Why “Carthage has to be destroyed“?
“Carthage has to be destroyed!“ This phrase belonging to one of the Roman politicians, which all the performances in the Senate always is familiar to all (!) finished with it. It has to be destroyed! And why - you know? Is not present? That is the true reason of destruction of Carthage by Rome is known by the very few. with
For a start small digression to history, without dates, names of commanders and politicians, schemes of fights and battles, than, as a rule, overloaded all textbooks of history. So...
The civilized world of times of Punic wars was two-polar (quite so now it would be called): on the one hand there was Rome, with the codified system of the right, with agrarian economy where each soldier was at the same time a grain-grower or the handicraftsman, and Carthage, a civilization of dealers where money and the status prevailed over the right where the army consisted only of mercenaries where not the triumph and valor, but wealth was the supreme value.
Naturally, there was still a set of basic distinctions: for example, Rome was the overland empire, and Carthage sea; In Rome there was a pantheon enough human gods, and in Carthage in the heated mouth - a fire chamber of bronze Moloch thousands of babies were fed. The difference between Carthaginians and Romans was in everything: tenor of life, scale of values, social system and other.
Many historians, comparing Rome and Carthage of that time, draw parallels between the USSR and the USA of the period of cold war. In my opinion, not the absolutely successful comparison but, nevertheless, having the right for existence and partially displaying an essence of the lasting conflict. But we will return to history.
It turns out that on different coast of the Mediterranean there were two so various civilizations that oppositions could not but just be. As poured out in series of the Punic wars proceeding significantly more century. And it is about opposition of civilizations, but not about territorial disputes or any conflicts of interests - it is very important to understand it.
It is necessary to notice that economically full and physical extermination of the opponent was not favorable to either Rome, or Carthage: the first were interested in expansion of the empire, in receipt from under control territories of values in a type of tax and other payments, and the second needed the sales markets of the goods and rich and territorially not too remote. As well as those, and to those needed slaves.
Military operations proceeded with variable success - as in the territories under control to Rome, and on the lands of Carthage, and always came to an end with signing of this or that peace treaty.
And here we approach the most important - all peace agreements always the first were violated by Carthage. What Rome reacted also always equally and predictably to - unleashing of the next military campaign. For Rome, for its Senate, for the aristocracy and the simple Roman people it was the unique reaction to breach of contract: The Roman Empire nevertheless was in this sense the real constitutional state - the law and the contract above all! Unlike Carthage where and justifying any violations of contractual obligations momentary benefit or profit in the long term served correct. You feel an approach difference?
Now it is a high time to approach directly destruction of Carthage. To comparison of the legendary and most beautiful city with the earth, to a ritual plowing a heavy Roman plow and to falling asleep I will merge places where it stood, a certain negotiation process preceded. Carthaginians thought that next. Romans knew that the last.
For this reason the authorities of Carthage fulfilled all requirements of the army of Romans standing under walls of the city which command read these requirements step by step, but not all at once. The last requirement was categorical - to leave the city which after the leg of the last inhabitant crosses city line, will be completely destroyed. To the word speaking, guaranteed to Carthaginians life and allowed to leave with all the belongings, property and slaves that from Romans there was more than generous.
- You are not dogovorosposobna, - the commander of the Roman army said to the Carthago aristocrats rolling at his legs in dust and begging the next forgiveness - as it is possible to agree with the one who obviously will not satisfy the term of the contract?
After that there was a siege, heroic defense of the fateful city and its final fracture.
Contractual capacity - here a key to understanding of the reasons of destruction of Carthage! To be exact, its absence at Carthaginians. Other scale of values, other priorities, other mentality - here it is valid there`s nothing to be done. At impossibility to agree, the only way of resolution of conflict is only a physical extermination of the second participant of the conflict, as was made Rome.
So it for amusing such substance - contractual capacity? The sense of this legal category follows directly from its name - ability nobody the subject (the person, the organization, the state) to enter the contractual relations and to satisfy their conditions always and not just when their performance is favorable to it.
How it could turn out so what the modern civilization, being the successor of the Roman Empire, has no such category in the right? To my deepest regret, there was a replacement and substitution of this concept by others, the legal definitions and institutes which are not displaying all depth and an essence. Whom and why it was made - it is already a subject of other article, but the fact remains: no you will find such concept as in one law of any modern state contractual capacity .
And it is a pity. In my opinion, remain this concept of the right to this day, the state and society would look a little in a different way, and that is a bit too much something around all “Carthago“ today. .