What if?

[Long lost Caesar]

After several days of my internet being downed I began to suffer from 'EB-Forum-Cold-Turkey.' By that I mean that not only did I miss all of you spiffing old chaps, I also missed your insights into history, politics-of-the-day and just about everything else that makes the 'EB community.'

So today, whilst waiting for my friends to finish buying some stuff, I had an hour's worth of thinking within a minute: what if Phyrrus had been killed as a young boy or had never joined the army? How different would the world have been? One of the things I considered was that Rome would have steam rolled across Southern Italy without his opposition, maybe bringing the Punic War about much earlier, and with it a different outcome.
Alternatively, without Phyrrus to command the Epirote armies, what would have happened on the other side of the Adriatic? As far as I know (not much when it comes to him) Phyrrus was involved in many Hellenic wars, including, if I'm not mistaken, a series of war against Makedonia. If he had never been able to command the armies, would a superpower have emerged in Hellas, maybe being strong enough to halt Roman expansion and became a major power?

I'd love to know what you think, and of course, feel free to post any 'What If's? of your own since I'm sure you can all imagine an alternative to the history we know. Cheers

[JRG]

I have always wondered what would have happened if Hannibal had been able to capitalize on his field victories over the Romani. Would he just have allowed the various peoples of Italy to become their own independent states, with the power of Rome being significantly diminished? Or would Italy come under more direct Carthaginian control? And assuming the latter, would Carthage become the master of the known world as Rome did? Would we all be speaking Punic today?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Pyrrhos wasn't the first Epeirite to fight wars in Italy. His father had before him.

Carthage didn't seem to have any desire to control Italy or much of anything. They were more of a trade empire made from colonies rather then conquered peoples and territories.

[JRG]

Carthage didn't seem to have any desire to control Italy or much of anything. They were more of a trade empire made from colonies rather then conquered peoples and territories.
That is true, but control, whether through allied trade colonies or direct rule over Italy would certainly have given them an immense amount of money through trade throughout the whole Western Mediterranean, and may have been in the interests of them. Besides, Italy and/or Spain could have become the semi-autonomous Barcid Empire, with more direct military control over their territories, to the benefit of Carthage or not.

[Megas Methuselah]

Italy and/or Spain could have become the semi-autonomous Barcid Empire, with more direct military control over their territories, to the benefit of Carthage or not.

I agree. The Barcids were a new breed of Carthaginians in that they began to conquer lands rather than just found new colonies. Of course, I'm not a professional historian (not yet, anyways, until I graduate from university 4-5 years from now with a minor in history. I registered for my first history class for the fall semester last week, yay! Can anyone gimme balloons?), so feel free to correct me.
:yes:

[Timoleon]

I think that Pyrrhus involvement in the Greek affairs didn't change the course of history. He did won a few battles and captured and sacked Makedonia, but very quickly Antigonos Gonatas managed to recover. The main problem for Makedonia wasn't Pyrrhus and Epeiros, but the Aitolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as the desire of the Greek city-states to remain independent.
As far as the Romans are concerned, I really think that the war with Pyrrhus forged their iron determination and their famous denial to accept defeat. These virtues made them withstand the Hannibalic war and bounce back after so many crushing defeats.

[JRG]

I think that Pyrrhus involvement in the Greek affairs didn't change the course of history. He did won a few battles and captured and sacked Makedonia, but very quickly Antigonos Gonatas managed to recover. The main problem for Makedonia wasn't Pyrrhus and Epeiros, but the Aitolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as the desire of the Greek city-states to remain independent.
As far as the Romans are concerned, I really think that the war with Pyrrhus forged their iron determination and their famous denial to accept defeat. These virtues made them withstand the Hannibalic war and bounce back after so many crushing defeats.
Good point. IMO, it made Rome cast an eye eastword while consolidating its control over the west.

[Long lost Caesar]

All interesting points. But, forgive me if I seem a bit ignorant here, am I right in assuming that, by and large, history wouldn't have been much different without Phyrrus?

[johnhughthom]

I wonder if EB players,including me, exaggerate the importance of Phyrrus since he was alive at the right time to be part of EB. Something I was reading recently described Phyrrus as "a minor Greek king" (can't remember exactly what it was, a translation of Seutonius or Plutarch I think) and I remember being surprised, but when I think about it it sounds like an apt description.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Pyhrros was simply an obstacle that slowed down Roman expansion and was a pain in the butt for the Macedonians. I think he could have drastically effected history had he not abandoned each of his campaigns for some other venture of his.

[Dumbass]

I don't really understand this obsession as Epirus being the strongest Hellenistic state. Epirus was only held together by Pyhrros and his strong standing army. As soon as Pyhrros died, Epirus just went into obscurity. Even though Makedonia was also suffering problems, they were held together by Antigonas Gonatas.

[Swordmaster]

I wonder if EB players,including me, exaggerate the importance of Phyrrus since he was alive at the right time to be part of EB. Something I was reading recently described Phyrrus as "a minor Greek king" (can't remember exactly what it was, a translation of Seutonius or Plutarch I think) and I remember being surprised, but when I think about it it sounds like an apt description.

Read Mommsen's description of Pyrrhos. He may have been a minor figure in history, but an interesting one, nevertheless. It's sort of a tragic story, I think. Wrong guy in the wrong place, a wrong king in a changed world. Would he have been more successful had he lived 200 years earlier?

[Olaf The Great]

What if Alexander didn't die when he did, and he managed to take arabia and India? And, of course, distributed power equally between the satraps before he died.

[Flying Pig]

Vercingetorix/Boudicca had won? Or, more scary to me, if Plataia had been lost?

[russia almighty]

Honestly, if Alexander hadn't died, I could see if he was smart, he'd spend time consolidating his holdings, and setting it all up so when he dies who would take over.


Maybe he would invade Nubia to make sure no rebellious Egypt could get outside help. Cause didn't that happen to the Ptolemies; every time the natives would rebel, Nubia would send an army up to help them?

[Reno Melitensis]

If Hannibal Barca was wise enough, and marched on Rome, maybe he may have convinced the Senate to accept defeat. After the battle of Cannae, the Romans where in a state of panic. One story is told how after the defeat of Cannae, Scipio Africanus threatened every one who had intentions of fleeing abroad. He could never conquer Rome, destroying her, they where never his intentions. Hannibal was a man of war, a general without equals, not a merciless murderer.

Than there is an other if what. Do you thing the proud Samnites, the warriors of Brittium and Lucania, and the Greek cities of Magna Grecia, would have been happy with the Barcids as there lords, as much as Rome has been. I dont think so, they would ally with Rome and kick them out, no Barcid Empire.

Cheers.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

I don't believe Hannibal had any way get into the city or to capture it unless he sieged it and starved them but that would take years and another army would have been created by then and Hannibal would have eventually lost due to attrition.

[Ludens]

After Cannae, the Romans were down but not out. The remains of the Roman army were regrouping and more legions would soon be raised. They could not have faced Hannibal in open battle, but if he was foolish enough to march on a city in the middle of hostile territory, they could have seriously disrupted his supply lines and foraging. In effect, Hannibal would go hungry sooner than the city. To make things worse, Hannibal lacked siege equipment and didn't have enough men to invest Rome. His army wouldn't have been in top shape after Cannae either.

Just because many people (following the Romans) say it was a mistake of Hannibal not to attack Rome doesn't make it so. He had good reasons for not doing so.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

I think a better question would be; what if Carthage had supported Hannibal in his Italian campaign?