What do you do when you finally buy a coin you have been chasing?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Like any animals? Or could I sacrifice like a cockroach, a rat, and a tadpole or something?

 

Manga Grecia? Was there a Hentai Grecia also?

 

If my memory serves me correct, I believe there was some type of value system, I believe they had to be "work" animals,

They found hundreds of thousands of bones, something like 18,000 children under the age of 3 and an unspecified number of animals, cows, goats, oxen,dogs and the like.

It was common practice to sacrifice some of your children as your fortune would be divided up upon your death. People would often kill off there children to preserve financial integrity, and maintain abundant resource to the populous. The Carthaginian empire was not an empire to per-say but rather a large confederation of people with a common financial interest. Dealing mainly in Lumber from the Levant, Precious metals and Purple Murex Shell dye. Carthage reminds me of a modern corporation, that looks out for its own interest, through trade deals, contracts and of course down-sizing. A very interesting way of looking at an ancient people.

 

So thats when you buy Greeks!

 

They were Phoenicians. That pretty much explains Carthage, (assuming you know about ancient Phoenicians that is. )

 

This thread went happy - funny - weird- historical. Neat.

 

ok when I got my 1955 ddo fs101 MS62 I paid 2000 for it.. Its now worth 3 ,, I was sooo excited out side in my boxer scream I did it I did it.,.lol.. the next day I got it via fed ex .. I was so excite I later realized it went up in value.. and I the got my 2nd one in VF 45 condition .. it was slab by icg.. now I have a 09svdb,, want to get a slabbed one..

 

Anoob, you missed one major part.

Those children who were killed in a 'Molk' Sacrifice in the Tophet were normally those of nobleman.

From this, it is assumed that it was a honor to give your children to the gods.

It also states that they could sacrifice work animals or street children (that they payed for).

Most of the children that ended up sacrificed were those who were stillborn or died in infancy
(due to the lack of graves in the main cemeteries of those under 3, despite infant mortality estimated at 35-40%)

It was all over the ancient world, but the sacrifice would normally be just leaving them out on the street (Rome) or throwing them off a mountain (Sparta), along with many other ways.

This was mostly due to the lack of food, but most people had multiple children due to the above infant mortality rates.

It was a corporation, but one reliant on religion.

In my Opinion, This was much like the Roman Catholic Church during the Papal States period...

They controlled the colonies (states) by Religion, without the religion it would have fallen apart in a short time.

Anoob misspelled the name of the area, and has a few mistakes on what the book is based on.

The book is based on surviving histories (taken in context that most historians had an anti-Carthage view), along with Archaeological evidence.

For the Area:

Magna Graecia (Great Greece) was the name of Southern Italy

For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia

Little Shocking, isn't it...

As I mentioned above, this was not uncommon in the ancient world, but the child would have had a much faster and less painful death than starvation or waiting for the wolves.

However, most sacrifices were those of stillborn children or those who were already dead, so it isn't as bad as it seems (only got very bad with the mass killings where this wouldn't be allowed to happen during times of great disasters [Romans in North Africa during the Second Punic War is an example])

And Finally:

In my opinion, the Carthaginians weren't as Barbaric as the Romans (and I'm saying this as a 99.99% chance descendant of the Romans).

As said above, the Romans would leave their children to starve or to the wolves, where the children of Carthage were killed quickly.

Some of the Greeks called the Carthaginians barbarians. This was because they were fighting each other for Sicily, and both sides committed many Genocides, mass murders and other atrocities.

In fact, the Great Aristotle himself, teacher of Alexander the Great, thought Carthage had an amazing system of Government, nearly reaching that of the Athenians.
He didn't think that Carthage was barbaric compared to the great city of Syracuse.

Romans originally didn't think that the Carthaginians were barbaric, but changed [my opinion is this part] that so they could have good reason to attack and kill the Carthaginians, taking over their empire.

 

It really is a great book- in the last century, people were trying to prove that the biased accounts of this kind of "barbarity" in the Punic culture by the Greeks and Later the Romans were not true. The Carthaginians / Phoenicians must be misunderstood or there practices grossly exaggerated, by bitter contemporaries. When in fact the stories of sacrificing mass sacrifices are true!
Let's not forget about the the accomplishments of the Phoenicians, you know the invention of the long distance sea fairing vessel. They were the first to pass through the pillars of Hercules, cough*Melkart* cough and then south along the West African coast, describing weird, savage men with bodies covered with hair. (The Great Apes)

Ardos, Phoenicia
c.450 BC
AR Stater

 

Yup! AND Id I didn't miss it - you merely beat me to Medoraman's comment...lol...for those that didn't know there is standing stigma against Phoenicians and Carthaginians (anti semetic) view in ancient times. Great recap Windchild, a much appreciated addition.

 

Great Stater!

However, the book states that mass sacrifices were only true in rare, disastrous times, and they were of the children of the rich.

The rest of the time, it was those who were stillborn or died in infancy.

Ah...

That makes sense now

Welcome


BTW, I read really fast...

I've read the book three times now... I read too quickly


I did get a Christmas gift two days ago.. my uncle wanted to give it to me himself...

He is really into the History of the Bible, and got me a Study Bible [not because it is a bible, but as a history book], where there are great maps and explanations... making the bible a little bit easier to understand.

It's called the NIV Study Bible if anyone is interested... its a rather big book (over 2 thousand pages), has a few amazing maps in the back, and explains a ton of early history.

 

Ok listen Punie , there is a lot of kids in those holes (there are quite a few in Iberia as well, eh?)

Again thanks for the addition.

 

Hey steve- look at the WC's new nickname....Punie...sometimes I amaze myself.

 

Read what I wrote on the last page...

My family is ancestrally Celtic, Pict, Scot, Saxon, Norman, Brit, and, especially, Roman.

I like the Punic history as it shows a history that was destroyed and changed by the victors, so its hard to research but rewarding when you find something new.

There are a ton of kids in those holes, but it should be expected in a time when some experts predict somewhere between 35% and 40% Infant Mortality rate...

This means that somewhere between 7/20 and 8/20 died in Infancy... so you should expect that many kids down there...

Especially when they had so many in the city... the numbers of dead infants would have been high!

Roma blasphematur Carthago, Carthago fuit in gloria

 

Its an interesting subject. Carthage went from pure evil, to misunderstood good, back to somewhat evil. The one point i would say though was that in times of extreme duress, they were not allowed to substitute sacrifices, the first born son had to be slain and burned. The only leniency that was granted was the extremely powerful were allowed to smother their son beforehand, therefor not burn them alive.

I am a punic lover, but still am glad Rome won.

 

I wrote on last page:

I love Punic history, and I love Rome, but I'm not so sure it was so great that Rome won.

The Romans were, in many cases, more barbaric than the Carthaginians.

Another piece from last page.

Also, the Carthaginians were tolerant of all, unlike the Romans.

 

Romans MAY have if they couldnt afford them, but no roman god required such a mass sacrifice of children.

I find the romans very tolerant of everyone, as long as they accepted romans were superior.