The constitution of Carthage is the political regime of the city in Punic times.
Carthage's political system has been the subject of much debate, as Aristotle's Politics discusses it at length, alongside the institutions of Sparta and Crete. This text, the only example of its time to refer in extenso to non-Greek political institutions, has given rise to much controversy among historians, which has not subsided in the present day.
Carthage's political organization was praised by many ancient authors, who highlighted its "reputation for excellence". Although few details are known about the government of the great city, we do have Aristotle's invaluable text: he depicts it as a model of a "mixed" constitution, balanced and displaying the best characteristics of the various types of political regimes, i.e. blending elements of the monarchical (kings or suffetes), aristocratic (Senate) and democratic (assembly of the people) systems.
The sources are very limited and mostly biased, as they are sometimes taken from Roman or Greek authors, making it difficult to conclude the debate. In addition, the cultural context and the terminology used do not conform to the Eastern political context. Aristotle's text seems to describe static political institutions, taking no account of developments linked to conflicts in Carthage's history, including the Sicilian Wars, which predate the text; nor is there any information on changes linked to the period of the Punic Wars and the Mercenary War, among others. Aristotle's text has therefore fuelled a lively debate, with some historians, including Stéphane Gsell, regarding it as a late description. Researchers now prefer to focus on the evolution of institutions over history.
Despite the shortcomings of the information available on Carthage, the data is much more extensive than for the other Carthaginian cities.
Brief history of the question For a long time, the question of Carthage's constitution revolved around the debate over kingship in Carthage. Classical authors considered that a monarchy had existed in the city, and even in the early 20th century, Karl Julius Beloch fiercely defended the thesis of the existence of Carthaginian kings. Indeed, the city's suffetes are referred to as "kings" in classical sources. These sources use terminology that is specific to their political context and could only give an approximate view of Punic institutions.
One of the main arguments in favor of kings was the proven existence of Phoenician monarchies that combined political and religious power, as in the 5th century BC Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II. There has also been much debate as to whether the Barcids established a kingdom in Spain when they conquered the Iberian populations. While Hédi Dridi acknowledges the principle of succession in this family, he considers that there is no evidence of kingship to date, not even the themes used on Hispanic coinage.
As early as the beginning of the 20th century, Stéphane Gsell expressed serious doubts on the matter, and referred to the "synonymy of the terms basileus, rex and sufes". The issue was taken up by Gilbert Charles-Picard, who took it a step further by seeking to develop an internal history of Carthage based on the presumed reigns of kings identified for the 5th century BC. However, the same author largely questioned his assertions at the end of his life. Nonetheless, Carthage did experience coup attempts, such as that of Malchus in the fifth century BC and of Bomilcar at the time of Agathocles of Syracuse's attack (5th century BC). Most specialists today agree that the Carthaginian political system cannot be assimilated into a monarchy.
Institutional evolution
Carthage's political institutions could not have remained static throughout the city's existence, and it is hard to imagine that the ups and downs of history, made up of expansions and refluxes, were without consequence. The choice of presenting Carthage's institutions in Aristotle's work is perhaps linked to Aristotle's desire to present archaisms and, at the very least, provides a picture of the city's institutions in the second half of the 4th century BC.
The constitution is seen as mixed, with a strong executive power, a deliberative assembly, and a high council, marking an oligarchic and aristocratic aspect, and an assembly of the people endowed with an important arbitration role. François Decret believes that the city's first institutions were modeled on those of the mother city, Tyre. The Punic city extended its power into the western Mediterranean, particularly after the Assyrian conquest of Tyre in the 6th century BC, which freed it from the obligation to pay tribute to the Africans.
In the middle of the 2nd century BC, Malchus, a general who had fought in Sicily and Sardinia, is said to have seized power in Carthage and had ten senators executed before being put to death for tyranny. According to proponents of the Carthage kingship thesis, after the monarchic phase, a major institutional evolution followed the fall of Bomilcar in 308, and it was these new institutions that were the subject of Aristotle's description, culminating in an aristocratic republic. The 4th century BC in Carthage was a century of major upheaval, and the Hannonid family rose to prominence. Aristotle points out that Hannon wished to become a monarch and thus qualifies his statement on the supposed institutional stability of the city.
According to François Decret, the people's assembly acquired greater power from the middle of the 2nd century BC, especially around 237 after the First Punic War, giving every citizen more influence in political life, with the process accelerating after the Battle of Zama. According to a text by Polybius, the result was that the voice of the people prevailed in deliberations. Titus Livius also mentions tensions in 196 between Hannibal and a judge in charge of financial functions, which led to a change in the law by the people's assembly, considering the judicial function to be annual and non-renewable. This affair was a sign of demagoguery and of the struggle between Hannibal and the Council of Elders, which led to his exile.
Question of monarchial rule "Kings" of Carthage
The Phoenician-Punic world was not unaware of monarchy: indeed, Phoenician cities had kings very early on: kings were known in Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre. However, these kings did not wield absolute power: the hereditary Phoenician king was more the first among citizens than an absolute king. He was subject to pressure from his entourage (advisors), the wealthiest citizens (Council), and the people (Assemblies). In the metropolises, kings were in place, but nothing was certain about the situation in the colonies. In Cyprus, the presence of a king was assured, but in Carthage, the problem was posed. The legend of the founding of the city by Elissa-Didon, considered to have come from the royal family of Tyre, does not prove the introduction of a monarchical regime. Aristotle's text refers to "kings" (basileis), but since this dual kingship is not a proven Phoenician feature, it is all the more suspect. In contrast, the two kings, or archagetai under the Spartan monarchy is well-documented.
The theory of the Carthaginian kingship was bitterly defended and developed by Gilbert Charles-Picard for the 2nd and 5th centuries BC, following in the footsteps of Karl Julius Beloch. It was taken up by François Decret. Picard demonstrates an evolution in Carthage's institutions: a monarchy was established from the city's foundation, with a Magonid dynasty reigning, according to him, between 550 and 370, followed by the Hannonids until 308. After this date, the monarchy would only have been hereditary. However, this thesis is rejected by most historians, including Maurice Sznycer, who believes that the Semitic suffetate is the only real institution behind the terms used by Greco-Roman sources. Serge Lancel evokes a provisional kingship for the early history of Carthage, a military command with full powers entrusted for a given and possibly renewable period by an authority not cited in the sources.
Some historiography has also assumed monarchical ambitions, on the Hellenistic model, for the Barcids in Spain, a hypothesis also dismissed by Maurice Sznycer.
Suffetes
The study of Carthage's kingship has led to the hypothesis that those called "kings" were in fact "suffetes". This hypothesis is more in line with Eastern traditions and those of Tyre: suffetes or SPT (shouphet meaning "judges") are, as in Israel, chiefs and rulers. While they were responsible for dispensing justice and managing civil administration, their office was not hereditary. The government was to be comparable to that of Rome, with a Senate and two suffetes elected annually, but called "kings" by the Romans and Greeks due to their inability to find a suitable term in their culture to convey the Punic reality. As Carthage's supreme magistrates, the two suffetes are implicitly mentioned by Cornelius Nepos: "In the same way that Rome gave itself consuls, Carthage created two kings each year with annual powers".
The suffetate is attested at the end of the 4th century BC and in the 2nd century BC, but in Tyre as early as the 5th century BC. It is thought that these suffetes exercised judicial power, in particular for private and executive law, but not military power – reserved for chiefs elected separately each year by the people's assembly and recruited from the city's great families – nor religious power. They would have had the political power to convene assemblies and preside over their debates.
Hannibal Barca is a case in point: according to Titus Livius, he was elected suffet after the defeat at Zama in 196. However, Hamilcar, defeated at Himera, was appointed basileus on account of his military valor.
In all likelihood, the suffetes' power was limited to the civil administration of public affairs. Chosen like all the city's magistrates based on their wealth and competence, they were not otherwise remunerated. M'hamed Hassine Fantar mentions a wide range of civil, religious, and military skills. According to him, they also convened and presided over assemblies.
Two eponymous annual suffetes existed from the 5th century BC onwards. Based on an inscription in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, some authors, including Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, have proposed that the suffetate was established in the last third of the century. As was the case in Rome, lists drawn up on durable materials must have existed, but they have not come down to us. The institution continued to exist in Roman times, with municipal magistrates, until the 1st century, both for cities in North Africa and Sardinia.
Oligarchic elements: Council of Elders and Hundred and Four Carthage had an assembly referred to by Polybius as the "Great Council", a plenary assembly and a restricted assembly, the "Council of Elders". Members of the Grand Council were members of the city's leading families.
Council of Elders
The suffetes were assisted by a "Council of Elders", or gerousia, which was found in other cities, particularly Sparta: the texts refer to the "Elders of Carthage", according to a customary Semitic expression, as in Leptis Magna. Even in Roman times, the "Great Ones of Leptis" are mentioned.
According to Justin, this Council was already present in the 2nd century BC and has been likened to the Roman Senate, its members being referred to in various sources as gerontes or seniores. Meetings were held not far from the agora, the city's main square.