
                12 January 2023 17: 21
                Quote: Cartalon
                in order to be able to freely plunder Italy, it was necessary to get a seaside city as a base,

                Maybe so.
                But somehow he managed to transport his army to Africa when he received the appropriate order, so it is not very clear what prevented him from doing this ten years earlier.
                Quote: Cartalon
                when your army is largely composed of locals, it is not worth plundering their lands.

                Again, the argument is not disputed. smile
                But Hannibal enjoyed support, mainly from the Gauls, in the north. The central and southern regions, which, in fact, should have become his victim, according to my plan, smile he was much less supported.
                I am inclined to believe that he simply came to Italy, as they say, "to look for friends", he had such an attitude, he did not consider other options. And, what is most interesting, these friends were constantly with him, although in insufficient quantities, this could confuse him. The campaign against Rome was planned by him from the very beginning, and it is not easy to change strategic goals in such a drastic way, even psychologically.
                1. +2
                  12 January 2023 17: 45
                  He evacuated a small part of his troops, leaving the Italians to fend for themselves.
                  I did not do this earlier because I believed that the fate of the war would be decided in Italy and to the last clung to the bridgehead there.
                  The Punns could and did move troops to Italy, but supplying the army there on a regular basis is a completely different matter.
                2. +1
                  12 January 2023 17: 53
                  But Hannibal enjoyed support, mainly from the Gauls, in the north. The central and southern regions, which, in fact, should have become his victim, according to my plan,
                  ...
                  The company against Rome was planned by him from the very beginning

                  Even I didn’t understand, Mikhail, who planned the campaign, you or Hannibal?)))
                  1. +3
                    12 January 2023 18: 58
                    Yes, damn it, the fact of the matter is that one Hannibal. If I had been his chief of staff, we wouldn't have screwed up like this. laughing
                    1. +2
                      12 January 2023 19: 12
                      Hmm, it’s a pity that you are not from the Barkids, what a marvelous construct could have been!
        2. +3
          12 January 2023 23: 59
          Today, the discussion of the article turned out to be more useful than the article itself.
          We more or less understand what happened, but we need to understand why it happened and adequately use this understanding to predict the future.
          An analysis system is required. The war starts just like that from scratch, but is the result of unresolved contradictions. The beginning, development of the conflict, its completion is the result of the interaction of a number of factors. There are certainly many of them and the mutual influence is diverse, but at least the main ones need to be covered, wanting to describe a topic similar to today's.
          Power and politics (the struggle of elite groups and their interests)
          Warfare
          Economy and production
          Finance
          So, I have the impression that in the discussion there is more information on the analysis of the event than in the article.
          1. 0
            13 January 2023 03: 23
            So, I have the impression that in the discussion there is more information on the analysis of the event than in the article.
            But as always.
    4. +3
      12 January 2023 12: 17
      It would be better for him to first restore order in his country, and then fight with Rome.
      In fact, "under the carpet games" and local liberals contributed to the collapse.
      Besides him and the population, no one needed a victory over Rome. request
      1. +3
        12 January 2023 12: 33
        What exactly were the actions of the liberals that prevented Hannibal, well, please tell me.
      2. 0
        15 March 2023 01: 53
        Quote: Deadush
        It would be better for him to first restore order in his country, and then fight with Rome.

        A very true thought. Many wars begin when the authorities begin to understand the impossibility of changing the situation in the country towards the better by means of internal politics, or sees that changes for the better will either worsen the position of the ruling elite or remove it from power.
    5. +2
      12 January 2023 12: 59
      So Hanibal did it. He methodically persuaded the cities of Italy to his side, those who refused to try to take by storm and far from always succeeded. And how many cities he burned and ruined the account there by hundreds.
      1. +3
        12 January 2023 13: 10
        If you answered me, then for my taste, the problem was that Hannibal did not capture a single Roman colony, and the Italians shied from side to side.
    6. +4
      12 January 2023 17: 16
      But for some time now I have been thinking about something else about the Punic Wars.

      Yes, what is there to think about. Ignorance triumphs. The author seems to have indicated in the title of the topic: "The Punic Wars: did Carthage have a chance?", But he did not answer this question in the article, although this answer has long been known - Hannibal was a brilliant tactician, but no strategist. Therefore, the battle was won, but the war was lost.
      1. +2
        12 January 2023 17: 40
        Something I remembered a long time ago read the book "The Adventures of Werner Holt"
        - That was the time! Imagine: single combat, one-on-one combat! Well, I would have thrashed right and left! - Voltsov enthusiastically painted these methods of war that had sunk into oblivion. “I would be the greatest general of antiquity!” he boasted. “I would answer Hannibal with a counter-grip on both flanks. What did they understand then? Varro built his regiments thirty-six people deep - to hell with his numerical superiority then surrendered! In his place, I would have built all the soldiers of the first and second lines in twelve ranks, and the third line, the so-called triarii, would have been placed on the flanks and kept in reserve, then I would have finished Hasdrubal's cavalry in no time ...

        I somehow remind myself today of this Gilbert Voltsov ... Not good. What alternative guy bit me at night, or what? laughing
        Quote from Passeur
        Yes, what is there to think about.

        And I like to think, especially on historical topics, even if there are benefits from this - except perhaps to scratch your tongues here on the forum. smile
        1. +3
          12 January 2023 18: 11
          And I like to think

          A very commendable hobby against the backdrop of a general atrophy of the mental organs.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +2
    12 January 2023 12: 34
    Various goals.
    In Rome of that time, the main credo was war.
    Carthage has maritime trade.
    If there were serious predictive analysts in Carthage, Rome, and indeed all the Apennines, could be put under the control of the Etruscans allied to them long before the Punic wars.
    But, even before that, Carathage sluggishly and unpersistently fought with the impudent and warlike Greeks, who violated its monopoly "rules" in relation to the western Mediterranean, founded their colonies there and expanded their influence.
    And before Hannibal, there were commanders who defeated the Greeks, but were ostracized in the course of the internal political struggle.
    Only the Greeks did not set themselves the goal of the complete destruction of Carthage (as Macedonian destroyed Tyre).
    But the Romans - put, and nurtured such an idea for decades.
    A correctly formulated problem is half the solution.
    1. +3
      12 January 2023 12: 48
      The war there went all the way without a break, in terms of resources, Carthage did not greatly surpass Syracuse, if it was richer, then Syracuse could get help from Greece, Carthage was on its own, which the Punns could do and did, the Hellenes were great more than the Phoenicians, so that the victory was given to Carthage at the cost of great labor and perseverance, when each time they set off from defeat and again climbed into Sicily.
  12. +7
    12 January 2023 13: 31
    My God, what a delightful nonsense!
    Why from tiny peaceful states with republican Rome form of government

    Firstly, for the first two hundred years of its existence, Rome was quite a monarchy, and became a republic after the expulsion of Tarquinius the Proud.
    Secondly, neither royal nor republican Rome can in any way be called "peace-loving".
    They, like all other city-states of the ancient world, continuously fought with all their neighbors.
    In principle, having the Internet at hand, it is not difficult to list which of the neighbors was gobbled up by the royal Rome, and which by the republican in the first 400 years of its history, but ...
    As for the topic of the article. Rome, despite all its troubles, was politically united and was able to concentrate resources. Carthage not only failed to do this, but was not even going to. In essence, the Second Punic War was a private war of the Barkids. The rest of the oligarchic families feared their strengthening and, at best, maintained neutrality, and at worst, they put spokes in the wheels of their political opponents.
    Under these conditions, there is no need to talk about any victory. request
    1. +1
      12 January 2023 13: 42
      I’m running around the comments here and asking what exactly the Senate of Carthage didn’t do from what I could do, can you enlighten me?
      1. 0
        15 March 2023 02: 09
        Quote: Cartalon
        I’m running around the comments here and asking what exactly the Senate of Carthage didn’t do from what I could do, can you enlighten me?

        He did not send reinforcements to Hannibal's army. Rome in battles with Hannibal lost 3 times completely its Italian armies and each time restored them. Hannibal was sent to reinforce the Spanish army of Carthage after it was defeated several times by the Romans, bled dry and forced to leave the Spanish theater of operations. In some ways, this is reminiscent of Putin’s unwillingness to give commensurate resources to the units of the DPR and Wagner, although it is they who most effectively inflict or have inflicted damage on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It would make sense to pour those mobilized into the brigades of the DPR and Wagner, making experienced fighters of these units commanders and not form new units. A new unit is being formed to replace the defeated troops. It would make sense to disband the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Division by pouring its composition into the successful brigades of the DPR. Such a tradition was in the era of the Napoleonic Wars, when the military noticed that after the clash of two enemy cavalry regiments, the defeated regiment never defeated the regiment that defeated it in a new battle. Therefore, the defeated regiment was reorganized or it was not brought into battle against the winner ...
    2. +2
      12 January 2023 16: 38
      For the first two hundred years of its existence, Rome was quite a monarchy, and became a republic after the expulsion of Tarquinius the Proud.

      So - read the comments and enlighten. But I'm used to thinking that Rome has always been a republic.
      Thank you Ivan! hi )))
      1. 0
        12 January 2023 20: 45
        Look through Plutarch Lyudmila Yakovlevna - you won't regret it.
        However, there are enough mistakes and inaccuracies in the work of the Author.
        Meanwhile, he himself went into politics and put together an anti-Roman coalition, which included the Macedonian king Philip V and the king of Sicily Hieron.

        Geron only dreamed of the crown of All Sicily, in reality he bothered to sit on the “throne” of only part of it, namely, to be the dictator of the city of Syracuse. And not for long, a little more than a year.
  13. +2
    12 January 2023 16: 30
    I liked the article very much.
    In simple words, a large piece of ancient history is consistently and clearly stated. It seems that she knew all this, but separately - Rome separately, Carthage - separately.
    And further.
    I'm sorry about Hannibal.
    Perhaps part of his hesitation was due to bitterness. They were sent to fight, not wanting to win.
    1. +1
      12 January 2023 17: 15
      He went on his own, and he was fully supported.
      1. 0
        12 January 2023 20: 54
        Quote: Cartalon
        He went on his own, and he was fully supported.

        A. Shtenzel, describing the naval battles of the Punic Wars, directly calls the war of Hannibal Barca - “Private”!
        1. 0
          12 January 2023 21: 30
          Named and named, his problems that he called so, expeditions to Sicily and Sardinia, reinforcements to Spain, but to Italy the same, the maintenance of the fleet that transferred troops anywhere until the very end of the war, despite the tales of the complete dominance of the Romans at sea, this all private events?
    2. +3
      12 January 2023 17: 49
      Quote: depressant
      They were sent to fight, not wanting to win.

      He himself bent everyone in order to fight, he unleashed the war ... And in the article there is very little, in fact, history. Facts from a fifth grade school textbook and a bit of author's gag in the style of alternative history. I already chuckled at all of this above, including myself. smile
      Quote: depressant
      I'm sorry about Hannibal.

      But why feel sorry for him, this Moor-Semite? Either way, he died a long time ago...
      smile
      1. +1
        12 January 2023 20: 47
        I agree with Mikhail, the work is weak!
    3. +2
      12 January 2023 18: 45
      And further.
      I'm sorry about Hannibal.
      And I, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, feel sorry for Archimedes.
      1. +3
        12 January 2023 19: 34
        Geniuses are always born at the wrong time. That is what the human mind is about.
    4. +4
      12 January 2023 19: 40
      I'm sorry about Hannibal.

      And to me readers, especially those who think they are reading an article on history.
  14. +1
    12 January 2023 18: 13
    We are waiting for new interesting articles from Sarmatov, as well as Bulavin, Voevodin, Satanov, Sinevin
  15. +2
    12 January 2023 19: 26
    "Carthage must be destroyed"

    Yeltsin Center must be destroyed like Carthage!
    1. 0
      12 January 2023 20: 50
      Quote: 16112014nk
      "Carthage must be destroyed"

      Yeltsin Center must be destroyed like Carthage!

      What's stopping you?
  16. 0
    12 January 2023 20: 14
    The moral of this fable is that no concessions will help to leave simply in disgrace. There will be shame and war. I hope these lessons are learned by our powers that be. If the goal is to destroy the Carthage, they will do it to the end.
  17. -1
    12 January 2023 22: 57
    To understand the problem of this region, one must begin by considering the civil war between the Etruscans and the Scipios.
    Hannibal went to the aid of the Etruscans. But if so, then the peninsula was occupied by internecine wars and
    to wage wars on another continent did not have enough strength and tasks.
    It remains Egypt, which was captured by the Ptelomeans and, united with Rome, decided to attack Zama.
  18. 0
    13 January 2023 00: 58
    Quote: Aviator_
    And further.
    I'm sorry about Hannibal.
    And I, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, feel sorry for Archimedes.

    Yes, the comrade was promising.
    And the "Archimedean screw", and about a body immersed in a liquid - "Archimedean force", and the volume of the displaced liquid is equal to ..., and the square of the hypotenuse, and optical focusing (a giant reflector from shields), it is also a prototype of the phased array type in in some way, he was amused with steam toys - they could already get a steam engine then ...
    It is even difficult to say what humanity has lost through the gladius of the Roman martinet.
    1. 0
      13 January 2023 17: 34
      Quote: faterdom
      optical focusing (a giant reflector from shields), it is also a prototype of the phased array type in some way

      It was you who said this in polemical fervor. Even in basic logic it doesn't look like it.
    2. 0
      14 January 2023 03: 31
      Quote: faterdom
      I had fun with steam toys - they could get a steam engine even then ...


      At that time (in the order of alhistoria) it was more profitable to get access to precious metal ores, spices, fabrics and other riches of both Americas. Therefore, from a practical point of view, Archimedes had to deal with solving problems of navigation, sailing weapons, which is somewhat more real than such an early industrial revolution. People were able to make extremely distant and long sea trade voyages a very long time ago, in contrast to industrial activities.
      Yes, and the trading oligarchy of the Greeks would have supported him both in word and in investments.
  19. -1
    13 January 2023 09: 31
    The emperors of the Sever dynasty would most likely burst out laughing when they saw an article with that title.
    As a result of the Punic Wars, a xenomorph settled in the body of the Roman state, Hannibal played the role of a facehugger.
    Did Rome have a chance? It is believed that Numa Pompilius was a student of Pythagoras. It may be implied that he was a Pythagorean. But, this does not change the essence, the fate of Rome was sealed from the very beginning of its history.
  20. -2
    13 January 2023 10: 16
    Short answer: Carthage had no chance.
    Because national traitors were in power there.
    This lesson has been repeated many times since.
    Some people still haven't gotten it.
    1. 0
      Yesterday, 00: 39
      да не предатели они, просто торгаши. не умели они в мировое господство. Рим и стал то тем кем стал, потому, что его противники не могли себе позволить тотальную войну
  21. 0
    18 January 2023 14: 08
    Punic Wars: Did Carthage Have a Chance?


    Of course it was.
    But Hannibal needed for this:
    1. Establish a regime of personal power in his native Carthage.
    2. Create a coalition against Rome. Gauls, Seleucids ... well, who else is there?
    3. Not giving a damn about restrictions, create a large fleet and deliver part of the army to Italy by sea, avoiding losses when crossing the Alps.
    4. Mobilization of the economy of Carthage for war.

    And then Rome would no longer have a chance.
    1. -1
      15 March 2023 02: 19
      Quote: Illanatol
      But Hannibal needed for this:
      1. Establish a regime of personal power in his native Carthage.

      Hannibal, as Solon, had to limit the power of the oligarchs and usurers in Carthage and free fellow citizens who had been converted for debts into slaves. When acquaintances of the Moscow riot police sent to fight in Ukraine are convinced that only the area of ​​​​the bath in Ksyusha Sobchak's 340 square meter apartment is commensurate with the area of ​​​​the apartment of a veteran of the SVO, this causes melancholy to say the least. And Ksyusha has more than one such apartment. The Taliban would settle families in such an apartment, if not a platoon, then at least a branch of their Badri special forces, so they seem to jokingly smash the formations of Ahmad Shah Jr. in Pandshere, although in reality they are losing no less than the Tajik resistance. But the Taliban have a feeling that they are fighting for themselves.
      1. 0
        Yesterday, 00: 24
        пуштунов в афгане просто больше. А каждого ОМОНовца в генеральскую квартиру не заселишь. Тем более, что у нас сейчас капитализм. Американский морпех тоже не может себе позволить квартирку с видом на центральный парк в Нью-Йорке или поместье какой-нибудь беспонтовой Кардашьян.
      2. 0
        Yesterday, 00: 35
        как у Вас всё просто))). По сути Ганнибалу надо всего лишь было организовать у себя дома Октябрьскую революцию, отодвинув от кормушки массу авторитетных граждан. Это гражданская война, а рядом внимательно наблюдают соседи
    2. 0
      Yesterday, 00: 18
      а воевать то когда? Что бы победить тот Рим надо самому стать Римом. А торгаши есть торгаши. Они бы его зарезали или отравили.
  22. -1
    27 February 2023 19: 41
    Now I'm more interested in our chances. Shoigu hardly resembles Hannibal with his "talents". And there is no less confusion and vacillation at the top than in Carthage. Interestingly, did the children of the Carthaginian senators also study in Italy and have the citizenship of Rome? And then the money was withdrawn into Cypriot oshfors?
  23. 0
    15 March 2023 23: 34
    There is only one conclusion, It’s time to start the purge, we also have enemies in the Duma, as in other things and in the army, where they have passports of NATO countries, and while this fact takes place, the Ukrofascists cannot defeat us, there are facts of wrecking and sabotage on our face, and even the fact that we sell strategic military and civilian resources to enemies, in general, it borders on betrayal, but nothing is being done to reveal all the facts and condemn the relevant persons for this, and the prosecutors only puff out their cheeks ...
  24. 0
    18 March 2023 19: 31
    Thought on topic!
    Either we or they. To end!
    The Pentagon must be destroyed!
  25. 0
    Yesterday, 00: 15
    ничего бы Карфаген не создал бы. Не та у них была политическая система. Торговая республика это та ещё в этом плане шляпа, новгородцы в курсе.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"