…immediately after his victory at Cannae? I saw a documentary about Hannibal on the History channel a while back, and this has been floating through my mind ever since.
Seems after pretty well slaughtering the Roman army at Cannae, one of Hannibal’s senior officers wanted to ride straight on for Rome, but, having sustained pretty heavy losses and seeing that a large number of his remaining troops were wounded, Hannibal decided against the idea, and instead offered Rome terms of surrender. Rome, being Rome, refused to surrender.
I’m thinking that if Hannibal had gone on and attacked Rome, than the Carthaginians probably would have gone on to become the major power in what was the known world at the time.
What I’m wondering is, how different were Carthaginian social, moral, and religious values from those of the Romans? What would the impact have been on our modern attitudes and mores? Would the world have had the same scientific/technical advances following several centuries of Carthaginian rule?
There is no guarantee Hannibal could have taken Rome. He may well have just ended up bleeding his army to death outside its walls.
Even assuming a near total Carthaginian victory, I don’t think you would have seen an expansion of the Carthaginian state to the mainland. Sicily and the other isles where they were once dominant, probably, but not the Italian penninsula. For one thing they would be somewhat dependent on the goodwill of various native allies, for another they probably didn’t have the manpower to permanently garrison the densely populated, fiercely nationalistic, intensly militaristic society in Latium.
More likely would be partial capitulation wherein Rome released its various mainland vassals and possessions ( who would now be tied to Carthage, perhaps ), lost its overseas presense and was confined once again to a smallish state in central Italy. Even then I wouldn’t bet against the possibility of a later recovery. The Roman system was remarkably resilient.
Well, I’m not sure if Roman attitudes and mores have had any particular impact on modern society. Rome was big on cultural co-option and adoption and far as I can tell the Carthaginians weren’t much different ( perhaps even more so ) - I don’t have my references on Carthage on hand, but I don’t recall them as being cultural evangelizers to any significant extent. Rome was heavily by Greek culture, but that influence would likely have been there regardless - remember no telling how the Hellenistic states like Macedon would have fared in the absence of Roman conquest.
The biggest difference, assuming no pan-Mediterranean Carthaginian empire in the mold of Rome, would be the lack of universalism. No lingua franca, of if there was one, probably a more limited in distribution Greek. Slower developing native states in Gaul and Iberia ( those parts of Iberia not “Carthaginized” - if anywhere were to be the stage for a neo-Carthaginian empire, that would be it ). Lingering Hellenized states, probably eventually declining and falling anyway in Egypt and the Seleucid east anyway, who knows what in Greece and Asia Minor. A hard to predict impact on the growth of Christianity. An independent Jewish kingdom surviving between the chaos of chaotic Ptolemaic Egypt ( unless reformed ) and shrinking Seleucid Syria ( probably still prey to the more vigorous and Persian-accomodating Parthians )? Reemergence of a potent native Egyptian state?
Hmm…well I might add more after I poke through my Carthaginian sources later.
Well, Tamerlane knows a hell of a lot more about this than I do but I’ll toss in a quick two cents worth…mainly just to keep track of the thread, as its an interesting question.
I don’t think Hannibal was in any shape to take Rome. From memory his army was pretty spent by then anyway, and taking Rome would have resulted in yet more losses he couldn’t make up. I dont think he had a great deal of logistical support to resupply his army, but was essentially living off the land. He didn’t have a lot of fresh troops coming in either. And of course there was Scipio Africanus and his rebuilt legions that were threatening Carthage. Even if Hannibal had taken Rome he would have been forced to leave to defend his capital eventually. I dont think he could have dealt Rome a knockout blow.
If Hannibal had sacked Rome, that would not have destroyed the Roman Republic. Its strength was not only in the city itself but in a large population of loyal Roman citizens in central Italy. Rome survived being sacked by Brennus in 390 B.C., and it would have survived being sacked by Hannibal. (Just as the Athenian state survived the burning of Athens by Xerxes in 480 B.C.)
Now if the Italian Allies had won the Social War (91-88 B.C.; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_war), that might have destroyed the Roman Republic. OTOH, it might have ended in the Republic being reorganized as a federal state.
Actually, yes, Hannibal did have a personal beef with Rome, which he inherited from his father. Might explain why Carthage wouldn’t send reinforcements.
Also, accoding to one website I found, the Carthaginians may not have actually been into baby sacrifice. Apparently, stillborn infants and children who died very young were considerd to have been recalled by Baal, and their bodies were given special treatment, -cremated and their remains buried in cemetaries at certain shrines. It’s still common practice in some parts of the Mddle East to bury children in separate areas of the cemetary. Apparently, all those bones of incinterated baby corpses led archaeologists to believe that the children had been sacrificed, rather than dying a natural death.
At least, that’s one theory.
I’ll see if I can dig that website up again later.
