The Future of Rome in a World Where Carthage Won the Second Punic War

[NedStark]

after Hamilcar I's death in 480 the king lost most of it's power to the council of elders, in 308 Bomilcar attempted a coup against them but failed and the monarchie was abolish however the position technically still existed but devoided of any power, Hannibal could use it's power to recieve the position and grant it real power but why? Hannibal, his family and his allies alredy are the true power in Carthage proclaiming himself king wouldn't gave him anything apart from making some people hate him more, theres also the fact that carthage has been a republic for almost a century and honestly I always have seen Hannibal more like a Marius or Sulla-like figure than an Augustus-like one but at the end all reduce to the fact that in my opinion the Barcids wouldn't gain anything from a monarchie that they hasn't obtain alredy

And Roman Republic only collapsed *centuries* after the Punic Wars - because it kept expanding too fast and the governance system could not cope with such expansion and its resulting social changes.

The idea of Hannibal overthrowing the Senate right after the wear is too much projecting late Roman politics into Carthage.

 

[Yeiro]

people have the tendency to assume that a victorious Carthage would do the same things as Rome did without taking into account their different natures, Hannibal destroying Rome is the greatest example in my opinion yes they technically could (even if destroying a city as big as Rome probably would be a nightmarish) but it would only left a power vacuum in Italy that very well could put in risk the new Carthaginian allies in Italy but also would deprive then of a common enemy to maintain those allies focused on instead of fighting with one another of trying to overthrow their new Punic overlord

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

people have the tendency to assume that a victorious Carthage would do the same things as Rome did without taking into account their different natures, Hannibal destroying Rome is the greatest example in my opinion yes they technically could (even if destroying a city as big as Rome probably would be a nightmarish) but it would only left a power vacuum in Italy that very well could put in risk the new Carthaginian allies in Italy but also would deprive then of a common enemy to maintain those allies focused on instead of fighting with one another of trying to overthrow their new Punic overlord

I think they would destroy Rome simply because the Romans aren't going to give them another choice, the Romans are ready to fight until the last man and surrendering isn't part of their vocabulary, Hannibal would have no way of reaching a compromised peace deal with the Romans. You're overestimating how much Rome would keep the Italians busy and how likely they are to unite, Rome if it's not destroyed would be completely irrelevant as everything they've done since their creation has been undone and the Italians had been fighting each other for centuries before the Romans came in and at no point were they united.

 

[Yeiro]

I think they would destroy Rome simply because the Romans aren't going to give them another choice, the Romans are ready to fight until the last man and surrendering isn't part of their vocabulary, Hannibal would have no way of reaching a compromised peace deal with the Romans. You're overestimating how much Rome would keep the Italians busy and how likely they are to unite, Rome if it's not destroyed would be completely irrelevant as everything they've done since their creation has been undone and the Italians had been fighting each other for centuries before the Romans came in and at no point were they united.

you are wrong the Romans did have those who wanted to negotiate peace with Carthage it's simply that the warmongers get more support but even Rome has a limit at how much people they are willing to throw to the meat grinder before someone decides is enough the Romans for all it's militarism weren't a hive mind there would be a point at which roman resolve would break is only a question of how long it would take for the Carthaginians to achieve that and how many sacrifices would be necessary

 

[Hastings]

Yeah, in a scenario Rome actually loses, its odds it gets itself leveled are quite good. In terms of the Barcids, Hannibal will be Shophet until he drops dead of old age. But he's not going to crown himself king and has no real motivation to. He is unlikely to need violence to take over the empire de-facto. Barcids in some ways are well positioned for a smooth, graceful transition to de-facto monarchy.

But there is one issue. Barcids do not in the second generation seem to have been exactly prolific. Hannibal married, but none had kids (one later source claims Hannibal did, but lets be real, he either died young or never existed or we’d know). To be fair while Mago and Hasdrubal died in their late 30s that was mostly spent in the Punic War. Though then again marriage alliances are valuable and military campaigns are a constant even without Rome in Barcid Spain. If they die out, then that essentially reverts to Carthage.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

you are wrong the Romans did have those who wanted to negotiate peace with Carthage it's simply that the warmongers get more support but even Rome has a limit at how much people they are willing to throw to the meat grinder before someone decides is enough the Romans for all it's militarism weren't a hive mind there would be a point at which roman resolve would break is only a question of how long it would take for the Carthaginians to achieve that and how many sacrifices would be necessary

Those who want to sign peace are unlikely to come to power until something extremely bad happens and at that point the Romans will probably be already lost and one thing that influences Roman decision making is that those who die are not Romans for the most part, they're Italians so as long as Rome itself isn't sieged or something the warmongers can definitely continue the war.