i haven't watched this yet, but i'll bite first and then watch it after - the truth is that history did go the other way in the end, it just took another thousand years to get there. what was the eventual arab empire in northern africa if not a neo-carthaginian empire? there were invasions of sicily, eventually undone by a byzantine-norman alliance. and what was the reconquista if not a repetition of history? so, what happens in the end is that carthage is not destroyed after all, but is merely put into hibernation, to return with the arab migration. there's some bias in seeing the world as it is and declaring that history is over (something i generally tend to avoid, as per the famous and often misunderstood quote by fukuyama), but there seems to be stability here in allowing carthage dominion over africa and rome control over europe. so, is there a historian that argues that geography is destiny, the way that marx argues for the role of class and technology in the unfolding of history? i'm not aware of one, but i'd suppose it's probably the unavoidable truth of it - you can fight over the islands if you insist, but the continental shelf decides the outcome, in the end.

somebody living in a future where tunisia joins the eu, or spain joins the arab league, may disagree. but, i think the point is that both potential outcomes are relatively remote - and unstable should they develop in the short term.

so, let me watch this, now.

"just wait until eric idle hears of this!"

ok.

1) might pyrrhus have tried to use the substantive existing presence of greeks in france and spain to build an alliance with the celts? massalia, for example, was at this point a somewhat ancient greek stronghold. and, that's something you sort of glossed over - that the greeks were definitely in spain before either the carthaginians or the romans. if so, it opens up the other side of the map, and it puts pyyrhus, rather than rome, in charge of the first western empire.

2) i'm going to go with you with the romans as carthaginian mercenaries, but i'm going to finish the thought - this kind of thing is frequent in both roman but especially in arab history, as they frequently hired northern mercenaries and then watched them revolt. so, you ended up with the mamlukes in egypt, for example, which then took over the ottomans from the inside, as well. it's entirely plausible on it's face that the carthaginians may have hired romans to fight, but it would have no doubt backfired and let the romans take them out from the inside.

3) nonetheless, that map you present is essentially the map of medieval europe, except that carthaginians/arabs get spain and the romans/europeans get turkey. both those positions are untenable, but that configuration may have existed at some point, sure. i don't suppose that this observation is coincidence.

in the end, i think you get that continental stability, regardless, and nothing much really changes in terms of outcomes.

- i don't think second-guessing hannibal's decision to avoid attacking rome is worthwhile. he went for naples instead, and couldn't do it. i see no reason at all to think that he had any realistic chance invading rome whatsoever, and his decision to avoid it was no doubt the correct one.

- the idea of archimedes meeting up with hannibal is interesting, but i think you want to look at how einstein reacted to hitler to get an idea about what he would have really thought of hannibal. the histories of antiquity aside, hannibal was, of course, a horrible war criminal. there is more than a tactical issue separating the moral questions of defense from offense within war, and i suspect that the learned archimedes would have seen hannibal as a monster rather than as a would be collaborator. i don't think he would have willingly worked with the romans either, and have long suspected that the story about him being slain is really a gloss over his refusal to work with the invaders, rather than a foreshadowing of the death of anton webern.

- likewise, i can't imagine hasdrubal doing much more than drawing the process out. so long as the carthaginian senate was what it was, the details are mostly irrelevant - and it's just a matter of time before the punic forces starve to death.

you also have to wonder if the brothers might have quarrelled amongst themselves, as the normans did when in the same scenario centuries later.