Similarly to the First
Punic War, Carthage got a pretty raw deal.
Carthage was forbidden from expanding outside of Africa. They had to pay
nearly ten times the amount of the treaty of the first war over 50 years[1]. Furthermore they had to hand over all their
elephants and reduce their fleet to just 10 warships.[2] Under Masinissa, the
Numidians formed a kingdom and he was their first king. A significant portion
of Carthage’s territory was taken by the Numidians. They needed Rome’s
permission to fight in Africa. So Carthage was humiliated and crushed by the
Romans. Many years later in 146 BCE, Scipio’s adoptive
grandson finished his family’s work and destroyed the city of Carthage itself, ending the Carthaginian Empire and all its
work.
I am on a family business trip.
But how did Rome win? I mean I talked for about half of
this blog about how Hannibal was crushing the Romans at every turn. You see,
the Second Punic War is sort of defined by what didn't happen. After the disastrous first two years of the
war, there wasn't a major military clash in Italy like what previously happened.
For ten years the war dragged on but if you notice most of these blogs are
focused on the beginning and the end. The middle of the war was a battle of
wits and not really of arms. There were battles but they were much smaller.
More of a direct answer to why did Rome win could be the
commanders. Fabius was a brilliant commander and the adoption of his strategy
toward the end may have won them the day.
Scipio also denied Hannibal support from Barcid Spain. Furthermore the
fact that Roman commanders could easily switch around commanders because everyone in the army were Italians certainly
helped. The Carthaginian forces were loyal to the generals, not really the
Empire. However the thing that I think helped the Romans the most was one
thing; the refusal to give in. Each one of Hannibal’s victories in the early
war would have brought a nation to its knees, but the Romans flat refusal to
surrender in the long run won them the war. If they gave up then, Spain would
have been Barcid still. Syracuse would not be Roman. They would have lost
Illyria most likely. Sardinia and Sicily would most likely be returned to
Carthage. Rome would not be a power today if they did give in.
So what does this mean for people today? Personally
I see echoes of this in the future mostly from Germany. A nation that goes to
war with initial success then loses. Has several restriction placed on it from
an unfair treaty. A charismatic leader rises and wishes to bring pride back to
his people after a humiliation. Already
expanding into new areas they make war on the wrong person and bring in a
superpower. The war is far more costly than its predecessor with more troops involved
and a lot more death. Yet again they
have much success with quick invasions but after a while they begin to lose.
Then they are defeated and have their nation broken. So the parallel seems reasonable. So maybe people can take away that you shouldn't punish a defeated foe that much for it sows the seeds of future conflicts.
Minus this guy.
553 words
No comments:
Post a Comment