Why do Nations fail?

[Thanas]

Now, My other contention I stand by, and that is that an Independent Carthage would probably do better due to fighting for their own city on their own soil instead of being dependent on a distant Constantinople that had it's own problems fending off Arab attacks around the same time.

You really think the people who lived there for 700 years did not fight on their own soil? And Constantinople was the only thing that kept Carthage from falling earlier, what with their constant and massive reinforcements being sent.

[cmdrjones]

Now, My other contention I stand by, and that is that an Independent Carthage would probably do better due to fighting for their own city on their own soil instead of being dependent on a distant Constantinople that had it's own problems fending off Arab attacks around the same time.

You really think the people who lived there for 700 years did not fight on their own soil? And Constantinople was the only thing that kept Carthage from falling earlier, what with their constant and massive reinforcements being sent.

No, just that they weren't Carthaginians in any meaningful sense, they were provincial Byzantines/romans

[Thanas]

No, just that they weren't Carthaginians in any meaningful sense, they were provincial Byzantines/romans

This is getting stupider by the second. Is there some +20 roll on being Carthaginean? Because if so, you better explain why they were unable to defeat any civilized power of their day.

[cmdrjones]

No, just that they weren't Carthaginians in any meaningful sense, they were provincial Byzantines/romans

This is getting stupider by the second. Is there some +20 roll on being Carthaginean? Because if so, you better explain why they were unable to defeat any civilized power of their day.

Easy: they had Rome as a neighbor.
Sort of like almost every country having, say, a German land border in the 19th-20th centuries?

[Thanas]

Easy: they had Rome as a neighbor.
Sort of like almost every country having, say, a German land border in the 19th-20th centuries?

BS. They had Egypt and the Greek states to the east and Syracus in the north at the start. They failed to win against those nations. The Romans only entered the picture a hundred years later.

[Metahive]

cmdrjones, are you one of those people who thinks that history operated by video game logic? That the Total War or Civilization series accurately reflect real life? Because that's increasingly the idea I get from your posts.

[cmdrjones]

Easy: they had Rome as a neighbor.
Sort of like almost every country having, say, a German land border in the 19th-20th centuries?

BS. They had Egypt and the Greek states to the east and Syracus in the north at the start. They failed to win against those nations. The Romans only entered the picture a hundred years later.

The Greeks and Syracusans burned Carthage to the ground?
I admit, Carthage isn't my cup of tea, it's yours, but I thought they were primarily a mercantile power and didn't generally seek to invade everybody nearby. Egypt and carthage didn't have much in the way of competing spheres of influence. The Egyptians generally sought to control cyrenaica and make sure nobody invaded from the south or through the sinai. I don't remember them being involved with Sicily or other islands in the west/central med.

[cmdrjones]

cmdrjones, are you one of those people who thinks that history operated by video game logic? That the Total War or Civilization series accurately reflect real life? Because that's increasingly the idea I get from your posts.

No, not really. Though I thought they were interesting in a way.

Play a lot of video games do you?

[Thanas]

Easy: they had Rome as a neighbor.
Sort of like almost every country having, say, a German land border in the 19th-20th centuries?

BS. They had Egypt and the Greek states to the east and Syracus in the north at the start. They failed to win against those nations. The Romans only entered the picture a hundred years later.

The Greeks and Syracusans burned Carthage to the ground?

No but they stopped Carthaginean expansion into the south and east, which is why the Carthagineans expanded northwards.

I admit, Carthage isn't my cup of tea, it's yours, but I thought they were primarily a mercantile power and didn't generally seek to invade everybody nearby.

That is wrong. Like any ancient nation, they invaded what they could. How else do you think they got control of southern Hispania?

Egypt and carthage didn't have much in the way of competing spheres of influence. The Egyptians generally sought to control cyrenaica and make sure nobody invaded from the south or through the sinai. I don't remember them being involved with Sicily or other islands in the west/central med.

Carthage was heavily involved in all those areas. And don't view Egypt just as Egypt proper - at this time they held Cyprus, Crete (at times) and the whole Levant - all key trade routes for Carthage.

[Welf]

You really think the people who lived there for 700 years did not fight on their own soil? And Constantinople was the only thing that kept Carthage from falling earlier, what with their constant and massive reinforcements being sent.

Here I'm talking from memory, but I remember someone claiming the Muslim conquest was helped by sectarian divisions within Byzanz. I think it claimed there were different movements in Syria and north Africa. I think it referred to Manichaeism, but I have no idea how influential this was.

[Thanas]

You really think the people who lived there for 700 years did not fight on their own soil? And Constantinople was the only thing that kept Carthage from falling earlier, what with their constant and massive reinforcements being sent.

Here I'm talking from memory, but I remember someone claiming the Muslim conquest was helped by sectarian divisions within Byzanz. I think it claimed there were different movements in Syria and north Africa. I think it referred to Manichaeism, but I have no idea how influential this was.

This is talking about the various Christian sects in Syria mostly, like Paulicans and Jews. The Byzantines moved against most of those sects with violence, which limited their overall potential as those regions were of course hard hit by war.

But that being said, even a weakened empire is still stronger than just a single city and a bit surrounding territories.

[cmdrjones]

BS. They had Egypt and the Greek states to the east and Syracus in the north at the start. They failed to win against those nations. The Romans only entered the picture a hundred years later.

No but they stopped Carthaginean expansion into the south and east, which is why the Carthagineans expanded northwards.

That is wrong. Like any ancient nation, they invaded what they could. How else do you think they got control of southern Hispania?

Their movement into southern Hispania was in reaction to their loss in the 1st punic war if memory serves. Good point about the Levant, that would have been a bone of contention between them being that the city states in that region were most likely the source of Carthage's early settlers. Taking that from Egypt would have given Carthage significant economic power and the ability to box the Egyptians in.

[Thanas]

Their movement into southern Hispania was in reaction to their loss in the 1st punic war if memory serves.

Depends, their ties into that region were very old. But even if we go by that theory that just proves my point. They couldn't hang with the other great powers so they moved into less-civilized regions where they met less resistance.

Good point about the Levant, that would have been a bone of contention between them being that the city states in that region were most likely the source of Carthage's early settlers. Taking that from Egypt would have given Carthage significant economic power and the ability to box the Egyptians in.

But they could not. You wank Carthage to levels of power they never achieved in real life and never would have because their organization, resources and population never amounted to what others did. Without having lucked into the greatest General of his time Carthage would be done already. I mean, Carthage contending with the states of the Levant is not even remotely in the real of possibility.

[Panzersharkcat]

You really think the people who lived there for 700 years did not fight on their own soil? And Constantinople was the only thing that kept Carthage from falling earlier, what with their constant and massive reinforcements being sent.

Here I'm talking from memory, but I remember someone claiming the Muslim conquest was helped by sectarian divisions within Byzanz. I think it claimed there were different movements in Syria and north Africa. I think it referred to Manichaeism, but I have no idea how influential this was.

To my knowledge, and I could very well be wrong, the Manicheans were mostly in Sassanid territory. The Nestorians, who were pushed into Sassanid territory as well and fragmented from the main Orthodox church to become the Assyrian Church of the East, and later the Monophysites were more influential. The latter was particularly difficult to suppress/integrate, despite the efforts of emperors like Justinian I and Heraclius.