ally given as 309 b.c.e. However, before then it is not clear
whether all the rulers came from one family or whether they
were semi-elected or indeed wholly elected by the people of
Carthage or their representatives. Much of the account of the
period aft er Aristotle comes from Th e Histories by the Greek
historian Polybius (ca. 205–ca. 123 b.c.e.), who oft en uses the
term “king” carelessly in several other contexts.
Aristotle notes in the fourth century b.c.e. that the Car-
thaginians operated with an unwritten constitution that was
similar to that in many Greek cities. Indeed, it is clear that
an oligarchy exercised total power over political decisions ex-
cept in the short democratic period that followed the War of
the Mercenaries in about 240–238 b.c.e. Offi cially Carthage
was ruled through a general assembly, but it was dominated
by the Senate, with several hundred members who were all
elected for life, and a “Committee of Five.” Members of the
Senate seem to have been co-opted to form committees that
advised two annually elected judges. Military generals were
also elected to hold military commands when needed. For
this reason even extremely powerful and successful generals
like Hannibal owed their command to the Carthaginian Sen-
ate, as shown by their recall of him in 203 b.c.e.
Because Carthage relied for most of its history on mer-
cenaries, their rebellion and subsequent blockade of the city
of Carthage itself shattered the people’s confi dence in the
government of the empire. Hanno the Great, a general put
in command, was able to deploy an army but, aft er an initial
victory, was defeated at Utica. Th is led to the appointment
of Hamilcar. Hamilcar was not only an important general
but also a keen politician. One of Hamilcar’s daughters mar-
ried Bomilcar, then the titular ruler (or “king”) of Carthage.
Th is gave Hamilcar not just military but also political power.
According to Polybius, Hamilcar is said to have off ered the
troops the opportunity of choosing their general—and they
elected him. Th is started the system by which a military
monarchy could have come into existence. With the death of
Bomilcar, the system of titular “king” of Carthage ended.
Th e uneasy relationship between the Carthaginian Sen-
ate and these generals is shown by the “Court of the Four
Hundred” that tried to manage the First Punic War (264–241
b.c.e.) and was involved in ordering that four generals be
crucifi ed for their failures. As the distrust between the politi-
cians and the generals grew, Barca (d. 229 b.c.e.) and his son
Hannibal (247–183 b.c.e.) both technically held power at the
behest of the Senate of Carthage. For this reason Hamilcar
established a separate power base in Spain to allow him to
raise money and soldiers for what would eventually lead to
the Second Punic War (218–202 b.c.e.).
Hannibal’s invasion of Italy may or may not have had the
support of the Senate in Carthage, though when it was suc-
cessful most would have rejoiced. Some, however, were clearly
enemies of the Barcid family, and it showed in their attitude
to him when he was unable to capture the city of Rome. Th e
failure of the Carthaginian Senate to send reinforcements to
Hannibal during his time in Italy and to recall Hannibal in
203 b.c.e. aft er Publius Cornelius Scipio (later “Africanus”)
landed an expeditionary force in North Africa, are two clear
examples of the power of the Senate over the military. Livy
implies this in his descriptions of Carthaginian Senate, prob-
ably based on recollections by a Roman based on what might
have been said in Carthage.
Overall, the Carthaginian system of government was
not dissimilar to that later adopted by the Roman Republic,
by which powerful families could control the city but were
not powerful enough to establish hereditary rule. However, it
does not appear that the Carthaginians ever allowed a popu-
lar vote for positions, leading many historians to see the Punic
Wars to a war between Roman democracy and Carthaginian
dictatorship.
During the Th ird Punic War (149–146 b.c.e.), the Car-
thaginian government seemed to have a much more impor-
tant role in the running of the city than was the case during
the Second Punic War. In 203 b.c.e., when Carthage itself was
under attack, the responsibility for the stockpiling of food
seemed to have been held by the individual families them-
selves. With the fi nal siege of Carthage, however, it was the
task of the government to hoard much of the food to prevent
the people from starving. It is also was possible that on the
fi rst occasion, in 203 b.c.e., the threat to the city was not seen
as being as serious as that which led to the fi nal siege of the
city, leading to its sacking and the total overthrow of the Car-
thaginian government.NORTH AFRICA
Two of the major states in North Africa, Mauretania and
Numidia, occupied what are now modern-day Morocco and
Algeria. Both were ruled by kings who were nominally in-
dependent but who relied on strong alliances fi rst with Car-
thage and then Rome, both being eventually annexed by the
Romans.
In Numidia a kingdom was originally formed by former
nomads, who before they established permanent settlements,
were a confederation of various tribes, with leaders oft en
linked by political marriages; some of the more powerful
ones vied for control of the whole entity. Syphax (d. ca. 201
b.c.e.), the chief of the Masaesyles tribe, wore a diadem like
a Hellenistic monarch, probably modeling his style of gov-
ernment on that of Alexander the Great, with allegiances
formed in battle. He used Phoenician rather than Berber as
the language of government. His system proved unsuccessful
and was replaced by the formation of a dynastic government
aft er the emergence of Masinissa (ca. 240–148 b.c.e.). Th e
Greek writer Strabo records that Masinissa made “nomads
into farmers and welded them into a state.” He also turned
local warlords into feudal chiefs who owed their large estates,
wealth, and power to Masinissa himself, who dispensed them
in return for loyalty. Masinissa also saw the role of the king in
the Hellenistic mould.
Th e structure of government in Mauretania was probably
similar, though there is clearer evidence of a hereditary aris-government organization: Africa 509