01-31-2012, 06:54 AM
And Jewish sources, including the Bible, confirm the Roman and Greek accounts of human/ child sacrifice as a Pheonician mode of worship. So, I'm inclined to believe that the practice was accepted in Carthaginian society. But it may have been over-emphasized or exaggerated in some or all of the sources in some way, such as, the frequency or scale of such sacrifices. Either way the practice made them religously distinct enough both to the Romans' and my way of thinking.
Agreed. I think most Italians remembered the outcome of the Pyrrhic War when they experienced Hannibal's invasion.
Establishing a Carthaginian province in Italy seems less feasible to me than an Epirote one. Pyrrhus was a Greek and a king whose kingdom was closer to Italy. As a Greek he could legitimately claim kinship with the Italiot Greeks and inspire their loyalty. With his kingly prestige he could and did exert greater international influence than Hannibal who was merely a warlord with very limited influence, inferior resources, and precariously stretched supply lines. If Hannibal was trying to make southern Italy another province of the Barcids then I think he was overreaching more so than Pyrrhus. If he wasn't trying to establish a permanent presence but rather to force Rome to come to terms then why should the allies have defected to him when they know he's going to leave them unprotected?
As Lyceum said, the status quo was much more attractive than an uncertain future.
~Theo
Quote:I suspect the clean Italians did not want to be ruled by such a people.Likewise. There were other significant differences that I think shouldn't be either dismissed or underestimated. I've already mentioned the linguistic barrier. The Italians were primarily landlubbers while the Carthaginians were seafarers. Why would the allies think that Carthage could protect or incorporate territories that were inland as theirs were?
Quote:The Roman allies were probably told by Roman propaganda that the Carthaginians were unwashed barbarians (which allot of them were )Right, Rome's allies' probably didn't feel any affinity for Hannibal's men which were mostly Spaniards, Numidians, Gauls, and Libyans who were ravaging their lands from one end to the other.
Quote:Fear is a great motivator, especially when one considers Rome's recent history. They really did seem as if they can do the near impossible.
Also you have to consider the actual situation in Italia at the time as well as the lead up to it.
Agreed. I think most Italians remembered the outcome of the Pyrrhic War when they experienced Hannibal's invasion.
Establishing a Carthaginian province in Italy seems less feasible to me than an Epirote one. Pyrrhus was a Greek and a king whose kingdom was closer to Italy. As a Greek he could legitimately claim kinship with the Italiot Greeks and inspire their loyalty. With his kingly prestige he could and did exert greater international influence than Hannibal who was merely a warlord with very limited influence, inferior resources, and precariously stretched supply lines. If Hannibal was trying to make southern Italy another province of the Barcids then I think he was overreaching more so than Pyrrhus. If he wasn't trying to establish a permanent presence but rather to force Rome to come to terms then why should the allies have defected to him when they know he's going to leave them unprotected?
As Lyceum said, the status quo was much more attractive than an uncertain future.
~Theo
Jaime
