Carthage was one of many cities founded by the Phoenicians in approximately 800 BC. Like Rome, it had a Republican (non-regal) Constitution, which, as described by Aristotle, was a mixed one, with a dominant aristocracy and some oligarchic and democratic leanings.

The Phoenicians came from modern-day Turkey, Syria and Palestine. They were a maritime trading people, possibly because of the poor quality of soil in their native land.

They established colonies, towns and cities across the Mediterranean including the north African coastline, and Spain. it appears their colonisation extended to the Atlantic coast of Africa and Spain.

Carthage was founded by the Phoenician city of Tyrria. In a very fertile part of North Africa (modern-day Tunisia) with a dominating strategic position. Eventually Carthage lost contact with Tyrria as its own power grew, but also because the Phoenicians were pressed by the Asiatic empires of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and Persia.

Like Rome, Carthage came to dominate the Punic cities through a mix of military might, colonisation and equitable treaties. The Carthaginians also fought nearly constantly against the Greeks in Sicily. Which would ultimately lead to the First Punic War with Rome.

H.H. Scullard speculates that Carthage was founded a republic so as not to encourage the idea that it was disloyal to the Phoenician monarchs.

Aristotle writes:

The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan.

Indeed, all three states - the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian - nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent.

The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution.

The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant.

Carthage had a Senate of Three Hundred of which there was a Council of Thirty chosen from the Senate, and as part of the thirty, were included two popularly elected judges called Suffetes. The judges were mainly focused on civil, rather than martial affairs and were elected annually by an assemblic body.

The popular body voted on legislation and policies, but only when the Senate and Council could not reach agreement - such that the popular will became a tie-breaker.

There was also a Council of One Hundred and Four which was purely judicial in focus and was chosen from the Senate. This body was intended to act as check and balance on any tyranny flowing from the other magistracies. It was very close to separation of powers between executive and judicial - but like Rome, tyranny was a real fear, probably because these systems despite the checks and attempts at political balance were often based on arbitrary power.

The Council of One Hundred and Four was appointed, rather than elected, with the appointments done by a group of five magistrates - the Pentarchs. Scullard writes that this led to corruption of the judicial powers until Hannibal flushed out the pentarchs and judges.

H.H. Scullard writes:

The effective government was thus in the hands of an oligarchy of nobles. But it is uncertain how far they formed an aristocracy of birth or of wealth, how far they closed ranks against other aspirants to office, and whether their interests were commercial or agricultural.

Apparently most of what is known about Carthage comes from Roman or Greek writings, which are biased, or from modern archeology. Despite being an Empire and fighting Rome near to defeat through three very long wars it left little mark on the world that was permanent.

Went out looking for books on Chinese political history, and instead came back with; Aristotle's The Politics, Plato's The Republic and a book on the essential writings of the American Transcendentalists of the early and mid-19thC. Apparently the latter were influences on Deniehy, Harpur and other 19thC Australian Republicans.

I mainly want to go through Plato and Aristotle as Lintott discussed them both, and Polybius' work, as arguing that the sign of a good constitution is martial success.

It is ironic, as I started philosophy in Sydney, years and years ago, and the first text was The Republic, which bored me to tears. As it was I couldn't continue University because of work demands and dropped it.

Now, I am reading it for fun.

But back then I was interested in the philosophy of science and saw political philosophy as a distraction, today, I am more interested in politics.

I still don't believe the texts from antiquity offer much insight into modern political technology or practice. The main reason being liberalism and its expression through the enlightenment.

Compare Plato and Polybius and their martial constitutional view to Kant's document on international liberalism: where he argues that a perfect constitution is not possible under a state of war.

Antiquity's technologies were made obsolete with the enlightenment which is why they cannot be viewed under our rationality of liberal democratism or liberal republicanism. The difference between the Roman Republic and the American Republic is the enlightenment.

It is interesting to note that the 19thC Australian Republican view; that the republic should represent the absolute best of political technology at any one time, has been consistent through history. So even Plato's rationality of a republic, though infantile in comparison to what has been achieved constitutionally today, represented the best political technology at the time.

Anyway, I will be spending this evening out on the back deck with a beer, a cigar, a pen and three books. Pretty close to my idea of bliss.