Arabia Then Carthage

[kennyxx]

Hail Porthonian.

Recently there has been debate on to the rationale of turning west and attacking Rome. I have recently astarted reading the histories of Carthage and it is quite clear that Carthage was a super powere before the Romans and when Alexander had it in mind to take Carthage he was basically gunning for the big fish of the Mediteranian basin. Carthage had the best and most powerful navy as Tyre was Phonecian basicall a city of Carthage and the state of Carthage was very wealthy.

So to assume that Alexander taking Carthage was Alexander taking on an easy apponent is very very wrong and I have to admit my own recent ignorance about Carthage. I guess we all lean toward our learnings about Hannibal but Hannibal was actually a citizen from New Carthage based in Spain. Infact untrusted and basically thought of as a foreigner by the old Carthaginians.

It also shows Alexanders even greater understanding of strategy consolodation and every move on a chess board. For Alexander to take Carthage would give him the strategic point and the power point to hit out in any direction. Paralu has argued Alexanders problems with hitting the rest of Europe from Macedonia. Once he had Carthage its navy its soldiers and power he had a 2 point kick off point for any European Invasion and or Africa and Arabia. If you look at the map and see where Carthage sits and its resources maybe you can see the picturemaybe Alexander would have in his mind. Maybe some would Call Babylon or Alexandria is Capital but on the wider scale of worls domination I would say Carthage was at the very centre and precise place .

Kenny

[marcus]

Hail Porthonian.
I have recently astarted reading the histories of Carthage and it is quite clear that Carthage was a super powere before the Romans and when Alexander had it in mind to take Carthage he was basically gunning for the big fish of the Mediteranian basin. Carthage had the best and most powerful navy as Tyre was Phonecian basicall a city of Carthage and the state of Carthage was very wealthy.

Hi Kenny,

That's not strictly true - Tyre was Phoenician, but that didn't make it Carthaginian. Carthage had been a Phoenician colony, and by that time was all but independent from the rest of Phoenicia, although it still retained great ties with it's "mother cities", as it were.

But Alexander's taking of Tyre was not, for example, an act of aggression towards Carthage, and he made a point of letting the Carthaginian ambassadors go - with a warning that he would be gunning for them in turn. That "gunning" never happened of course, although it quite possibly figured in his future plans.

ATB

[Paralus]

But Alexander's taking of Tyre was not, for example, an act of aggression towards Carthage, and he made a point of letting the Carthaginian ambassadors go - with a warning that he would be gunning for them in turn. That "gunning" never happened of course, although it quite possibly figured in his future plans.

We can only guess at what plans Alexander was really entertaining at the time of his death. There is mention of Roman ambassadors to him (along with others) prior to his death. Diodorus omits them but, writing in Roman Sicily at the close of the first century BC, he might well think it a politic thing to do. It is, then, problematic just what Alexander knew of Rome. It is fair to say, though, that Greek attention was firmly to the east and had been since Athens' furtive - and ultimately disastrous - Sicilian dalliances a century or so earlier. Polybius was still attempting to explain Greece's master to Greeks a century and a half or so later.

To a military mind and, an educated one at that, the relevance of Carthage to the affairs of the western Greeks over the course of the fourth century (if not before) must have been apparent. Kenny is correct. Any move west would neccessitate dealing - sooner rather than later - with Carthage.

It is doubtfull that the armament being prepared in Cilicia was destined to prematurely create the Suez Canal. Nor was it to sail on Rhodes or Athens. The dream of Alcibiades had taken root in the coqueror's mind and its reality would be wrought upon his return from Arabia.

One can only imagine the naval engagements. Alexander and the "Companion Flotilla" stroking out to the starboard before rudders hard a'port and forcing the Carthaginian fleet onto the rams of the "Silver Bows".

Actually, now I'm finished cooking and serving dinner and the kids are in bed, I should go sort that respone to Amyntoros on the other thread...I did promise.

[Aengus]

Kenny,

The Hellenic world, and therefore Alexander, was quite aware of Punic power. A generation before, chunks of Sicily had seen frequent bloodbaths owing to Carthaginian incursions, and subsequent attempts to eject them; attempts that failed.

Before that, the Athenian embodiment of imperial ambition, Alkibiades, made no secret of his desire to take Carthage along with Libya. It clearly represented a pinnacle of sorts to him. And the Syracusans considered means of involving Carthage on their side in the run up to AlkibiadesGÇÖ arrival in Sicily. In other words, even eighty years before, they were considered significant players by both friend and foe, featuring large in many peoplesGÇÖ reckonings. By AlexanderGÇÖs time they had grown substantially again.

Alexander would have known they were no push-over. Nonetheless, if he was serious about moving as far west as the Pillars of Heracles, a showdown was certain. He must have anticipated a significant effort in dealing with them. Perhaps more significant than any so far. Carthaginian armies had already acquired a fearsome reputation and established names for their commanders. So, no happy diplomacy, I fear. I cannot see how he would have talked them into handing over their shipping lanes with Sicily without heated disagreement. And it is out of the question that he would have allowed them to retain such an asset exclusively. It would be a critical line of communication and movement, completing a logistical circle around that half of the Mediterranean.

I donGÇÖt imagine, though, that Alexander was planning so far ahead at Tyre. And itGÇÖs not the case that an attack on Tyre would be tantamount to an attack on Carthage - not unless the two cities had a formal and reciprocal treaty of defence, for which thereGÇÖs no evidence. Friends with strong relations yes, but bound to each othersGÇÖ defence no. And IGÇÖm wary of Curtius when he explicitly describes Alexander declaring war on Carthage immediately after the siege. Others are less emphatic. Marcus mentioned a more credible take on the matter, namely the Carthaginian envoys taking a severe bollocking (for helping to ship Tyrian women and children out of the city). I doubt it was more than that because, given his focus at that point, Alexander had neither the assets for nor the interest in anything more substantial with Carthage.


Anon.

[Paralus]

Alexander would have known they were no push-over. Nonetheless, if he was serious about moving as far west as the Pillars of Heracles, a showdown was certain. He must have anticipated a significant effort in dealing with them. Perhaps more significant than any so far. Carthaginian armies had already acquired a fearsome reputation and established names for their commanders. So, no happy diplomacy, I fear. I cannot see how he would have talked them into handing over their shipping lanes with Sicily without heated disagreement. And it is out of the question that he would have allowed them to retain such an asset exclusively. It would be a critical line of communication and movement, completing a logistical circle around that half of the Mediterranean.

I donGÇÖt imagine, though, that Alexander was planning so far ahead at Tyre... given his focus at that point, Alexander had neither the assets for nor the interest in anything more substantial with Carthage.

G'day Aengus.

Indubitably. The last first.

Alexander was in no position to be making threats GÇô let alone carrying them out GÇô against Carthage. He had an undefeated Persian King with the army of empire to his immediate east, a not entirely secure line of communication and supply behind him (held and oft defended by Monophthalmos) and the Persian (Phoenician) fleet to deal with (hence his current reduction of its harbour cities). To engage in any way will have indicated negligence of a Nazi scale 1942.

It goes a long way to explaining the establishment of Alexandria: the military and naval base of eastern (Greek based) Mediterranean empire and ideally situated for the purpose of a later thrust west. The army from Alexandria and through Cyrenaica and the fleet from Cilicia via Alexandria.

The Carthaginians will have not submitted lightly. Indeed it is problematical that the Sicilian Greeks will have either. It should be remembered that, later, Carthage and Sicily allied themselves against Rome and that Sicily resisted Pyrrhus. Carthage's North African heavy cavalry was GÇô as the Romans would discover GÇô no Greek cavalry: there simply to perform the "chase and kill" mop up duties. Control of the sea too, would be paramount in any move west and that would mean destroying the Carthaginian fleet.

In Macedonian royal fashion, the revenues and resources of Carthage would become the property of the King. Carthage, I doubt will have had any truck with that notion.

It would have made for epic history.

[kennyxx]

Anon Paralu Hail.

Your points are pretty bang on as Paralu said to hit Carthage at the time of Tyre was folly and at sucha junction was indeed Nazi and even Napoleonic Russian disaster. Which indeed seperates Alexander from I would say all the great Generals apart from the Persian Gates and Gedrosia the guy didnt put a foot wrong and his eye was totally on the ball.

Its fair to say that back in Babylon we must assume Alexander was ready for further conquests it was his nature. Which I feel pulled him through Hepheastions death. If the reports that Carthage sent emisaries to Babylon to talk with Alexanders strategically and looking at Alexanders form Carthage would definately as point of embarkment be on the menu. Also we know the Carthaginian and Phenecian Fleets were head and shoulder abpve any naval see force. It wasnt till A carthaginian flat Packed war ship got Captured by the Romans and copied that Rome was later to take them on.

I wouls say to take Carthage was as strategically important to western Conquest even more so than retracing back through Macedonia and Greece. For all the Antipater conspiracy theorist that he was squaring up to Alexander. Were Alexander to take Carthage then Antipater and basically the whole ogf Greece would be cracked like a wallnut. And the Romans also. For the Macedonian Alexander forces to be comming from both sides the out look would be pretty gloomy for any forces between them.

Kenny