Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by eagleseven, Jun 26, 2010.
The world may never know.
"Hannibal" the son of Hamilcar Barca of Carthginian Africa or Hannibal Lector?
Don't know who you're talking about. Let's round up all the Africans and have a chat with them to find out what gives...
The cute one, of course.
And by cute, I mean badass general who nearly conquered Rome.
I'm pretty sure it was the elephants
He had chianti.
Drunken elephants? Why didn't I think of that?
The answer to your question was that Hannibal was an African. The Roman genral who defeated him Publius Scipio, after the defeat took the agnomen "Africanus" or P. Scipio Africanus, giving him the distinction of being the conqueror of Africans. This victory by Scipio was the first victory outside Italy for the Romans, and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Had the Romans lost, Rome might not have become a world power and western civilization might have gone another direction entirely.
Perhaps the Africans would've enslaved the Europeans?
The "Africans" were a loose confederacy of Phoenician trading/merchant city-states. They did not occupy a great deal of territory, confining their interests to coastal fortresses with a small hinterland of peasants to service their industry.
Carthage might have formed some sort of amalgam with Greek/Hellenistic civilization in the same way that Rome and Hellenistic civilization combined after Rome had conquered Greece, purportedly to maintain peace on the frontier. That was also the excuse for Rome to bring Gaul (France) and Britannia under their control.
Probably what would've happened was the continuance of city states across Europe with the centers of civilization centered on Rome and Greece with Egypt being a great power. In other words something like what had prevailed before Rome decided that the Mediterranean was their sea, which frame of mind came about when Carthage was defeated.
Rome was responsible for founding great cities all over Europe, many of them tribal capitals, or provincial capitals, and colonia where Roman troops were garrisoned, to maintain peace. Those cities may have never been founded and in their place the Greeks and Carthaginians would've done something similar, most likely on the coasts where harbors made for favorable ship transport.
The republican form of government might never have become the dominant model. Instead we might have developed around the Greek model, so called Athenian democracy.
Of the two competing philosophies; the Romans with their property rights, thus law, thus rule of law, was stable over time; also conservative, about keeping, with a primary goal of stability.
On the other hand the Greeks wealth thus internal political power came from trade, and was more volatile because it was more dependent on favorable external political conditions in the eastern Mediterranean.
The toughest foe the Romans came up against was the Carthaginians. The Greeks they defeated with relative ease. Their whole outlook took on the philosophy of peace on their frontiers after the defeat of Hannibal
Separate names with a comma.