Carthage was a loyal vassal after the second Punic war. Carthage was legal roman territory and their people were roman citizens.
Why did Rome kill its own citizens?
anon don't be stupid. Roman citizenship was only given to those born in the city of Rome. Latin Citizenship was granted to those living in the Latium. And Italian Citizenship was granted to those living in the Italian Peninsula. Those living outside of Italy as part of a client state where not given roman citizenship until the time of emperor Caracalla
Some individuals and cities were awared it (the latter by becoming a municipium) but in general you're right
Carthage was a loyal vassal after the second Punic war. Carthage was legal roman territory and their people were roman citizens.
Why did Rome kill its own citizens?
roman senators started peddling this drivel when the war started that's how we know it's all lies. The average Carthaginian was valuable and wealthy as well as of high quality. Meanwhile roman strategy consisted of throwing men at a problem with its hordes of filthy uneducated white people. USSR Zerg tactics
>Carthago Delenda Est
no matter how many it was defeated it recover its influence and trading power around the western mediterranean. If Rome wished to become THE superpower of the western mediterranean Carthage had to be snuffed out. The punic wars was the closest comparation we have to the Cold War in the ancient war. Two powerful republics capable enough to use client states, mercenaries and vast amounts of money to oppose and stop the influence of the other. It's way people often compare the rivalry of Rome and Carthage to the current rivalry between Russia and the U.S
>he thinks the U.S is Rome
Just for clarification, I'm not saying Russia is going to win like some kind of historical prophesy. But how foolish is to compare the U.S to Rome instead of Carthage
I mean, both Carthage and the U.S are controlled by a merchant class, have an inmense naval power and only pursue wars as long they perceive a monetary profit. Meanwhile Rome and Russia are both controlled by a powerful olligarchies and have a tendency to authoritarism and civil strife. Of course one could said the Soviet Union was more akin to Rome than current Russia
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Carthage was also originally founded as a colony before it became an independent republic.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This.
Phoenician = Brits
Punics = Mutts
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Where Sulla & Caesar at? >inb4 blumpf
He is not even Catiline tier
I am not thinking anything other than that the USA has better chance at doing such. It is an interesting thought though, the last Cold War we had ended with the total annihilation of the foe once it became weak and the current one just restarted.
I mean, both Carthage and the U.S are controlled by a merchant class, have an inmense naval power and only pursue wars as long they perceive a monetary profit. Meanwhile Rome and Russia are both controlled by a powerful olligarchies and have a tendency to authoritarism and civil strife. Of course one could said the Soviet Union was more akin to Rome than current Russia
Carthage was also originally founded as a colony before it became an independent republic.
Russia has more in common with Carthage than the US does. >massive gangster oligarchy based on small citystates (each run by its own crop of oligarchs) >massive amount of empty land unified by a kritarchy >on paper a republic that came out of a hereditary monarchy >completely worthless at actual geopolitics unless it's unified by a single oligarch of incredible power >religion is a complete sham that only exists to justify it's rule >comically low birthrate, next to no concept of fraternal love or kindness between coethnics >nominally an ethnostate but in practice it's a bog standard oriental despotism where small ethnicities are propped up by the central government to control the majority ethnos that isn't allowed to act in its own interests and vice versa >economy is entirely focused on extracting and selling resources >land empire because, despite being ideally positioned to be a naval power, the actual contents of the state are completely underdeveloped as they're conceptualized as territory to move over rather than exist in and rampant cronyism prevents effective naval activity >principle opponent is a naval based empire that operates on a model of settler colonialism that it inherited from its parent empire >said opponent's parent empire was itself an enemy and was a naval based empire operating on settler colonialsim
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
an ethnostate but in practice it's a bog standard oriental despotism where small ethnicities are propped up by the central government to control the majority ethnos that isn't allowed to act in its own interests and vice versa
Can you explain this?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>>land empire because, despite being ideally positioned to be a naval power, the actual contents of the state are completely underdeveloped as they're conceptualized as territory to move over rather than exist in and rampant cronyism prevents effective naval activity
homie what
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Russian Civilization doesn't conceptualize its vast swathes of territory as space to do things in but rather space to move over. And you do so to go where? To cities. Russia is ideally setup to be a naval power for the same reason that the US is (it literally touches both oceans), but it only conceptualizes it's heartland as empty space to move over rather than space to use, so it can't be an export powerhouse like the US or China are. "Russia" is much smaller than the space that the "Russian Federation" occupies.
an ethnostate but in practice it's a bog standard oriental despotism where small ethnicities are propped up by the central government to control the majority ethnos that isn't allowed to act in its own interests and vice versa
Can you explain this?
As states get bigger the leadership is incentivized to put evermore distance between the elite and the commoners, as a means of protecting their power. Cliques and parties form, and these lock people out. The only way to gain power is to join one of them and adapt yourself to them, thereby becoming something else. An extreme form of this happens when the elite and the commoners are two different races. Russia in particular is an interesting example as it's the result of Vikings forming an Asatru state that ruled over Slavic Rodnovers, then the Slavic Rodnovers took over, then the elite converted to Christianity, and then that elite spent several centuries ruling over a Rodnover populace and actually tried to prevent them from converting to Christianity so as to increase the distance between the two groups.
But what about when one ethnicity is the majority? They'll demand representation! Simple, you prop the minorities up against it. They're too small, so the majority will squish them if they get uppity, and they're reliant on the elite for patronage. Then, you prop the majority up against the minorities, and handicap the majority: the majority is made up of commoners, so they can't undo the handicap. Thus, you pit the two against eachother: divide and rule. There's 170 ethnic groups in Russia, and only one doesn't get an ethnostate, which ethnos do you think that is? Hint: it's the one that makes up 71% of the Russian Federation.
Because Carthage made an incredible recovery after the first Punic wars. The intent was to strip them of territory and weaken them but in a way it had the opposite effect, they no longer had to spend money on soldiers to conquer and pacify territories and could instead focus entirely on trade, once again making the city monstrously rich. When Cato the Elder arrived in Carthage and saw this he realized it was only a question of time before the city would once again by wealthy and powerful enough to contest Rome.
They were not rich. When Carthage was sacked, there was less than two tons of silver left. >In less than a century afterwards, the metallic wealth of Carthage began to excite the cupidity of Rome, who had by this time learnt the sources of her rival's riches and the varied and extensive commerce with the Orient to which it had given rise. In B.C. 265 began the First Punic War; in B.C. 207 ended the last one, when Spain and the trade of the Indies fell into the hands of Rome, and the Punic power was definitely overthrown. In B.C. 146, when Carthage was sacked and demolished by Scipio Africanus the Younger, all the silver found in the city amounted to less than two tons in weight; the net results of an empire which, having attained the ripe age of six centuries, obliterated itself, for ever, through a single mistake of policy.
Are you really this moronic or did you just make this thread to take up space
Rome was very butthurt about Hannibal.
The Roman was very practical and was willing to do whatever it took to just fricking make the Carthaginians stop.
Carthage was a loyal vassal after the second Punic war. Carthage was legal roman territory and their people were roman citizens.
Why did Rome kill its own citizens?
no it wasn't and no they weren't
anon don't be stupid. Roman citizenship was only given to those born in the city of Rome. Latin Citizenship was granted to those living in the Latium. And Italian Citizenship was granted to those living in the Italian Peninsula. Those living outside of Italy as part of a client state where not given roman citizenship until the time of emperor Caracalla
Some individuals and cities were awared it (the latter by becoming a municipium) but in general you're right
Lol no
They were child sacrificing Semites. Being Semites is reason enough to be wiped out.
roman senators started peddling this drivel when the war started that's how we know it's all lies. The average Carthaginian was valuable and wealthy as well as of high quality. Meanwhile roman strategy consisted of throwing men at a problem with its hordes of filthy uneducated white people. USSR Zerg tactics
They’ve found masses of children’s bones at altars anon
Roman senators diddled kids
>Carthago Delenda Est
no matter how many it was defeated it recover its influence and trading power around the western mediterranean. If Rome wished to become THE superpower of the western mediterranean Carthage had to be snuffed out. The punic wars was the closest comparation we have to the Cold War in the ancient war. Two powerful republics capable enough to use client states, mercenaries and vast amounts of money to oppose and stop the influence of the other. It's way people often compare the rivalry of Rome and Carthage to the current rivalry between Russia and the U.S
So, when will America annihilate Moscow and salt the ground?
>he thinks the U.S is Rome
Just for clarification, I'm not saying Russia is going to win like some kind of historical prophesy. But how foolish is to compare the U.S to Rome instead of Carthage
Not at all.
I mean, both Carthage and the U.S are controlled by a merchant class, have an inmense naval power and only pursue wars as long they perceive a monetary profit. Meanwhile Rome and Russia are both controlled by a powerful olligarchies and have a tendency to authoritarism and civil strife. Of course one could said the Soviet Union was more akin to Rome than current Russia
Carthage was also originally founded as a colony before it became an independent republic.
This.
Phoenician = Brits
Punics = Mutts
Where Sulla & Caesar at?
>inb4 blumpf
He is not even Catiline tier
I am not thinking anything other than that the USA has better chance at doing such. It is an interesting thought though, the last Cold War we had ended with the total annihilation of the foe once it became weak and the current one just restarted.
Russia has more in common with Carthage than the US does.
>massive gangster oligarchy based on small citystates (each run by its own crop of oligarchs)
>massive amount of empty land unified by a kritarchy
>on paper a republic that came out of a hereditary monarchy
>completely worthless at actual geopolitics unless it's unified by a single oligarch of incredible power
>religion is a complete sham that only exists to justify it's rule
>comically low birthrate, next to no concept of fraternal love or kindness between coethnics
>nominally an ethnostate but in practice it's a bog standard oriental despotism where small ethnicities are propped up by the central government to control the majority ethnos that isn't allowed to act in its own interests and vice versa
>economy is entirely focused on extracting and selling resources
>land empire because, despite being ideally positioned to be a naval power, the actual contents of the state are completely underdeveloped as they're conceptualized as territory to move over rather than exist in and rampant cronyism prevents effective naval activity
>principle opponent is a naval based empire that operates on a model of settler colonialism that it inherited from its parent empire
>said opponent's parent empire was itself an enemy and was a naval based empire operating on settler colonialsim
an ethnostate but in practice it's a bog standard oriental despotism where small ethnicities are propped up by the central government to control the majority ethnos that isn't allowed to act in its own interests and vice versa
Can you explain this?
>>land empire because, despite being ideally positioned to be a naval power, the actual contents of the state are completely underdeveloped as they're conceptualized as territory to move over rather than exist in and rampant cronyism prevents effective naval activity
homie what
Russian Civilization doesn't conceptualize its vast swathes of territory as space to do things in but rather space to move over. And you do so to go where? To cities. Russia is ideally setup to be a naval power for the same reason that the US is (it literally touches both oceans), but it only conceptualizes it's heartland as empty space to move over rather than space to use, so it can't be an export powerhouse like the US or China are. "Russia" is much smaller than the space that the "Russian Federation" occupies.
As states get bigger the leadership is incentivized to put evermore distance between the elite and the commoners, as a means of protecting their power. Cliques and parties form, and these lock people out. The only way to gain power is to join one of them and adapt yourself to them, thereby becoming something else. An extreme form of this happens when the elite and the commoners are two different races. Russia in particular is an interesting example as it's the result of Vikings forming an Asatru state that ruled over Slavic Rodnovers, then the Slavic Rodnovers took over, then the elite converted to Christianity, and then that elite spent several centuries ruling over a Rodnover populace and actually tried to prevent them from converting to Christianity so as to increase the distance between the two groups.
But what about when one ethnicity is the majority? They'll demand representation! Simple, you prop the minorities up against it. They're too small, so the majority will squish them if they get uppity, and they're reliant on the elite for patronage. Then, you prop the majority up against the minorities, and handicap the majority: the majority is made up of commoners, so they can't undo the handicap. Thus, you pit the two against eachother: divide and rule. There's 170 ethnic groups in Russia, and only one doesn't get an ethnostate, which ethnos do you think that is? Hint: it's the one that makes up 71% of the Russian Federation.
Original mein kampf
Carthage wasn't destroyed. It was infact the second biggest city in the Empire.
you mean the new Carthage? The original Carthage was a bunch of ruin not too far from the Roman Carthage
>new Carthage
No I mean Carthage. There's no such as thing as "New Carthage", unless you're referring to Nova Carthago in Iberia that is.
>not too far from the Roman Carthage
That's the the same city and location.
Dido turned out to be a man.
They got their revenge eventually.
The people who got genocided 2 thousand years ago magically reapawned and undid their genocide?
You seriously believe all the Carthaginians ceased existing after the war?
Because they sacrificed children and were obsessed with metals.
Because Carthage made an incredible recovery after the first Punic wars. The intent was to strip them of territory and weaken them but in a way it had the opposite effect, they no longer had to spend money on soldiers to conquer and pacify territories and could instead focus entirely on trade, once again making the city monstrously rich. When Cato the Elder arrived in Carthage and saw this he realized it was only a question of time before the city would once again by wealthy and powerful enough to contest Rome.
They were not rich. When Carthage was sacked, there was less than two tons of silver left.
>In less than a century afterwards, the metallic wealth of Carthage began to excite the cupidity of Rome, who had by this time learnt the sources of her rival's riches and the varied and extensive commerce with the Orient to which it had given rise. In B.C. 265 began the First Punic War; in B.C. 207 ended the last one, when Spain and the trade of the Indies fell into the hands of Rome, and the Punic power was definitely overthrown. In B.C. 146, when Carthage was sacked and demolished by Scipio Africanus the Younger, all the silver found in the city amounted to less than two tons in weight; the net results of an empire which, having attained the ripe age of six centuries, obliterated itself, for ever, through a single mistake of policy.
>obliterated itself, for ever, through a single mistake of policy
which policy?
Abandoning their leather wrapped fiat money
Because Cato just had to spergr out over the quality of their grapes. Thank Baal Hammond Caesar brought his line to a deserved end.