On what ground would Carthage probably take over the OTL Roman world without Rome? The Greeks in Italy would be in a far better position in the 3rd century, plus Carthage didn't really expand for centuries until the time between the Punic wars.
On what ground would Carthage probably take over the OTL Roman world without Rome? The Greeks in Italy would be in a far better position in the 3rd century, plus Carthage didn't really expand for centuries until the time between the Punic wars.Not necessarily; if we get rid of Rome, Carthage is probably going to fill its shoes fairly well, so Punic would become a lingua franca in the west.
No power in the West besides Rome even came close to the level of manpower Carthage mobilized for the Punic Wars, nor displayed such resilience in the face of continued defeats. This is the result of a system of direct territorial control established in the course of the 4th century BC, with military garrisons and appointed governors in Africa ruling a much larger territory than that directly controlled by the Romans at the time, and which rivaled the combined territory of Rome and its allies. This was some of the most productive agricultural land in the Mediterranean. The Italiotes were in no position to take over Italy; they were far too busy fighting each other, and even the toughest of them was never really strong enough to be even a regional hegemon in southern Italy.On what ground would Carthage probably take over the OTL Roman world without Rome? The Greeks in Italy would be in a far better position in the 3rd century, plus Carthage didn't really expand for centuries until the time between the Punic wars.
Having more resources or more willingness in a specific situation doesn't mean Carthage is going to run over the Mediterranean.No power in the West besides Rome even came close to the level of manpower Carthage mobilized for the Punic Wars, nor displayed such resilience in the face of continued defeats.
The Greeks in Italy and their allies in Greece managed to almost completely drive Carthage away from Sicily even during a two front war against Rome. Also it's not like Carthage was united in its own backyard, the loyalty of the Berber kingdoms is not a guaranteed thing.This is the result of a system of direct territorial control established in the course of the 4th century BC, with military garrisons and appointed governors in Africa ruling a much larger territory than that directly controlled by the Romans at the time, and which rivaled the combined territory of Rome and its allies. This was some of the most productive agricultural land in the Mediterranean. The Italiotes were in no position to take over Italy; they were far too busy fighting each other, and even the toughest of them was never really strong enough to be even a regional hegemon in southern Italy.
Having more resources or more willingness in a specific situation doesn't mean Carthage is going to run over the Mediterranean.
The Greeks in Italy and their allies in Greece managed to almost completely drive Carthage away from Sicily even during a two front war against Rome. Also it's not like Carthage was united in its own backyard, the loyalty of the Berber kingdoms is not a guaranteed thing.
In any case we were talking about the whole of Western Europe, not the mediterranean era specifically, how does the specific situation in the 4th and 3rd century determine that Carthage would likely be as expressionistic and as successful as Rome was?
Not necessarily; if we get rid of Rome, Carthage is probably going to fill its shoes fairly well, so Punic would become a lingua franca in the west.
Because Carthage was almost equally as powerful as the Romans, as is clear from the decades of fighting and hundreds of thousands of dead it took to subdue her. Compare this to the other Great Powers of the ancient world, who often capitulated after a mere handful of defeats, and it's clear that Carthage was much more resilient than any of its competitors in the 3rd century.Why would Carthage fill Rome's shoes. OTL a pipsqueak state like Syracuse held its own against her.
Because Carthage was almost equally as powerful as the Romans, as is clear from the decades of fighting and hundreds of thousands of dead it took to subdue her. Compare this to the other Great Powers of the ancient world, who often capitulated after a mere handful of defeats, and it's clear that Carthage was much more resilient than any of its competitors in the 3rd century.
But that was a specific situation, would the Gauls have supported Cartaginian armies if they didn't have an expansionistic Rome to face? Would Carthaginian armies be able to co-opt Southern Italians against a growing power in Italy? Would the state and its backers care about aggressive imperialism or be in the same situation for defensive imperialism to exists as a internal drive like with Rome?I didn't say it was determined; I said it was most likely. Carthage had the resources, location, and institutions to make a Mediterranean empire, and by the 3rd century, it took all the resources of Italy united under Roman hegemony to stop them.
But would a war of attrition lead to a complete takeover of Greek Italy, let alone lead Carthage to fight Italic and Iberian groups? It didn't for 3 centuries of warfare over Sicily, Carthage only became very expansionistic after the first Punic war and we don't even necessarily know what that would have lead to.If no one else can control all of Italy, Carthage is going to have a decided advantage in any war of attrition, and no other Western power would be able to arrest their expansion in Spain, Africa, and Sardinia. Their control and regulation of trade in subject cities would make Punic a highly attractive language for conducting trade and administration.
But there is no need to threaten Carthage or take it to prevent or make a Punic hegomony over the West not likely, it simply doesn't follow, even if the Greeks expel the Cartaginian holdouts it already would put Carthage in a difficult situation and would legitimize the potentially growing position of Hellenistic kings among the city states in the West.Syracuse was by far the strongest obstacle to Carthaginian expansion, and it's telling that victory brought Carthaginian armies to the gates of the city multiple times, while the Syracusans were only able to undertake an African offensive once; the longer the struggle continues without the emergence of a unified Italy, the more likely it is that one Punic siege of Syracuse is successful. After that, Carthage would be in a dominant position over the breadbasket of Sicily.
Just a generation before the Syracusans managed to ally the far away Cyrenaicans and mount a combined expedition to Africa, how does that show that Syracusan inferiority was inevitable from this point on? Given that the Carthaginian almost were driven off by Phyrrus and we could consider such a situation to be at the very least possible in a scenario without a united Italy in the 3rd century, then would we really expect Carthage to go full second punic war on the Greeks in a similar fashion? Would there even be a need to without the kind of peace terms imposed by Rome and the existential threat it created?By the Pyrrhic war, Syracuse was no longer able to stand up to Carthage alone, and needed to put itself in the hands of Pyrrhos while Carthaginian armies camped outside its walls. It's true that Pyrrhos was able to defeat Carthage a few times in battle, but this shouldn't obscure the institutional strengths and weaknesses at work here; it after all only took one major defeat to send him packing from the West. Moreover, actually prosecuting the war against Carthage demanded resources on a scale that undermined his control of Sicily. By the 3rd century, Syracuse's days were numbered, and Carthage was stronger than ever.
I think if Pyrrhus or some other Greek could decisively defeat the Carthaginians on Sicily and solidify their rule, it seriously blocks Punic influence in the Mediterranean. In fact a consolidated Sicily could very well be a big third power in the region. If Rome, Carthage and Greek Sicily play a three-way tug-of-war for a long time, that could give Cisalpine Gaul some breathing room. Especially since both the Greeks and Carthaginians have reason to prop them up, perhaps leading to more cultural influence there and in turn faster development.Just a generation before the Syracusans managed to ally the far away Cyrenaicans and mount a combined expedition to Africa, how does that show that Syracusan inferiority was inevitable from this point on? Given that the Carthaginian almost were driven off by Phyrrus and we could consider such a situation to be at the very least possible in a scenario without a united Italy in the 3rd century, then would we really expect Carthage to go full second punic war on the Greeks in a similar fashion? Would there even be a need to without the kind of peace terms imposed by Rome and the existential threat it created?
The Carthaginians would have a strong position in Iberia, West Med Islands and obviously Africa still, so they would be definitely around, but Celts in general would probably feel a lot less pressure in the 3rd century at the very least.I think if Pyrrhus or some other Greek could decisively defeat the Carthaginians on Sicily and solidify their rule, it seriously blocks Punic influence in the Mediterranean. In fact a consolidated Sicily could very well be a big third power in the region. If Rome, Carthage and Greek Sicily play a three-way tug-of-war for a long time, that could give Cisalpine Gaul some breathing room. Especially since both the Greeks and Carthaginians have reason to prop them up, perhaps leading to more cultural influence there and in turn faster development.
I assume both Roma and Sicily would like to keep pressure on at least Iberia, to deny Carthage of manpower. If Rome is tied up wresting city for Iberian cities, that would further decrease pressure on Cisalpine Gaul.The Carthaginians would have a strong position in Iberia, West Med Islands and obviously Africa still, so they would be definitely around, but Celts in general would probably feel a lot less pressure in the 3rd century at the very least.
I thought we were avoiding a strong Rome altogether?I assume both Roma and Sicily would like to keep pressure on at least Iberia, to deny Carthage of manpower. If Rome is tied up wresting city for Iberian cities, that would further decrease pressure on Cisalpine Gaul.
Well, the Roman alphabet is the one who triumphed among the derivatives of Greek, so it would be more correct to say that if Rome is aborted, the whole of Europe would probably using different derivates of Greek.So if we abort Rome (perhaps by keeping Alexander alive) the whole of Europe would probably be using the Gereek alphabet or a derivative of it?
Well, imperialism has its ways to create feedback loops of incentives. It's not like Rome was plotting the conquest of the known world from the start. Carthage was certainly imperialistic IOTL, though not in the same form or with the same intensity of Rome, so a victorious Carthage may develop a desire for expansion that is more Rome-like. However, it seems to be true that Carthaginian social structure encouraged a more limited form of imperialism in that it was primarily the landed and merchant oligarchy that reaped its rewards, as opposed to citizenry as a whole (which allowed the Romans to field large citizen armies for imperialistic purposes, something Carthage was never able to do to AFAIK).Carthage was resilient, but it also seems to have been primarily interested in trade rather than military conquest. Even if the Carthaginians could theoretically have pulled a Rome, then, I don't see them particularly wanting to.
Sure it did but we have only somthing like 800 inscription in Gaulish and hardly that long each, it such a stark difference that ultimately it seems pointless to be technical, especially considering most of those inscriptions would have been concentrated in the southern half near the mediterranean, like I said before the fact even Germans had their own very divergent script in the Roman iron ages shows that there must have been some kind of native writing culture that perpetuated itself but it was still a far cry from the mediterranean powers.and it did have writing