The Punic Wars

[marcus silanus]

To what extent does everyone feel, were the circumstances that ended the First Punic War, the direct cause of the second conflict? With the mix of loss of territory, reparations, rise of personality cult etc. the parallels with WW1 to WW2 are fairly irresistable and I hope that it is permissable to draw upon them. However, the subject is deep and gripping enough in isolation if the feeling is that the comparisons should be avoided.

[sylla]

To what extent does everyone feel, were the circumstances that ended the First Punic War, the direct cause of the second conflict? With the mix of loss of territory, reparations, rise of personality cult etc. the parallels with WW1 to WW2 are fairly irresistable and I hope that it is permissable to draw upon them. However, the subject is deep and gripping enough in isolation if the feeling is that the comparisons should be avoided.

Comparisons are inherent to the scientific method, even as applied in history and related humanities; after all, humans have always been humans, with more or less the same psychology and motivations. In my humble opinion what we should avoid are general equivalencies among nations and populations from different eras, especially when concepts like national pride and Manichaeism are involved; for example, if we use the wars of the good Greeks against the bad Persians as a precedent and model for the contemporary fight against the Axis of Evil.

Both periods lasted almost a whole generation, the 241-218 BC for the western Mediterranean region and the 1918-1939 for Western Europe. In both cases, the preceding wars were extremely exhausting for the sides involved (XX century war was far more expensive and lethal); the defeated powers retained significant military potential; and they may have considered unfair the imposed peace conditions. However, I find far more differences than similarities, simply too many to be enumerated here. To begin with, we have accounts from both sides for 1918-1939; for 241-218 BC, just from the winners.

In any case, I don't think neither Punic war II nor WWII were unavoidable at all; the "what-if" scenarios are countless. For example: What if Carthage and Rome had become allies for the conquest of Iberia and Gaul? What if Hitler had died from his toxic gas exposure in WWI?

Additionally, under such rationale, as any war can be seen as the consequence of a former conflict, all peace periods would then be "provisional" and the only definitive outcome would be universal conquest or annihilation.

Edited May 10, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salvete amici,

 

If we go into 'what if' scenario's that might be very interesting but of course then there is no end in sight. But I am more interested in the comparisons that can be made between the two, the Punic Wars and WW I & II as they actually happened. The most obvious comparisons I can see myself, but they are very general. I am sure there are many parallels that can be drawn about the reasons for the conflicts, how the one lead to the other and how the wars were actually fought, strategies, tactics and deciding moments. For every parallel that can be drawn, no doubt many differences can be pointed out. It all depends on which ones can be considered relevant and significant and which ones not.

 

As usual, in both cases the history was written by the victors. They impose their view. But in the case of the 20

[Kosmo]

Interesting comparison. The balance of power was not changed much after the first round of wars while inter war actions like the occupation of Ruhr and the taking over of Corsica and Sardinia maintained the animosity.

[sylla]

The Lutatius treaty that ended Punic War I in 241 BC, even after the Senate's revision, was far more balanced than the Versailles and related treaties that ended WWI in 1919; the former would have been more similar to the Armistice of Kaesong in 1953 that ended the Korean War.

 

First of all, the winners were many in 1919, with diverse interests; in 241 BC, Rome was alone.

 

Even after losing Sicily and other islands, the Carthaginian imperialist expansion was allowed in other directions, and not entirely suffocated, like it was the German case in 1919.

 

No restrictions were imposed in the size or weapons of the Carthaginian army or navy, as was the case for Germany.

 

The Carthaginians were forced to pay 1000 talents at once and 2200 talents within ten years (with an additional contribution of 1200 talents in 238 BC); no source questioned that they paid such money, and no long term consequence was evident from doing it so.

By the early XX century, war and its damage were far more expensive; the controversy on the feasibility for the payment of war reparations by the Germans continues to this day, but its crippling on their immediate development is undisputable.

 

Carthage was also forced to return the Roman prisoners (read slaves) without any ransom; however, Rome did exactly the same on their own side.

 

After 1919, the main tendency of the winners was to maintain (or at least delay the softening of) the original clauses; both the Nazi regime and its western opponents at some time considered that this might have contributed to the beginning of WWII.

After 241 BC, the persistent Roman tendency was to revise and harden the previous peace conditions; Sardinia and more money were seized in 238 BC under war threats (in fact, the war was actually decreed by the Roman Senate); in 236, an added clause restricted the Carthaginian expansion up to the river Ebro; Saguntum in 218 BC, the ultimate casus belli, simply filled the measure.

Edited May 11, 2009 by sylla