Only one side did human sacrifices during the Second Punic War, that side was Rome
there is strong archeological evidence to back up Roman claims of Carthaginian human sacrifice as child remains were found mixed in with animal sacrifices. Given that Jewish accounts also make similar claims it does look somewhat damning
Can you point to a documented case or archaeological evidence of Carthaginian human sacrifice during the Punic War? I can point to evidence of the Romans burying people alive as a sacrifice. In contrast, there is serious academic debate about the extent of child sacrifice in Carthage.
No texts of the Carthaginians come down to us since they were utterly obliterated by their enemies. We only have their enemy's side of the story. Subsequently, the study of Carthaginian history has also been damaged by orientalism . Obviously, this isn't to romanticize (haha) Carthage.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children
https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=honorscollege_anthro the bones indicate that the children dound were old enough to have survived childbirth and the sites are engraved with words translated to mean sacrifice of aristocratic children
Plus a Roman source, discussing a pre-Punic War sacrifical event: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20a*.html
Edit - This fits with the attitude described in your article above: "Dr Quinn added: 'We think of it as a slander because we view it in our own terms. But people looked at it differently 2,500 years ago.
'Indeed, contemporary Greek and Roman writers tended to describe the practice as more of an eccentricity or historical oddity – they're not actually very critical.
'We should not imagine that ancient people thought like us and were horrified by the same things.'
why would they be after all the romans practiced human sacrifice themselves
I agree, this is to push back against the notion that it's slander written by enemies.
After going through the archaeological evidence, Richard Miles gives the following conclusion in Carthage Must Be Destroyed (published in 2010, so before some of the findings above) :
The argument that the tophet was some kind of cemetery for children is undermined by the fact that the ratio of children's burials found in cemeteries in Punic Carthage correlates well with the comparative evidence from elsewhere in the ancient world. In fact, the lack of recorded remains may well be the result of archaeologists simply not recording small and often badly preserved children's bones. Contemporary Greek writers thought that the Carthaginians were performing child sacrifice, and the archaeological evidence means that their claims cannot merely be brushed aside as anti-Punic slander.
The conclusion to be drawn is that during periods of great crisis the Carthaginians and other western Phoenicians did sacrifice their own children for the benefit of their families and community . . .
This from page 72, the full discussion is pp. 68-73.
Lol can you imagine. “I like billy but tbh I could live without him.”
There's a story in Herodotus of the Persian king giving a woman the choice of which of her family members should be spared. She immediately says, "My brother." The king sez, "What? Why not your children? Or your husband?" She responds, "Look, I can have more children, and I can get another husband. But my parents are dead. I'm never getting another brother."
The king sez, “What? Why not your children? Or your husband?”
she should say "look mate you can either kill my whole family or be judgemental"
Interestingly Antigone from the Greek play had the same mindset. She reasons that she can have another husband and other children, but with her parents dead she cannot have another brother. She buries her brother, which was made illegal, and reasons that if the law had forbade her from burying a husband or children that she could have other husbands and children, but with her parents dead she could not have another brother.
Thanks for reminding me - I love that play dearly and I don't know why my mind went to Herodotus first.
Yeah that's what the sources I found said too.
Also I do find it somewhat compelling that the Jewish and Graeco-Roman sources both accuse Carthage of child sacrifice given their being separate groups.
As well as the fact that the Jewish sources reference Moloch and Baal which sound very similar to words carved on the sites of the alleged sacrifices
More on the epigraphical evidence: https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/197736/3/epigraphy_topet.pdf . I haven't read your second link yet so there may be some overlap, but they both look interesting.
I am glad you guys cited all this stuff. I knew the "nah it was all roman propaganda" thing was disproven pretty definitively, but I do not have to background to actually explain that stuff. But yeah, folks don't make blanket statements about the ancient world based on cultural osmosis. I can't find it now but there was a great version of that argument meme with the point being that it is silly to act like the child sacrifice being a real thing would make it impossible to enjoy Carthage and wish it wasn't destroyed.
well there is some evidence of a market for children for the purposes of human sacrifice so Vaush would love it there
If you had a time machine and watned to prevent the current world giving a peasant rebellion a bunch of kalashnikovs would be an interesting way to go
Would it work if I give kalashnikovs to the failed german 1920 communist rev?
ha there's historical discussion already itt so
what 'carthaginian mountains'? i don't think carthage possessed the Atlas mountains
I doubt they meant it this way, but let's agree that it's the mountains near Qart Hadasht in Hispania .
:hahaha: you see the Spania possessions of 'Carthage' were basically the domain of the Barcids, with very little input from the city proper
of course, Hannibal spent alot of time on campaign in Spain so yeah it totally tracks im just out here to be a goddang pedant
Well played.
Yeah, when they finally recalled him just before Zama, wasn't that the first time he was in Africa in his adult life?
Edit - and of course by 217 Hannibal was already in Italy. "You bolt awake in the fog near Lake Trasimene . . ."
"you bolt awake in a bath of roman blood"
metal fucking shit but OP implies we had the choice to besiege and destroy Rome and chose not to; Hannibal probably didn't have the forces to do so and didn't secure sufficient reinforcements from the Italians (most of whom outside of Capua chose Rome)
he theoretically had the manpower but lacked the engineers necessary to build siege weapons. i believe he did surround Rome once, but they knew he could only send over rocks or arrows and just waited til he left.
surrounding and waiting is a valid way to capture a city. Rome's size and position made it a tough nut even if one has numbers and engineering (no way hannibal wouldn't have the ability to make ladders and rams).
i should think hannibal didn't want to spread his troops around the circuit then get sallied to a death of 1000 cuts, or be vulnerable to roman reinforcements encirclement
I believe the point of his siege was to make Rome recall its generals so his allies could grab more territory further away, so he wasn't too scared of encirclement(After all, his whole thing was encirclement). And yeah he could build rams and ladders but as you said that would just lead to his men slowly getting picked off because the Roman guard could easily snipe them from the walls. Rome had enough materials inside that he'd have to wait years to actually get any results from a siege of just sitting there patiently, so he just left once he saw they weren't recalling their generals. Scipio departed for Carthage and he was called back quickly some years later.
