Carthaginian Senate

[Rameses the Great]

The Carthaginian Senate is somewhat of a mystery to me. Although Carthage is said to be an oriental culture they adopted the Roman method of a Senate. The question is how did it operate? Was it similiar to Rome's or was if just another government differing from Rome? What say did it have in military, taxation, and rule?

[Ursus]

When the Romans talked about other cultures, they were apt to apply their own terms to alien institutions in a desperate attempt to draw parallels. Caesar called the chief policy making body of several Celtic tribes as a "Senate" though we can be assured this is not what the Celtic tribes called their own council, nor did it operate in like manner.

 

 

The Punic government was superficially similar to the Romans insofar as it had two chief magistrates, a council of oligarchic families (the "senate" in question, I suppose), and a lower body of commoners. The Punic "Senate" seems to have been composed of the leading families of the commercial empire that was Carthage. However, a fundamental difference between the Carthaginian and Roman republican government is that the military sphere was separated from the civil.

[Gaius Octavius]

Didn't the Carthaginian 'Senate' recall Hannibal from Italy to defend their city before Scipio?

[Primus Pilus]

Didn't the Carthaginian 'Senate' recall Hannibal from Italy to defend their city before Scipio?

 

Yes, it was considered as Scipio besieged Utica, but they decided instead that the Numidian Syphax would be of more immediate benefit. After this failed, Hannibal was eventually recalled but it was a bit of a "too little, too late" situation. Polybius paints a rather bleak portrait of Hannibal's position in Italy anyway, and his "recall" may be just as easily viewed as an abandonment of his offensive campaign.

 

Polybius, book 15; 1

It seemed almost evident that they ventured to act thus relying on Hannibal and the forces with him. In this confidence they were most ill-advised; for everyone knew quite well, that for the last two years Hannibal and his troops, after abandoning every part of Italy, had fled to the Lacinian promontory, and that, shut in there and almost besieged, they only just succeeded in saving themselves and leaving for Africa

[Gaius Octavius]

P.P., what I was trying to get at is: wouldn't this indicate that the Carthaginian Senate did have at least some 'military' control?

[WotWotius]

I believe that Polybius outlines the trappings of the Carthaginian Senate; however, I cannot seem to find the quote. Does anybody have it handy?

Edited January 2, 2007 by WotWotius

[Primus Pilus]

P.P., what I was trying to get at is: wouldn't this indicate that the Carthaginian Senate did have at least some 'military' control?

 

Yes, agreed, but Hannibal's war was largely an independent action without clear support from the Carthaginian government. Of course, we have no idea whatsoever what the sentiment of the general populace was, but I'd be willing to bet that Hannibal's exploits and defiance of their Roman 'oppressor' were quite popular with the masses.

 

This ties into the passage mentioned by WW. Essentially, Hannibal's war happened because of popular support and military independence rather than that of the aristocracy. According to Polybius, Carthage was in an era of demagoguery similar to that of the late Roman Republic.

 

Polybius book 6; 51 (continues throughout the rest of book 6) Polybius' accuracy in assessing the state of Carthaginian government is debatable, but we don't have a great deal of surviving written evidence to provide alternative opinions.

 

The constitution of Carthage seems to me to have been originally well contrived as regards its most distinctive points. For there were kings, and the house of Elders was an aristocratical force, and the people were supreme in matters proper to them, the entire frame of the state much resembling that of Rome and Sparta. But at the time when they entered on the Hannibalic War, the Carthaginian constitution had degenerated, and that of Rome was better. For as every body or state or action has its natural periods first of growth, then of prime, and finally of decay, and as everything in them is at its best when they are in their prime, it was for this reason that the difference between the two states manifested itself at this time. For by as much as the power and prosperity of Carthage had been earlier than that of Rome, by so much had Carthage already begun to decline; while Rome was exactly at her prime, as far as at least as her system of government was concerned. Consequently the multitude at Carthage had already acquired the chief voice in deliberations; while at Rome the senate still retained this; and hence, as in one case the masses deliberated and in the other the most eminent men, the Roman decisions on public affairs were superior, so that although they met with complete disaster, they were finally by the wisdom of their counsels victorious over the Carthaginians in the war.

 

I suppose in the end we must ask: did the Carthaginian Senate have the authority to "recall" Hannibal, or did he simply acquiesce to the request because it was the prudent thing to do (for both his own state of affairs in Italy and that of Africa)?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Carthage had 2 chief administrative officers , the שופטים , Shophtim , Suffetes . The 2 executed policy decisions that a council of about 30 men made .

The 30 were the most honorable of a council of 300 men , the "Senate" .

Now , if the 30 could not reach a decision they went to the 300 , if the 300 could not reach a decision they went to the "popular assembly" composed of citizens that enjoyed a great deal of freedom of speech in it .

The amazing fact is that the 2 , the 30 and the 300 were elected in the "popular assembly" !

Beside these 4 political bodies they had a council of 104 chosen from the 300 by a board of five elected magistrates . The 104 had the judicial authority .

The Suffetes were not the commanders of the army , the last were elected in the "popular assembly" and acted under the 30 (or 300 or the "popular assembly" as above) orders .

[Rameses the Great]

Did the Carthaginians have a motive to form a republic? We know that their main goal was to have successful comercial industries but why did they not adopt their motherland Phoenicia's way of dealing with it? What would cause them not to become a republic and not an empire?

 

Also where did Carthage get this method from? The Greeks or just an old tradition?

[Primus Pilus]

From Aristotle:

 

The Constitution of Carthage (c. 340 BC)