Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lessons from Carthage
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2006/aug/g9.htm ^

Posted on 08/27/2006 4:30:46 PM PDT by tobyprissy

Lessons from Carthage Elyakim Haetzni August 22, 2006

Carthage was an empire that ruled from Libya in North Africa to Sicilia to Sardinia to parts of Spain. It was the center of world finance.

Rome stood in opposition, but encountered Carthage's naval superiority. The fighting between them continued for 200 years and ended with the destruction of Carthage.

Theodor Mommsen, in his classic "The History of Rome", describes the people of Carthage as a nation not driven by freedom, or even by power. All they cared about was money. And they tried to use their money to buy peace and quiet from Rome, but were systematically rejected.

(Excerpt) Read more at gamla.org.il ...


TOPICS: War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ancientrome; lessons

1 posted on 08/27/2006 4:30:46 PM PDT by tobyprissy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyprissy

The Carthaginians were ancestors of the Arabs, and Rome had as much of a problem with anti-war splits in its leadership as Carthage. The author should remember what happened to Carthage at the end of the Punic wars -- it was levelled and the land sown with salt.


2 posted on 08/27/2006 4:49:07 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

...and Rome was just as bloodthirsty for conquest as the Islamofascists.


3 posted on 08/27/2006 5:01:09 PM PDT by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyprissy

Si vis pacem, para bellum.


4 posted on 08/27/2006 5:26:13 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyprissy

I don't know about this analogy, but his conclusion is correct. Why WAS Rome so desirous of destroying Carthage?


5 posted on 08/27/2006 5:30:45 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Peace In Our TimeŽ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

The main reason was that they had been fighting with them for many years, and the Carthaginians had broken treaties. Hannibal kept coming after them, even bringing elephants over the Alps. It was 6 of one and half-dozen of the other, though.


6 posted on 08/27/2006 5:38:27 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: txzman
and Rome was just as bloodthirsty for conquest as the Islamofascists.

The difference being, of course, that the Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.

7 posted on 08/27/2006 6:05:02 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
The difference being, of course, that the Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.
_______________________________________________________
And Plumbing. It was a real mess before we got that!
8 posted on 08/27/2006 6:31:41 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

My Tagline says it all.


9 posted on 08/27/2006 7:19:14 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

Hannibal made a major error in not going for a direct attack and taking the gamble.


10 posted on 08/27/2006 7:45:52 PM PDT by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

You will have to translate. For example, I don't get "iuvabit".


11 posted on 08/27/2006 7:53:30 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Will

Could be, but didn't he need to pick up mercenaries in what is now Provence, on the way?


12 posted on 08/27/2006 7:55:42 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.

They also had such wonders as chattel slavery, mass murder as a form of public entertainment, and the 'representative government' you speak of was more akin to the Politburo under Stalin.

The Emperor could legally have just about anyone in the Empire murdered just for kicks.

Granted they had art and architecture but there really wasn't all that much to admire about Roman society.

L

13 posted on 08/27/2006 7:57:20 PM PDT by Lurker (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
You seem to have confused the Republic with Imperial Rome. The first Roman Emperor was not in office until over 150 years after the war with Hannibal. In 150 years WE might have an Emperor! In addition, while gladiatorial combat did exist, it was rather a minor entertainment, as a ritual at funerals. The first permanent gladiatorial arena in Rome was built more than 250 years after Hannibal. While Rome did have slavery, that was true of all civilizations up to and including ours.

The Republic was real enough that it was the basis of much of the thought of our founders, and did not collapse into tyranny and chaos until more than a century after Hannibal. In addition it does seem that Carthage had retained the Canaanite practice of human sacrifice of their young, reviled by the Romans, and their original next door neighbors, the Jews, who referred to this as 'making a Holocaust'.
14 posted on 08/28/2006 2:01:34 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1
I don't know about this analogy, but his conclusion is correct. Why WAS Rome so desirous of destroying Carthage?

Originally, the Rome-Darthage feud was over who was going to be top dog in the Mediterranean Sea. Carthage had the initial advantage in seapower, but Rome quickly established a credible navy and the struggle for supremacy was on...

the infowarrior

15 posted on 08/28/2006 2:13:12 AM PDT by infowarrior (The GOP runs the US, the Dems run their mouths... Freeper HardStarboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
The Republic was real enough that it was the basis of much of the thought of our founders, and did not collapse into tyranny and chaos until more than a century after Hannibal.

While this is true, as far as it goes, I believe I could reasonably contend, that the sudden influx of wealth into Rome, after having won their bid for supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea, was the root cause of the chaos, corruption, and tyrrany that lead to the destruxction of the Republic, and the establishment of the Empire. Just as the continued influx of wealth from the Empire's far-flung conquests lead to the chaos and corruption which lead to the fall of the Western portion of the Empire, similar to what happened to the newly united Spain post 1492...

the infowarrior

16 posted on 08/28/2006 2:32:19 AM PDT by infowarrior (The GOP runs the US, the Dems run their mouths... Freeper HardStarboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

I agree with the idea that the influx of wealth, and its unequal distribution, lead to the corruption of the Republic, but my understanding is that the later West Roman Empire had a shortage of wealth, not an excess.


17 posted on 08/28/2006 2:57:22 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John Will
Hannibal made a major error in not going for a direct attack and taking the gamble.

Read about the struggle to take Monte Cassino in WWII and you would know why no leader until Churchill was dumb enough to try a southern attack on Rome. I'm a Churchill fan, but there was no 'weak underbelly'. Just a few division of troops could hold back whole armies. The terrain is difficult for infantry and you can forgot siege machines (or even elephants.) The 'direct attack' was suicide. Ask any of the 250,000 troops who died there in 1943-1944.
18 posted on 08/28/2006 3:11:43 AM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool ("O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" - Koran 5.51)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyprissy
Always remember this:

History is written by the victors.

The vanquished are always portrayed as evil and warlike.
19 posted on 08/28/2006 3:14:28 AM PDT by roaddog727 (Bullsh## doesn't get bridges built.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
but my understanding is that the later West Roman Empire had a shortage of wealth, not an excess.

I was referring to mid-Empire, not late Empire. By the late stages of the Empire, the wealth had been largely squandered, and administration of the Empire had suffered by the corruption and chaos in attaining what little wealth was left (the constant changes of Emperor, with more than a few reigning for as little as months, or weeks created an instability issue, as well...)

the infowarrior

20 posted on 08/28/2006 3:18:10 AM PDT by infowarrior (The GOP runs the US, the Dems run their mouths... Freeper HardStarboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

Well the causes of Rome's fall is one of the great puzzles of history -- it's always fun to kick it around for while, but I am not about to argue with Gibbon about it at this time (he was wrong, of course.)


21 posted on 08/28/2006 3:40:45 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Well the causes of Rome's fall is one of the great puzzles of history -- it's always fun to kick it around for while, but I am not about to argue with Gibbon about it at this time (he was wrong, of course.)

I was always less interested in Rome's fall, than I was in Rome's origins, myself. Were they, indeed as depicted by Virgil, descendants of refugees from the fall of Ilium (Troy), to the Achaeans, or not? Many people long thought Homer (if Homer was a single individual and not a composite of several) to have been completely in error of the existence of Ilium/Troy, until Schliemann, following clues in Homer's verses, actually found the city's ruins. Could Virgil have had a definite knowledge now lost to us?

the infowarrior

22 posted on 08/28/2006 4:03:59 AM PDT by infowarrior (The GOP runs the US, the Dems run their mouths... Freeper HardStarboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

I tend to think that Rome started as a Latin city, located in the right place to gain the most from the Etruscan culture, while retaining the greater military seriousness of the Latins. And they were lucky!


23 posted on 08/28/2006 4:19:50 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
the constant changes of Emperor, with more than a few reigning for as little as months, or weeks created an instability issue, as well...
Watching the History Channel a couple days ago, they discussed the Ottoman Empire, and their "system" of succession. Enthusiasts boast of ten successive strong rulers. Well, you might - if you are willing to go with their system.

The Calif had a harem, of course - but he serviced a given member of it only until she had a son (half of the harem, logically, would have had only one child; half of the rest, only two). It was considered unfair to any given son to have any full brothers, since all the Calif's sons were mortal enemies. When the Calif died, there was a power struggle among all his sons - and the victor of that struggle made sure that he was the only one who survived it.

The Spartans culled their own herd via infanticide, but the victorious Ottoman sultans culled their fathers' progeny from dozens of sons down to one. Pretty much assuring that the top dog was a ruthless SOB.

The similarity of the Ottoman Empire to the Roman and the Carthagenian is in the fact that their armies were a major profit center. A system which was unstable, and which was either expanding its borders and seizing booty or else was in trouble internally. Basically a cancerous system.


24 posted on 08/28/2006 5:50:44 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
The phrase is from Virgil and means:

"The day will come when even this ordeal will be a sweet thing to remember.”

25 posted on 08/28/2006 9:12:42 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

The exact citation is the Aeneid, Book I, line 203.


26 posted on 08/28/2006 9:20:18 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Another translation is:

"it may be that in the future you will be helped by remembering the past" (forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit).

27 posted on 08/28/2006 9:23:01 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

Ok, thanks. I guess it all depends on whether 'iuvo' is taken to mean 'please' or 'help'. (I assume the original had 'Carthaginiam', rather than 'Arabiam' -- ;>).


28 posted on 08/28/2006 9:44:24 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Actually, it was Carthaginem .... happy to be of service. My first use of the phrase as a tag line dates back to Gulf War I on the old prodigy boards in 1990-91, where I used Mesopotamiam in lieu of of .
29 posted on 08/28/2006 2:32:04 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Romans also had things like representative goverment, private property, legal status for citizens, etc.

They also had such wonders as chattel slavery, mass murder as a form of public entertainment, and the 'representative government' you speak of was more akin to the Politburo under Stalin.

All your "wonders" and my "things" made them far and away closer to what we consider modern civilization than anything else at the time. By the time of the Punic Wars, even the Greeks had mostly regressed under the Macedonian dynasties.

30 posted on 08/30/2006 8:52:06 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson