Before addressing anything regarding a potential African Charlemagne and subsequent African High Culture, I'd like to post the more extensive follow-up to my previous comments on the matter of the Canaanite/Carthaginian High Culture. It's taken a bit, but I've been sorting my notes on that; the result is reproduced below.
To begin with, Phoenicia (and the Canaanite Levant more broadly) can be very difficult to pin down properly. I've already posited the thesis that Carthage of the "Rome" to Canaan, which is in turn the "Greece" to Carthage-- but this macro-historical relation between the Levantines and the Carthaginians may not be immediately clear to all observers. Indeed, there are a few elements that can sow confusion.
Let's recognise that the Carthaginians, certainly, didn't view themselves as divorced from their ancestral Leventine motherland. They distinctly saw themselves as part of the same civilisation. The Phoenicians called themselves
Kena'ani, meaning "Canaanites". The Romans describe the Punic peoples calling themselves (as he Romans render it)
Chanani, also meaning "Canaanites". Quite plausibly,
Chanani is literally just a Roman rendition of
Kena'ani. At any rate, the Carthaginian endonym is without question a direct cognate of the Phoenician endonym, which strongly implies a direct continuity as far as self-identification goes.
In the relationship between Carthage and Phoenicia, and in their degree of cultural continuity, I see evidence of them being separate expressions of (i.e. different countries
within) one single High Culture. A
Canaanite High Culture. Insofar as a separate "Punic" culture and language existed, I view these more along the lines of the differences between American culture and European culture(s), as well as the way that America and England are "divided by a common language". (American English obviously being a bit different from British English.)
So, in my view, there are good reasons to think that Carthage is
not a separate culture unto itself, but rather part of a greater "Canaanite culture". This brings me to the notion that Carthage was to Phoenicia as Rome was to the Greeks, as Qin was to the old Han states, and as America is to Europe. This would certainly fit well with the thesis of Carthage being a contender for establishing a Universal Empire.
Thus, when we view the history of Carthage, we see a colonial state that outgrew its origins and won political independence. Indeed, we readily find the equivalent of a prominent Washington-esque founder figure in the person of Mago I. (Or in any case, I feel that the Magonids should be viewed as analogous to the Founding Fathers of the USA: an elite that drives the state towards independence and sets it up for future greatness.) Carthage as the "frontier state destined for great things" within the context of a comprehensive "Canaanite High Culture" is ultimately the most convincing model I've been able to put together. The general timeline of events certainly fits well enough!
Consider the following: in our own High Culture, we have Charlemagne in AD 800 and we may expect our "Marius" around AD 2060, yielding a span of 1260 years, or something thereabouts. Likewise, the actual Marius of Classical civilisation was at the height of his power in 86 BC, and Agamemnon fought the Trojan War c. 1200 BC, which yields a span of roughly 1114 years. Now, our Carthaginian "candidate-Marius", Hannibal Barca, reached his political apex in 200 BC. The Phoenicians, and indeed all the assorted Canaanite peoples, first rose to prominence around 1500 BC -- which again seems to be about where you'd expect that to occur. The timing for our supposed "Canaanite High Culture" getting started, it seems, is right. (On a scale of this length, the difference between the three mentioned lengths of time is well within any reasonable margin you might care to apply.)
Another point of analogy: the Americas began being colonised around AD 1500, or some 700 years after Charlemagne. Carthage was established in 814 BC, or some 700 years after the emergence of Phoenicia. That, too, evidences remarkably similar timing. Furthermore, American independence was declared in AD 1776, or some 276 years after settlement of the New World began. Carthage achieved its own independence in 550 BC, or some 264 after it was established. Once again, that's very close. Finally, from American independence under the aegis of Washington to (the expected aegis of) the "American Marius", we have to count a stretch of some 284 years. From Carthaginian independence under the aegis of Mago I to the aegis of Hannibal, we may count 280 years. Once more: nearly identical intervals within the framework of macro-historical analysis.
This leads me to the conclusion that Carthage was indeed an example of the typical marcher state that eventually rises to absolute dominance over the entire cultural sphere. And that Hannibal was generally analogous to Marius, which in turn means that Hamilcar was more-or-less analogous to the Gracchi.
As far as Carthage is concerned, I'm fairly satisfied with that conclusion. It is on the Phoenician side of things that all my questions linger.
First of all, I find no evidence for a clear "Canaanite Charlemagne" (somewhere around 1500 BC), nor a "Canaanite Napoleon" (rising to power somewhere in the decades following 550 BC). These are the types of striking figures that you really can't miss. And it's not that I don't know enough about the region's history: these figures just aren't
there. This certainly stands out as not just unusual, but outright bizarre. It calls the entire thesis that I've constructed here into question. I've got a tentative explanation. Whether that holds up will have to be determined by further investigation.
My thinking revolves around the fact that the Canaanite nations -- meaning: those peoples inhabiting the ancient Levant -- spent most of their history under the overlordship of a succession of foreign empires. I theorise that this has uniquely shaped their cultural modes, and that the famous mercantile nature of the Canaanite peoples developed as a survival mechanism under these circumstances. They lived at the cosmopolitan cross-road of empires, and there they assumed the role of the ever-useful international merchant class. This allowed them to survive as a coherent cultural entity, even under protracted foreign rule.
I'm pretty sure about that notion. I
think that this can also explain the "eccentricities" of their culture and history. Specifically: because they consciously developed a mercantile culture, and because they were almost always under foreign governance, they didn't develop a tradition of native empire-building, and therefore the otherwise oh-so-typical "conqueror figures" are mostly absent from their history. It also stands out, that as soon as soon as temporary independence is achieved in the region, more centralised state-building and ambitious kingship appear
immediately.
Likewise, Carthage was obviously not subject to foreign overlordship, although it was a product of Canaanite mercantile culture and surely did retain its characteristics (as did Canaanite states in the Levant, even during periods of independence). Carthage was also initially subjected to the native population of its environment, having to pay rent for the privilege of existing there as a colony. (We see that once Phoenicia's power declined, Carthage was freed of political limitations, and soon began to conquer, under the Magonids. The rent was soon abolished, and indeed, the former "landlords" were vassalised to Carthage!)
Let's attempt a brief overview of Canaanite history. The (proto-)Canaanite tribes emerged in the Bronze Age, were fairly disorganised and for a long time certainly "pre-cultural" (in the macro-historical sense), and were culturally influenced by the East Semitic powers of Mesopotamia-- which emerged as he Akkadian-Assyrian-Babylonian High Culture. The Levantine peoples essentially existed on the fringe of the Mesopotamian cultural area, and were connected to that trade network. In this, an early orientation towards mercantile ventures evidently emerged already. This was only bolstered by the fact that the region was contested by other Bronze Age High Cultures, including most famously the Hittites and the Egyptians.
Around 1500 BC (but in reality through a quite gradual process), the Canaanite peoples coalesced into distinct nations, which were organised as coalitions of city-states. There were no opportunities for empire-building, so the emerging Canaanite polities leaned into the role of trade-oriented middle-men, often aiming for autonomy within a frame-work of vassalage to whoever was dominant in the region. This was a highly effective strategy, which procured great wealth, and which allowed them -- though not independence and empire, then at least the ability to form a distinct cultural identity
outside of an imperial conception.
In this context, we see the formation of the (direct ancestors of) the Phoenicians, the Israelites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites and the Philistines. There were some more minor nations, but these were ultimately absorbed by the others. Thus, we see the group of nations that formed the Canaanite cultural complex. No sooner had these emerged from pre-cultural nebulosity into a more concrete sense of cultural distinctiveness, or the New Kingdom of Egypt (a.k.a. their Principate) marched in and asserted control. Some Canaanites handled this better than others. The Israelites seem to have attempted resistance, which got a lot of them carried off as slaves. (Their descendants eventually made it back; for a depiction of that event, I highly recommend the historical documentary
The Prince of Egypt.
)
It's possible that the harsh Egyptian treatment of some of the Levantines had to do with the fact that a whole bunch of the barbarian interlopers called
Hyksos had entered into Egypt via the Levant, and at least some of them seem to have actually been Leventines (and maybe proto-Canaanites). The Hyksos period was indeed the Egyptian "time of troubles", which culminated in the establishment of the New Kingdom. Which then exacted historic vengeance upon the Levantines...? I consider that a plausible explanation, although it's hard to prove concretely.
Anyway, the Phoenicians in particular were the
most most mercantile of the Canaanites, and also situated a bit further North, and they escaped any Egyptian desire for vengeance. (Their strategy of "
No worries, we'll join your empire voluntarily, no force required -- hey, want to buy some cool ships?" seems to have been a smashing success.) Egyptian sources from the 1490s BC decribe the Phoenicians as the
Fenekhu, a word that came to mean "Carpenters". The Phoenicians/Fenekhu were famous for using the massive cedar forests of the region, mainly for ship-building. The Phoenicians, were soon to become the most economically prosperous of all their peers of Canaanite stock, and their city-states were soon described as "favoured cities" by the Egyptians. In fact... Egyptian rule quite directly
co-incides with the Phoenician rise to prominence.
So once again, we see the Canaanite/Phoenician modus vivendi in action: they not only
survive by operating as "favoured clients" within a cosmopolitan empire... they actively use that empire (which is essentially a large economic zone that offers baked-in military security) to
thrive.
Then, however, comes the so-called Bronze Age collapse-- which I've explained before as a series of events that led to the collapse of various major powers in the region. Egypt has to partially withdraw from the region, and the encroachment from Anatolia ends altogether. It is Phoenicia in particular that now emerges as an independent entity during the twelfth century BC. As I mentioned, sovereign state-building ensues almost at once, and the Phoenicians now employ their mercantile expeditions to serve their own ends. A wave of mercantile colonialism follows. Tyre (the mother-city of future Carthage) becomes the most prominent city, and ultimately Priest-King Ithobaal I (r. 879 BC - 847 BC) unites Phoenicia under his authority--
And promptly gets screwed over as the Neo-Assyrians invade. The Phoenician mostly manage to set up the same "client cities" arrangement as they had with the Egyptians, and history continues. Colonisation, as we know, also continues, because the Assyrians had no power projection over the Med anyway, so they didn't care what the Phoenicians were doing over yonder. Just so long as they paid enough tribute!
As we know, the Assyrian domination was followed by Babylonian domination, which was followed by Persian domination, which was followed by Hellenistic domination, which was followed by Roman domination. The latter two periods really eroded the Canaanite cultural identity. Their religious traditions got sort of merged into a cosmopolitan Greco-Roman system, and then everything got taken over by Christianity during the later Roman period, and that really was the end of even the last vestiges of any Canaanite identity. (And needless to say, their Western colonies were conquered by Rome, and their culture was also comprehensively erased from history.)
However...
There's one other thing of major consequence that we should discuss. Because when Egyptian power in the Levant collapsed (first partially, freeing Phoenicia, and then entirely, also freeing the Southern Levant), we also see the emergence of
another newly-minted, sovereign and independent Canaanite kingdom. Because the Egyptians stayed around longer in their region, and because they had less wealth at their avail, it took a bit longer to get going, but the United Monarchy of Israel was established under Saul, c. 1037 BC, and thereafter achieved its greatest extent under David.
As we know, this United Monarchy split into two states (Samaria in the North and Judah in the South) c. 930 BC. But that's not what's really important here. The important thing is that these Israelites have certainly made a mark on history by introducing a tradition of monotheism that is (a-historically) called "Abrahamic". The truth is that the Israelite evolution towards monotheism was very slow and gradual. Indeed, the two Israelite states seem to have had two
different "main gods". In Samaria, they considered El their national deity, and in Judah, it was the more obscure Yahweh. In both cases, these gods were considered the "first among the gods", but certainly not to the
exclusion of other gods.
Soon enough, however, a religious syncretism emerged, and Yahweh and El were conflated, and became considered as always having been one and the same. During that same period, "Yahwism" emerged-- meaning the religious insistence on Yahweh as by far the most important deity, to the detriment of the older Canaanite gods. It is in that context that the Israelites began to separate, culturally, from their neighbours, e.g. the Phoenicians.
Remember Ithobaal I of Phoenicia? Yeah, he had a daughter. Jezebel. If that name has negative associations, that's because of the developments I just described. Because Jezebel was married to King Ahab of the Samarian Kingdom, who ruled c. 871 BC - c. 852 BC. A period of time that falls entirely within the life of the prophet Elijah. Who was one of the major players in the push for "Yahwism". And Jezebel, being from Phoenicia, upheld the faith of her father, i.e. the traditional Canaanite religion. So she became known in Jewish scripture as an evil vixen. This is all indicative of building tension.
In the following century, Yahwism took on more extreme forms, moving towards a tendency of
exclusively worshipping Yahweh. Involved in this process was the prophet Hosea, who lived in the 8th century BC. At this point, the Israelite religion fully separated from the Canaanite religion. Macro-historically, I am inclined to identify this as analogous to the Protestant Reformation. Which makes Hosea a counterpart to Martin Luther. (As far as the chronology goes, this fits. In the timeline as I've outlined it above, 794 BC would be roughly equivalent to AD 1520.) However, this turned into a Reformation on steroids, quite possibly helped along by the fact that during the Neo-Assyrian period, the Israelites held greater autonomy than the Phoenicians. The Israelites were purely clients of the empire, and largely independent. In this turbulent period, the already mounting division between the Israelites and the Phoenicians appears to have become unusually...
final.
In effect, the Israelites culturally seceded from the Canaanite High Culture, and became a wholly separate culture. And then they were conquered by the Babylonians, who ill-treated them. But this seems to have hardened the Israelite resolve, and solidified their evolution towards uncompromising monotheism.
The Jews, obviously, still exist. The cultural modes of survival of the ancient Canaanites (existing as culturally cohesive groups
within foreign civilisations) have been retained by them. But unlike all the other Canaanites, they have also persisted in a diasporic existence; and have returned home to the Levant in the most recent of times; and have re-established their sovereign state-- the ultimate life expectancy of which undertaking remains to be determined. Whether they are to be viewed as a High Culture, or as some unique historical phenomenon, is hard to say definitively. Both Spengler and Toynbee looked upon the Jews as a "fossil"; a sort of calcified remnant. But neither man had seen the true implications of national revival, manifeted by Zionism. The Jewish
ethnos does not seem, at present, to be particularly lacking in vitality. Depending on how we interpret certain things, they may be seen as the last surviving remnant of the Levantine culture. It can also be argued that they are a unique
offshoot of that cultural complex, and thus no longer representative of its "main" lineage, which must then be supposed to have died with Carthage.
Regardless, they exist, and their heritage is evident. The Levantines and their Carthaginian off-shoot culture were known to be highly mercantile; and this persists to the point that the only surviving branch of the Levantine cultural complex -- the Jewish people -- is even today still associated with the archetype, and stereotype, of "the merchant". But that is not the key to their lineage or their survival. The Canaanite High Culture, in my estimation, marked itself out as special by surviving through adaptation. And in this manner, the Jews have survived also. Their main trait is not that they are well-disposed to thrive as merchants; their main trait is that they
survive.
So by virtue of that well-honed skill, and by some twist of fate -- one might even venture to call it divine providence -- this stubborn, monotheistic off-shoot of the Canaanite High Culture has survived all the hardships and has returned to its native soil. And there we see their defining cultural characteristic again: coming back from foreign captivity and exile really is something they're very good at.
Good for them. Whatever remains of the Canaanite High Culture-- it lives in them now.