Carthage!

[History Guy]

On religion? Oh yes, they were bad. They were very bad.

Remember how they would pass their babies through the flames for their bud Moloch? Remember how they'd toss women off tall buildings in sacrifice? The stuff that they'd do with infants was monstrous. Remember that one of the ways that the Roman leaders persuaded their men not to retreat in the face of Hannibal was to say to them: "Why should we run from these baby killers?"

[SABRA]

It's a bit sad that Firaxis has not put more abilities in the game . Lets hope there are some new ones in Play The World .

[TexasPride]

Well I personnally think that Firaxis is gonna give 'em commercial and militaristic. As for the UU, I'm thinkin' (based on prevoius stuff they've done) that they're most definately gonna give 'e the war elephant. It's a big part of what Hannible is famous for (whether it was his brother doesn't necessarily matter), marchin' elephants over the Alps.

A note on the Greeks: I've always thought the Hoplite was a good choice for thier UU. They were the only ones who could work that right. (The only reason Rome beat them was because the formation is extremely susceptible to flank attacks. The way I understand it is that there was a battle (I don't know where as I'm not that much of an ancient history buff) in which the Greeks were winning until they attacked and thier lines were movin down a hill in two seperate directions drivin the Romans all the way till some Roman Legionair saw that thier lines had separated in the middle in order to continue pushin them back and led his troops in breaking the Greek Lines. ) All the other nations of the time couldn't get thier men to stand and fight like that, there just wasn't the discipline. As for thier navies, yea they had sum spectacular victories but my understanding has been it was because of superior tactics. Just my $.02 worth on that.

[GeneralTacticus]

Elephants?? Hannibal defeated Roman armies with special swordsmen, mostly.

There was nothing special about Hannibal's troops. Many of them were actually quite substandard, until they got more experienced. The way Hannibal won against the Romans was simply because he was a better general.

[Firebird]

Originally posted by History Guy
On religion? Oh yes, they were bad. They were very bad.

Remember how they would pass their babies through the flames for their bud Moloch? Remember how they'd toss women off tall buildings in sacrifice? The stuff that they'd do with infants was monstrous. Remember that one of the ways that the Roman leaders persuaded their men not to retreat in the face of Hannibal was to say to them: "Why should we run from these baby killers?"

I don't know that much about the real Carthage, but shouldn't one be careful in judging them for what their enemy said (one might be able to, but care is needed). Furthermore in judging them by todays moral standards one might also compare them to there time. Rome wasn't excactly free of monstrous deeds either: Carthage got totally destroyed when Rome won the final war. The Roman gladiator-"games" was also a very brutal show without respect for life.

Not that any of this makes gladiator-fights or baby-killing right, but it just shows that there are more than one dimension to history.

[Hagbart]

Why is Carthage your favourite civ? That's strange. Are you from the area?

[Hagbart]

sorry double post

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Hagbart
Why is Carthage your favourite civ? That's strange. Are you from the area?

Why is that so strange? There are many people who rather play "exotic" civs (aztecs, baylonians...) than the boring country they come from (if it is in the game).

Thank god Germany isn't boring...

[Palaiologos]

The battle that texaspride is reffering to,is the battle of CynosCephalae(Dog's heads) in 198Bc.The Macedonian army, under King Philip V faced a larger allied army of Romans and Aetolians(a Greek people) which included 20 elephants.

A preliminary mercenary skirmish evolved into a full-scale battle, and while the Romans where victorious on the right flank with the assistance of the elephants,their left flank was on the verge of collapsing.Then a Roman tribune who history has not named,led six maniples(a Roman tactical formation) on his own initiative from the victorious right flank to the rear of the untill then victorious Macedonian right.Seeing all hope was lost the phalangites raised thier pikes in surrender but the uncomprehending Romans cut them down.5000 dead and 8000 prisoners on the Macedonian side while only 700-1000(not counting the Aetolians) to the Romans.

The final showdown with the Roman Empire however came 31 years later , at the Battle of Pydna where the last descendant of the Alexandrian army was crushed.

The Macedonian army in Alexander's times would never have suffered such defeats.it was an extremely mobile and flexible forces relying on combined arms and not on heavy infantry alone.In Greece the tendency was to heavier arms and armour and as a result to less mobility.
The army that had conquered the known world reverted
to the immobile tactics of classical Greece and when they faced a more mobile foe at Cynoscephalae ,the phalangites were not even able to turn arround and protect themselves.

[Firebird]

Thanks Palaiologos.

One of the things I like about these civ3-forums is you get a lot of interresting pieces of history and often with many view-points. Better than history-lessons in my school-days actually

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Nikolai


Actually, they were quite civilized and weren't so bad as we use to think. Their only problem is, that the only sources we have, is Roman...

True!!

But I thought they also used to throw babies in fires, and old custom from Phoenicia. Worshipping Ba'al, consort of Tanit.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Caliban


Why is that so strange? There are many people who rather play "exotic" civs (aztecs, baylonians...) than the boring country they come from (if it is in the game).

Thank god Germany isn't boring...

But why of all civs choose Carthage?
He probably likes Elephants.

I like 'exotic' civs too, and I never play my homecountry. To me Carthage seems to be the strangest civ to choose as a favourite. Rome or Egypt I could understand.

No offence to Carthage fans.

[Palaiologos]

Actually i have made two errors, Firebird.The battle took place in 197Bc,and hence Pydna came 29 years later in 168Bc , and the Roman tribune led 20 maniples in the Macedonian rear, and not six that i have mentioned.

Thanks for your good words anyway.

[Fighter]

Well, to explain my fascination with Carthage, I like the underdogs. I also like the audacious leaders, also explaining why I like the US Civil War. Hannibal marched to the gates of Rome unnoposed, and no one was their to defend Rome, he then marched through rome and continued running accross the country side burning and pillaging as he went. It was a clash of the titans, had Carthage one, they would have formed the next great empire, unfortunately they lost and Rome got that honour.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Fighter
Well, to explain my fascination with Carthage, I like the underdogs. I also like the audacious leaders, also explaining why I like the US Civil War. Hannibal marched to the gates of Rome unnoposed, and no one was their to defend Rome, he then marched through rome and continued running accross the country side burning and pillaging as he went. It was a clash of the titans, had Carthage one, they would have formed the next great empire, unfortunately they lost and Rome got that honour.

It was not like they lost because of bad luck, Rome had a much bigger empire. And I'm kind of happy that Rome won or else we wouldn't be here today.
But I like the story of Hannibal and those elephants too.