• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What is your thinking of how the greeks and carthaginians would interact given the colapse of rome back into just another itialiote state. Did you consider this in your research?.

Nah, my research was on the Punic cognitive lansdscape - post-modern mumbo jumbo rather than miltary history...

Here's my take on a Carthaginian victory in the "Roman Wars":

Rome - reduced to Latium, Umbria and Etruria. Forced to evacuate their colonies in in Cisalpine Gaul, reduce their fleet to 20 triremes, and to revoke their treaty with Massilia.

Carthaginian "clients/ friends" bound by traties:
Capua - capital to a Campanian political entity under Carthaginian suzerainty. Possibly including Samnium.

Syracuse, Massilia, and the Southern Italian Greek poleis- under Carthaginian suzerainty.

Western Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica restored to the Carthaginians.

The Boii and Insubres of Cis-Alpine Gaul would also be bound by traty of "friendship" to Carthage.

Numidia would remain a Carthaginian client-kingdom gradually being Punicized and Hellenized.

Chances are IMHO that the Barcids might go for "putch" and try to turn Carthage into a traditional Hellenistic monarchy.

Carthage would never IMHO expand into Gaul, the Balkans or the Eastern Med. the way the Romans did.

Culturally, Carthage would have succumbed to Hellenistic culture much the same way the Romans did. I do believe though that like the Romans they would keep their language.

Counterfactual regards,

Vandelay
 
Child Sacrifice.As you say tv programes are more intrested in ratings and accuracy, but the program in question was a sience program focusing on forensic pathology. Proberly not overly concerned with ratings.
The point of the program was how new methods were able to identify the age, sex, etc of bone fragements from a selection of phoni sites (not just the normal graves but the urns we are most concerned with). The body of sientific evidence was such that the following amongst other intresting findings, resulting in the following changes to standard reference works.

Not trying to change your view, just making sure your aware of all the arguments.



http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/archaeology/berytus-back/berytus39/seeden-tophet/

The above is a part of a report on forensic reports as to the nature and type of bones recovered
in a dig at tyre.




http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119959&tocid=46468#46468.toc
The Carthaginians were notorious in antiquity for the intensity of their religious beliefs, which they retained to the end of their independence and which in turn influenced the religion of the Libyans. The chief deity was Baal Hammon, the community's divine lord and protector, who was identified by the Greeks with Cronus and by the Romans with Saturn. During the 5th century a goddess named Tanit came to be widely worshiped and represented in art. It is possible that her name is Libyan and that her popularity was connected with the acquisition of land in the interior, as she is associated with symbols of fertility. These two overshadow other deities such as Melqart, principal deity of Tyre, identified with Heracles, and Eshmoun, identified with Asclepius. Human sacrifice was the element in Carthaginian religion most criticized; it persisted in Africa much longer than in Phoenicia, probably into the 3rd century. The child victims were sacrificed to Baal (not to Moloch, an interpretation based on a misunderstanding of the texts) and the burned bones buried in urns under stone markers, or stelae. At Carthage thousands of such urns have been found in the “Sanctuary of Tanit,” and similar burials have been discovered at Hadrumetum, Cirta, Motya, Calaris, Nora, and Sulcis. (For illustration, see Middle Eastern religion.) Carthaginian religion appears to have taught the weakness of human beings in the face of the overwhelming and capricious power of the gods. The great majority of Carthaginian personal names, unlike those of Greece and Rome, were of religious significance—e.g., Hannibal, “Favoured by Baal,” or Hamilcar, “Favoured by Melqart.”


http://phase2media.doubleclick.net/adi/britannica.p2m.com/;kw=usarmyry12;sz=250x250;ord=14062512884?
Tanit

also spelled TINITH, TINNIT, OR TINT, chief goddess of Carthage, equivalent of Astarte. Although she seems to have had some connection with the heavens, she was also a mother goddess, and fertility symbols often accompany representations of her. She was probably the consort of Baal Hammon (or Amon), the chief god of Carthage, and was often given the attribute "face of Baal." Although Tanit did not appear at Carthage before the 5th century BC, she soon eclipsed the more established cult of Baal Hammon and, in the Carthaginian area at least, was frequently listed before him on the monuments. In the worship of Tanit and Baal Hammon, children, probably firstborn, were sacrificed. Ample evidence of the practice has been found west of Carthage in the precinct of Tanit, where a tofet (a sanctuary for the sacrifice of children) was discovered. Tanit was also worshiped on Malta, Sardinia, and in Spain.

regards
Hannibal
 
Hannibal,

Noone´s questioning whether the Phoenicans cremated infants and adults - they did. The question is whether they did so with the children alive.

All respect for the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it is old. Anyways, it's derivative of more scholarly works.

Again I would recommend Shelby Brown's book as well as Serge Lancel´s for modern 1990's work on this issue. Or go to www.biblicalarchaeology.org where both sides put forth their arguments on this issue of infant sacrifice (Dr´s Stager, yes, and Fantar, no, respectively).

The link you provided to the excavation at Tyre shows only that the Phoenicans cremated their dead, be they infants or a adults, - it neither proves nor disproves infant sacrifice.

I too have read forensic report on the contents of burial urns from e.g Sardinia. They show that the infant was cremated in a shallow hollow, with typical mediterranen brushwood ("macchia"). It was swathed in cloth and according to the forensic specialist it did not move during the cremation indicating that it was either dead by natural causes or killed (or possibly drugged) before cremation was started. The ritual was accompanied by ritual meal ending with the intentional smashing of the crockery used for the meal.

BTW, do you believe it to be more noble to expose a child than to burn it? Is it more noble to let slaves fight to their death for entertainment?

I'm just saying that whether the Phoenicians sacrificed children or not, the ethics/ moral compass of ancient Romans, Hellenes and Canaanites were very different from our own.

/Vandelay

BTW,preemptively and to be clear, my joke on eating Christian babies was in no way an implication of Anti-semitism - just a case in point of Orientalizing myths and de-humanizing the Other.
 
It is not my intent to show any race or crede as being supperior or inferrior in regards to morals or any other facet. I have no intrest in religon except as to its effect on others actions, nor am i a racist, nor yet right or left wing in my polotics, so what im trying to say is that my motive stems from wanting to know.
I wanted to know how the wars were fought, easly achieved.
I wanted to know why the wars were fought, not nearly so easy.
I had trouble understanding my grandfather when he was alive, i have, on occasions, trouble understanding my father, so its no wonder i fail to understand peoples seperated by so many generations who share so little in common with me.

So the more i learn the less i understand, but this leads me to believe that i dont have to understand, only accept that they were differnt.

All the info i have tells of live sacrifice, i took it as a given, so the possobility of this not being so is relativitly new to me particulary as i have yet to read one of the books you have brought to my attention. As live sacrifice was not uncommen in the ancient world it never struck me as being unlikly so never questioned it to deeply before now.

I recently looked at the important battles list on another post, this after some thought, led me to thinking that their were 2 more important wars rather than any one battle of importance.
If carthage remained in control of the western med its plausable that the cult of personality would become the norm, coupled with capatlist methods and ideals that carthage seems to hold so dear. Human develpment will take a new direction as a result of commerce being the driving force of succsses. Carthage being less likly to create a unified empire like romes for a number of reasons. WW2 for similiar reasons will embrace a different direction as to who wins, this time for ideological reasons, facist or democracy.

Strategy as always, explains himself extremly well, i on the other hand often play devils advocate in the hope of learning somthing new.

Hannibal
 
Carthaginians and bad PR

Several folks here have mentioned that the winners wrote the stories and therefore Carthage (and Phoenicians have gotten a bad rap).


As a most uninformed amateur, all I can say is that the casual reading I have done over the years have always painted Hannibal and the Carthaginians in a favorable light. I am not talking about reading original latin sources or scholarly works. I mean the kind of thing I checked out of the grade school library as a kid.

things like "great battles that have changed History"

"Great military leaders: with illustrations", etc etc.

Up to the most recent book I've read, "Hannibals leutinant".

The general impression I've built up over the years has been one of Hannibal and the Carthaginians being gallant fighters with one of histories greatest commanders fighting against basically impossible odds.

In other words, the modern PR hasn't been bad for them.
 
Joel

Yes and this is part of the problem, from reading a history book you get to find out what happened at a battle. It will give you what happened and it may explain how one side won by a clever tactic or again it will tell you that ones side had a better weapon system, if your lucky. If not you have to read another book to find out how side (a) fought, compare that to what you find in another book about side (b). Yet another book may be needed to tell you why the clever tactic would work only against side (b), the more you try to understand the why of it the further you dig.

Soon thats not enough, now armed with a wealth of how they were armed, how they used those arms, what tactics any given army was lickly to use, you want to know why they fought the battle in the first place. Its a problem common to most that have a deep intrest in any subject. Before long youve acumalated a wealth of trivia, most of no real use to man or beast, and you STILL dont know the why of it. Whats worse still is the books youve read to understand the why have now convinced you that the result of the battle could not have come out the way it did.

Hannibal
 
Originally posted by Pomerania Prince
Add to generals Gaius Marius. Uncle of Caesar, General who defeated German invasion, He reformed army by conscripting citizens which do not own land. He also give land for army service. Gaius was Consul of Rome for 6 or 7 times, that never happened before him. At the end of his life he attacked city of Rome and killed government which was set up by Cornelius Sulla.

If you want a good historical novel series of Gaius Marius and the people of Rome during this time period, check out these books by Colleen McCullough.

I) 'The Frist Man in Rome'
II) 'The Grass Crown'
 
HB - I can only add my recommendation of Serge Lancel's book on Carthage; it is a very sober and keeps strictly to facts (i.e., when he speculates, he tells us that he is speculating :)). Great book, IMO, and definitely added a lot to my knowledge of this somewhat enigmatic people.

Combat models - this is a morass that is hard to get into, but I think some of the "new" combat models being discussed in research circles (by such people as Goldsworthy, Sabine, & Zhmodikov) at the moment are quite intriguing, and may be very close to an "accurate" explanation of what happened in war.

Quite as an aside, the tactical battle system for Imperium (Yes! - I have finally decided that there shall definitely be one), while simple, will attempt to portray just how battles were fought, building on some of the latest research on ancient combat in the era. Of course, it is biased toward the way I think it occured :cool:, but we have high hopes that it will be possible to model most ancient battles quite well in the system.

We even have high hopes of producing a good AI. :D
 
Excellent thread, everybody! You've inspired me to delve into this subject of Carthage.
 
As a most uninformed amateur, all I can say is that the casual reading I have done over the years have always painted Hannibal and the Carthaginians in a favorable light. I am not talking about reading original latin sources or scholarly works.

About, Hannibal I agree - he's portrayed much in the same way as Saladin later is. Noble, tough, witty, resolute etc. - ususally in contrast to the rest of the Saracens/ Phoenicians. His brothers and father usually get "positive reviews" as well.

An other interesting Phoenician character is Dido who, I think most agree (?), comes off as a much more sympathetic character in the Aenid than Aeneas. The Roman loved a good Oriental femme-fatale - Dido, Sophonisba, Cleopatra, Zenobia.

Sorry if come off as sounding very partisan in this debate - it's probably because I am. How's that for scientific objectivity?

/Vandelay
 
Originally posted by Vandelay



Sorry if come off as sounding very partisan in this debate - it's probably because I am. How's that for scientific objectivity?

/Vandelay

No problem, especially when one openly admits where one's biases lie.
 
So the polls look real close, so what we get next is up in air, but if its ancient game which nations do you look forward to playing, which nations do we think should be the majors, or follow igc and have them all playable? Should each country have a distictive feel to it or should the game be less acurate but more even in its play balance. Historical likliness, or more of a civ anything can happen approach.
Is anyone else worried by the lack of scn for the ancient option, did they get taken by surprise by its popularity?

I think the players picks should determine his own difficulty of play, some have more advantages as to geographical posistion/pop base/resource ability to expand and so on, if the mechanics of play are done right it can easily show how a celtic culture is fragemented into tribes that field smallish armies rather than large national armies, this would be similar in principle to a Greek city state but the difference in their ability to co operate to a higher degree. So the same ai routines can be reused. As well as competing against the major/minor nations there will be the great bulk of the worlds pop that are hostile to all attempts to expand.
The current ranking system can be expanded to limit army sizes to reflect historical army sizes,
and so on.

As were talking religon at the mement, in the UK were having a 10 yr census, on one its pages is which relgion you are, apparantly if 10.000 answer "Jedi" it is then officially regarded as a religion. Honest, thats how it works.

strategy

Ah... the advantages of exec control.

Vandelay

I for one dont care what your opinion is, as long as you have one.
My own of course i keep in a very secret place, and only let it out when no one is looking.

Hannibal
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by joel rauber


Name your choice of three ancient generals who had the best Press Agents! (in order)

Julius Caesar

I think Julius Ceasar was his own Press Agent, so you didn't answer your own question right :)

these are a few of the must be Maior-powers:
Sparta
Athens
Persia
Rome
Carthage
Egypt
Macedonia
 
Originally posted by ForzaA


I think Julius Ceasar was his own Press Agent, so you didn't answer your own question right :)


kinda of depends on the rules of logic that you are using. I certainly meant to allow oneself as press agent to allow being included in the set. As I was certainly thinking exactly of this! Which is exactly why he headed my list. :)
 
Heres my 3 top generals,

Hannibal Barc.
Secured the family power base in Spain after the death of his father. Led an army over the Alps to defeat assorted Roman armies at Trebbia, Lake Traismene, and most famously Cannae. Eventualy returning to Africa to be defeated at Zama.

Chengis Khan.
Conquered an empire in size that makes Alexanders achievment look insignificant.

Sparticus.
Achieved more, with less, than many nations were able to do.

Hannibal
 
Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Joel Rauber

Ill see your Julius Caesar and trump him with an Octavian, Octacavian got what caeser was after without being made into a pin cushion for his efforts!. If you still have civ theres a game all about the celtiberians you mention available at apoylton.


hannibal


GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR OCTAVIANUS!!!!!!!! I thought this was a discussion about generals, not politicians. Marcus Antonius won Philippi, during which time Gaius Octavius (as I always refer to him) was conveniently ill (alright, probably genuine.) Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa won the battles of Naulochus and Actium for him. The future emperor Tiberius conquered Pannonia. Gaius Octavius could pick (and retain the support of) good generals. He was never one himself (his total breakdown at the news of the destruction of the XVII,XVIII, and XIX legions at the Teutoburger Wald should remove any doubt of that!)

I have always been a Caesar fan myself, although his reputation does tarnish when you realise that 80% of his brilliant manoeuvres were to extricate his army from difficulties he himself had created. There are some generals who have not been mentioned on this forum, none of the diadochoi for example (not even Eumenes of Cardia, perhaps the most innovative of them), or Pyrrhus of Epirus, whom Hannibal himself is supposed to have stated was one of the top three generals of history.

Oh, and to anyone who is going to read McCullough's books on the last days of the Republic. Read her for the politics, she believes everything ancient historians wrote about warfare is one hundred percent accurate. Most particularly, for the era of Marius she believes Plutarch. Plutarch's worth can best be demonstrated from his "Life of Sulla", where one of his main sources was Sulla's own autobiography. Apparently Sulla wiped out an army of 80000 Pontines at Chaeronea in a set piece battle. At the end of it his casualties were......well they couldn't find eleven men, but two wandered back into the camp later!!!!! If you believe that you'll believe anything.
 
GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR OCTAVIANUS!!!!!!!! I thought this was a discussion about generals, not politicians.

See the post, it digresses to who had/was the best press agent. Gaius Octavius was a mostly political animal, thats why he trumps a Caeser. Btw he present a lot of the crucial battles yet recognises the abilitys of others and uses them when appropriate.

hannibal
 
I did read the post, and the context it was written in, but, okay, press agents. A general's press agent magnifies his triumphs to the detriment of his rivals and the advantage of his deeds. So we'll place Caesar top as he wrote his own propaganda, followed by Scipio Africanus who managed to have Polybius (now regarded as one of the greatest writers of antiquity) write the most well known account of his campaigns. Then I suspect we'd better pick Phillip of Macedon, since Demosthenes Phillipics prove what a great threat to his enemies he was. I could go on ad Infinitum.

Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. That still doesn't distract from the fact that this thread started (partially) with a discussion of generals and their greatness. It is difficult to find in the history of Gaius Octavius any examples where he can rightfully claim the title of general (ie. military leader)let alone warrant the appelation "great" in front of this title.

I admit, I don't like Gaius Octavius (who in many ways was a rank "bad hat".) Incidentally, can anyone find the one campaign where I believe its possible my comments of his lack of the right to the title general might be wrong?
 
Augustus, Caesar

Idependant command in the Cantabrian War(DOES THIS COUNT?)

Octavius succeeded in winning considerable numbers of the dictator's troops to his own allegiance. The Senate, encouraged by Cicero, broke with Antony, called upon Octavius for aid (granting him the rank of senator in spite of his youth), and joined the campaign of Mutina (Modena) against Antony, who was compelled to withdraw to Gaul.(DOES THIS COUNT?) When the consuls who commanded the Senate's forces lost their lives, Octavius' soldiers compelled the Senate to confer a vacant consulship on him.

Antony, the senior partner, was allotted the east (and Gaul); and Octavian returned to Italy, where difficulties caused by the settlement of his veterans involved him in the Perusine War (decided in his favour at Perusia, the modern Perugia)(DOES THIS COUNT?)

But, if Octavian was to compete with Antony's military seniority, successes in a foreign war were necessary; and so Octavian between 35 and 33 BC fought three successive campaigns in Illyricum and Dalmatia (parts of modern Slovenia and Croatia)(DOES THIS COUNT?) in order to protect the northeastern approaches of Italy.

By threat of war he obtained the Eagles lost by Crasses,(DOES THIS COUNT?)

To recognise your limitations and use others is not a thing found often enough when looking through history, Augustas had this quality, and imho was a master politician, not a good or bad general, average at best yet you have to have held military posts to advance politicly in the Roman way of life. You are of couse entitled to your own opinion. As am i, which was and is that Augustas was not mentioned as a great General, only that he won his political war against his eniemies without losing his life, and gained all he stove for.
Hannibal