Why was Carthage so much cooler than Rome?

>But who leveled Tyre and the Phoenician homeland? Islam?
Tyre and Sidon still exist. The Phoenicians were just Christianized and Islamized and became part of Levantine Arab culture

...

I'm not

not to mention the two times they raise an elite army of carthaginian soldiers (sacred band) they both get fucking obliterated in battle, wiped out to the last man.

Alexander the Great leveled Tyre and much of the traditional Pheonician heartland in 332 BC when they refused to submit to him during his conquest of Persia. They recovered to a degree, but were never quite as prolific as they had been.

Wtf I hate Alexander the Great now

Faggot also destroyed the Tower of Babel in Babylonia (a 91 meter ziggurat). Fuck him

Fag.Non romaboos should be banned tbqh.

How do you even destroy a might-as-well-be solid slab of stone in a reasonable time?

If anything wouldn't Rome have been the underdog? By the first Punic war at least Carthage was more prestigious and wealthy. Even during the second Punic war you could see Rome as an underdog against a tactically superior Hannibal with even people like Scipo's father falling in battle.

the Romans won the first war, how could they possibly go into the second as the underdogs? Carthage was always the underdog fighting against fate. Every success they had in the second punic war was a battle where they were outnumbered and in enemy territory, there's no situation where they're not the underdogs. The fact that hannibal had to do all that crazy shit just to even the playing field should show you that, let alone imagining how poorly the Carthaginians would have faired without hannibal. The Romans controlled the sea and were inevitably going to start fucking up the Spanish colonies regardless of what the Carthaginians did. Basically anywhere that hannibal isnt, the Romans are winning because they're clearly not the underdogs and tended to win when no crazy tactical hannibal maneuver was employed by their enemies.

Hannibal was the anomoly, he's the guy that made what would have been an easy curbstomp last a decade. Without hannibal, those pussy merchants in Carthage would have sued for peace within the first few years.

Carthage was losing on every front except for Italy so the only reason Carthage held out as long as it did was because they were holding out hope that hannibal might conquer Italy and shift the tide of a war that was most definitely not going in their favor after Scipio was unleashed on Spain.

they really didn't build things that well back then.

CARTHAGO DELENDE EST

>Carthage was losing on every front except for Italy so the only reason Carthage held out as long as it did was because they were holding out hope that hannibal might conquer Italy and shift the tide of a war that was most definitely not going in their favor after Scipio was unleashed on Spain.

they literally threw Hannibal under the bus, their arrogance meant all his efforts were in vain and they sealed their own fate. He lost his own brother who did his best to reinforce him without Carthage moving a finger.

Carthage could have won the first two wars at several times if it wasn't a decadent fuckhole full of the most selfish, short-sighted protojews in the mediterranean, they honestly had it coming, baby killing or not.

you act like Carthage just refused support because they were assholes, when in reality the reason they couldn't support him, and the reason hannibal had to GO OVER THE ALPS IN THE FIRST PLACE is because the Romans controlled the sea. You can't just send a hundred transport ships across the sea when the Romans are waiting with a gigantic fleet to sink it.
Hannibal really had very little hope of support from the beginning, and while yes the merchants in Carthage were pussies that never had the backbone to last in a war with Rome in the first place, but it's not like they could have won at a bunch of points if they just did this or that, that's revisionist bullshit history and you know it. The fact that hannibal even got as far as he did is absolutely insane, so adding even more insanely unlikely outcomes on top of that is twice as insane to even think about. I mean sure momentum is one thing, but hannibal was pushing a boulder up a hill, there was nothing inevitable about anything he did and you can't just find one point in history, say "he should have did that" and then assume everything changes with that one variable. You wouldn't have made half the decisions he made to even get to that point, but you want to stand on his shoulders and tell him what to do after he's already slaughtered multiple roman armies. Ever think that maybe he didn't siege rome because he was incapable of doing so? Ever think that Carthage didn't send reinforcements because they weren't capable of doing so? Ever think that being the armchair general that you are might not be the best way to approach history?

whoa nigga, spacing

By the time of the second war it was clear it was TOTAL WAR, the survival of either civilization was at stake and they would have had to get onboard whether they liked it or not. If not reinforcing Hannibal directly, they could have at least put pressure elsewhere. Hannibal made the mistake of assuming he could make Italians flip sides against Romans, but he raised most of his top units in Spain and Gaul and thus was a phenomenal commander, yet Carthage had almost no trust in him and even feared his influence.

furthermore, Rome faced new challenges in the first war and they adapted to all of them(elephants, naval warfare, naval deployment and logistics), Carthage should have done the same.

> I TRIED SO HARD, AND GOT SO FAR

fucking this, romans are da tru champions

cause north african women habe dat butt

made this for anyone interested in carthage

>revisionist bullshit history
you mean counter-factual history

>CARTHAGO DELENDE EST
can't even spell it right kek, kys amicus

One might say, they didn't build so good.