So basically Carthage wasn't some big scary Roman antithesis, but a trading rival who had good resources and positioning and was kinda bad at warfare until the Barcids got lucky with New Carthage and Hannibal went and spooked the fuck out of Rome so much that Rome eventually trashed Carthage, and then after the fact the Romans created the myth of Carthage being their ultimate ideological enemy they triumphed over?
Fuck, poor Carthage.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's always the same scheme.
Fuck, poor Germany.
The real boogeymen for the Romans were the Gauls after the sack of Rome, until the time of Caesar.
Actually by Caesar's time the gauls had failed to be a meaningful enemy for centuries.
They were an issue when Rome was still small enough to be threatened by multi-tribe warbands like Brennus's, but a Rome that spanned the whole peninsula? They were just a nuisance.
An expensive nuisance that forced an active military presence on the (ever expanding as more and more gallic tribes were conquered and/or excided) northern frontiers full time, which is part of why Caesar went Carthage on their collective arse, but still just a nuisance.
Gallic forces were part of the Cimbrian War, which was certainly more then a nuisance.
>They weren't the "bad guys"
Mess with the best..
Yes, together with the quarter to half a million germans who subjugated them and forced together. You'll forgive me if I see that episode as a war against germans rather than gauls.
Must be said that's rather hard to judge that war too, since it's pretty unclear whether the germans were actually a dangerous military threat, or whether the likes of Caepio and Catulus were just that bad. Consistent reporting of senior centurions threatening mutiny over abject incompetence (like forcing Catulus to retreat from his shitty position on the Alps) kinda makes you think tho.
Carthage didn`t have proper standing army. Also Carthage didn`t support the war effort until siege of their capital which was too late.
CARTHAGO DELET THIS
We have a modern example of the same rhetoric, with John "Russia must be destroyed" McCain.
Just like with USA and Russia, at one point Carthage was a rival to Rome, and they fought, and Rome won. Carthage was no longer a rival, but some factions within Rome's elite didn't want to risk a potential resurgence, so they wanted to kill off Carthage completely.
It was irrational, cowardly behavior, that cost a lot of resources and people, and removed a potentially valuable partner without getting much in return - Rome never made much use of the land seized, and they destroyed the gem of a city that was Carthage itself.
>that cost a lot of resources
They only started the third war and that one was a cakewalk for Rome.
>Rome never made much use of the land seized
Iunonia Carthago was the second biggest city in north Africa and one of the busiest ports in the Mediterranean throughout the imperial period.
Seriously dude you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
The only part of Africa that Rome made money on was Egypt. Everything else was an expense that didn't return the money invested in it.
They wanted to cross the desert and get gold from Mali, but the expeditions didn't turn out well.
Also they kept getting raided by the same people that Carthage was hiring to fight its wars, the tribes of North Africa.
>The only part of Africa that Rome made money on was Egypt. Everything else was an expense that didn't return the money invested in it.
Top fucking kek. I double dare you to post some source on that.
Economics and Agriculture of Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa.
You dumb shit. North africa was valuable you cucklord.
en.wikipedia.org
So your arguments are:
>You dumb shit.
>You cucklord.
>an unrelated wikipedia link
I think I'll dismiss those.
Page and quote. D'you expect me to just say "you're right" because you present me with 281 pages to read, most of which will be hidden from me by google jews?
Page and quote? Do you think there is a single sentence that proves this point?
Just asking for a single sentence to prove a complex issue tells me enough about you, desu.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect me to read a whole book (that explicitely states in the preface that the Bagradas valley was a vital part of imperial economy and thus already kinda rapes your point) while having an argument? You're as bad as the dude linking you the early modern warfare article.
You expect me to produce a single Twitter length sentence that proves a complex issue, so that you can attack it for being incomplete? Read the fucking book.
Not an argument. You lost.
>proves
I'd be happy enough with "states", frankly. But you almost certainly just threw me a title you've never read hoping I'd go away anyway.
Not either user, but its really obvious you googled It and picked the 7th or so book on the list then posted It, not knowing any of the content
I own a printed copy of it, and reading it let me form my views on North Africa during roman administration.
I hoped other people will read it and get educated as well, instead of getting their history from Total War: Rome.
And I did Google it just now, turns out I didn't even spell the title right.
I won't reply further, no use communicating with people who will see a book and insist "not an argument" because its longer than an SMS.
Why didn't based Hannibal sack Rome after Cannae /hist/? Why?
You mean aside from the roaming roman armies ready to hammer him once he started the siege?
Aside from his lacking siege wquipment and frankly piddly numbers in the face of the Urbs's population of veterans and reserves?
Aside from Marcellus raring to bring Cannae's survivors (some 10-20k strong force) straight up Hannibal's arse at the first viable occasion?
Dunno user.
>Richard Miles
>[ANGLO REVISIONISM INTENSIFIES]
Every single time some "historian" comes up with a new perspective asspull theory he just happens to have an Anglo name. Coincidence?
Rome was knocked out and shitting it's pants. A couple rag-tag bitches led by nobody's wasn't going to beat Hannibal & Friends.
If Alexander could break Tyre, Hannibal could have broken Rome.
Alexander hired all the ships in the known world to fight and beat the Tyre fleet. He sieged it from the sea in addition to his stupid bridge.
>A couple rag-tag bitches led by nobody's wasn't going to beat Hannibal & Friends.
In a straight up field battle? No.
Raping Hannibal's rear while busy sieging a city without proper equipment? Whole other thing.
Also what friends? Hannibal was pretty much the only carthaginian general that didn't get rekt when facing off romans.
G e r m a n i c s
So what in the book is wrong?
They're just asking you to cite a direct claim, not to 'educate' them on all the subtlties of it. If you are too lazy to do that then stop arguing.
Btw even if anyone here was gay and stupid enough to
order and read the book you pulled out of your ass, this thread would be long dead before they got a chance to respond.
>Carthaginian religion involves child sacrifice
>Carthaginian citizen armies are shit-tier warriors who lose AND copy tactics from the Greeks
>Carthaginians spam elephants despite their proven unreliability
>Carthage did not send Hannibal Barca the support and funds he needed to finish off Rome after Cannae
SCIPIO AEMILIANUS DID NOTHING WRONG
Dacian goldmines and Hispanic silver bruh
>gay and stupid enough to order and read the book
You know, I actually looked it up because it looked interesting (if absolutely pointless for the purposes of the thread), but it's apparently out of print. Rude of you to call me gay and stupid for wanting to read a book.
I wish I could still check out books from my uni's library.
>Carthage did not send Hannibal Barca the support and funds he needed to finish off Rome after Cannae
Good lord overwhelmed, when will this meme die? Carthage sent plenty of reinforcements, they just got rekt on the way by roman armies and fleets who successfully pinned Hannibal away from them and destroyed them piecemeal.
It's called libgen. Who the fuck still buys books?
>Dacia and Spain
>North Africa
>calling someone rude for indirectly calling you gay on a mongolian yak's milk fermenting forum
Nevertheless, sorry if it seemed like I was insulting people for reading. I thought it was pretty clear I meant buying it just for the sake of holding an anonymous debate with that retard.
>copy tactics from
What's wrong about that? Romans copied everything from everyone, it's why they were successful.
Y-yeah.
Carthage was ever an obstacle, their navy was a permanent threat to the interest and action of Rome in our sea, and their proximity was a dagger at the throat of the Empire.
er, Republic
Siege requires a huge food supply. He couldn't stay in one place for that long.
North Africa was a lush breadbasket at this time. Look at Carthages supply of grain to Rome after the 2nd Punic war and food production after rome took the area.
Or it's because it's a book written in English. You can also find revisionist books on Carthage in Spanish. Their we wuz is hilarious.
>Stupid bridge
>Worked
It isn't stupid if it works user
>4 in 15 years
>Muh rowers
Try again 8^)
So you cant take pictures of the relevant pages with data to prove your point by using the index? I suspect the other user are right