Talk:Carthage/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Carthaginian empire

Several pages link here which refer to the punic wars and the carthaginian empire. This seems to say more about the ancient city then the empire, we should make a seperate page about the empire. Lievinie (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No Map

I came to this article to find out *where* Carthage is.. I figured it out only because I know where Tunis is, because there is not a map pointing out Carthage. Maybe this is because this article is considered historical rather than geographic -- but it definitely needs a map, of the same kind that Wikipedia has for most articles referring to geographic locations. I'm not "bold" nor do I know how to imbed images, hence my whining here :) hopefully someone can come up with a map eventually. This is a good article, it's just missing a few things, and a map is one of them. Mr0t1633 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several maps and city plans. The geographical location of the city is marked on "Image:CarthageMap.png". Paul B (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Child sacrifice section

Way above, a poster commented last year:

can we at least reorder the section in some way so that it sounds less like an episode of cross fire? Seriously, I'm reading it and it's like "...oh we don't know if they really sacrificed kids...but actually they did...but really they didn't..." and it makes the whole section sound unintelligent and inconclusive [...] 67.170.180.215 06:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Child sacrifice section do indeed sounds unintelligent and inconclusive. I have been surfing the net about the debate and found a scholarly article on the subject: Brian K. Garnand: "From infant sacrifice to the ABC’S: ancient Phoenicians and modern identities (University of Chicago) earlier version presented in Standford Colloquium "Past Narratives / Narratives Pasts". Although it is a pdf document, I took the trouble to type some of his paragraphs that I believe merit consideration for the improvement of that section:

What I have summarized here is but a brief survey of current scholarship. Elsewhere I analyze the Classical, Biblical and archaeological evidence for infant sacrifice, and examine closely a broader range of current research (Garnand 2002). My working thesis is that this ridimensionamento [i.e., the revisionism that denies that Carthage sacrifice took place] follows on a so-called reflexive turn [bold in the original] in ethnography and literary criticism. In anthropology, scholars made a problem out of what once had been unproblematic: the subjective role of the fieldworker. [...]

In our case, the hostile Greek or Roman and the modern archeologist or philologist can be easily dismissed as biased, without a need to call on any new archaeological evidence or any newly discovered literary sources to overturn their arguments. [...]

Although I am sympathetic to Bernal and Said, I do not consider that the products of Near Eastern and Classical Studies are merely corrupted literary excursions disguised as scientific inquiry.

At the end of this very long paper, Garnand concluded: "The distinguished scholars of the ridimensionamento have not proven their case."

I do not intend to say that Garnand's views are the ultimate source. Like 67.170.180.215, I am merely concerned about the section which reads "like an episode of cross fire". I am busy for the moment but I hope that other editors will fix the problem.

—Cesar Tort 05:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a general problem in archaeology that it is extremely hard to prove human sacrifice, even more so if it is done without shattering the bones. It is pointless to discuss how much trust or distrust towards the written sources exists. Other approaches would be to find out whether the deaths did increase or decrease over time and how they correlate with the total population. What lacks in this view is that even the Greek did not raise all of their children and that not raising all children(written sources, but no remains) was likely a common characteristic of the Mediterranean cultures and even in Europe's medieval culture there were tricks in use to get rid of unwanted children (himmeln in German). Another point is that Livy states at least one sacrifice of a Roman child that was too large(the Romans did participate euthanasia of anything considered misfits), a fact that gets usually ignored. And he also provides more sources for other human sacrifices in Rome. I'm not opposed to the theory that there were possibly sacrifices of children in Carthage, but I'm quite aware that our ancient literature is full of topoi. Burnt bones of little ones aren't enough proof for a solid theory of massive sacrifice. Sacrifice did likely exist, but how do we know what is sacrifice and what a usual burial because child mortality was high? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim any expertise in Carthage but the Biblical texts strike me as persuasive: some ancient Hebrews were relapsing to the sacrificial customs of their neighbors.[1] Garnand's paper ought to be required reading to understand the revisionism that started in the late 1980s on the subject of Carthage sacrifice, and I'll try to get his PhD as well. Also, scholarly books have been published recently on the subject of Moloch. However, I have studied more closely child sacrifice as used to be practiced here, in my own town. Take a look at Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures or to Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. There's overwhelming scholarly consensus that child sacrifice was indeed practiced in the Americas. —Cesar Tort 17:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To give equal weight to child sacrifice deniers is somewhat like giving equal weight to holocaust deniers. It's not reasonable to take the claims of a few scholars that contradict the established opinion, shared by most today, and put them on the same footing. Rusmeister (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly comparable. First off all our sources are pro Roman, we have no Carthaginian sources at all. Carthage was destroyed over 2000 years ago while the holocaust not only occurred less than a century ago but was documented on film and the full documentation of the trials of those responsible is still fully accessible. Most of all while virtually all historians, German as much as others, consider the holocaust an indisputable fact, historians of this period tend to conclude that we will never know for certain. Dejvid (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of historians who have seriously purported that the evidence - remains, historical records, etc, do not point to child sacrifice is in the single digits, more or less. Presenting the seriously minority view as on equal footing with the long accepted majority view is absurd. If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion, we can never know anything for certain about any history, and shouldn't write any sentence at all in the indicative mood. Complaining about "pro-Roman" sources makes no sense, either. All historical records assume some sort of bias, and while we try to look as fairly and reasonably as we can at history, most of it is not "fair and balanced reporting". Never mind that life itself isn't fair. Rusmeister (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that overwhelmingly those contemporary historians who have studied the issue are skeptics. Your impression is the opposite. The only way to resolve that is citations.

On to what extent we should accept at their face value the comments of ancient historians you have two stances that don't quite match up. You now seem to be arguing that ah well life's not fair but if we start questioning our sources then we can't say anything. This would be all very well if this was not such a emotive issue. There are a lot of things that the ancient sources tell us that might be subject to distortion but it is not unreasonable to say "well they are a bit more likely to be true than false so lets accept them as true and not lose too much sleep over it". But you regard sacrifice denial on the level as holocaust denial which pretty much puts skeptics beyond the pale. But this cuts both ways. If to deny the guilt of child sacrificers who are guilty puts you beyond the pale, then those who falsely accuse a people of child sacrifice also put themselves beyond the pale.

End of the day, classical historians do not take the sources at face value. Given that the sources are so sparse, the job of these historians is to question their sources. No ancient historian could justify their pay by simply summarizing the sources. Skepticism about the sources will not lead to the death of ancient history - it is in fact what keeps it going.Dejvid (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is the same as Rusmeister's. There is really very strong evidence. Independent Biblical and classical evidence is supported by archaeology. The sceptics have to go through hoops to deny the archaeology, which includes remains of animals labelled "as a substitute". It's difficult to understand why Carthaginians would bury animals as a 'substitute' in a graveyard for children who died naturally. There was a brief period in the 90s, influenced by Edward Said and postcolonial theory, when some writers who wanted to be 'anti-imperialist' attributed belief in claims of child sacrifice to "Orientalist" ideology, but the assumption that child sacrifice was an atrocity story itself seems to attribute modern attitutes to children to ancient cultures. The Romans regularly practiced infanticide of unwanted children and the killing of the children of defeated enemies was normal. So why would they consider child sacrifice to be terribly shocking and invent it as an atrocity tale? Paul B (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the grammar and formatting, and made the sequence seem less like an edit war. Sections pertaining to the historical record are mostly at the start, and to the archeology mostly at the end. However, i have not deleted anything, except for a non-essential sentence with a citation tag from 2007. I have left in the long, detailed 'Accounts of child sacrifice in Carthage' paragraph, since the information is so specific and relevant i doubt it was simply made up. However, a citation for this is badly needed. I've changed the 'There' in this paragraph to say 'Tophet'. I dont know what else 'there' could be referring to, since if its 'Carthage', it seems obvious they would bury their children in Carthage! The paragraph seems very out of place if not discussing Tophet. I suspect that the citation for this paragraph can be found in 'Carhtage a History, S Lancel, trans A Nevill' or 'Hittites and Phoenician' (I think the actual title of this is 'Hittites Phoenecians and Israelites' but im unsure) by Kelly A. MacFarlane if anywhere. Saktoth (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The most ridiculous thing about this is that child sacrifice has been fairly well-documented. It may be true, it may not be true. But that's what the historical record we do have reports. Nearly all history with similar documentation and support from historians is treated as having actually happened (or almost certainly). If we were to treat all history this way, then every single page would have the word "alleged" on it 100 times or more. Furthermore, saying which historians do not record it is silly and completely unscholarly. The proper thing to do is to cite which historical figures reported this - to report what they report - and to let it go at that. To choose this one issue to say "we doubt it" for whatever reason is inconsistent with the treatment of nearly all the rest of our history. It is NOT that controversial. At issue is whether we are to treat any history at all as having ever actually happened. Or again, to say that George Washington allegedly led the American army, Socrates allegedly wrote works attributed to him, although this is not reported by Herodotus, the Spanish Inquisition is alleged to have tortured some people who may have disagreed with their doctrines, although some scholars doubt this, etc etc etc. As it is, appears that the deniers of child sacrifice have won, merely by saying that we should not treat this like we treat the rest of our history. Rusmeister (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually this level of doubt is precisely how most classical history is treated in academic circles. Did Varo command the Romans at Cannae? It most certainly has been challenged despite Polybios explicitly stating he did. The evidence that Washington led the American Continental Army is backed up by a huge pile of evidence that are contemporary. Classical scholars can only dream of such evidence. There is a tendency on Wikipedia to take the sources at face value. That is a problem that needs correcting not the appropriate level of skepticism shown here.Dejvid (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dejvid, I agree that sources are taken at face value and that even wikipedia can't be trusted any farther than you can throw it, although perhaps intelligent people can still use it with great care. It's kind of like Orwell's "Memory Hole", only in electronic form. However that may be, the fact is in all public treatments of history, if we have a mass of data - even classical data - from multiple sources insisting that something was so, and no similar classical data denying it, we do not preface it with "alleged". It is true that modern scholars of any political bent or worldview can come up with all kinds of theories and ideas. But we do not treat these ideas as equal to the mass of primary sources. We state that such-and such was the case, or at least almost certainly or probably the case. While the views of an overwhelming minority of modern scholars may be mentioned to point out any possible weaknesses in the claim, they should not be conflated to being of equal value to the actual historical record. The parts that I eliminated were extensive and unnecessary elaborations of the disputes of child sacrifice which heavily outweigh the given historical record and cast the given historical record as probably wrong. This favors that minority of disputers and is actually POV. Child sacrifice, based on primary sources, is highly probable and was always acknowledged to be so - until now. This subject should be treated the same as we treat all other historical subjects with similar records for, with a complete absence of records against. Rusmeister (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancient writers rarely count as "primary sources". They often wrote long after the event. Diodorus wrote some 250 years after the two incidents of human sacrifice he describes. Would you describe a book written today on the American War of Independence a primary source? The other writers mentioned are even later. To call these reports implies a closeness to the events alleged that does not exist. But it is worse than that. Today, both Britain and the US exist. When Diodorus wrote Carthage had been destroyed. We have no Carthaginian sources on the issue. To call the handful of onesided mentions as the "historical record " is simply unwarranted.

Most of the allegations about child sacrifice in the current article are very poorly referenced. There is a para that seems to be based on Diodorus but misrepresents him making what he describes as one incident seem like a regular event (but as it is unreferenced so it is difficult to tell). You have removed stuff that is adequately referenced. By all means find other modern academics who have examined the issue and have concluded that the accounts of Diodorus and others are correct.Dejvid (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not ancient writers wrote after the event they still usually count as primary sources, unless we discover their own sources. But that's really beside the piunt. You are not accurately presenting the facts. We have completely independent Greco-Roman and Jewish evidence of Phoenician practice, and we have archaeological evidence that supports it. By any normal standard the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the existence of child sacrifice. There is no clear reason to doubt it other than a desire to doubt it - because it is somehow "insulting" to Carthaginians. That's really a rather feeble reason. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What has been removed is the summaries of the views of several academic authors who have made Carthage their study. If you want to include the views of academic writers who consider the evidence overwhelming then by all means do so. And what do you mean by completely independent? Dejvid (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the substantive question of Carthaginian child sacrifice. However, I have a few comments on the above discussion.

• "Primary source" is not a synonym for "reliable source", either in historians' methdology or in Wikipedia policy. Quite the contrary: "primary source" means raw data which must be interpreted. For example, modern scholarship does not take at face value Gildas's and Bede's accounts of the settlement of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons.
• Quantity is no substitute for interpretation. Having a "mass of primary sources" does not trump good modern scholarship. Presumably scholars also have access to the mass of primary sources, but they differ on their interpretation. For example, we have "a mass of primary sources" for the Jewish blood libel; that doesn't make it any more true.
• Archaeological results also require interpretation. It is not up to us to interpret them.

Wikipedia policy tells us explicitly that we should use the best modern scholarship. I do not know what that scholarship says about Carthaginian child sacrifice, but that is what we should be looking for. We should not be arguing directly from primary sources and raw archaeological data, but working with the best interpretations we can find in the modern scholarly literature. This does not mean that we should accept every transient or fringe theory that has managed to get published; it does mean that we should not be playing at being historians and scholars ourselves. --Macrakis (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a brief period in the 90s when this issue became linked to scholarship influenced by Said's concept of Orientalism. It was also, partly influenced by debates left over from WW2 about the differences between Aryan and Semitic cultures (in this case Aryan = Greeks and Romans; Semitic = Carthage). There was an academically quite marginal body of literature that made claims that the child scrifice concept was a "blood libel". My view is that this position is dramatically over-represented here, and its historical position in post-war ideological disputes is not understood. BTW, it was actually me who found and added that literaure to the page some years ago. In response to Dejvid, by "completely independent" I meant they are independent of each-other - that one source is not simply copying the other. They are quite distinct sources from quite distinct cultures. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The authors that I have cited the Charels-Picards and Lancel were the sole authors that I found on the shelf of the London Institute of Classical Studies library that dealt with the subject. Lancel is a skeptic in the sense that he considers that the question is impossible to answer with the evidence available. The Charels-Picards do believe the sources, they simply explain it with "times were different" argument. It is not a view that I have much sympathy for but it is quite common one today. I certainly did not detect any influence among them of Said's influence. (That is not to say that I might not add a quote from a Said influenced writer in the future should I encounter one with academic standing in the field.) My impression is that the page is unbalanced in favor of the view that Diodorus' accounts are true. Your impression is different. But the solution is surely to add citations from authors who hold the views that you feel are under represented.Dejvid (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew transcription

Regarding this, says who? Why not any of the other descendants of the Phoenician alphabet? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the international standard. Latin alphabet is only used if in print Hebrew isn't available. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The international standard according to whom? Sources, please. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not today. I was emailing with Schmitz from Michigan a while ago, but I can't name the books out of my head I read about inscriptions. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your source is valid because it's a self promotion, however I don't have time to counter you with sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Skin color

This has been debated for years were the Carthaginians Black as in African Black, Or dark skinned as in Hispanic or arab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.179 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, uh, it's not really the place to discuss it. Did you try scholarly works? Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were from Phoenicia and mixed with the Greeks(It is attested for some historical figures of Carthage's nobility). So they were probably of a Mediterranean type. There was trade with Africa and expeditions across the Sahara and thus we can not exclude the possibilty that some of them were black or had black ancestors, however, we lack sources on any kind of mix with Sub-Sahara Africans. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They would have looked like modern Lebanese people. They probably mixed with Greeks, Sicilians, Celts from the Iberian peninsula and native Berbers.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through this on EVERY article about an ancient civilization in Mediterranean Africa? Honestly google image some pictures of Carthaginians as depicted by themselves and their contemporaries, and then decide to either take them at face value or declare that it's a massive conspiracy by the virulently racist academic establishment who hates black people so much that we need to doctor every artwork and document to erase them from history. Except with Nubia, Axum/Aethiopia, etc...for some reason. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there are drawings of Caannanites who looked Egyptians. Modern Lebaonese are Roman, Greek, European slaves, arabis and Africans. They go by white in the US because clearly they do not see themselves as arabs. Also, there is no such thing a s Mediterranean "type" or race, unless you mean mualttoes. Also, you do not have to be from "sub-Saharan" Africa in order to be black in Africa. Jeez... Nubians and Egytians prove that.

Question

Quoting Wandalstouring "source that it is about cultures at war with each other and that there was no alliance between Athens, Carthage and Utica and that there were no Carthage friendly Greek authors" The current wording says "were in competition and often in conflict", it doesn't say that they were always in conflict. And yes there were Carthage friendly Greek authors but they are among those that have been lost ( a few isolated exceptions like Eratosthenes. If you follow up the refs I think you will find that it is adequately sourced. Or have I misunderstood you?Dejvid (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Warmington is Carthage available online.Dejvid (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also consider Aristotles and Polybius friendly authors. However, an important question is: were the cultures at war and can that be sourced? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well not cultures exactly but "peoples" I can. I agree with you about but Polybius seems to me to be merely more subtle in his bias. My impression doesn't count for much of course but it is clearly Warmington's.Dejvid (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's state facts. They were at war with Syracuse, Massalia and Rome. They were allied with Athens and Agrigentum. So it is the writers from states they were at war with who are biased, not cultures. In the case of Agrigentum they started the series of wars against Syracuse aiding a Greek city against another Greek city. In case of Massalia we do have written evidence of Punic sacrifices in the city, so there was a notable presence, something that would not be possible if the Greek and the Punic culture were at war. Polybius is difficult, well he is not objective, but reflects some pro-Carthaginian issues because Carthage was popular with his Greek audience, Rome not. I can also quote Ameling on the topic next week, who as a historian points out that the cultures were not at war. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to say people rather than culture - do your criticisms still apply to the new wording? There are two issues here -whether there is overwhelming anti Carthaginian bias of the writers that have come down to us and second why that might be. While that there is an an anti Carthaginian bias seems to me to be pretty clear the why seems to me to be far less clear when we are talking about Greek writers. Conflict of peoples is simply the explanation that I can source. Equally plausible is that given that almost the entire of the literate world (ignoring China) was ruled for several centuries by Rome, pro Carthaginian works would have had trouble surviving. However, I have no source for that so I'm sticking with Warmington's explanation.

I did try to reword things to meet you some of your criticisms. Is the current wording at least an improvement?Dejvid (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

People is no good substitute because it has in effect the same meaning. States is. I can provide sources next week. Today I'm still out in the sticks. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then something like Warmington says this but <your source> says this. IMO, peoples is very different from cultures. eg It was far easier for the Athenians and spartans, at the time of the Chremonidian War, to declare their frindship an alliance as valid for all time because past difficulties could be framed as a feud between brothers rather than a clash of cultures. Of course the most important difference is that one I can source and the other I can't.Dejvid (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Recent excavation has brought much more primary material to light. Some of these finds contradict or confirm aspects of the traditional picture of Carthage" For somebody (such as myself, included) unfamiliar with the content of these recent finds, this is a bit of a "Huh?" Following the theme of the 'graph above this, I changed to "contradict, and much of the material is still ambiguous." If somebody thinks more is needed on confirmatory evidence which has been found, I suggest adding another 'graph including it, with more detail of both sides, so the uninitiated can make some kind of judgment on the merits. I'd also ask, don't get into "duelling footnotes"; some specifics, with fn for those who want to confirm, or learn more, rather than "Dr A said, Dr B said"? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I conclude, will ceck this, but this may take some months. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just delete the paragraph, since it is confusing and unsourced? Doug Weller (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are not able to find out who wrote this and ask him/her for sources, delete it. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Carthage was a Republic not an Empire

Carthage never was a Empire (political). --Husar de la Princesa (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rome was a republic for a long time. It built its empire as a republic. France was a republic during much of the existence of the French colonial empire. There's no contradiction between being a republic and having an empire. Paul B (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

As per Wik guidlines on what's expected of a good article, I have expanded the Intro. to include what makes the subject notable. Primarily, this is the Punic Wars, which were only referred to indirectly in the previous version. So mine was not a good faith edit but one done by a person with a degree in Ancient History.

Please sign your comments using four tildes. I have no doubt that you did it in good faith, but the style wasn't acceptable. It was by far too flowery. And stop reverting backwards and forwards from Commonwealth English to American English. Somebody who claims to have an academic degree should be aware of that and of the wikipedia guideline to stick to the first English variant used.

More to the point some claims were wrong and incomplete. It was a major rival with Syracuse and Rome. That the Punic culture vanished after the destruction of Carthage is a very contestable claim. There are Punic inscriptions in Roman times, there's the Severian dynasty and the language was still used in Christian times. That there were wars isn't that much part of the city's history, but of the Carthaginian Empire. For comparison take a look at Rome, Athens or Sparta. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the impt reminder about the "signing". After so many years editing in Wiki, I sometimes forget about it. So where did I say that it wasn't a major power to Rome, then? It was Rome's greatest rival, potential or actual. And please explain the use of "flowery language". The only word you could possibly question is "fierce": to say that the Punic Wars weren't fierce is nonsense. Read your history and see what went on in Italy during the Second Punic War, or how barbaric the siege of Carthage was. And do you dispute that Rome came as close to her end after Cannae as at any time in her history until finally destroyed? And only a remnant of Punic history is left in N. Africa. A few inscriptions, the odd tower. I'm afraid that the Romans did far too clinical a job. And it's the wars that define the city, actually, and destroyed it. I don't disagree that, for instance, Carthage's great naval trading is also impt but not as impt in history as the threat it posed to Rome and how impt, for Rome's development, her destruction was (sad as it is to say that.) See that quote at the start of the Rome article about this. And shouldn't the article be written in "Commonwealth" English? Settle on one and stick with it. And, FWIW, I don't claim to have an acadmic degree. I have three. Regards, bigpad (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro. updated a little. And what does this bit in * * mean: "refers both ... *and to the civilization that developed within the city's sphere of influence.* ?? Is it referring to "Carthaginian" civilization? If so, then please correct it. bigpad (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you. That's a rule for wikipedia as long as you don't know a recognised institution where somebody works and confirms this, you shouldn't believe any claims about titles.

Your first edit was 11:40, 22 February 2008. Don't tell me that you have been editing for years.

You seem a bit confused about the scope of the article. It's about the CITY of Carthage. See for comparison other articles about cities(links above). The important fact about the city is its destruction and that there were rivalries with Syracuse and Rome(leaving out Massalia and the short alliance with Athens and the corule of their empire with Utica and possibly Gades). Mentioning every of these wars that were all cruel and bloody violates summary style.

There's no Carthaginian civilization, but a Punic one that certainly includes at least Utica besides Carthage. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What other "Carthage" is there to 'confuse' me? And as you're not willing to accept facts, from a long-time Wiki user (see my contribution history), I've added a NPOV tag. bigpad (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the city of Carthage as the Carthaginian empire. Two different animals. It's like saying the Delian League was Athens(and yes, we do know that Carthage had treaties with other cities making it a complex agglomeration rather than a centrally ruled empire). And you can't put a NPOV tag on an article if we're just arguing about what to include in the lead. That's no reason for bias. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I must correct myself, your first edit was 09:12, 7 July 2005. However, your edits are mostly about snooker and battleships, not Classical Warfare or cities. I express my doubts that you are familiar enough with the subject. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the Neutrality Tag, which you aren't entitled to remove of your own bat, and referred the dispute to an administrator. You can doubt all you like about my expertise in this area but why would I intervene in a subject I know nothing about? And, briefly, how the Punic Wars and why Carthage became famous through trade and settlements can't be mentioned is ludicrous. bigpad (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Carthage famous because of trade and settlements or because of its constitution and wars with Syracuse and Rome? Are you aware of how many wars between Carthage and Greek cities we know? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring has asked me to comment on this dispute (I'm an administrator BTW). As the introduction states that the term 'Carthage' refers to the city and "the civilisation that developed within the city's sphere of influence" and this text isn't under dispute, it seems reasonable to provide a short account of the civilisation's achievements in the introduction. As the introduction isn't very long at present there seems to be scope to expand it, and including the results of the Battle of Cannae here seems fine to me, as this (rightly or wrongly) is probably Carthage's best-known achievement. As this is a disagreement over what to highlight in the introduction rather than the article's content, the NPOV tag isn't appropriate and I'm going to remove it. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[Quote: Is Carthage famous because of trade and settlements or because of its constitution and wars with Syracuse and Rome? Are you aware of how many wars between Carthage and Greek cities we know? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) ENDQUOTE] It's famous for both its trading and settlements in Spain that made it rich and the major rival to Rome (expansionist) and Syracuse (non-expansionist). And, yes, with a degree in Ancient History I am aware of Carthage's unsuccesful expeditions to conquer Sicily, most notably its catastrophic defeat at Himera in 480, IIRC. BTW, I don't recall asking what expertise Wandalstouring brings to this article (please don't enlighten me). However, thanks to the very acceptable edit by Nick-D, the introduction's looking good other than an incomplete second sentence (unless the word "both" is removed). bigpad (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also been asked, by bigpad, to comment on this dispute (I'm also an admin, FWIW). I would agree with Nick-D's assessment: the lead is pretty short for an article as long as it is (remember, per WP:LEAD, the lead section should function as a stand-alone summary of the article, similar to the abstract in a journal article). There is definitely room for expansion for the lead section. In all the history classes I've taken that cover this period, the maritime and trading prowess of the Carthaginians is always heavily emphasized, at least partially because that's what set it on a path to confrontation with Rome. I also concur with Nick's assessment of the dispute; the NPOV tag is unnecessary. I have fixed the incomplete sentence in the introduction. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question: are we using AE or BE for this article? It seems we've got a mash of both: civilisation and theatre, but harbor and favorable, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elissa/Dido

Why does the article have two sections for her? Why not just combine the mythological account from the Aeneid with the historical version? Or better yet, merely mention that she was featured in the Aeneid, and provide a link here. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to cut out the Aeneid and replace it with a link. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Elissa/Elishat/Dido

This page gets so bogged down in stuff and this talk page seems unnecessarily contentious and/or defensive. Let's have a bit of clarity guys. If the page is just about the CITY, then there needs to be no more than a passing mention of Elissa/Elishat/Dido as legendary founder with a link to the Dido (Queen of Carthage) page. There would then be no need to redirect Elishat here. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Should there not be a separate article for the modern suburb of Carthage?

Detail of the modern suburb would be completely different, including religion, politics, etc, compared to the historical republic/empire. Donama (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Unfortunately, the article is perhaps trying to do too much in discussing Ancient Carthage and Carthage, Tunis together. It is woefully failing to deal with the modern municipality. The modern details need adding (including, for a start, a settlement Infobox!), which would allow a brief history, with the historic details merging into History of Carthage. The current article doesn't even tell us the population of the modern municipality, or that it is in Tunis Governorate. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cochineal?

The article mentions that Carthage made cloth dyed with cochineal. How could this be? Cochineal is from Mexico, and wasn't known to the Old World until after Columbus.72.78.5.239 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can find, it must mean crimson from Kermes vermilio, for which Wikipedia has a stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermes_vermilio Thus, the term cochineal must be incorrect. Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

willing shipwreck

Under "Economy": "Maintaining this monopoly was one of the major sources of power and prosperity for Carthage, and a Carthaginian merchant would rather crash his ship upon the rocky shores of Britain than reveal to any rival how it could be safely approached." This seems improbable and definitely needs a citation. This type of figurative language should probably be prefaced by "According to [Authority A]...". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Boy- decent maps on Wikipedia would sure be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalancedScales (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What in particular are you looking for here? –SJ+ 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing uncited paragraph for discussion?

The paragraph below seems remarkably specific, without any sources, and unsupported by the sources listed elsewhere in the article that mentions sacrificial practices. It seems to me it should be removed here (or to Talk:Religion in Carthage) for discussion until sources can be found. In particular, notes like "beginning at the founding", "began to buy children", and "Special ceremonies during extreme crisis" seem unsupported and not reflective of either modern or ancient histories. The four ancient sources mentioning the practice and the modern work of Stager and Greene, who oversaw the most recent excavation of the Tophet, do not mention such details.

We have a better and more balanced coverage of the subject in Religion in Carthage; new or unusual claims might better be addressed there. –SJ+ 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Accounts of child sacrifice in Carthage report that beginning at the founding of Carthage in about 814 BCE, mothers and fathers buried their children who had been sacrificed to Ba`al Hammon and Tanit in Tophet.[citation needed] The practice was apparently distasteful even to Carthaginians, and they began to buy children for the purpose of sacrifice or even to raise servant children instead of offering up their own. However, Carthage priests demanded the flower of their youth in times of crisis or calamity like war, drought or famine. Special ceremonies during extreme crisis saw up to 200 children of the most affluent and powerful families slain and tossed into the burning pyre.[citation needed]

Fiction section

I think that it is encyclopedic to keep factual and fictional treatments of various issues clearly separate. I don't think Carthage is that common in historical fiction, if it is feel free to add some examples to this section. There is a good deal more in Salammbo than child sacrifice, although it does provide one dramatic chapter. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a modern Carthage or not?

The article is almost completely written in the past tense, about the magnificent city that once was. Yet the article's lead states: "(Carthage) ...is a major urban centre that has existed for nearly 3,000 years on the Gulf of Tunis, developing from a Phoenician colony of the 1st millennium BC which has given place to the current suburb outside Tunis, Tunisia, with a population (2004 Census) of 20,715. ", and fails to teach the name of said suburb. Moreover, the article List of cities in Tunisia does not mention Carthage at all. Question: what is the name of the contemporary "major urban centre", or city, or location that best corresponds to the historic Carthage? --AVM (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't. Israel is the only ancient people and nation to exist through to the present. As usual suspect crypto-antisemitic agenda in attempts to mitigate that unique identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.136.113 (talk • contribs)

lol / Idontcareanymore (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiction references

"The Purple Quest" by Frank G. Slaughter is about the founding of Carthage. 71.48.120.157 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Ed Barnard

moving part of the article

I think sections on administration, religion, economy should be moved to article Ancient Carthage, 'cause this is article on city itself. And I get 404 error when I try to check this.-- Bojan  Talk  05:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. A search of the UoAB site doesn't turn up any mention of the linked article, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Founding year

Deleted three claims of founding year being exactly 814BC until such time as a cited source confirms this specific year.Wjhonson (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Historical Weakest"

I would like to delete the incredible claim that that Carthage was at its historical weakest after the Second Punic war. Certainly it was weaker after the Third Punic war. Any qualms? Ph8l (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)ph8l

census

While reading the article about Carthage I noticed in the first paragraph that the census information was - 20, 715 (census 2014). As today is November 25, 2013 how is it possible to have future information? 206.116.191.6 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. The date was changed by a vandalism-only account back in June [2], and no-one has noticed! It should be 2004. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

British or American English?

Right now it's both. 'Center' was the original spelling, so the 'centres' should be changed, anyone disagree? Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Major omission

The article needs to include in one of its very first sentences some information about the location of ancient Carthage in terms of modern geography. For example, mentioning right away that its center was located extremely close to modern-day Tunis, Tunisia. And also something about its extent in terms of modern geography — so that readers have a reference for Carthage in terms of something that they are familiar with.

Note that the first map the reader sees is not helpful in this regard, since it does not specify modern boundaries (other than the obvious shape of modern Italy).

Clearly, any article about an ancient civilization must introduce it by describing its time and place in terms that most readers would understand.

ALSO: In the section Modern suburb, the first sentence:

"Carthage . . . is a suburb of Tunis, Tunisia, situated at the site of the ancient capital of the Carthaginian empire."

is very confusing. The intended meaning is that the location of the center of ancient Carthage is now a suburb of modern-day Tunis, Tunisia. It is not even called "Carthage" nowadays, so this needs to be written more clearly — by someone who knows a lot more about it than I do.Daqu (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you call people from Carthage?

Can someone include a demonym in the infobox at the right?

Were they called Carthagenians? DBlomgren (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your spelling is a bit off (Carthaginians), but otherwise right. Good point, too. (I'd add it, if I didn't risk buggering the template. :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied and pasted from the Paris article. Tried to find the Arabic equivalent but couldn't. DBlomgren (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

49-44: wrong // Colonia Iulia Concordia Carthago : missing

I have just read the following in the article (needing citation):

After this ill-fated attempt a new city of Carthage was built on the same land by Julius Caesar in 49–44 BC period, ...

This ist quite impossible: After Caesar had crossed the Rubicon (49), the senate asked Pompey for help. Caesar landed in Africa (Roman province) in december 47, and won the Battle of Thapsus on April 6, 46 BC. After that victory, it may have been senseful for him to think of a re-foundation.

Afaik, Emperor Augustus founded Colonia Iulia Concordia Carthago 29 BC. --Neun-x (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)