Phoenician Colonization
Carthage was one of a number of Phoenician settlements in the western Mediterranean. Around 1000 BC, the eastern Mediterranean shore was settled by various Semitic populations. ("Semitic" is a linguistic terms referring to a group of related languages. Among the Semitic languages are Hebrew, Arabic and Babylonian.) Those in the area stretching from modern Israel north into modern Lebanon were called Canaanites, and it was from them that the Jews seized the so-called Holy Land. The Semites to the north of modern Israel in the area corresponding more or less to modern Lebanon were called by the Greeks Phoenicians. The Phoenician language is very close to Hebrew, and knowledge of biblical Hebrew is used for the translation of Phoenician inscriptions. The Phoenician cities were very much involved in trade. There were a number of major ports in the area, and the leading city was Tyre. From Tyre (perhaps with assistance from other Phoenician towns) a number of trading posts were established overseas.


Dating Of Phoenician Settlement
The Greeks dated Phoenician colonial activities in the West to a much earlier date than their own. Greek colonization in the West begins around 750, but the Greeks dated the earliest Phoenician settlements to the period soon after the fall of Troy, that is, about 350 years earlier. Numerous sites have been excavated, and in none is there material directly datable to early than the eighth century. It would seem that Phoenician colonization took place at about the same time as that of the Greeks. This is perhaps confirmed by the fact that the Greeks occupied the eastern part of Sicily (the part closest for those sailing from Greece), the Phoenician settlements are in the west (the closest area for those sailing from North Africa, the path that would be taken by those approaching from the Near East). Apparently they started at about the same time and wound up splitting the island between them.


Date Of Foundation Of Carthage
In Greek sources the traditional date for the foundation of Carthage is 814/3. The earliest datable archaeological remains are no earlier than 725, but some pottery seems to be earlier than this. Hence the traditional date may be slightly too early but is roughly correct.


Extent Of Phoenician Settlement
The Phoenicians moved west along the coast of North Africa. The area directly west of Egypt is fairly inhospitable, but there are a few settlements in the area. Much more numerous are settlements in the area of Tunisia (where Carthage is). The Phoenicians also settle the southern shore of Iberia (the area south of the Pyrenees, now Portugal and Spain), western Sicily and Sardinia.


Nature Of Phoenician Settlement
It would seem that unlike Greek colonies, which were intended to be fully autonomous political organizations, the Tyrian settlements were at first simply stations at which Phoenician merchant ships could put in on voyages to gather cargo and and then bring it back home. These trading posts were often built like Tyre herself on offshore islands. Only at a later date did these settlements become proper towns. In particular, the nature of these settlements as trading posts meant that the populations tended to be small and that the interior was not thickly settled.


Assumption Of Leadership By Carthage
In the beginning all these towns maintained allegiance to Tyre. In the early sixth century Tyre became seriously weakened after a long Babylonian siege. At the same time the Phoenicians settlers came into conflict with the Greeks, and the settlements fell under the leadership of Carthage in the absence of help from distant Tyre. How exactly this happened is not clear, but from this time on the term Carthaginian can be used to refer not simply to the inhabitants of that city specifically but to the inhabitants of all the Phoenician settlements in the western Mediterranean.


City Of Carthage
The name of Carthage comes from the Phoenician "Qart Hadasht"(=New Town). Some argue that this means that it was from the start meant as a replacement for Tyre. This seems unwaranted. (Was Naples [Nea Polis=New Polis] intended to be the chief Greek town in the West? No, it was simply a new settlement founded by Greeks already settled in Campania.)

The site of Carthage in North Africa was practically impregnable. Carthage was built on a promuntory with inlets to the sea to the north and south. The city had massive walls, 23 miles in circuit (cf. the 5 miles of walls built for Rome after the Gallic sack). Most of the walls were along the shore, and thus could be less impressive as Carthaginian control of sea made attack from that direction difficult. The 2 1/2-3 miles on the isthmus to the west were truly gargantuan and in fact were never penetrated. Carthage also had two large artificial harbors built within the city. Here their fleet was stationed.


Carthaginian Government
In the early period there appears to have been a single ruler, whom the Greeks referred to as a "king." There was no king by the time the Romans became directly involved with the Carthaginians. There was a chief magistrate called a sufes, who, unlike a Roman consul, did not take part in military affairs (the title means "judge," and the position was presumably a civil one that usurped the internal powers of the king). The Carthaginians appointed professional generals, who were separate from the civil government. There was a council of elders with fairly strong powers. There was also an assembly of citizens, which appeared to carry little weight until the second century, by which time the ruling class had completely lost the contest with the Romans.

Apparently the ruling class was chosen in a matter that very overtly stressed the possession of wealth (something not unreasonable for a trading community). Carthage was the only non-Greek community about whose constitution Aristotle wrote a commentary and he directly criticized them for this aspect. (Since most Greek communities had some form of emphasis on wealth, the Carthaginians must have done so very dramatically to have earned this censure.)


Carthaginian Military
The Phoenician populations were always small, and since these communities depended on trade to survive, it was decided to exempt citizens from military service under normal circumstances, and to use the wealth of the community to hire mercenary armies. For this they were criticized by 19th and early 20th century scholars. They valued the military service of the modern nation state (conscript armies of citizens loyal to the state), and for this reason compared the Carthaginian army unfavorably with the native army of the Romans. In fact, the Carthaginian military seems to have been no worse than the Roman, and proved disloyal only at the end of the First Punic War, when the Carthaginians could not pay rewards they had promised. Given the limited Carthaginian population (even though the city probably did eventually have a population in the low 100,000s), the decision seems to have made sense. If they had fought the Romans with their own population, they probably would have succumbed earlier than they did, and their mercenary military came close to defeating the Romans.

Being traders, the Carthaginians naturally were skilled seamen and had a particularly potent navy of about 200 ships. This was of course necessary to maintain contact with their overseas settlements.

Since the Carthaginians needed money for their armies and navy, they were apparently severe in their exactions of money from the native populations they controlled, especially among the Libyans (the Berber natives of North Africa).

As merchants, they had a bad reputation among the Greeks. There are numerous references to them in the Odyssey, uniformly hostile.


Child Sacrifice
The Phoenicians brought with them the standard Semitic deities. These gods had the nasty habit of desiring human sacrifice, in particular that of children. Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch (Greek writer of about AD 100) both directly mention this, and the Christian writer Tertullian alludes to the suppression of child sacrifice soon before AD 200. Because there is no mention of this in the ancient historians, it has been argued that this accusation was mere propaganda. But the Old Testament directly mentions prohibitions against child sacrifice (2 Kings 23.10, Jer. 7.31, 19.5-6), which must must indicate that it was practiced among the Canaanite population from which the Phoenicians (and Carthaginians) were descended. Furthermore, Livy could have mentioned the practice in his now lost account of the first Punic War. Hence, his "silence" signifies nothing.

It was, therefore, capricious even in the past to deny the practice, and it was horrifyingly confirmed by archaeologically in 1921. In that year a "holy place" was found on the site of ancient Carthage. In it were discovered thousands of jars with the cremated remains of children's bones. Some urns contained animal bones, which perhaps indicates substitution of an animal (cf. Abraham's sacrifice of a ram in place of Isaac). Diodorus also mentions some sort of attempts to get out of sacrificing the newborn. After a serious military defeat in the late fourth century, 500 children from the ruling families who had gotten out of the obligation were sacrificed to appease the gods, who were clearly mad at being defrauded of their due.

The place for depositing the remains is called a "tophet" from a term in the Old Testament, and tophets have been discovered not only at Carthage but at numerous other Phoenician sites in the west. Oddly, none have been found in Phoenicia itself, but the references in the Old Testament leave the practice there beyond question (Jehovah could hardly have forbidden such a thing if it hadn't already been going on). Some scholars continue to refuse to believe in the practice and to dismiss the ancient literary evidence as mere propaganda, but with the discovery of the physical remains there can be no legitimate doubt.


Early History Of Carthage
In the mid sixth century the Carthaginians co-operated with the Etruscans to drive out the Greeks from Corsica. The next three hundred years were largely spent in a see-saw struggle between the Carthaginians and Greeks for control of Sicily. Each side came close several times to expelling the other but never succeeded. The final attempt before Roman involvement came at the time of Pyrrhus's involvement in southern Italy. In 278 the Carthaginians were besieging Syracuse, the most important Greek city in Sicily. If they could take it, they would have complete control of the island. The Syracusans appealed to Pyrrhus, who crossed over in late 278, and in 277 decisively beat back the Carthaginians. After his withdrawal from Italy the next year, the Romans had now subdued Italy as far as the Straits of Messena, and came directly to Sicily, which the Carthaginians considered their own sphere.


Early Treaties Between Carthage And Rome
Polybius records that there three treaties between Rome and Carthage:

one from the first year of the Republic
a second undated one
one from the time of the war with Pyrrhus.
He says that these were in the public records in Rme and that the first was practically unintelligible on account of its archaic language.

Polybius's account is hard to reconcile with other information. Livy records a treaty in 348, a renewal "for the third time" in 306 and a renewal "for the fourth time" in 279. He elsewhere alludes to an ancient treaty, which may mean one going back to the first year of the Republic. But a fourth "renewal" implies five treaties. The second treaty in Polybius does not mention Campania, so it presumably dates to the period before 338 when Rome asserted control over northern Campania. It is therefore tempting to associate it with the treaty of 348 (which then is a renewal of the original treaty from the beginning of the Republic). When, then, was the other renewal before 306?

What happened in 306? Livy gives us no details. Polybius tells us that a pro-Carthaginian historian called Philinus accused the Romans of breaking a treaty when they crossed over to Sicily in 264. Polybius also flatly denies the existence of any such treaty, and none of the ones he quotes make any provision barring the Romans from Italy. We have no way of knowing the basis of Philinus's claim and how it relates to the treaty of 306.

Some used to argue that the treaty of 348 was actually the date for Polybius's first treaty. But in 1964 three gold tablets were found in Pyrgi, the port of Etruscan Caere. One is in Etuscan, two in Punic. These tablets record a dedication to a Punic goddess by the ruler of Caere, who claims legitimacy from her. These tablets date to about 500. Clearly the Carthaginians were involved in the affairs of southern Etruria at the time of the foundation of the Republic, so a treaty with Rome at this time is not out of the question.


Terms Of The Treaties

First Treaty
This treaty defined the relations of the two parties in dealing with the territory of the other. Romans were restricted in trading. They could trade freely in Sicily (and apparently Carthage), but only in the presence of a public magistrate in Sardinia and North Africa. The Carthaginians basically agreed not to raid Roman territory in Latium.
Second Treaty
The treaty redefines the terms of the restrictions on Roman trade. In particular they are excluded from Sardinia and North Africa. The Carthaginians can plunder non-Roman towns in Latium, but cannot occupy them permanently. Failure to mention Campanian suggests a date before 338, and the worse terms for the Romans suggests a weakened position. This would fit in with the treaty dated by Livy (and Diodorus) to 348.
Third Treaty
This treaty was directed against the common enemy Pyrrhus. Basically, earlier terms were reaffirmed, and if either party made peace with Pyrrhus that peace had to allow that party to aid the other. In effect, one party could make peace with Pyrrhus only if allowed to aid the other if the latter was attacked by Pyrrhus. While each side was to provide its own troops, Carthage would provide the necessary ships.
Thus, in the period down to the First Punic War, relations between Carthage and Rome were amicable. Carthage maintained its control of the western Mediterranean and agreed not to interfere in Roman Italy. As late as the 270s they could co-operate against the common threat of Pyrrhus, just as the Carthaginians had co-operated with the Etruscans against the Greeks. Immediately after Pyrrhus's withdrawal from Italy, however, the Romans were to behave differently.


Roman Attitudes Toward The Carthaginians
The Romans of the late Republic exhibited a strong dislike of the Carthaginians. No doubt, the alien language and ways of the Carthaginians contributed to this (the Greeks didn't like them, either). The Latin expression Punica fides ("Punic faith") meant "bad faith." Certainly, the Romans of the second century had an almost pathological hatred and fear of Carthage, which brought them to destroy the city. It is not clear, however, to what extent this attitude prevailed before the Second Punic War, in which Hannibal methodically devastated Italy for nearly two decades.

1999 Christopher S. Mackay http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Carthage.html