5 ms·

The Punic wars are a fascinating era of history, and the article says this ram was used in the decisive battle of the first Punic war. When the first Punic war

The Punic wars are a fascinating era of history, and the article says this ram was used in the decisive battle of the first Punic war. When the first Punic war started Rome had only just expanded its territory to a portion of the Italian peninsula. By the time the second Punic war was finished, Rome controlled all of Italy, most of Iberia, Greece, Corsica and Sicily. Carthage was much more powerful than Rome was, and Rome really had no business thinking it could have won either of those wars. Rome lost so many battles during those wars, and only survived by outright refusing to give up, and then somehow pulling it out of the bag at a key moment. This battle was one of those moments, and Zama was another in the second war (in a campaign that Scipio basically had to fund himself after failing to get the support of the senate). There were so many moments in both of those wars where if it had gone another way, Rome could have very easily failed and become a Carthaginian vassal state. There would have been no Roman Empire, which arguably still shapes Europe to this day, and the history of Europe would have been a continent dominated by a North African empire.

mkoubaa 2y ago
The Roman empire pretty much always contained Carthage territory. It's like wondering whether the British empire would have been meaningfully different if it's HQ was in Wales rather than England. Probably not. Consider also that the most important thinker in the empire after the classical period was Augustin, a North African.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Not sure what you’re trying to say here. By the time Rome became an empire, Carthage had already been wiped out of existence for over 100 years. Who knows what Europe would have looked like under a Carthaginian empire, but I’m rather confident it would be quite different. Especially given how a lot of Europes history post-Roman Empire revolved around attempts to reestablish and re-bust-up the Roman Empire.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > The Roman empire pretty much always contained Carthage territory. I suspect this is being downvoted because the Punic Wars took place hundreds of years before Rome became "The Roman Empire", both in the sense of having a literal emperor and also in the sense of being associated with the huge swathes of the Mediterranean that we tend to think of when we think of the empire's boundaries. It's just a different period of history. Not only did Rome not control any bits of Africa at this point, it didn't even control Sicily, which is what the First Punic War was about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War
speedchess 2y ago
> Carthage was much more powerful than Rome was No it wasn't. The roman republic won the 1st punic war. The carthaginian empire was older for sure but not much more powerful. > and Rome really had no business thinking it could have won either of those wars. Rome was the rising and expanding power. Carthage was an old has-been. Rome had every right to think it would prevail. Hence why Rome started the first punic wars. > and only survived by outright refusing to give up, and then somehow pulling it out of the bag at a key moment. It's like you gleaned your information from sensationalizing documentaries or a kid's book. > Rome could have very easily failed and become a Carthaginian vassal state. The odds of carthage invading and holding rome is 0. > There would have been no Roman Empire So western europe could have skipped the dark ages and gotten access to the ancient greek culture ( which is the foundation of european civilization ) sooner? > and the history of Europe would have been a continent dominated by a North African empire. Assuming that carthage could have held rome or made any progress against the huns, germanic or slavic tribes up north. If anything, the downfall of rome would have precipitated the rise of northern europe which dominates europe today.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Rome didn’t even have a navy when it started the first war with Carthage, who were the dominant naval power of the Mediterranean at the time. During the first war Rome had the navies that it managed to build wiped out more than once before the Battle of the Aegates, which it probably wouldn’t have been able to rebuild from if it had lost. They’d been fighting a losing war for nearly 30 years at that point. Rome also lost every major engagement in the second Punic war prior to Scipio’s campaign through Iberia and North Africa, which very nearly never happened at all. Cannae was probably the most comprehensive military defeat ever at the time, and is still one of the most famous routs in history. It is possible that Rome could have survived if it lost either of those wars, but it certainly wouldn’t have risen to be the most dominant empire in European history. Rome could have very easily fallen after Cannae if Hannibal had been reinforced, which he very nearly was. Speculation about what would have happened to Europe without the Roman Empire is just that, and I’m not trying to say it’s a good or bad thing, it’s just fascinating to think how close it came to being something completely different during that part of the republic era.
Ostrogoth 2y ago
I enjoyed reading the book ‘Hannibal’ by Philip Freeman. It has some descriptions of the political climates of Rome and Carthage during the second punic war. https://philipfreemanbooks.com/hannibal/ https://philipfreemanbooks.com/hannibal/

mkoubaa 2y ago

The Roman empire pretty much always contained Carthage territory. It's like wondering whether the British empire would have been meaningfully different if it's HQ was in Wales rather than England. Probably not. Consider also that the most important thinker in the empire after the classical period was Augustin, a North African.

AmericanChopper 2y ago
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. By the time Rome became an empire, Carthage had already been wiped out of existence for over 100 years. Who knows what Europe would have looked like under a Carthaginian empire, but I’m rather confident it would be quite different. Especially given how a lot of Europes history post-Roman Empire revolved around attempts to reestablish and re-bust-up the Roman Empire.
kibwen 2y ago
> The Roman empire pretty much always contained Carthage territory. I suspect this is being downvoted because the Punic Wars took place hundreds of years before Rome became "The Roman Empire", both in the sense of having a literal emperor and also in the sense of being associated with the huge swathes of the Mediterranean that we tend to think of when we think of the empire's boundaries. It's just a different period of history. Not only did Rome not control any bits of Africa at this point, it didn't even control Sicily, which is what the First Punic War was about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War

speedchess 2y ago

> Carthage was much more powerful than Rome was No it wasn't. The roman republic won the 1st punic war. The carthaginian empire was older for sure but not much more powerful. > and Rome really had no business thinking it could have won either of those wars. Rome was the rising and expanding power. Carthage was an old has-been. Rome had every right to think it would prevail. Hence why Rome started the first punic wars. > and only survived by outright refusing to give up, and then somehow pulling it out of the bag at a key moment. It's like you gleaned your information from sensationalizing documentaries or a kid's book. > Rome could have very easily failed and become a Carthaginian vassal state. The odds of carthage invading and holding rome is 0. > There would have been no Roman Empire So western europe could have skipped the dark ages and gotten access to the ancient greek culture ( which is the foundation of european civilization ) sooner? > and the history of Europe would have been a continent dominated by a North African empire. Assuming that carthage could have held rome or made any progress against the huns, germanic or slavic tribes up north. If anything, the downfall of rome would have precipitated the rise of northern europe which dominates europe today.

AmericanChopper 2y ago
Rome didn’t even have a navy when it started the first war with Carthage, who were the dominant naval power of the Mediterranean at the time. During the first war Rome had the navies that it managed to build wiped out more than once before the Battle of the Aegates, which it probably wouldn’t have been able to rebuild from if it had lost. They’d been fighting a losing war for nearly 30 years at that point. Rome also lost every major engagement in the second Punic war prior to Scipio’s campaign through Iberia and North Africa, which very nearly never happened at all. Cannae was probably the most comprehensive military defeat ever at the time, and is still one of the most famous routs in history. It is possible that Rome could have survived if it lost either of those wars, but it certainly wouldn’t have risen to be the most dominant empire in European history. Rome could have very easily fallen after Cannae if Hannibal had been reinforced, which he very nearly was. Speculation about what would have happened to Europe without the Roman Empire is just that, and I’m not trying to say it’s a good or bad thing, it’s just fascinating to think how close it came to being something completely different during that part of the republic era.

Ostrogoth 2y ago

I enjoyed reading the book ‘Hannibal’ by Philip Freeman. It has some descriptions of the political climates of Rome and Carthage during the second punic war. https://philipfreemanbooks.com/hannibal/ https://philipfreemanbooks.com/hannibal/