By win, I don't mean march to Rome like Hannibal did. At this point, though economically prosperous and militarily recovering, Carthage had no ability to do that anymore without a land link through Iberia and due to the Numidians. What I mean by 'win' is repel all Roman invasions of Africa thereby preserving their independence but also pressing their claims against Numidia and recovering lost territories in the region. IOTL, the truce brokered at the Battle of Oroscopa allowed the Numidians to fortify which destroyed all the momentum the Carthaginians had under Hasdrubal, so let's say the truce doesn't happen and Carthage wins the battle, decapitating the Numidian royalty and installing Asassis as King of Numidia, recovering the Algerian Coast and Numidian Libyan Coast. After that, what could Carthage do to repel all Roman invasions (which were frankly in disrepute with the very treaty of 201 BCE that the Romans themselves dictated)? What would be the effects of Carthage doing this? Yes, I am very much looking at a underdog scenario with this question. A victory at Oroscopa could also prevent Utica from defecting, giving no landing point to Rome.
Carthage 'wins' the Third Punic War
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
Simply winning at Oroscopa lets Carthage focus more on the incoming Roman hammer... but they need to find a way to prevent Rome to crush it, so unless something convenient happens or a military genius keeps Carthage resisting, it just ends similar to OTL.
I think without Utica joining in, the Carthaginians could repel the first invasion at least. The defection destroyed the plans of Hasdrubal Boetharch. The Celtiberians under Viriathus also sent emissaries to Carthage but were captured on the way. If they weren't and the Iberian rebellion grew larger in support of Carthage, then problems logistically for Rome would increase. As it was the remaining Greek States also were contemplating an alliance with Carthage, but decided against it when Utica defected IOTL.
I think they could have won the first and second but not the third. But if Hannibal wins the second, it would possibly create a split between Carthage and the Barcids in Spain and their Celtic and non-Roman Italian allies. Read the novel Salammbo sometime by the author of Madame Bovary. Its a bloody epic historical novel about the revolt of the mercenaries in Carthage that occurred when they could not pay them after the First Punic War.
I think the realistic goal here is to preserve Carthage instead of having it annihilated wholesale by the Romans; To be frank, Rome at this point is a force that isn't exactly stoppable, most certainly not by a rump Carthage, so a military victory would be temporary at best.
Maybe the Carthaginians are able to put up enough of a fight to where Rome, not wishing to continue spilling blood over the beaten city, negotiates with them to make Carthage a client state a la Pontus? Would Roman sensibilities even permit that? My understanding is that they often had the attitude that Carolus Rex had; to not make peace except by the defeat and unconditional surrender of their enemies.
I don't know. Not exactly an expert.
Hm, would the support of Ptolemy VI help? IOTL, he tried to arbitrate and was irritated by the Roman diplomat's rudeness. Ptolemy VIII also regularly rebelled in Cyrenaica with Roman aide, so if he tried to rebel again in around ~149 BC Ptolemy VI could escalate the diplomatic and trade tensions between Egypt and Rome by declaring for Carthage. Carthage and the Ptolemids had been rivals in a North African cold war prior to the Second Punic War but after it were pretty good friends afterwards. He sent around 6,000 mercenaries to aid Carthage IOTL from Nubia and Upper Egypt.
Hmm.
Alright, here's an idea.
Doing some reading about the war, I have gathered that initially, the campaign against Carthage was actually rather unsuccessful; the Romans suffered a couple defeats, some of which were very close calls..
Mayhaps one of those close calls turns into a disaster. At the first battle of Nepheris, the Romans foolishly launched an attack against a well-positioned, fortified Carthaginian camp, and after experiencing a bit of early success they found themselves in a worrisome position, made even worse by heavy casualties lost in an attempt to retire; Historically, they eventually were able to extricate themselves thanks to a number of cavalry charges lead by Scipio Aemilianus. Perhaps, in one of these charges (ideally the first) he catches a javelin, and his horsemen lose heart, fleeing the field and leaving the infantry to get butchered in a Cannae-esque disaster?
After this, the Roman campaign would obviously fall apart, and the Carthaginians could retake Utica, solidifying their position. As Rome begins working on preparing an immense punitive expedition, in steps Philometor, feeling opportunistic and a bit peeved at the incessant Roman support for his brother. He extends another offer to arbitrate, this time with a subtle indication that if they refuse he might intervene with his great fleet, a prospect most unpalatable for the Romans, who are licking their wounds. He manages to convince them, in this arbitration, to make peace; To satisfy Roman honour, he negotiates the return of the lost legionary eagles & any captured prisoners, not to mention a Carthaginian declaration of submission, making them a client state in effect. He also is designated the guarantor of Carthaginian autonomy, to ensure that the Romans don't just turn around and annex them entirely.
With Cato the Elder's interminable ass dead, and many Roman senators possibly interested in an honourable withdrawal from the increasingly-costly war, I reckon they might accept..? I don't know. Like I said, I'm not exactly an expert.
Thoughts?
Yes. Before Scipio Aemilianus took over, the Roman handling of the war was basically one big bungling.
The best chance in my opinion for a Cannae esque disaster for Rome would be if the 25,000 strong garrison of Utica didn't surrender meekly and attacked the Romans immediately. They had another 30,000 just outside the walls, and the 70,000 disorganized and still docking Romans would have their backs against the Ocean so that their numbers would useless. There would be a good chance to wipe out the entire first invasion in such a scenario.
I don't Think Rome would just accept that lying down without a military defeat. I think that a Second Roman landing nearby like Neapolis or in Aspis followed by a Roman Navy wipeout by the Ptolemaics with the Carthaginians pushing their advantage by wiping out the second invasion would ensure Roman compliance instead.
The problem is however that already since the Laenas - Antiochus V showdown in front of Alexandria in 167 BC, the Ptolemaic realm has fallen to a large extent in the Roman sphere of influence. There was also the ever-present threat of Ptolemy Physkon, his brother, who was , in 149 BC, twice defeated in civil wars against Ptolemy VI and left to rule Cyrenaica under the close supervision of his brother, but still retained his ambition to sit on the throne; furthermore, he has most likely maintained good relations with the Romans - who had helped him in 155 BC in his unsuccessful attempt to capture Cyprus and who had received his will that bequeathed his territories to Rome if he died without an heir rather favourably. Then there is the unstable situation in Syria, where Alexander Valas is doing his best to piss off everyone and the Seleucid realm is disintegrating; Ptolemy would have to pay attention there, for Demetrius, the son of Demetrius I is still alive and plotting to return and the situation can allow Alexandria to reclaim Coele Syria.
So I think it would be very hard for Ptolemy VI to risk that much; it would probably take a very hostile Rome, especially towards him and a Rome which can't exactly intervene in the East, especially east of the Aegean. This could be achieved perhaps if the Romans had been overbearing in the late 150s BC., perhaps pressuring Ptolemy VI to accept Physkon as his co-ruler instead of designating him a subordinate king in Cyrenaica. Constant Roman meddling in that period, perhaps the result of Physkon maintaining his infleunce on the Senate, which may be considering the rather incompetent Physkon a better candidate for the throne than his more energetic and potentially independent-minded brother (similar to the plans to place Valas on the Seleucid throne) could perhaps, over time, push Ptolemy VI more and more to a - still concealed - anti-Roman stance. The outbreak of the Punic War then splits the Alexandrian court, as Philometor (Ptolemy VI) is leaning towards covertly supporting Carthage for he fears that without that distraction, Rome will soon turn its full attention to the East, threatening his position and even his life, while Physkon, ever the Romanophile, wants to actually enter the war on the side of Rome. Perhaps after the first reversals in Africa, with the Roman attacks repelled, the Romans decide to try to draw the Ptolemies in the conflict, by having them cut all ties with Carthage, provide bases for the Roman fleet and perhaps even join the war. Philometor's visible unwillingness to accept these request, especially the war on Carthage, makes the Romans very suspicious about his intentions and they start perhaps to prepare the ground to make Physkon king. In this case, they try perhaps to have the newly crowned Alexander I of Syria, who owes his throne on Roman support, to support Physkon in a bid for the throne. After an alleged attempt on his life, Physkon suddenly absconds and heads to Cyrenaica where he starts to raise a mercenary army in order to be able to join Valas on his operations and force his brother to fight on two fronts.
However, the plan unravels when the Jews, under the command of Simon Maccabee ambush the Seleucid army and inflict heavy losses, forcing Alexander to retreat and abandon the campaign, allowing Philometor to defeat his brother before his preparations were completed (and ordering his execution in order to end the incessant trouble coming from him, despite the strong protestations of the Romans). The defeat discredits Alexander Valas, as the kingdom starts disintegrating and soon afterwards, the son of Demetrius I, now Demetrius II returns from Cnidus at the head of a mercenary army. Alexander's position seems to be seriously enadangered; however, the prospect of the son of Demetrius becoming king and potentially resuming the policies of his father as well as losing influence in the Seleucid kingdom worry two of the main pro-Roman forces in Asia Minor, Pergamos and Cappadocia, leading Attalus II and Ariarathes V to intervene in the conflict on side of Valas. With Pergamenese and Cappadocian support, Valas manages to defeat Demetrius, who dies shortly afterwards, perhaps by the hands of his mercenary commanders. Thus Alexander I has secured his position, but only temporarily so, for Ptolemy VI has turned his attention to Syria, realising that Valas is no longer a friend of the Ptolemaic dynasty and a real threat to his rule. Exploiting the resentment created by Valas' continuous persecution of real or alleged supporters of Demetrius II and his mismanagement, in the spring of 148 BC. he marches north. With his army disintegrating and senior generals of his abandonign him and joining the ranks of the Ptolemaic army, Valas initially retreats to Cilicia, attempting to raise a new army and march on Antioch. However, his calls for help are returned unanswered, as Attalus II has to deal with the dynastic problems in Bithynia and Ariarathes, considering him all but done, remains neutral; soon, he is besieged by Ptolemaic forces in Mopsuestia, dying in an attempt to break through the enemy lines.
With this, Ptolemy VI is left in control of the Seleucid kingdom and he starts trying to settle the affairs there in a manner that would serve his interests. His main objective is to be able to reclaim Coele Syria from the Seleucids and place a dependable figure on the throne; however, there is growing pressure for him to wear the "diadem of Asia" for himself and claim control of the Seleucid patrimony. The Roman Senate is vehemently opposed to this and requests that Ptolemy not take the crown and instead recognise the young brother of Demetrius II, Antiochus (Sidetes) as king. Ptolemy however is unwilling to abandon his favourable position before securing guarantees for his kingdom's and his own safety. Interpreting this as a wish to repeat Antiochus IV's plan and unite the two kingdoms under Ptolemaic rule, the Senate preemptively recognises Antiochus as Antiochus VII and orders Ptolemy to withdraw. However, this time, with Rome still not havig dealt a decisive blow on Carthage, dealing with rebellion in Spain and with Greece nearing a state of insurrection, Ptolemy decides not to back down, thus leading the Senate to declare war on him.
Tbh, I don't think this is a very plausible scenario. Being potentially overstretched, the Romans would probably not go too hard on Ptolemy VI and they would probably accept a deal where Coele Syria returns to the Ptolemies with Antiochus VII ruling over the rest of the Seleucid territories and being controlled by the Senate in order to prevent a potential conflaguration with Egypt at the time. But, at least according to me, it is perhaps the best way to get Ptolemy VI at war with Egypt and in a position where he can perhaps pose a credible threat and try to actively help Carthage if possible.
(I hope I didn't make any mistakes)