At the apex of hierarchical societies, the Tyrian aristocracy
Phoenician and Punic societies were broadly stratified. Symbolic and real powers were in the hands of an aristocracy originating from Tyre which held sway over a city's economy, politics and religion. The rest of society essentially consisted of artisans and traders. The place of women in society remains ill-defined in so far as trustworthy documentation on the subject is exceedingly rare, and contradictory.
In Carthage, founded by Tyrians circa 814 or 812 BC, aristocratic wealth was linked to ship and land ownership. This Carthaginian aristocracy's wealth also correlated with the key role it played in public office matters. The priesthood was recruited in these privileged classes too. Although they formed a strongly structured cast, priests played no significant political role. Of the lower classes, little is known and the data available is hazy and confusing. The native populations referred to a « Libyans[1] »
in the sources are even more difficult to figure out than those come from the East. It is conjectured that society consisted of « free »
men and slaves diversely attached to a person or to the Carthaginian city. The city also harboured a sizeable number of “foreigners” hailing from other Mediterranean regions. Herodotus[2] refers to the “silent trade or « dumb barter »
practiced by early sailors. Originally pacific trading relationships yielded, with time, hegemonic ones.
Carthage's political organisation has been lauded by some classical authors but they are short on details as to the city's state apparatus. Historian Polybius[3] explains that the « regime »
was « well contrived »
but had subsequently weakened. Aristotle[4] cites the city' as a model of mixed constitution the superiority of which he demonstrates at length. This document has been disputed in that it describes a late stage of the city's development. It remains that historians concur to write that Phoenician cities, Carthage included, were governed by a king, with the support of a council or assembly – as was indeed the case for a number of East-Mediterranean peoples. The Phoenician kings known in Tyre did not wield absolute power. In Carthage, the government was primarily comprised of a Senate[5] and two [6]Suffets[6] who exercised the legislative and judiciary powers. The Senate had supreme power; it included the most influential families and counted several hundred privileged members. It was competent in city matters: war peace, diplomatic and economic agreements. Military chiefs reported back to it. On this crucial matter sources are not consistent. Aristotle alone refers to a “select committee”, the Hundred and Four that had a judiciary and legislative role but no political clout. Military power was the preserve of chiefs elected every year, recruited from among the city's aristocratic families and elected by a « popular assembly[7] »
.
A « popular assembly »
is mentioned in Aristotle's text without enlightening us on its actual mechanisms and political functions. Historian Polybius tells us that that instance came into its own in the course of the 3rd and 2nd century BC. But this political setup, praised by some authors, did not succeed in stemming corruption, which, widespread, was denounced by Polybius. Diodorus Siculus[8] refers to some unsavoury cases taken before this “popular assembly”. There is not an adequate volume of trustworthy documents to assess the extent of power-sharing in Carthage. The major families of merchants and business people exercised most of the power. As for the stranglehold of Carthage on its neighbours, it would have dire consequences, notably during the Punic Wars[9], as shown by recurring revolts reproducing their devastating impact. The indigenous populations contributed to the fall of the city through their successive encroachments during this period which resulted in the consolidation of Roman power. Carthage's fall could be linked to failings in military recruitment. The Punic army included soldiers from diverse origins: mercenaries, volunteer citizens but also subjects from conquered territories. Such a vastly diverse socio-demographic base was bound to destabilize its military organization in the long term – especially once the city-state was no longer able to pay enlisted professional or occasional soldiers as happened during the Mercenary War[10] directly after the first Punic War. (264-241 BC)