What if Carthage won the 2nd Punic war?

[Wr1t3r]

PoD#1 The Romans win the 1st punic war even more one-sidedly, they make the carthaginians pay them even more, they also take Sardinia, Corsica, the balearic islands and those smaller islands closer to mainland tunisia. This makes the carthaginian elite feel more threatened, and more angry, so they support their generals more in the 2nd punic war (the lack of this support was a major disadvantage to Hannibal Barca IOTL). They assist them enough to just make the 2nd punic war more evenly matched than IOTL, if it weren't for the other PoD (considering they lost more territory in the first punic war)

PoD#2 Hamilcar lives on until he's 60, thanks to his help, and him guiding Hannibal even longer, they're able to pull out the win.

How much of the Roman Republic does carthage conquer? What does this mean for the rest of history?

 

[Alamannicus]

A lot depends on what the Carthaginian victory looks like. Hannibal probably didn't plan on razing Rome to the ground, but rather to rip apart the Roman Republic's network of client cities and tribes, making Rome itself just another minor Italian City-State. However, Hamilcar being around longer has extremely interesting ripple effects, as so much of his life and motivations are shrouded in mystery. I doubt Hamilcar planned on dying when he did, so it's possible Carthaginian ambitions in Iberia (and possibly eeking into Southern Gaul?) may go above and beyond well before Carthaginians ever clash with Romans.

Another elephant in the room (yeah, yeah, I'll see myself out) is a coming showdown in Carthaginian politics between the vaguely known "War" and "Peace" factions of the Carthaginian Aristocracy. I don't want to jam impressions of late Roman politics onto Carthaginian affairs, but it's hard to ignore the similar circumstances where a victorious Carthage would be ballooned with new lands and influence, and an enormous amount of power for the Barcid family which led it to victory. One of the very many Punic noble families disproportionately wielding military and political power in a society which like Rome had overthrown its monarchy is sure to inspire jealousy, paranoia, and conspiracies among the other families and powers that be.

Long-term could have a lot of ramifications. The Barcids controlling Carthaginian politics might lead to a more militaristic cultural shift from Carthage's mercantile origins, or Carthage may simply return to its maritime trading routes after the real nasty hiccup that was the First Punic War in this timeline.

 

[not livius]

Another elephant in the room (yeah, yeah, I'll see myself out) is a coming showdown in Carthaginian politics between the vaguely known "War" and "Peace" factions of the Carthaginian Aristocracy. I don't want to jam impressions of late Roman politics onto Carthaginian affairs, but it's hard to ignore the similar circumstances where a victorious Carthage would be ballooned with new lands and influence, and an enormous amount of power for the Barcid family which led it to victory.

Would it be possible for the Barcids, lifted by success against Rome, to set themselves up as tyrants in Carthage (in the technical ancient history sense, that is) and maintain that over a couple generations? In effect, to do what Augustus did, but without the century of civil war which led up to it in Rome? It feels unlikely to me but I don't know enough about Carthaginian politics to rule it out.

WHat seems more likely to me is that one effect of a Carthaginian victory would be the creation of a Barcid kingdom in Spain and maybe sounthern Gaul. Roman experience in Spain suggests that Carthage would need a presence there to maintain their power and that it would be most effective if that person had close ties to Hamilcar and Hannibal. This kingdom might end up independent from Carthage -- probably would -- but allied to it if Rome ever seemed like a threat again.

 

[Wr1t3r]

A lot depends on what the Carthaginian victory looks like. Hannibal probably didn't plan on razing Rome to the ground, but rather to rip apart the Roman Republic's network of client cities and tribes, making Rome itself just another minor Italian City-State. However, Hamilcar being around longer has extremely interesting ripple effects, as so much of his life and motivations are shrouded in mystery. I doubt Hamilcar planned on dying when he did, so it's possible Carthaginian ambitions in Iberia (and possibly eeking into Southern Gaul?) may go above and beyond well before Carthaginians ever clash with Romans.

Another elephant in the room (yeah, yeah, I'll see myself out) is a coming showdown in Carthaginian politics between the vaguely known "War" and "Peace" factions of the Carthaginian Aristocracy. I don't want to jam impressions of late Roman politics onto Carthaginian affairs, but it's hard to ignore the similar circumstances where a victorious Carthage would be ballooned with new lands and influence, and an enormous amount of power for the Barcid family which led it to victory. One of the very many Punic noble families disproportionately wielding military and political power in a society which like Rome had overthrown its monarchy is sure to inspire jealousy, paranoia, and conspiracies among the other families and powers that be.

Long-term could have a lot of ramifications. The Barcids controlling Carthaginian politics might lead to a more militaristic cultural shift from Carthage's mercantile origins, or Carthage may simply return to its maritime trading routes after the real nasty hiccup that was the First Punic War in this timeline.

Would it be possible for the Barcids, lifted by success against Rome, to set themselves up as tyrants in Carthage (in the technical ancient history sense, that is) and maintain that over a couple generations? In effect, to do what Augustus did, but without the century of civil war which led up to it in Rome? It feels unlikely to me but I don't know enough about Carthaginian politics to rule it out.

WHat seems more likely to me is that one effect of a Carthaginian victory would be the creation of a Barcid kingdom in Spain and maybe sounthern Gaul. Roman experience in Spain suggests that Carthage would need a presence there to maintain their power and that it would be most effective if that person had close ties to Hamilcar and Hannibal. This kingdom might end up independent from Carthage -- probably would -- but allied to it if Rome ever seemed like a threat again.

Which part/s of the Roman republic would the Carthaginians conquer?

 

[bguy]

PoD#1 The Romans win the 1st punic war even more one-sidedly, they make the carthaginians pay them even more, they also take Sardinia, Corsica, the balearic islands and those smaller islands closer to mainland tunisia. This makes the carthaginian elite feel more threatened, and more angry, so they support their generals more in the 2nd punic war (the lack of this support was a major disadvantage to Hannibal Barca IOTL).

I do wonder how much the lack of support from the Carthaginian government to Hannibal really hurt the Carthaginian war effort. While it's true Carthage didn't send much in the way of reinforcements to Hannibal, they did send several large armies to Spain and also launched campaigns against the Romans in Sardinia and Sicily. Would the Carthaginian government have been able to provide more support for Hannibal without undermining their war effort in Spain and the Central Med?

I also wonder if Hannibal might have ultimately done better for Carthage by fighting a defensive war in Spain rather than invading Italy. He presumably would have been just as effective on a tactical level in Spain as he proved to be in Italy and without losing the tens of thousands of soldiers he reportedly lost on his march from Spain to Italy.

 

[not livius]

I also wonder if Hannibal might have ultimately done better for Carthage by fighting a defensive war in Spain rather than invading Italy. He presumably would have been just as effective on a tactical level in Spain as he proved to be in Italy and without losing the tens of thousands of soldiers he reportedly lost on his march from Spain to Italy.

Interesting question. I think the common belief is that Hannibal was trying to avoid a major issue Carthage faced in the First Punic War -- Rome's ability to keep raising troops from its allies -- by forcing the war onto Rome's home territories and forcing either a quick surrender or encouraging the allies to rebel. The problem with fighting in Spain, or even Spain and southern Gaul, was that Rome would have even grater resources than the first time, and possibly shorter/more secure supply lines than Carthage did.

I hesitate to second-guess Hannibal (but hey, why not?) but I wonder whether focusing on southern Gaul would have been a sufficient threat, while avoiding having to cross the Alps. And he could encourage and support revolts in Cisalpine Gaul as well as in Illyria. But I think even that strategy runs into the problem of Rome's manpower resources.

 

[bguy]

Interesting question. I think the common belief is that Hannibal was trying to avoid a major issue Carthage faced in the First Punic War -- Rome's ability to keep raising troops from its allies -- by forcing the war onto Rome's home territories and forcing either a quick surrender or encouraging the allies to rebel. The problem with fighting in Spain, or even Spain and southern Gaul, was that Rome would have even grater resources than the first time, and possibly shorter/more secure supply lines than Carthage did.

That's a fair point but by the same token the Carthaginians would also have shorter and more secure supply lines in Spain than they did in Italy. Hannibal should be able to pretty much hold off the Romans in Spain indefinitely and certainly won't suffer a Dertosa style defeat, which would free up a lot of extra Carthaginian troops for operations on Sicily once Hiero II dies.

 

[Alamannicus]

Would it be possible for the Barcids, lifted by success against Rome, to set themselves up as tyrants in Carthage (in the technical ancient history sense, that is) and maintain that over a couple generations? In effect, to do what Augustus did, but without the century of civil war which led up to it in Rome? It feels unlikely to me but I don't know enough about Carthaginian politics to rule it out.

I would love to speculate, but lacking Carthaginian primary sources, we're flailing around with a machete in the dark. Carthage had a monarchical tradition (even an abortive coup to restore it when it seemed apocalypse was upon Carthage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomilcar_(4th_century_BC) ) but lacking commentary on Hannibal and Hamilcar's political objectives, we can only guess.

Which part/s of the Roman republic would the Carthaginians conquer?

They'd definitely take back the lands lost in the First Punic War, and probably any other overseas colonies the Romans had at that point. It's possible that in terms of territory in Italy proper, very little. Carthage may be interested in having heavy influence in the larger Graeco-Italian trading ports, but why bother trying to directly conquer when you can bring a pro-Carthaginian confederation of Italian states to heel?

 

[not livius]

That's a fair point but by the same token the Carthaginians would also have shorter and more secure supply lines in Spain than they did in Italy. Hannibal should be able to pretty much hold off the Romans in Spain indefinitely and certainly won't suffer a Dertosa style defeat, which would free up a lot of extra Carthaginian troops for operations on Sicily once Hiero II dies.

Fair enough. I still think that unless the Carthaginians were fighting the Romans in Italy they weren't going to defeat them -- destroying the system of alliances is the only way to keep Rome from raising one army after another, until the Carthaginians were so worn out that they had to seek a peace. I don't think it's difficult for the Romans to wage a war on two fronts in the Second Punic War: they do OTL, after all.

Which part/s of the Roman republic would the Carthaginians conquer?

The Carthaginians would "liberate" Sicily from Roman occupation, and take back Corsica and Sardinia as well. Spain wouldfall into Carthaginian influence as well. Carthage would probably also guarantee the independence of the cities of Southern Italy from Rome, and would probably make alliances with the Gallic tribes of the Po Valley (if they regained that territory during a Roman collapse) and Southern Gaul. It's worth remembering that technically the Romans don't possess a lot of territory at this point in time: about half of Italy is probably Roman land, and they have armies in Sicily and usually in Sardinia and Corsica. The Republic is a network of alliances of different kinds. So Carthage isn't going to annex territory but it is going to disrupt those relationships. OTL Hannibal tried to sell liberation to Rome's allies and the Latin colonies and they weren't buying; if Carthage won they would take him up on it, and would probably also annex Roman territory near them.