Talk:Carthage/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Updated chronology
The date of Carthage's foundation is crucial for the chronology of the whole ancient world. The editor of this article has found four different dates in four books on the same bookshelf, in a library of a Brazilian university. They are ranging between 900 to 800 BCE, mainly round figures, indicating approximate dates. The alleged traditional foundation of Carthage took place in 814 BCE. This may come from a misunderstanding, a relative date before Rome's foundation. This is actually the birthdate of Cartage's constitution, according to Cicero, The Republic, II, XVII-XXX.
Iulius Solinus, a Roman historian recorded that the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE took place after 737 years of its existence, Carthago post annos 737 quam fuerat extructa exciditur. Also see Reese's Cyclopaedia under Carthage, or Rollin's Ancient History Volume I, Rollin's Roman History, Volumes III-V, or Ancient Universal History, Volumes XV-XVI. The date 146 BCE is not debated by any scholar. Therefore, reckoning with 737 full years, Carthage was founded in 883 or 884 BCE. Josephus Flavius Contra Apionem (Against Apion), Book I, 17-18 contains an important list of Phoenician rulers, including some high priests of Baal. One can read the complete text at the On-line Library of www.google.com as well.
Josephus Flavius tells that the whole time from the reign of Hirom (Hiram), till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of 155 years and 8 months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months. The substracting of Josephus works well, at least in this simple exercise. This sort of confirmation may indicate the possibility that he has got the total as a first-hand information, and the reader should not be bothered if other details of the list would not add up so perfectly. According to this, King Solomon started to build the temple in 1029 BCE, probably at the beginning of the 12th year after Hiram's accession. Hiram reigned 34 years (1040-1006 BCE), and died at the age of 53. Therefore, he was still alive twenty years after the beginning of Solomon's fourth year, and 1 Kings 9: 10-14 is right. The above list of Josephus confirms that Carthage was founded, or perhaps re-founded and enlarged, in 883 or 884 BCE. This took place in the seventh year after Pygmalion's accession, by his escaping sister Elissa, as Josephus tells. His father Mettinus (Matgenus or Mutgo, the priest of Baal, who is Mattan in 2 Kings 11: 18) and Queen Athaliah were slain in 891 or 890 BCE. Therefore, the Bible and the non-Christian Josephus who has cited these from Dius and Menander of Ephesus, agree accurately. Josephus, Wars VI, X.1 claims that David settled in Jerusalem 477 years and 6 months before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. The latter date is traditionally 587 BCE, therefore Josephus has placed that event at the beginning of 1064 BCE. It is well-known that, after this, David was king for 33 years in Jerusalem, till 1031. (Before his death, he appointed Solomon as king in 1032 BCE.) Returning to the chronology of Carthage, Greek authors like Theophylus, Menander and others give slightly different regnal years for some rulers. Those numbers combined with the figures of Josephus Flavius may add up to form an accurate Phoenician chronology.
A masterpiece entitled Ogygia of O'Flaherty (1685: 83-85) correctly lists several key dates of world history. From the Fall of Troy, or Troja excisae (2767 Anno Mundi) to the Milesian (Gaidelic) conquest (A.M. 2934) we can calculate 167 years of difference, so they correspond to 1183/2 and 1016/5 BCE, accordingly. From the latter he claims 133 years to Carthage's reconstruction, and 263 years to Varro's date for the foundation of Rome. Also, 1016 less 133 years yield 883 again, and 1016 minus 263 years give us the traditional 753 BCE. Considering all these, the foundation of Carthage can be placed in 883 BCE. Many modern authorities do not accept any data that had originated from antique Jewish sources or historians regarding Old Testament times, claiming that all their records are false. The present editor cannot accept their views, and believes that most of those Jewish historical information is true and correct, providing an important framework to supoport Phoenician chronology.
Salting of Carthage by the Romans
Is the story about salting the land around Carthage true? I have also read that is more of a legend than truth...they actually just threw a handful of salt on the ground to symbolize that no one would be allowed to live there after it was destroyed. (Now I'll have to see if I can find where I read that...) Adam Bishop 00:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Adam: I should know better than that, too. Guess I got a little caught up in describing the destruction of Carthage. I'm removing the reference.
Also, I haven't had time (and probably won't for several days) to cull the important events referenced in this article onto the various pages for individual years. If someone else wants to grab that task, I'd be grateful. Justin Bacon
- I have no reference about it but it's not impossible after all lake Tunis is a salt lake and it's not that far.
- Ericd 10:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- The case, for me, is made not so much on the impossibility of the act (the argument that "the Romans wouldn't do it because salt was precious"), but on the fact that no ancient source for the salting has ever been found. A very strong case has been made that the entire incident can be traced back to a history text from the late 19th century, and has been propagated from there ever since. The fact that a new city was established in essentially the exact same location only a little while later (and then designated the capital of Roman Africa) also suggests that the land was not permanently ruined. :Justin Bacon 16:53, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have no special skills in history. If there is no source before the 19th is probably mythical. For what I know about the geography the region I think is that the economic argument as presented on that page [[1]] is a wrong view. The only valid question to see if that was possible is how many people, how many chariots and how many time to carry free salt from lake Tunis ? You know there is an article Salting the earth maybe we could incorporate this debate in ? Ericd 06:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sack of Carthage
I came to this article looking for a description of the popular phrase "sack of Carthage". I've managed to understand, from other sources, that this happened in 146 BC. Is this accurate? Should this be put in the article to help the casual reader/researcher? Kevininspace 14 Nov 2005
- If you can cite a source, you should add it. Be sure to add the citation, though. Throbblefoot 03:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Incoherence
In the first section, Hanno is said to have sailed down to Sierra Leone, while the third section says he may have passed the Cape of Good Hope. Which one is correct?
Scipio Africanus Minor??
It was Scipio Aemilianus who destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War, not Scipio Africanus Minor who had died in 182 BC--Mike Spalding 04:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Scipio Africanus Minor!!
In the above question the Scipio who conquered Hannibal and died in 183 BCE is Publius Cornelius Scipio who was given the name Africanus for his defeat of Hannibal and Carthage and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Major. In 146 BCE Carthage was utterly desrtroyed by the Romans led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus who was given the name Africanus and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Minor to distinguish him from his adoptive grandfather Scipio Africanus (Major).
Fathers of international commerce
I don't know much about Carthage and I frankly am not that much interested in it, prefering the Etruscans and the Greeks (who were both having more peaceful relations with Carthage than we normally realise) , but it seemed totally insane to have an article on Carthaginians without any mention of the nature of their commerce and the image and presence they had in antiquity as traders. All the existing sections portrayed them as warriors and baby-killers. Yes, yes, the punic wars are crucial historical events, but they were based on commercial rivalries. The commerce section should be much bigger. In fact there could be two or three: One for their maritime commerce, one for their land based trade routes in North Africa, etc etc. I placed the "general" sections before the chronological ones because having them at the bottom, as was the case previously, made it look as if they dealt with the Roman Carthage, which was a radically different place! --AlainV 02:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hanno the Navigator and Cape of Good Hope
I removed the fact that Hanno the Navigator reached Cape of Good Hope. That doesn't seem plausible, and isn't mentioned in the Hanno the navigator article. Thue | talk 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
what ever happened to Carthage, anyway?
Completely ignorant about Carthage, I wondered why there isn't a city there now. The article implies that the *ruins* of Carthage are a tourist attraction, but it never explains how the city was finally destroyed. Could someone please expand upon the "finally overrun by the rising forces of Islam" assertion? Thanks, Throbblefoot 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The basic reason is that the Arabs founded the city of Kairouan to the south (which soon became the main African city of the Arab Caliphate), rather than building up or rebulding Carthage. AnonMoos
I think it was destroyed by the Romans
-
- Then you would likely benefit from reading this article in its entirety. Throbblefoot 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Recent anonymous changes
Recently an anonymous IP address added the following:
- Carthage's government was originally a despotist monarchy, but after several dynasties the government turned into a republic. The highest rank was the tyrant, a word probably originating from the Phoenecian capital, Tyre, from which Carthage came, a rank much like that of the Consul, or less similar to the rank of President. The tyrant was elected from the Council of Elders, a legislature much like that of Rome's Senate. The Council of Elders were elected from the Carthaginian populace, and they were gifted much power, also the right to elect the Tyrant. The Tyrant would usually be a succesful military leader, however if accused of inspiring revolt to become king, would be crucified (The Carthaginians practiced crucifiction on many of its criminals, unsuccesful generals and rebels). They could also deny the proclomations of a tyrant, the first initial form of veto.
I'm not a Carthaginian expert, but the introduction of an obviously spurious folk etymology for tyrant -- that's a Greek word, not derived from Tyre, and if it's used in reference to a Carthaginian office, I'm sure its a translation, not an actual Phonician word -- makes me suspect the whole thing. Hopefully more knoweldgeable ppl than I can judge how much of this is correct and how much is BS. --Jfruh 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt I qualify as an expert either, but I'd say you made the right call. The passage is somewhat incoherent and littered with misspellings on top of the dubiousness of its content. Greek τυραννος was originally borrowed from a non-Greek language. There are competing candidates, but I've never seen it linked to the name of Tyre. Moreover, though the Greek term lacked the obligatory negative sense of the modern “tyrant,” it always as far as I know carried the sense of a ruler whose authority was both unrestrained and an interruption to the normal order, so this Anonymous' description of the office makes no sense. The worst thing about the passage, though, is that it was written over good, solid information -- including the actual Phoenician word ŠPṬ (שפט). --Americist 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's nonsense. Tyrant was a Greek term roughly meaning "autocrat", someone given (or assuming) complete power for a period of time, without the perjorative connotation attached to "dictator" today. A tyrant could be voted in, or out, at need. (Or killed, at need...) Trekphiler 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
In 149 B.C., it was learned that the local Carthaginian government was attempting to regain influence and power in the local area. Rome did not want to give them that opportunity so they responded by sending Scipio Aemilianus, adopted son of Scipio, with an army over to North Africa to lay siege to the city of Carthage. The men stayed behind to fight off the oncoming attack while the women and children attempted to evacuate. The men were slaughtered and most of the women and children were sold into slavery by the Romans. They proceeded to destroy the city's many monuements, statues, and buildings and burned the city to the ground. They poured salt upon the ashes of the city so that nothing would grow for a long, long time.
Minor changes
I have made some minor changes, as far as my knowledge goes of Carthage and it's history. As to the foundation in 814 BC I have left that as there is no definite knowledge of when and how the city was founded. The Roman destruction of the city was quite thorough. Also other Punic cities in the west have changed very much under the constructions of the Romans. I notice there is a lot of myth taken for historical truth: remember always that the Roman and Greek writers are of later times and are not very much interested in telling the truth about the Carthaginians. Only archaeological research can prove what was true or not, and even that is very difficult. Sardinia84.84.220.60 13:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Timbert
Timbert,
I am reintroducing the bit about Carthaginians having reached as far as Sierra Leone/Nigeria. There are good reasons for believing they did:
1) One nautical account from Carthage describes seeing a coastal volcano, which was not otherwise to be found anywhere along the African coast within closer reach of Carthage westward.
2) Another account is given of the local fauna, including an encounter with gorillas (a name given by the Carthaginians). A gorilla skin was taken and adorned the wall above the Carthaginian throne for many years.
Perhaps you have reason to question the arrival of Carthaginians in West Africa, but you didn't present them. Please do so, or let the entry stand.
--Philopedia 13:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Canaan
This article does not adequately describe the role Carthage played within the Phoenician nation. For instance, Tyre and Phoenicia went into decline around the middle of the seventh century B.C after incurring the hostility of Assyria, Carthage took control of the colonies and trade for herself. From this point onwards this article implies that in that transition Carthage became a distinct nation comprised of previously Phoenecian city-states. So - when this article discusses the expansion of Carthaginian trade, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as the expansion of the Phoenician trade? This is assuming you believe that Phoenicia describes a political body as opposed to the geographic entity on the Levant. Nudas veritas 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well if you want to emphasise that Carthage took control of an already-extant Phoenician trade network in the Western Mediterranean, of which they were themselves a part, I think that would be fine. I'm not sure what you mean by "believe that Phoenicia describes a political body", though. The Phoenicians were a cultural grouping that started in Phoenicia and planted colonies throughout the Mediterranean—much like the ancient Greeks, though ultimately less successfully. Colonies certainly retained strong cultural ties to their mother cities, and the oldest and greatest cities retained pre-eminence until they declined and were displaced by Carthage. But Phoenician settlement throughout the Mediterranean basin wasn't ever politically united (until Carthage united the West). As far as I'm aware, that's what the historical and archaeological record says. Binabik80 23:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Carthaginian navy
Given the fame of Carthage as a seafaring power, I'm surprised so little attention is paid her navy. For instance, she pioneered the co-operation of triremes, groups of 4... Trekphiler 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
