Beyond physical destruction, the Romans committed cultural annihilation. They seized and dispersed Carthage's libraries, which held its rich literary and historical tradition. By preserving only a single farming manual, Rome ensured that future generations would only ever hear the conqueror's version of events.

Related Insights

Roman diplomats employed a strategy of bad-faith negotiation to cripple Carthage's defenses. They first demanded the surrender of all weapons, implying this would suffice. Only after Carthage was completely disarmed did the Romans reveal their true, non-negotiable demand: the city's total destruction.

The Romans often propagandized the concept of 'Punica Fides' or 'Punic Faith' to portray Carthaginians as uniquely treacherous. Yet, their greatest general, Scipio, used blatant deception by feigning peace negotiations with Sifax and Hasdrubal specifically to learn the layout of their camps before burning them down, highlighting the hypocrisy of wartime rhetoric.

After losing Sicily, the Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca and his son Hannibal didn't try to reclaim it directly. Instead, they built a new, resource-rich empire in Spain. Its vast mineral wealth funded a mercenary army, turning Spain into a formidable base from which to launch a revenge war against Rome.

The Romans empowered Massinissa, a Numidian king and their ally, to continuously encroach on Carthaginian territory. This strategy of using a proxy ally kept Carthage weak and created constant border disputes, providing Rome with an eventual pretext for war.

Despite Carthage being militarily crippled after Hannibal's defeat, the psychological trauma of his invasion persisted in Rome. This "biding fear" was irrational given Carthage's weakness but powerfully shaped Roman policy for generations, ultimately leading to the city's destruction.

The harsh terms of the First Punic War, which stripped Carthage of territory and imposed a massive indemnity, created deep resentment. This parallels the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, illustrating how overly punitive settlements can sow the seeds of a future war of revenge rather than secure lasting peace.

The historian Polybius described the Roman sack of New Carthage, noting the practice of killing indiscriminately—including cutting dogs in half—was a deliberate policy. This was not random brutality but a calculated psychological tactic to inspire terror and ensure swift surrenders in future conflicts.

While overseeing the final destruction of Carthage, the Roman commander Scipio Aemilianus wept. He was not celebrating victory but contemplating the rise and fall of all great empires—from Troy to Persia—and openly expressed his fear that Rome would one day suffer the same fate.

The peace terms imposed by Rome were deliberately designed to ensure Carthage's permanent subjugation. By empowering Rome's ally Masinissa with vague territorial claims against Carthaginian land and forbidding Carthage from waging war without permission, Rome created a pretext for future intervention, effectively turning Carthage into a vulnerable client state.

Centuries after Hannibal's war, the poet Virgil created a foundational myth in "The Aeneid" portraying the conflict with Carthage not as politics but as the fulfillment of a divine curse from Queen Dido. This shaped Roman identity and justified their actions to future generations.