I am Defecting to Carthage - Want Advice from History buffs

[Yomamashouse]

So I got bored of the Romani (10+ runs through with them) and want to give the carthaginians a try. I am not a history buff but rather a wanna-be history buff and want to play them as they would have acted historically. Since it wouldn't be fun playing a game where I intentionally lose after 100 years of playing, I was wondering if any history buffs could let me know what the most realistic path of expansion would be for the post 170BCE carthaginians. I will attempt to take Iberia and Italy (If I can stomach killing my beloved Romans), but after that I don't know what to do. Does anyone here know what Carthage's relationship was with other factions? Any factions with whom I should avoid war, or others which I should be actively agressing? I figure that whoever holds Phoenicia will be feeling my wrath for subjugating my people, but otherwise I haven't a clue what would have happened if Carthage had not been subjugated by Rome.

any input would be great! ATM I am just taking all of Africa and Iberia, I won't make any majorly expansive moves outside of Africa or Iberia until I know what would be most realistic.

[TWWolfe]

So I got bored of the Romani (10+ runs through with them) and want to give the carthaginians a try. I am not a history buff but rather a wanna-be history buff and want to play them as they would have acted historically. Since it wouldn't be fun playing a game where I intentionally lose after 100 years of playing, I was wondering if any history buffs could let me know what the most realistic path of expansion would be for the post 170BCE carthaginians. I will attempt to take Iberia and Italy (If I can stomach killing my beloved Romans), but after that I don't know what to do. Does anyone here know what Carthage's relationship was with other factions? Any factions with whom I should avoid war, or others which I should be actively agressing? I figure that whoever holds Phoenicia will be feeling my wrath for subjugating my people, but otherwise I haven't a clue what would have happened if Carthage had not been subjugated by Rome.

any input would be great! ATM I am just taking all of Africa and Iberia, I won't make any majorly expansive moves outside of Africa or Iberia until I know what would be most realistic.

Well, in "Hannibals Children" Carthage eventually turned towards egypt.

[Anubis88]

Carthage wouldn't be really able to sustain a large empire imho, since it wasn't to centralized... The Barcids after all did what they did in Iberia as an almost independent nation. I

It would make sense that Carthage would conquer Iberia, and probably the southern coast of Gaul. Other than that i would suggest making "colonies". Since Carthage created or took control of colonies in Iberia and Africa, try to conquer let's say Crete, Cyprus, try to establish a trading colony in Britain, Scandinavia etc... Take a city and try to hold it; it would be realistic for Carthaginians to try to expand their territories by creating trading outposts; a good roleplaying strategy imho.

For their diplomatic relations; Carthage was allied at one point with the Ptolemaics, and had trading agreements with the Seleucid Empire iirc.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Carthage wouldn't be really able to sustain a large empire imho, since it wasn't to centralized... The Barcids after all did what they did in Iberia as an almost independent nation.

On the contrary, only through decentralization can empires be achieved.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_empire

It would make sense that Carthage would conquer Iberia, and probably the southern coast of Gaul. Other than that i would suggest making "colonies". Since Carthage created or took control of colonies in Iberia and Africa, try to conquer let's say Crete, Cyprus, try to establish a trading colony in Britain, Scandinavia etc... Take a city and try to hold it; it would be realistic for Carthaginians to try to expand their territories by creating trading outposts; a good roleplaying strategy imho.

Yeah. In time those would increase in territory, though.

[Nerouin]

On the contrary, only through decentralization can empires be achieved.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_empire

Those are awful examples. The Mongol and Roman empires splintered almost immediately after being divided.

[DarthLazy]

All I can say is. Welcome to the Dark Side, may the Iberian Assault Infantry be with you.

[Anubis88]

You're kiddin? Rome wasn't centralized? And didn't the Mongol Empire turn into 4 smaller nations after the death of Genghis Khan?

[Yomamashouse]

I believe Rome made use of puppet dictators, which would constitute a form of decentralization. There was also the east-west split.

[Punic Hoplite]

Hello, I am Punic Hoplite. I have read many a book about Carthage.

You see, after the Magonid dynasty lost power, Carthage really did lose it's militaristic stomach. Carthage, if it was around today, would be a corporate police state. If it cost too much money, it wasn't an attractive option. Hell, Carthage could have very easily taken all of Sicily if it had the determination of Rome instead of what it did have. It certainly had the money for such an undertaking, but the ruling body decided that having western Sicily, and thus keeping their monopoly of trade in the south western Med, was good enough. Trade with the Greeks was profitable, but keeping a garrison of mercenaries was both expensive and dangerous (a number of highly feared Campanians deserted to Dionysus of Syracuse after being idle garrisoning the Punic part of Sicily, the Epicraty, and given the offer of booty by the Syracusean).

So how would Carthage go at war in this time frame? Conquer Sicily. Even before the Romans came, there was a body of politicians that thought it best to take the entire island in one go. It would be a huge cost, but in the end the booty taken would help ease the cost. Then there are the reparations of the Greek cities in Italy who would undoubtedly gone to war to help their fellow Hellenes, as well as protect their power and independence locally. Then the Carthaginian Navy, the best in the Med at the time, could keep their new province safe from foreign attacks, and trade would flourish.


Over in Iberia, Carthage really had no reason to expand further. A decentralized, hostile environment was perfect ground for mercenaries to come from (which Carthage depended on), as well as the best part of the coast for trading with itself and others. The reason they expanded here IRL was because they lost Sicily, and more importantly, Sardinia. Sicily was a money drain (needed a garrison, was really a buffer instead of trade center, among more reasons), while Sardinia had been theirs for many, many years now, and gave Carthage a large amount of grain among other things. Spain had the silver mines (and that silver was then paid for more mercenaries, though they started to resemble contingents of allies rather than as mercenaries), and that helped boost the then damaged Punic economy. Expand here, but not very aggressive. A settlement every 10 years is adequate, but even then more forceful than Carthage was pre-Barca

And then you could play as the Continentalists. The faction of the Carthaginians who wanted a land based empire rather than sea/commercial based one. They advocated taking more Libyan (anything in Africa between the Nile and Atlas Mountains basically) and Numidian lands. Libyans provided many men to fight in Punic armies, and the Numidians provided their historically famous cavalry. Both of which Carthage used greatly in her campaigns against Syracuse and Rome.


tl:dr

Take Sicily. Go no further.
Take a little bit of Iberia every 10 or so years.
Take over the Maghreb.


How's that?

[Yomamashouse]

That is fantastic. I am in the process of subjugating all the North and Western African colonies. Perhaps my alliance with the Ptolemaoi has outlived its usefulness and I should push into the Eastern Mediterranean.

[Tomato_Sandwich]

You're kiddin? Rome wasn't centralized?

I believe Rome made use of puppet dictators, which would constitute a form of decentralization. There was also the east-west split.

This could turn into quite a complicated discussion remember that the empire of 300AD was very different from the empire of 300BC. it could be argued that the history of the Roman Republic (i.e the time frame of this mod) was a long history of gradual decentralization as the government became less and less able to govern its territory. give or take. Direct control of territory was always a last resort. its expensive and difficult for the Roman form of government to cope with. easier just to get tribute and make Rome itself richer. they conquered Greece 4 times before they finally took direct control for example!

But back to the point, Punic Hoplite has it just right i reckon. play as a colonialist trading empire across the Mediterranean. and it will be a completely different game to the 10 you played as Rome! good luck.