defied?

anyway. homework?

I'm not totally up on it but i beleive it was a straight transfer of power, the Carthaginians dominated the Med and in a series of wars the Romans took over control of the inhabited coasts of the Western Med and finally Carthage. I am not sure about the Eastern Med, I think I remember Caesar's army in egypt was something new so that is some time after the fall of Carthage.

The wars between Rome and Carthage are called the Punic wars so look it up

The larger estimates are probably too high, given the experiences of the modern age of war where more exact records were kept. Looking at what Napoleon and the Turks and the Chinese had to do to field that many people its doubtful anybody could in the classical era. But they surely took up a massive proportion of the population.

Yeah I've got books on it them I'm making my way through, just interested to see if anyone would discuss it since none of my friends (or teachers) have the slightest interest in ancient history.

The second Punic War was started by Hannibal however when he conquered Saguntum.

Yes I know about the treaty. The Romans didn't bind themselves not to intervene south of the Ebro and Polybius tells us that they formed this association "some years" before Hannibal's time. And in the Carthaginian Senate the Senators refused to acknowledge the Ebro treaty when Quintus Fabius Maximus demanded they hand over Hannibal.

@Arfeh

Yes...they did bind themselves not to interfere south of the Ebro. The Romans made an agreement with Hasdrubal the Handsome about spheres of influence. The Carthaginians got everything south of the Ebro. The Romans, everything to the North.

Saguntum was well south of the Ebro. When Rome interfered in its affairs, they violated the treaty. Hannibal responded appropriately. Rome broke the treaty and declared war. It was not a special case according to the treaty. Thus it was in the Carthaginian sphere of influence.

It's a simple matter really. We call it 'benevolent interference' today. It's a trademark of expansionist powers. The Romans repeated the behavior that caused the First Punic War. They were itching for a fight. They had hoped to use Saguntum as a bridgehead for operations against the Carthaginians.

"very far.
Till the river Rijn were the barbarians lived and offcourse a smalle village in now a days french where the villagers boldly defined the roman forces."

As far as I know, the Rhineborder isn't exactly mediteraenian.

Anyhow, Carthage was, at that time, a city with an enormous economic power, Carthage's defeat meant to the Romans that they now virtually had an economical monopoly in the mediterraenian area..

Anyhow, this isn't really my best age, so I'm not going to try to dig deeper and make mistakes

mmm I don't remember much about the 3rd punic war...but I think you're right. The third punic was wasn't really a war anyway. Rome just wanted to destroy Carthage, seize its territory and enslave/sell its people.

As Cato used to say:

ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Arf!

“For a long time it puzzled me how something so expensive, so leading edge, could be so useless, and then it occurred to me that a computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match.” 

3rd punic war, rome snuffed out carthage. by that time, carthage was little more than a city by the sea, kind of like constantinople, with a little coastal environs. surprisingly, the city held out against the roman siege far longer than expected, and not until the Roman siege artist, Scipio (the younger, the elder, idk there's so many of them - i think younger, the protagonist of Somnium Scipionis by Cicero) did the city fall.

2nd punic war - no naval battle of note (afaik). land battles, where Hannibal ravaged the roman armies at Cannae and Trevino; hannibal was undecisive after his gains, and the war played out in spain, greece, and n. africa where rome fought carthage wherever hannibal wasn't. meanwhile, in italy, fabian had hannibal chase him around. then, hannibal was called back to n. africa to defend the homeland, and was defeated by Scipio the elder - yes, the other was the younger, pretty sure. scipio adopted hannibal's tactic of emphasis on cavalry. he also won the allegiance of king massinissa who switched to the romans side during the battle (of Zuma).

1st punic war - carthaginians fight romans and sicilians, wreak havoc on several roman fleets, long war; romans adopt naval tactic of grappling hook (crow/beak?) and plank. carthaginian naval mastery was far superior to Romans (tradition has it they adopted carthaginian ship design after they found one beached on italian shores). so they used the grappling hooks to turn the naval battles into close combat, which the romans excelled at. after which the roman fleets had several major victories. i think the roman tactic also resulted in more captured vessels.

result of carthaginian war = empire, which led to 1. slave plantations which demolished the roman middle class from which the republican legions drew their strength. 2. which eventually led to generals w/ personal armies, ... Marius to Sulla to Pompey to Caesar...and the destruction of the Republic and the Senate's power.

and of those four men, marius was born a pleb, the rest were equestrians, none optimates.

(i thought question was "lead to fall of republic")

power vacuum - by the time of carthage's destruction, the only other sea power was the Cicilian pirates, cuz the hellenistic dynasties wore themselves out by fratricidal strife. and pompey mopped up the pirates amazingly quickly.

> [TI] Primo wrote:

> I believe Carthage's navy was actually quite a bit stronger than the Roman navy. Therefor, Rome would not have been able to grow much at all without destroying Carthage, as it really needed resources from other countries around the Mediterranean.

If I recall correctly Rome had suffered major naval losses in the 3rd Punic war.

The Carthaginian civilization had Phoenician origins, and as a result, were adept at naval navigation, warfare, and general seamanship for many centuries. To combat this Carthaginian strength at sea, Rome used its innovation and its military strength (the infantry) to try and level the playing field. Similar to developments by the Spartans in their newly acquired navy during the Peloponnesian War and their struggle in the 4th century against the ascending Thebans* (the Athenians were superior sailors), the Romans realized that to become successful at sea warfare in a short period of time, they had to be able to board enemy ships and defeat them in this way (skilled navies like the Carthaginian's generally fought their sea battles in a variety of delicate maneuvers and won the battles by ramming and sinking enemy ships; however, this tactic required a great deal of practice time to master). As a result, a very peculiar (but effective) feature was added to the Roman quinqueremes (a galley with three ranks of oarsmen, capable of holding 120 marines in war time). It was called the corvus.** The corvus is a large boarding plank. complete with railings on its sides and a large spike at the end to "fix" the Roman vessel to the enemy ship. Tethered to a mast on the quinquereme, the corvus was dropped onto an enemy ship, pinning the two together, and allowing the superior Roman marines to board the enemy ship and kill the enemy with pilum and gladius (i.e. the heavy Roman javelin and short thrusting sword, respectively). In this manner, the Romans experienced great success in naval engagements against the tactically superior Carthaginian fleet.

*See Thucydides "History of the Pelopponesian War" and Xenophon's "Anabasis" for more on these two conflicts.
**Warry, John. "Warfare in the Classical World." Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995. 118-119.