Why did they fail?

Why did they fail?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lack of institutions dedicated to levying a massive army and 0 adaptability to new challenges besides the Barca family single handedly trying to beat Rome at it's own game.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Barely a state to begin with. They were a bunch of nomadic invaders from the north ruling over alien Roman peasants but without any ideas to assimilate them and in constant quarell

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's Carthage you idiot.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I can't see 'you idiot' without hearing 'it's love, yuu eedioht' anymore. Fricking kill me lmao.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they had fought any other enemy except Rome at the time there's a chance they would have won. They were wealthier and had the best navy. At least at first. Romans were too fricking stubborn to give up though even after Cannae when most other groups would have.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why did the Romans have such a strong Faustian spirit?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Early Romans were incredibly stubborn and self-confident in their own superiority as well as highly competitive not only with outsiders but with each other. At least the elite was. To the point where even after catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat they would still believe they could win. Didn't hurt that early Republic Rome had a ridiculously high birth rate either. More than Carthage anyway so they could afford to keep throwing men at them.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I hate Romans who disagree with me but I hate other countries even more

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The early/middle Roman republic was built different and i say that without a hint of irony those homies suffered catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat and they kept marching on

    There was a consul who sacrificed himself by charging at the enemy can you imagine a president or king doing that? Or someone from the late roman republic? I think not

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sulla would. Caesar too. The Late Republic had a bunch of problems, but daring individual elites wasn't one of them.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    israelites.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically the Greeks invented judaism to subvert them of their heritage. It worked, apparently.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        elaborate please

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Didn't hurt that early Republic Rome had a ridiculously high birth rate either.
          It really didn't. At least, no more so than other ancient polities. The bigger issue is that Rome had a system that allowed it to draw manpower from all over Italy with a minimum of administrative costs.

          Carthage, on the other hand, had people from the city itself and the immediately surrounding farmland (mostly for naval service), whatever mercanaries they could hire at the moment, and a bunch of unreliable African subject peoples who always had at least one eye on the exit.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, shit, This post was meant as a reply to

            Early Romans were incredibly stubborn and self-confident in their own superiority as well as highly competitive not only with outsiders but with each other. At least the elite was. To the point where even after catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat they would still believe they could win. Didn't hurt that early Republic Rome had a ridiculously high birth rate either. More than Carthage anyway so they could afford to keep throwing men at them.

            Not sure how I got the wrong one linked.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Canaanite identity was the only thing that could threaten Greco-Roman identity. To give you a rough example, Augustine had said that even centuries after the Carthaginians were defeated there were still people who called themselves "of K'naan". There are still steles in Italy etched in both Greek... And Phoenician or Canaanite. I think it terrified the Romans that the Assyrian offshoots could have at one time flooded over the Greco-Roman cultures, but the Greeks had a plan to subvert Canaanitism. The Greeks would write the OT which prophesied the coming of Greek dynastic messiahnaship (Philopator is the subject of at least one Old Testament prophecy).
          There are other obvious examples. Moses founding the basis of the Israelite-Judahite nation begins as a form of Ktisis. In other words, it's a Greek foundation myth for a city-state. Further, when Abraham is brought to kill his own son he does not. This is a very Greek concept. Any middle-eastern legend would have finished with him sacrificing his child, such was the case often in Carthage and Canaan.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe abraham did kill his own son then the israelites appropriated the story and changed it to be more palatable for those people who were trying to give up idol worship

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Abraham never existed. It's a Greek invention.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where can I read more about it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Find your local schizo who tells you israelitesus was white

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gmirkin is a start.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Semitic inherent nature of backstabbing.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >oy vey goyim, time to subvert you
    >OH SHIIIIET

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Roman Socii system was too tough to beat. None of the other major mediterranean powers did any better against Rome, and most did far worse

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    VVVVVVVVVVVVGH
    I need to buy imperator.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think people understand what Carthage was, and maps like this don't help.

    Carthage was a city-state, it bullied other North African cities into being part of associating with it. Much like Spartans did with the Peloponnesian League.
    It wasn't centralized, so when Romans reached the city it was all over, none of the subjugated cities shed a tear, because being under Romans wasn't that different.
    In contrast, Rome, who was sacked by the Gauls, endured, because Romans had become an identity beyond the city, so even if Hannibal had taken Rome, he would have still lost.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome had a larger population. And also the senate didn't support Hannibal.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are the best resources/books to learn about the Punic Wars? Ever since I listed to the history of rome episodes about it I've been interested

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    nafris betrayed them.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They lost the nafri bull army

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    For one, they weren't prepared for the Romans being in total war mode over a trade colony dispute

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *