Why was Carthage defeated in the Punic Wars?

youtube.com/watch?v=MT0a0IiJPYM

His bust.

WE

>implying that Rome army not consist of conscripted citizens and levied allied contingents

>Why was Carthage defeated in the Punic Wars?
Multiple reasons. is onto something but many ancient historians will cite a long list of reasons. What it really boiled down to the most though, was the first punic war. The secon one was always a lost cause. No matter how brilliant was, the romans were never even close to losing. Heck, during the second punic war, rome was at war against the entire mediterranean world; at least the powers that mattered, and won.
The first punic war was a close call if anything. A series of dumb luck and the romans usual paradigm "we're done when our enemies say they lost or every single roman is dead" won the day but Carthage was always in the position to win the first ounic war but did not use opportunities or just traight out lost out on the innovative front.
Example: Until the romans found a wrecked carthaginian ship, sea battles for rome were lopsided losses. So hilariously lopsided, that many carthaginians thought, that the romans were monkeys who only knew how to fight on land.
On land, on the other hand, Carthage lost hard because like naval tradition, military tradition is earned, not just bought. So instead of adapting and getting their land forces up to snuff, carthage was content with haviong a kickass navay and blockading everything until the romans got their shit together.
Once the romans had good flett, carthage lost the war simply by not innovating. They never had fever ships or anything.
Rome lost crews and vessels hand over fist, most of them to storms of breakdowns. WHile the romans then just replaced evrything and like a stubborn kid who wanted to beat Dark Souls, they ran against the wall.
Carthage never did that. once their experienced crews and ships were down the shitter, all they could throw togethe rwere ramshackle fleets that lost to the now superiour roman ships.
Even though carthage had far more funds, far more lands and also far more diplomatic clout than the romans.

>ultimately Rome managed to defeat the Carthiginian navy

yeah right. They got fucked up pretty much every time they went up against the Carthaginian navy. But the terms of the 1st punic war stipulated that Carthage disband most of its navy. it was a lot less of a threat in the second war but Rome was still scared to go up against it.

>White

The difference is Rome's policy was to levy its citizens into the legion at the start of any military campaign, and this form of conscription was mandatory for all land-owning men of Rome. So it behooved landowning families to have arms and armor at the ready and train their men in war, especially if they were wealthy enough to hold officer commissions or serve in the elite formations, since military service was an important way to distinguish one's self politically.

Meanwhile in Carthage they relied on mercenaries for everything and only conscripted citizens if the city of Carthage itself was in danger. It was not standard practice for Carthaginian citizens to go to war themselves except at sea, nor did Carthage have the same martial tradition that Rome did for its politicians and land-owners.

So even though Rome had to keep throwing wave after wave of conscripted citizens at Hannibal and onto the boats at sea, their conscripts were better trained and equipped on average, even the proletarii.

WUZ

Lipari Islands-Carthaginian victory
Mylae-Roman victory
Sulci-Roman victory
Tyndaris-Roman victory
Cape Economus- Roman victory
Drepana- Carthaginian victory
Aegetas- Roman victory

Those are all of the naval battles I'm aware of in the 1st punic war, and you'll see the Romans won a lot more than they lost. They tended to lose their ships more to storms than to Carthaginian action.

Because the Nordic warrior was superrior to Black warrior.
/thread

*citizen soldiers thrown against Carthaginian mercenaries

so that some retard in Veeky Forums can create daily racebait threads with black hannibal 2000 years later

They lost to syracuse, it was obvious they would lost to a bigger nation than syracuse

I just want to know what happened in the battle of himera (480 BC), how carthage could lost that?

CAR-TIDGE AN SHIEEETT!!!

>white
>that nose and those lips
>curly hair not nappy
yeah he's white ya dingus

... I realize that this is probably just trying to bait /pol/, but yes, that bust of Hannibal does portray white features.

>that chi-rho
WE

So caucasian features are white features ?

So Stalin was white?

Because they're BLAKCED .com

KEK

Most people would say so

I always loved that the medium class had to fight for its glory in Roman Republic, true meritocracy.

Why does he have the Chi Rho, a christian symbol, on his helmet?

>They got fucked up pretty much every time they went up against the Carthaginian navy.
At the beginning of the first war, sure. Then the corvus came and the situation reversed. By the end of the first war, Rome had command of the sea. During the second and third, Carthage didn't manage a single naval victory unrelated to extreme bad weather.

WE WUZ KRISITAINS N SHEEIT!

They treated their allies poorly.

Wealth distribution wasn't the issue. Carthage simply didn't have the manpower for the citizens to be going to battle . A few serious losses meant demographic colapse.

>Carthage simply didn't have the manpower for the citizens to be going to battle
this make no sense

if syracuse, athens and even sparta could then why not carthage?

i think the republic feareda coup

He didn't say Hannibal was white retard. The bust clearly shows that Hannibal was not black.

Because the political leaders of carthage were fucking autistic sperglords that would rather see their political rivals fail than their civilization survive.

>that pic
WE

>Until the romans found a wrecked carthaginian ship, sea battles for rome were lopsided losses

Elaborate, please. This is interesting

What was the last time that blacks peope win against white?

olives were used by literally everyone in the Mediterranean, including Carthaginians

>no mention of the corvus
wtf bro

Second Punic War was lost because Hannibal fought alone against whole Rome. His army was not reinforced on regular basis, so while his forces diminished every day, Roman army grew despite major losses.
Also when Scipio landed in Africa, Carthage wasted 2 armies instead of waiting for Hannibal to arrive and crush Scipio's legions

>olive warrior.
lol this meme.

yes he was caucasoid.

caucasian is white according to niggers.

Yes and Yes.

Yes.

You could say the same thing of Rome at certain times in history tbqh famalam

Black bois feared the white man

Because Syracuse and Athens and Sparta didn't fight an empire with legions the size of Rome's, the ability to continually remuster like Rome, and with the martial power that wasn't hard-countered by their innate method of combat like Persia. Rome was estimated at over 500,000 troops of available manpower with about half of those being casualties. Athens and Sparta at their height were drops in the bucket compared to that.

That's a fanfic statue a sculptor made. All likenesses of Hannibal were destroyed after the Sack of Carthage.

>the second one was a lost cause

You will not find a lot of historians that believe that.

A Carthiginian Quinquireme moored on an italian beach in quite pristine condition. The romans studied the wreck and built their own fleet. Combined with shit like the corvus the roman navy reached parity but still suffered horrendous losses.
Unlike Rome, Carthage could not or was not willing to replenish lost ship as quick as the romans.
What the fuck was Hannibal and Carthage supposed to do. Spain would be lost eventually, the high seas were in roman hands and the romans were not willing to negotiate peace unless Carthage would become a shitty little hovel.
They (carthage) came really far in the second punic war, but the first one was winnable for them. The second, while flashy, was never going to end with a Carthaginian victory.

>Spain would be lost eventually

Says who? It took all of Scipio's political power to get him there and only he could do what he did. There was no guarantee.

There were key moments in the war that by the flip of a coin would have possibly changed the outcome. Hannibal not capturing Tarentum was one. He could have been reinforced then. Philip entering the war proper instead of Greeks falling for the independence meme from the losing side. Had Hannibal's order not been intercepted Italy would have been lost and Scipio would have been forced to withdraw out of Spain. Had Masinissa not turned, Zama would likely not have happened though it would've been a long road for Carthage to turn it around completely. Point being, most ancient historians do not believe the Second Punic War was fruitless. Had Cannae not happened and Hannibal was beaten, sure. But Rome reeling from losing 1/5th of it's citizens and having its greatest adversary on the Italian peninsula was the lowest point for the Empire until the crisis of the 3rd century.

>1/5 of its citizens

1/5 of its fighting age male population is what I should have said.

Most of Rome's naval losses in the 1st punic war were due to storms. And Carthage could and did replace pretty large fleets.

Not him (obviously) but what the fuck are you talking about? Dertosa was commanded not by the famous Scipio Africanus, but by Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, his much less famous uncle. By the time Scipio Africanus is in charge, the Romans had already been stomping in Spain for the better part of a decade.

> Hannibal not capturing Tarentum was one.
I'm confused by this. Hannibal did capture Tarentum. Are you saying his failure to do so would have changed the outcome? Since the outcome is historically complete Roman victory, how would a greater Roman success jeopardize that?

>Philip entering the war proper instead of Greeks falling for the independence meme from the losing side.
With what fleet? He's got the same problems Hannibal has?

>Had Hannibal's order not been intercepted Italy would have been lost and Scipio would have been forced to withdraw out of Spain.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

> Had Masinissa not turned, Zama would likely not have happened though it would've been a long road for Carthage to turn it around completely.
Or the Romans bring in their own cavalry from one of their other alliances. To assert that he was essential for a Roman victory at Zama is a stretch.

>Had Cannae not happened and Hannibal was beaten, sure.
Cannae, Cannae, Cannae. Rome lost more men in the disastrous expedition/storm in 255 in the first Punic war than they lost at Cannae. Nobody EVER suggests that Rome was "reeling" and ready to throw in the towel then. Hannibal's immediate action after Cannae is to try to go after the little nothing-town of Nola. And he doesn't get it. Rome was nowhere near beaten and quite honestly Hannibal had no chance of beating them.

Hannibal captured Tarentum though.
And even if all Italy was lost they wouldn't have pulled out of Spain. That's not how the Roman war was fought.

Most sports and getting white women

>You will not find a lot of historians that believe that.
This is actually a really common point of view among historians and has been for a century.

>Romans had been stomping in Spain for the better part of a decade
Until they split up and both armies and both Scipio's were totally annihilated. Only a stop-gap commander's delaying actions and an oncoming winter kept the Carthaginians below the Ebro.

First off, Upper Baetis claimed less than half of their force. Secondly, there was a 2-3 year gap between it and sending Scipio Africanus. In the meantime, they had been reinforced by a fairly large contingent under Claudius Nero, who while not winning in Spain, wasn't losing either.

To claim that the campaign only could have succeeded because of Scipio's brilliance is not supported by the historical record.

>and with the martial power that wasn't hard-countered by their innate method of combat like Persia
Oh again with this bullshit. Rome had no trouble fighting against Persia. They gave as good as they got and won more than they lost. For every Crassus there was a Ventidius, and for every Ctesiphon there was no Rome.
Greece had extreme issues fighting against Persia. They either formed pan-aegean coalitions (or empires, like Macedonia), or they got smacked the fuck down, so you don't need to find an excuse.

Because they lacked the will to attain victory

I'm only going off Livy, but I've not heard of the 2-3 year gap between the deaths of his father and uncle and his being sent to lead the Spanish campaign. I'm not the same person arguing that only Scipio (Africanus) could have won the campaign, but he decisively finished what was an uncertain theatre of war at the time.

You're right, I double checked. Baetis was 211 B.C, and Scipio arrives in 210. I was counting from the victory at Baecula, but of course he was present in between the major battles.

Was it really only half at Baetis? I know there were enough to overrun a Carthaginian camp later on, and invalidate any short-term ability of Mago and Hasdrubal to capitalize on their potentially decisive victory, but half seems at odds with how it is presented by Livy.

WE

hannibal was a berber he wasn't black

Why the hell would you post gore from /x/ on his?

Hannibal never controlled the port which is how Romans were able to hold out their so long. Had he captured the port, he could have been resupplied.

>With what fleet?
Philip's plan was to invade Illyria. Don't need a fleet to march west. From there Hannibal could've linked up with him or the the threat of Philip could allow him to focus on Sicily.

>I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Sorry it was Hasdrubal's messengers that were intercepted, not Hannibals. I am referring to Hasdrubal's plan to meet up with Hannibal that was intercepted which prompted the two consuls to unite their forces against Hasdrubal.

>Or the Romans bring in their own cavalry from one of their alliances.
The Romans lost nearly (I won't say every because I don't feel like verifying) every cavalry engagement against Numidian cavalry and their inferior cavalry was a defining factor in most Carthaginian victories.

>Nobody ever suggest thst Rome was ready to throw in the towel
Neither did I. And Rome's casualties came from the three decisive Hannibal victories, not just Cannae. I simply said Rome was in dire straights and needed to take the war off their turf because they weren't winning the war before Scipio's campaign, especially not with Fabian tactics.

I don't think you read my post right at all. I'm saying greek methods of warfare on terrains and theaters where Persia couldn't utilize it's greatest strength of heavy cavalry and archers allowed them to repel an invasion that logistically speaking they should not have been able to do. I was explaining away that Greek city-states did face an opponent geographically and logistically comparable to Rome but has everything in their favor for repelling the Persian invasion where as Carthage did not against Rome.

Got any sources to cite that claim?

the patricians would like a word with you.

>Had he captured the port, he could have been resupplied.
Read this. livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-war-against-hannibal/appian-war-against-hannibal-11/ Why did they send a fuckhuge reinforcement fleet if "lack of a port" was the bottleneck? And surely the lack of a port isn't the cause of the Romans intecepting and wiping out 80% of said fleet.

>Philip's plan was to invade Illyria
Illyria is worthless.

> Don't need a fleet to march west.
You kind of do, since you can't supply a sizeable force in that terrain and you'd need to supply them, which would have to be transported somehow.

> From there Hannibal could've linked up with him or the the threat of Philip could allow him to focus on Sicily.
How the fuck is he getting his army to Sicily?

>Sorry it was Hasdrubal's messengers that were intercepted, not Hannibals. I am referring to Hasdrubal's plan to meet up with Hannibal that was intercepted which prompted the two consuls to unite their forces against Hasdrubal.
You mean before Metaurus? Metaurus is a fuckhuge meme. This is already after most of Spain has been overrun, and Hannibal has been beaten in open battle in places like Beneventum. It would not change the outcome of the war.

>The Romans lost nearly (I won't say every because I don't feel like verifying) every cavalry engagement against Numidian cavalry and their inferior cavalry was a defining factor in most Carthaginian victories.
And they won quite a few engagements in spite of that fact, often with just throwing enough of them into the fray.

> And Rome's casualties came from the three decisive Hannibal victories, not just Cannae.
So what?

>I simply said Rome was in dire straights and needed to take the war off their turf because they weren't winning the war before Scipio's campaign,
Yes they were. Scipio's campaign began in 210 B.C. By this point, Hannibal has withdrawn from Tarentum, lost Capua, lost at Beneventum, and was more or less restricted to Apulia.

So do people on this board know that the salt thing is a myth?

Because they were a fucking colony from the start and only had so much phonecian blood and so many phonecian wombs.