Also read As Seen on TV Carthaginians It has been a favourite opinion among many writers on political economy that artists and workmen are cowardly and unfit for soldiers; but experience does not warrant that conclusion; though it is certain that, according to the manner the Romans carried on war, the bodily fatigue was greater than men bred up promiscuously to trades of different sorts could in general undergo. So long as the Romans had enemies to contend with, from whom they obtained little, the manners and laws, the mode of education, and the government of their country, remained pure as at first. Their business, indeed, became more easy; for the terror of their name, their inflexibility, and the superior means they had of bringing their powers into action, all served to facilitate their conquests. But when they conquered Carthage, and begun to taste the fruits of wealth, their ground-work altered by degrees, and the superstructure became less solid. Wealth, as we have already seen, was confined to Asia and Africa, and of it the Carthaginians possessed a great share. It has long been the opinion adopted by writers on those subjects that the Carthaginians, as being a commercial and a trading nation, were quite an unequal match for the Romans; that in Rome all was virtue, public spirit, and every thing that was great and noble, while at Carthage all was venal, vile, and selfish. A spirit of war and conquest reigned, say they, in one place together with a spirit of glory, in the other a spirit of gain presided over private actions and public counsels. This is all very true, and very well said, with respect to the fact, but with respect to the cause there is one of the greatest errors into which a number of men of discernment and ability have ever fallen. The true state of the case is easily to be understood, if we only throw aside, for a moment, the favour for the brave warrior, and the dislike to the selfish trader. The fact was, that Rome, in the days of its vigour, when it was poor, attacked Carthage in the days of its wealth and of its decline; but let us compare Carthage before its fall to Rome in the time of the Gordians, of Maximus, or Gallus, and see which was most vile, most venal, or most cowardly. This would at least be a fair comparison; and nothing relative to the two cities is more certain, than that Rome became far more degraded, in the character both of citizens and soldiers, than ever Carthage was. Wealth procured by commerce, far from degrading a nation more than wealth procured by conquest, does not degrade it near so much; and the reason is easily understood. Whenever a commercial nation becomes too corrupted and luxurious, its wealth vanishes, and the evil corrects itself. Whereas, a country that lives by tribute received from others, may continue for a considerable while to enjoy its revenues. This is so evident, that it would be absurd to enlarge on the subject. The reduction of Carthage, and the wealth it produced at Rome, soon brought on a change in the education, the nature, and the manner of acting, both in private life and public concerns. The conquest of Greece, Syria, and Egypt, completed the business; and the same people who had conquered every enemy, while they retained their poverty and simplicity, were themselves conquered, when they became rich and luxurious.