Which Side Would You have Supported During the Three Punic Wars?

[PSOL]

Carthage, on account of most of the conflict being a defensive war for them against the invading Romans.

[PSOL]

Carthage, on account of most of the conflict being a defensive war for them against the invading Romans.

Snip

Both Rome and Carthage were imperialist powers and a conflict was going to arise regardless, but the “Neither Roma nor Carthago” position here only benefits Rome. Comparing the two systems of each respective government, Carthage from my knowledge had a more decentralized, hands off approach that was both a) more respectful of communal rights of autonomous conquered nations and 2) Less able to expand itself in the same degree as Rome could have.

Therefore it would be best to align with Carthage on accounts of not having to deal with the consequences of a Carthaginian defeat. Firstly; Roman expansion into the African Continent, Greece, and Iberian peninsula would be grinded to a halt which would rapidly reduce the ability of the Romans to procure slaves to keep its economy going. Therefore, with a reduced economic input vital to the economy, there would be more incentive for reforms to the system or else there would be massive revolts, and Rome’s social strife was much more class-based in nature than the strife in Carthage. We could have at best gotten a Plebian State or a state more willing to enact populist policies to placate the Plebians. Such a model then would have spread elsewhere. On the latter situation, in this world where Carthage has one but is limited to real life factors on the growth of its empire, a Cold War of sorts in antiquity or an alliance of smaller states. This unstable unipolar or multipolar would lead to massive acts of bribery and work with smaller states, greatly enriching the region in geopolitical investments.

I’m open to changing my minds here given my historical knowledge of the region is not very good compared to those who specialize in Antiquity, but by all accounts a Carthagian victory would have been the best alternate timeline for humanity as a whole; less enslaved people, more investment, and empowering more progressive actors.

[PSOL]

I mean the very conquest of Carthagian lands may have resulted in one of the most populist policies in all of history. 
Cura Annonae or the grain dole.

Then the alternative sets of questions would be;

1. Would a Roman defeat lead to an adoption of further concessions to make up for the loss
2. Is the imperial domination of one imperial power worth it if it means massive consolidation built upon mass social oppression, genocidal annihilation, and murder?

A tangent to #2 would also be whether Rome or Carthage had the most “humane” system.

I would be very interested to know if ^this analysis has any merit, if any of our resident classicists are so inclined. On the it seems very suspicious (it would be very ... convenient to a certain worldview, to say the least) but I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to thoroughly debunk it.

There should be no suspicion, it’s clear when I mention “Plebian State” and “Concessions” exactly what sort of worldview and system I’m wanting. A Syrian, Mysteries participating me in Athens, then a modern day Illinois, would probably simp for a coalition of Christians, slaves, German settlers, and Plebians to work together to own the Slaveholding pedophiles in the Senate and the Sepah Republican Guard Capitol Hil Police Praetorian Guard.

Outside of larping, I am interested in what those with more intense and full knowledge of the period have to say about the conflict.