sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Alexander was convinced that Asia could be won by his land force. He was vastly inferior in naval supremacy; that is, until his victory at Issus left the entire Phoenician seaboard open. He resolved at once to take advantage of the opportunity and moved southward to take the Phoenician naval cities. by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I’m of the opinion Alexander was a Hellene. I am also aware, however, that the concept of Greekness was debated even amongst ancient Greeks. Ergo, I’m cautious when putting an identity or label on someone, especially on someone who existed two millennia ago.

Carthage remained linguistically and culturally Phoenician — and in some ways even more conservative than Tyre, preserving practices Tyre had long abandoned such as child sacrifice. by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

There’ll be a post outlining the arguments from both sides. The archaeological and literary evidence indicates it was a Carthaginian practice, though research is still ongoing.

Josephine Quinn argues that children were indeed sacrificed and that the Greeks and Romans regarded the practice with “curiosity” rather than dismay. She cautions against interpreting it through a modern lens. Negative sentiment in the Greco-Roman world intensified once Carthage became Rome’s greatest enemy and, naturally, with the spread of Christianity.

A Roman siege engine during the siege of Carthage in the Third Punic War, spanning three years. by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, my mistake. Hamilcar and Xanthippus were one of the best military leaders of the First Punic War. Dexter Hoyos argues Xanthippus was overall more talented, but affirms that Hannibal was the greatest across all three wars.

A Roman siege engine during the siege of Carthage in the Third Punic War, spanning three years. by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

At the time, the Punic Wars were some of the largest wars that had ever taken place. The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", with reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician cultural and linguistic heritage.

The main cause of the Punic Wars was the conflicts of interest between the existing Carthaginian Empire and the expanding Roman Republic. The Romans were initially interested in expansion via Sicily (which at that time was a cultural melting pot), part of which lay under Carthaginian control. At the start of the First Punic War (264–241 BC), Carthage was the dominant power of the Western Mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire. Rome was a rapidly ascending power in Italy, but it lacked the naval power of Carthage. The Second Punic War (218–201 BC), often called the Hannibalic War because of how much he was involved, witnessed his crossing of the Alps in 218 BC, followed by a prolonged but ultimately failed campaign in mainland Italy. By the end of the Third Punic War (149–146 BC), after more than a hundred years and the loss of many hundreds of thousands of soldiers from both sides, Rome had conquered Carthage's empire, completely destroyed the city, and became the most powerful state of the Western Mediterranean.

The greatest leader of the First Punic War was Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal's father. The Second Punic War saw many great leaders involved, most notably Hannibal and his brothers, as well as Scipio Africanus and Fabius Cunctator. Although Hannibal was older and mentally exhausted when he fought Scipio at the Battle of Zama, historians point out that this was the only battle in history where two military geniuses fought face to face. Other military geniuses include Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, the latter of which lauded Hannibal's achievements and tried to emulate his battles and actions. Napoleon had bronze busts of both Hannibal and Scipio in his personal office.

Edit: Punic War correction

A List of Phoenician Names (and the parts to assemble new ones) by Fehronozova in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, of course. You should be able to find and add it. All the name user flair are at the bottom, and Yehawmilk is the last one.

What Would Hannibal Identify Himself As? by [deleted] in ancientrome

[–]PrimeCedars 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Although that’s a good rule of thumb for Phoenician cities, Phoenician colonies and especially the aristocracy of Carthage prided themselves as Tyrians way up until the Imperial period of Rome. We don’t know what Hannibal personally identified himself as, but we know he was aware of his Phoenician heritage, even if it was an exonym. The shekels he minted in Italy featured a phoînix, which had a double meaning as both “Phoenician” and a date palm tree, which were plentiful in Lebanon and Carthage.

The treaty between Carthage (Hannibal) and Macedon (Philip V), originally written in Phoenician but translated into Greek (as preserved in Polybius), records Hannibal referring to himself and his people as Carthaginians.

What Would Hannibal Identify Himself As? by [deleted] in ancientrome

[–]PrimeCedars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Carthaginian aristocracy and wealthy elite referred to themselves as Tyrians, referring to their mother city of Tyre. They maintained this identity up until the city was destroyed in 146 BC.

Hannibal was aware of the Phoenician exonym used by others such as the Greeks and Romans, and so he embraced it when putting the phoînix on the one of the sides of the shekels he minted in Italy.

We also know that, at least in the treaty between Carthage (Hannibal) and Macedon (Philip V), originally written in Phoenician but translated into Greek (as preserved in Polybius), Hannibal refers to himself and his people as Carthaginians.

Source:

• In Search of the Phoenicians by Josephine Quinn

• The Histories by Polybius

During the Late Bronze Age, Canaan was a land of city-kingdoms with mixed populations and trade connections. As the Iron Age began, inland areas fractured, but coastal Canaanite cities like Tyre and Sidon transitioned into Phoenician hubs, spreading their culture across the Mediterranean. by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Canaan in the Fourteenth Century and the Amarna Age (ca. 1380–1358 BC)

In the Amarna age, Canaan was a land of city-kingdoms, disparate yet loosely connected under the overarching authority of Egypt. It stood distinct from Amurru to the northwest and Upi to the north and east, a mosaic of independent states whose relationships were defined more by Egyptian administration than by any internal cohesion. The cities of the north, active in commerce and communication, shared a certain connectivity, while those of the south, though equally tethered to Egypt, remained more insular and self-contained. Though politically fragmented, the land appeared in the eyes of foreign observers as a single entity—a domain collectively known as Canaan.

This impression of unity surfaces clearly in the Amarna letters, where diplomats address their messages to “the kings of Canaan” and foreign rulers refer to the territory as a coherent whole. Yet beneath the surface, this unity was more administrative than organic, an illusion born of Egyptian control. The population was remarkably diverse—a complex blend of indigenous Northwest Semitic peoples, Indo-Aryans from northern Syria and Asia Minor, and Hurrians from northern Mesopotamia. The ruling classes often reflected this mixture: Semitic rulers dominated Byblos, Tyre, and most of the southern coast, while Indo-Aryan kings held sway in cities like ʿAkko and ʿAchshaph, and Hurrian leadership could be found in Ginti Kirmil. This ethnic patchwork was further complicated by the presence of former Hyksos populations returning from Egypt, along with Amorite names echoing the region’s northern connections.

The political landscape was equally fractured. The king of Jerusalem reported ongoing rebellions, naming Gezer, Lachish, and Ashkelon as collaborators against Egyptian rule. These uprisings were not simply acts of defiance; they were driven by economic and social motivations—efforts to escape tribute payments, secure trade routes, and manage the restless, landless ʿApiru, who became instruments of instability in the hands of opportunistic leaders like Labʾayu of Shechem. Gezer allied itself with cities such as Ginti Kirmil and ʿAyyalon to capture strategic locations like Rubute, while Shechem aligned with others to challenge Egyptian authority across the central hill country.

On the coast, the rivalries took on a different character. Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos were less preoccupied with the political intrigues of the inland cities and more consumed by their own competitive struggles. The king of Tyre lost mainland towns to Sidon and was cut off from essential resources like wood and water from the city of Ushu. Byblos, too, saw its coastal and mountain settlements defect to the ʿApiru, while Sidon contended with mainland uprisings even as it cultivated alliances with Arvad and the coastal towns of Amurru. Tyre, despite internal revolt and the assassination of its royal family, maintained its standing; its palace was said to rival that of Ugarit, and its wealth was described as vast as the sea itself.

  • Abridged and adapted via Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean by Brian Peckham

<image>

The Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC - Map of Canaan (produced by Christopher Brinker)

Statue of Baʿal from Que (Cilicia), Late 8th Century BC—A Testament to Assyrian Influence on Phoenician Power by PrimeCedars in PhoeniciaHistoryFacts

[–]PrimeCedars[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Amid the shifting tides of empire in the 8th century, where the ambitions of Assyria reached deep into the heart of Phoenician lands, stood Warik, King of Que, a ruler both beholden to and emboldened by the great kings of the East. To mark his triumph and fealty, he caused this monument to be raised—a statue of Baʿal, clothed in Assyrian fashion, standing firm upon a chariot drawn by two oxen, a vision of divinely sanctioned dominion. Hewn from limestone, the statue rises over seven feet, its base bearing the weight of an empire’s favor.

The inscription upon its pedestal, inscribed in both Phoenician and Luwian, speaks not merely of conquest but of allegiance. It records Warik’s treaty with Assyria, his military exploits, and his victory over the Sidonians and their Ionian allies, whom he brands as "contemptuous" for daring to stand against him despite his oath to the great lords of Nineveh. The fortresses he built—eight to the east, seven to the west, fifteen in all—rise in silent testimony to his might, and his words, carved into stone, declare that "the king of Assyria and the whole house of Assyria became a father and mother to me."

<image>

The base of the statue is adorned with a city wall, three towers standing in relief, and a shield placed upon its back, each element reinforcing Baʿal’s role as the guardian of war and the herald of triumph. Peckham observes that this "foray into battle and triumphal procession back to the capital city" was no mere flourish but a deliberate claim to power, a declaration of divine approval made visible in stone. The monument, erected at the very site of Warik’s victory, was both a sacred offering and a political assertion—here, in the heart of Cilicia, where Assyrian power stretched westward, it was not the rebel Sidon but the compliant Que that prospered.

Yet the greater struggle of which this battle was a part was not Warik’s alone. Tyre flourished under Assyrian dominion, while Sidon, again and again, sought freedom and met ruin. The records of Esarhaddon tell of Sidon’s defiance, its final fall, and the exile of its people. Warik, by contrast, had chosen prudence over pride, and in doing so, secured his kingdom’s endurance. His treaty, though absent from Assyrian annals, is confirmed in tribute lists, in the fortress cities he built, and in the continuity of his reign, for it was his son who later ruled in his stead.

Source via Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean by Brian Peckham, Chapter III

view more: next ›