SPQR? Who?

[Brennus]

Just a bit of a fun thread.

What do people think the antiquity or indeed the world today would have been like had Rome never existed? Would there have been a Samnite Empire? Would we all be speaking a Celtic language now? Would the world have been conquered by Carthage?

Let the wild theories fly! I offer a balloon for the most convincing theory.


(And btw I understand we can never really know so please don't be dull and just post "Well we can never know", give it a try).

[plutoboyz]

if Rome never existed:

In Antiquity, either Carthage or Diadochoi (Seleucids or Ptolemaic Egypt) would reign in Italy. mostly by Carthage, I think. various Germanic and Celtic tribe would fight in northern europe.

in Middle ages:
no Byzantines, no Holy Roman Empire. no Western roman empire, No Ottoman
if there is no such thing, Sassanids would easily dominate Anatolia and Greece, Nomads (Bulgar and later Mongol) would dominate Balkan and the rest of Eastern europe etc. and The Moor would easily conquer southern Europe. Christianity would have less follower. Zoroastrianism and Tengrism will dominate eastern europe. while western Europe filled by Muslim. and America maybe discovered by Polynesian or Chinese or maybe Native American will discover us.

in industrial ages and modern age:
No Latin influence in english. European will speak either Farsi or Arabic or Turkic language. we wont write using latin alphabet. maybe some kind of abjad or abugida.

conclusion: civilization will be more focused on Middle East. well, it start there too.

[Brennus]

I certainly agree with your predictions for the East but isn't it possible that feudal Celtic states would have emerged in the West which would have been equal to the feudal states which acutally emerged in history?

I never even thought of how it would have affected Christianity, possible that without the Roman Empire as a means or endorsement Christianity would never have become as prolific as it is.

[Macilrille]

Alex paved the way for Hellenism then Christianity in the east, Rome in the west, easier to spread a religion where a common culture already exists.

[plutoboyz]

I certainly agree with your predictions for the East but isn't it possible that feudal Celtic states would have emerged in the West which would have been equal to the feudal states which acutally emerged in history?

I never even thought of how it would have affected Christianity, possible that without the Roman Empire as a means or endorsement Christianity would never have become as prolific as it is.

Romanization (well... actually Roman itself was Hellenized) in western Europe is the main factor. because Roman carry many technology from Greeks and Egyptian. Also, if I was a celtic king, I don't want to expand my empire to the west or south. I don't want to face Elephant. if I expand my kingdom to the east, I must face Germanic tribe and later my men will suffer some arrow shower from Nomads. staying in homeland would be best chance.

as for christianity, it was Roman and Byzantines who promote them. unless if Sassanids adopt Christianity. but I see very little chance for Sassanids to adopt christianity. just see their reaction when arabs offer Islam.

[Duguntz]

Without Rome, zorostrianism would not only dominate Eastern europe, but would be the dominant religion in the world (note... not the ONLY one, but the DOMINANT, just like cristianity today), Road system would be much less developed, western architecture would have more arabic and hellen influence than latin (like today's southern france and mediteraneen states) Northen france would be totally diffent than southern, probably keeping much influence from celtic past. there would be MUCH more red-haired people in England and france, not having entered in contact (not is too big a word, but let's say much less) with the Latin gene. Americas would have been discovered, though later, as mentality and ideology wouldn't have been the same. but evolution is a race wich cannot be stopped, so at somepoint, european woulld have wondered still what lay behond that ocean.

[Skuda]

IMHO there will be no concept of European civilization but Europe could be home to some very different civilizations - Celtiberian, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Thracian etc. I believe though that without Rome Celtic culture would have a huge potential and MAYBE some of the celtic nations could unite most of Western Europe.

Of course there will be no christianity and islam or they would be something like Buddhism on Far East - only part of religious system

[Zradha Pahlavan]

at somepoint, european woulld have wondered still what lay behond that ocean.

Who says a European would have to have discovered the new world? Why not an explorer for the Sassanid Empire? Or the Chinese?

My half-assed theory up until the Renaissance is here:

1. Samnites take over Italy.
The Samnites most likely wouldn't have had the influence and reach of Rome, but if I remember correctly they did have a good military along similar lines to the early Roman army, and Rome was the main thing standing in their way. Assuming that none of the other powerful Italian factions took Rome's place and slapped them around a bit, the Samnites and their buddies would've been the guys in charge.
2. Pyrrhus and friends invade.
He wanted to emulate Alexander the Great, but in the west. Due to the Samnites position I'm not so sure that they would've been able to muster the resources that Rome did against the Epeirots, thus allowing Pyrrhus to slap them around get a good base in Italy. Then he'd probably try to take over all of Italy and make forays into Celtic lands.
3. Celts get pissed off.
The Celts would respond by raiding the Epeirots' new territory and by helping out any little Italian groups that tried to free themselves of Epeirot rule, but then eventually they'd go back to beating on each other some more.
4. Carthage takes over Iberia, since no one but the Iberians care.
5. Carthage and Epeiros eventually get into a big fight over Sicily.
Both sides butcher each other over land, Carthage gets some victories at sea. Eventually Carthage gets Sicily.
6. Carthage makes a pass at Italy, but it gets its ass handed to it in this venture.
7. Carthage goes for Epeiros itself, gets some Illyrians to help it out, and smashes up some cities, but is eventually pushed back.
8.Wars go on for a while, Carthage has problems keeping Iberia under control, but eventually they get support from Gaul and make a naval invasion of Italy. Epeiros begins to fall.
9.Eperios gives up and never again rises to greatness.
10. Carthage tries to subdue the continually rebellious Iberians, the Numidians, and the Gauls. Doesn't work. Carthage doesn't have the military might to keep expanding against numerous people who would rather not be under Carthaginian rule.
11.Some of the Gallic tribes unite into a feudal confederacy, allowing them to gain control over Gaul and they go after Britain and the weakening Carthage.
12.Hordes from the steppes migrate into Europe and take over the eastern part. Greece and Italy are nearly overrun. Carthage manages to recover most of its losses, and Carthaginian elephants prove very useful against the heavy steppe cavalry. Macedon also holds out, but becomes too weak to fend off the other Greek powers.
13.The invaders turn on Gaul, and ravage the area but are eventually stopped.
14.Parthia has skirmishes with the remaining Greek Empires, but doesn't make it to the Mediterranean.
15.The Sassanids take over where their Parthian predecessors left off, crushing all opposition in central Asia and getting themselves into a bloody war with the Egyptian dynasty. They take over many areas of Greece and eastern Europe.
16.Egypt and North Arabia fall to the Muslims.
17.Carthage gets taken out by the Muslims, Iberia and Italy become fully independent again, but many aspects of Carthaginian culture have been incorporated into their socieities.
18.The Muslims take Iberia, but the Gauls do not give way to them.
19.The Sassanians hold back the Muslims in central Asia.

[Brennus]

There doesn't appear to be much faith here that Celts could have developed into nations states independently (With the exception of Skuda, good point BTW).

Where's Oudysseus and Bobbin when you need them?

[Macilrille]

Working on EBII I believe.

Competetion between nation states that drove each one to excell and exploit and develop all available resources was what made Europe dominant.

David Landes elaborates in his "Wealth and Poverty of nations", and I by and large agree with him, not his opponent André Gunder frank whose book was so unmemorable that I forgot its name.

[Skuda]

Western European Celts had a rather technologically advanced culture and, in some regards MORE technologically advanced culture than the Roman (remember steelmaking)... still they didn't have stable states. But if we take Archaic Greece they didn't have such states either. I think Celts needed two or three more centuries to build more or less successful feudal society... and don't forget Roman divide-et-impera policy in Gaul in II-I century BC. Maybe without these efforts Arverni or Aedui could succeed earlier.

We have an example when tribal society ALMOST succeeded in building advanced state - Dacians. If they didn't have Trajan's Empire against them...

[Apázlinemjó]

Without Rome we would get a warlord named Jesus Christ, who could unite the whole Earth under one banner against the Borg.

Naaah, but I'm sure that without Rome there wouldn't be Christianity nor Islam.

[Hax]

I think the rise of Islam was indeed influenced by the existence of Christianity. When Muhammed experienced his "visions", his wife Khadija brought him to a Christian priest. I don't think it's really that important, though. Perhaps Islam would've existed, but under another name. Don't forget that Zoroastrianism was hardly a religion that liked proselytise the way Christianity and Islam did. Perhaps Buddhism would've spread west as well, creating a new form of Persian Mahayana. I don't know, it could've gone pretty much anywhere.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

I think we're all forgetting about the Germanic tribes. They, under warlords like Ariovistus, made devastating assaults into Gaul that were only stopped by the huge Roman armies... If Caesar hadn't been there to stop him, maybe Ariovistus or another warlord could have created a powerful enough territory to unite many tribes under one banner. They would have been largely Celticized, rather than Romanized as in history. Of course someone else could have made some major incursions as well.

[jirisys]

I think we're all forgetting about the Germanic tribes. They, under warlords like Ariovistus, made devastating assaults into Gaul that were only stopped by the huge Roman armies... If Caesar hadn't been there to stop him, maybe Ariovistus or another warlord could have created a powerful enough territory to unite many tribes under one banner. They would have been largely Celticized, rather than Romanized as in history. Of course someone else could have made some major incursions as well.

That's preference (the celt wants the celts to rule the world):clown:

anyway, we would have never existed (if rome were not to exist, the world would break into a million pieces... in one of them would be cute wolf):clown:

~Jirisys (why not Jebvijetar too?:clown:)

[Jebivjetar]

Edit: my grammar is too bad X/

[jirisys]

Edit: my grammar is too bad X/

haha i read the whole thing, you can also say that to persia, mongolia, china, USA (i hate those ********) and the makedonians too (diadochi anyone :clown:), the celts etc... besides, the romans were not so adept on "Romanizing the culture" just everything else (besides religion) they were not that many cultural destructors

~Jirisys (romaio barbaroi (it means foreign romans))

[stratigos vasilios]

Not sure if I'm looking too far ahead, but if there was no SPQR it would be interesting as to which state or kingdom would rise to become a colonial super power in the later eras. Ie. With no Roman influence the UK and possibly even France wouldn't have been innovative and powerful enough to start building colonies around the world. I guess the same could be said for Spain and Portugal? (this is quite a supeficial view point).

I'm guessing that Carthage would have grown significantly as it would have been (majorly) unopposed but who is to say that thier holdings in Iberia would have generated another empire, a Carthago-Iberian one which would rise up and oppose Carthage? Or even another city in Carthage becoming its own empire and fighting Carthage? Much like Macedonia and Southern Hellenes fighting one another, as I believe Macedonian Greeks were southerners that migrated north? (please correct me if I am wrong here).

[satalexton]

Makedones are Doric Greeks, the same stock as the Spartans basically.

[Ibrahim]

if Rome never existed:

In Antiquity, either Carthage or Diadochoi (Seleucids or Ptolemaic Egypt) would reign in Italy. mostly by Carthage, I think. various Germanic and Celtic tribe would fight in northern europe.

in Middle ages:
no Byzantines, no Holy Roman Empire. no Western roman empire, No Ottoman
if there is no such thing, Sassanids would easily dominate Anatolia and Greece, Nomads (Bulgar and later Mongol) would dominate Balkan and the rest of Eastern europe etc. and The Moor would easily conquer southern Europe. Christianity would have less follower. Zoroastrianism and Tengrism will dominate eastern europe. while western Europe filled by Muslim. and America maybe discovered by Polynesian or Chinese or maybe Native American will discover us.

in industrial ages and modern age:
No Latin influence in english. European will speak either Farsi or Arabic or Turkic language. we wont write using latin alphabet. maybe some kind of abjad or abugida.

conclusion: civilization will be more focused on Middle East. well, it start there too.

actually, no Islam, no sassanids, and no semetic languages in Europe (not even Malta). no Christianity either

afterall, Sassanids only got the power they did because the Romans had thuroughly discredited the pahlavan in battle. the sassies promised military glory and victory, which they actually delivered, hence the dynasty's longevity. (that, and they were pretty good rulers)

and if Christianity didn't spread out and become the priest dominated religion of the 7th century(itself having formed as a messainic movement that condemned Roman Authority as the "church of Satan"), we wouldn't have the (surprisingly) anticlerical faith known as Islam. we might instead have some sort of other movement in the peninsula-if even any (since the political and social climate at the time was influenced by both the Romans and Sassanids; one sura even mentioned the then ongoing Romano-Byzantine wars).

no Islam, no Islamic conquests, and no Maltese :clown:

and yes, we would (probably) use an alphabet: greek, Runic, or Etruscan in origin. the germanic tribes afterall already had Runes by the tme the Romans showed up, theitr alphabet iirc apparently being Etruscan influenced.

[satalexton]

:clown: Και η ελληνική πρέπει να είναι κοινή μας γλώσσα...

[Ibrahim]

:clown: gibberish

in english, Arabic, or German please?

[Teucer]

I've noticed that this is the second alternate history 'what if?' thread in recent days. If you guys find this sort of thing interesting, check out the forums at alternatehistory.com (http://www.alternatehistory.com). Its a pretty lively community with topics ranging from prehistory to speculations on the future.

[jirisys]

:clown: Και η ελληνική πρέπει να είναι κοινή μας γλώσσα...

Kai i elliniké prépei na einai koiné mas glossa

And Greek should be our common language, Don't impress me :smart:

~Jirisys (ludens edited this and forgot to add something comical here:sad:)

[plutoboyz]

I made a speculative map. the antiquity without rome
https://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3880/mapantiquitycopy.png

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Until Satalexton launches a crusade to retake (All Hail!!!) Makedonia....

[Duguntz]

answer to a comment : someone told that none seemend to believe celtic would've been able to form a great state... and the answer is... NO they would have not. they would have stayed petty kingdoms waging war on petty kingdom. Though celtic was a great and beautiful culture, they were innapt to become a ''civilisation'', and hence, left traces of a beautiful culture, way of life, but nothing to be compared to a civilisation of it's own. at sometime or another, maybe a great king would have risen... but for what, 15 years? he would have been swallowed by the first of his successor! that's why no one say words about celtics becoming a great kingdom until the medieval time. Don't think i'm blasting! i love celtic culture and I've gaul ancestry, but this is a realistic account,!

[Kikaz]

If Rome never became prominant, the Celts would have definitely dominated much of Italy and would likely have carried on until modern times. However, Carthage would probably have picked a fight with them, the Greeks, certainly Germans; there are virtually endless variables therein.


I made a speculative map. the antiquity without rome
https://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3880/mapantiquitycopy.png
How did you make that? I have a near obsession with cartography and geography so I NEED to know.

[plutoboyz]

btw, just remove Romani from EB and start a campaign with it. then see what happen.


If Rome never became prominant, the Celts would have definitely dominated much of Italy and would likely have carried on until modern times. However, Carthage would probably have picked a fight with them, the Greeks, certainly Germans; there are virtually endless variables therein.


How did you make that? I have a near obsession with cartography and geography so I NEED to know.

download some SVG file from Wikimedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blank_maps). then you can edit it with Coreldraw or any vector based Image editing software or convert it into png and edit it in Photoshop..

[Kikaz]

download some SVG file from Wikimedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blank_maps). then you can edit it with Coreldraw or any vector based Image editing software or convert it into png and edit it in Photoshop..

Thanks, would Gimp work well (if they're now Vista compatible) in this endeavor?

[plutoboyz]

Thanks, would Gimp work well (if they're now Vista compatible) in this endeavor?

I don't know about gimp. never try it. if its Vector-based, it should work well.

[satalexton]

btw, just remove Romani from EB and start a campaign with it. then see what happen.

We actually have a concept for a submod with just that, lurking adrift in our group discussions.

[Ibrahim]

I don't know about gimp. never try it. if its Vector-based, it should work well.

it does.

[Grade_A_Beef]

Wait why would the Phoenician culture take up so much of the Mediterranean coast? They were never able to fully capture Sicily, and that was pretty much from Greek opposition alone. I doubt they'll be able to take mainland Greece...

In any case wouldn't any empire that arises from the Mediterranean still fall to the Great Migration that caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?

[Imperator Invictus]

….all you talked about were Celts, Muslims and Carthage, but Celts will never unify or have a single religion (like the Dacians who could unify the Thracians and had Zalmoxianism) and Islam could not appear without Christianity (because Mohamed won’t have the opportunity to travel in Eastern Empire and learn about Christianity), Zoroastrianism will be the dominant religion, and Carthage, well they don’t have the capability to expand more than Western Mediterranean.
You forgot about Dacians, with no Romans to conquer them I think that they will complete the unification, especially in the face of gothic and nomadic threats.
!!You should think first and than post something!!


Now, the real World without Romans:

- many Celtic kingdoms in Western Europe (they will never unify!)

- phoenic remnants in Italy, Spain and North Africa (some will be republics, they will colonize South America)

- Dacian Empire in Eastern Europe (will keep the bloody nomads in Asia, I am sure, because they kept for so many years the scytians, sarmatians and bastarnae)

- Goths in North Europe (will colonize North America)

- Persians in Anatolia (with the Zoroastrianism, because Islam could not appear without Christianity)

- In Asia the old civilizations Persia, India and China will have to couple with extra nomadic threats (Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Turks, Magyars) and their empires will fall a few times.

…so Brennus, you can give now your balloon

[plutoboyz]

I think Christianity would exist. but fewer follower because no Roman. Islam exist because its never relied on Christianity and yes fewer follower, because Persian still Zoroastrianism. although there are similarity between Islam and Christianity, it was because they came from same roots. not because Islam was influenced by Christianity.

[Hax]

I think Christianity would exist. but fewer follower because no Roman.

Christianity needed a Romanesque society to flourish.

[Imperator Invictus]

Christianity will not exist because the Parthians will conquer the Seleucid domains and Judea will be an ally or protectorate of Parthians and the Jewish society won’t require a messiah to free them.
Probably the Hasmoneans and the Ptolemeis will remain in power as puppets of Parthians. First, they will require Parthian help against the Seleucids, and later to remain in power. I imagine this because in real history they allied with the Romans against Seleucids, and with no Romans it's naturally they will go tho the Parthians

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus will manage to reform the Orthodox Judaism but it will be a reformed Judaism (not Christianity), only for Jews. So please try to imagine the historical evolution without Christianity and Islam......
You have Zoroastrianism, Zalmoxianism, Germanic and Celtic Polytheism....etc. so live Christianity and Islam
You could imagine however how the Phenician religion will evolve in South-West, perhaps will evolve in monotheism, with Baal as the only god.

[Ca Putt]

on religion:
Christianity would be unlikely to become more than a small regional cult if at all. Islam could exist and spread but It's unlikely that it would exist at all. You know the granpa paradox? imagine you'd just shoot your grandpa into the leg. that way it is still possible that you were born but though altering the timeline it is still VERY unlikely.

on Celts hmmm well I too doubt that they would have united out of nowhere to a great pan Celtic empire or less than 10 somewhat powerfull national states by 0ad. but I'd give them 400 years under constant german pressure to evolve into "something" that could maybe even withstand the hunnic invasion. maybe just a loose league of petty kingdoms somewhat like the Hellens. Surely tho they would have had some teconological advances on their own speaking of which I think that the Mediterranean area would not be much less technically evolved but that differences would be much greater in terms of who has developed what thus there would be great potential in technological exchange.

we have to remember that if Dacians or Celts or even Germans could withstand Nomadic invasions there would have been no dark ages, no middle ages and certainly no need for Renaissance. thus progress would have been much more linear than it was. without thousand years of darkness europe and north africa would have been further advanced compared to .... china(an area without much roman influence)

concerning supermacy, I'm not sure if carthage would have expanded as agressive as that surely they would have estabished a mighty trade empire throughout the Mediterranean and have contors on virtually every coast, I'm not certain that they would have gone further. they are the best candidate for discovering the new world(maybe a greek or celt would do it but they would fund it) but I doubt they would rule over italian mainland for any supstancial amount of time.
as I'm not very well informed about the Italic peoples I'm unsure who would have pervailed but as rumor has it its the samnites^^ and then we have our dear Phyrrus who has somewhat became an EB mascott.^^ beat the Samnites? yes maybe. ruled over italy? no, not him. he would have just been driven out of italy later. And we'd still call a Phyrric victroy a phyrric victory just not in english but some strage Greco-celtic dialect ;)
sofar I've somewhat ignored the Parthians as it seems. I'd say Parthian rule over anatolia. and if more, ... well atleast they are not as destructive as their nomadic brothers and carry with them the persian culture. :D thus they would not spur a dark age upon conquering eastern europe.

[Imperator Invictus]

thank you, Ca Putt, your wiew is interesting and more plausible then the ones with Christianity, Muslims in Europe or Celtic unity...
I, at least, found someone imaginative and well documented
...but I challenge you about the evolution of Africa, Spain and Italy, areas dominated by Carthage:
- the remnants will compose the most civilized states?
- could some become republics, with Shofets?
- Could they be mercantile republics(perhaps Lusitanians, because in real time the Portugheze were)?
- Their religion?

[Brennus]

With regards to the Celts being supposedly unable to form unified states are we not forgetting examples like Scotland and Ireland. In the case of Scotland Cinead Mac Alpin managed to unify the Picts, Scots and later Angles and Britons into a Celtic dominated state whilst in Ireland Brian Boru managed to unify the country. In both cases this was without the influence of Rome.

[Imperator Invictus]

I didn't say that the Celts will remain with tribes, of course they will form states, but small states like Scotland, Ireland, Brettonia, Arvernia, Helvetia, not empires

[Cute Wolf]

And here goes my version, yeah, rather than talk about Grandpa's paradox, maybe we could think about Fry's paradox (killed his own "supposed to be" grandpa, and become his own grandpa X) )

0. I assume that Rome will still exist in some time, but the difference starts when the Celtic raids to Roma proceed to exterminate every one of them, so no Rome.... and at later times, the Samnites will dominate and take all Italia.
1. With no regional powers exist to threaten Magna Grecia, Pyrrhos will never go to Taras, and after he was expelled from Syrakousai, he will set himself to the chaotic war of Makedonian succesion earlier... and because of his genetically inscribed bad luck, we can assume that he will try to attack Pella, and get a Phyrric victory there.... and leaving Epeirote military in really bad condition.
2. With Epeirote weakned, Kardechoi will take all Iberia, because no one except Iberians care, and they will just trade and exploit Iberian wealth for quite some time, anbd rebuilding their army for eastern conquest.
3. With the Weakned Epeirote and Makedonia, Koinon Hellenon under the leadership of SPARTAAAA, will proceed to liberate most of Greece.
4. The Ptolies will constantly at war with Seleukeia, and this weakned both of them to some extent, while Baktrians and Pahlava start growing in the east, holding Saka incursions.
5. The Makedonians and Epeirote, frightened by what will Sparta do to them, as they are still weakned in some extent, made alliance each other, and holding the United Greek States' Growth at Thessalia and Thermon. After that tiresome period of Wars, the three factions will be exhausted, and seeking to build rather permanent peace treaty for them, effectively dividing the Peninsulla into 3 Regions, and allied themself to each other (despite some Spartan's displeasure, heck, that was Athenian philloshopers and Rhodian politicians that do the Peace confrence). The northwest and Illyrian lands will be Epeirote suzerainity, the northeast will be Makedon, and the south will be Koinon Hellenon, and they made a promise, if any of them break the treaty, the 2 others will ganged up and smack the violator, in front of Zeus. And that will be signed by Pyrrhos, Antigonos, Areous, and Chremonides. For a long time they will obey the treaty.
6. Pyrrhos will try his fortune on Conquering to the North, he will be on tough fight against the Boii. The boii will fight fiercely to defend themself, but as Sauromatae raids their easternost part, and Getai chipping their southern possesions, Boii will be conquered by the Epeirotes, and Pyrrhos will passed away peacefully because old age... after taking much of central europe.
7. The Makedonians will be stagnant, defending themself against Thracian incursions under Lysimachos, but fight valiantly enough, as Epeirotes and Hellenes will occasionally help them... and will be little changed.
8. The KH on the Other side, will made overseas "Liberation" attempts, and directly invade Italia because the Samnite league start to enroaching Magna Graecia and even defeating Syrakousai... the defeated Syrakousai will cry for help, and after that, what will happened is the Samnite vs KH wars. Because the Samnites didn't have the same commitment as Rome, they will be reluctant to use all their powers, and will be defeated. All that left afterwards will be Federation of Megale Hellas, backed by Sparta and Syrakousai, Holding the Kart- Hadast Enroachment in the East, and they will try to defend Hellenic cities as far as Emporion and Massalia.
9. Basically, Karthadast will reign supreme on Iberia and Northwest Africa, while Koinon reign in Italia, and Southren Gaul for a long time, without Rome, Aedui will be defeated, and Arvernii will rule the rest of Gaul. Sweboz will raid north Italy occasionally, but the Hellenes and Epeirote will be able to check them in place.
10. The Seleukid's Persian possesion will fall to Pahlava, while Saka will trample Baktria and conquer India, but left their Baktrian holdings largely untouched. Ptolemies will claim much of levant, and Seleukid will be mostly on Babylonia and Asia Minor possesion. Pontus take the Cherosonessos, and made themself master of Black Sea, and Hayasdan will be still peaceful Hay Kingdom, uniting all the Hay and keep Sauromatae in Check.
11. And all will be much the same for a long time, as the World balance itself...
12. In the verge of what means the Judean rebellion... the Ptolemies' garrison was expelled from Levant, and a Jewish state was founded.
13. Lacking the Battle of Magnesia, Seleukid manages to endure heavy palace intrique, and after a drastic dynastic changes, they start to reclaim much of their lost lands, and take back Persian lands, beat Pahlava, put baktria back into satrapdom, and Hold most of asia Minor except Pontos, The KH, feels threatened, attack Asia Minor for the fear of Powerful AS, but find themself on the losing ground, soon, the entire KH Makedon, Epeirote alliance fought for their live against Seleukid infasion of Greece, and they failed rather Miserably... AS will take all makedonia, Southeren Epeirotes, and made all hellas client states and divided. Then, they set their eyes toward Syrakousai and Italia, invading them with their massive manpower and take most of their land under submission. Epeirote royal family was saved because they move to Boii lands, and allied themself with the Thracians for the fear of Seleukid Incursions.
14. and feeling threatened, Karthadast attack Italia, but as the Anti Barcid dominate their senate, they will be unwilling a bit, and generally just a minor naval skirmishes occurs. The two empire AS, and karthadast is at war with each other, but they are at stagnant position.
15. and we'll see a big Seleukid Empire, sprawling from Italia, Hellas, Persia, and India... while at the levant, the Judean state will allied themself to Ptolemies out of fear with Seleukid Invasion...
16. And hear Judea allied themself with Ptolies, Seleukid invade them, and put them into the Submission once again, supress them, and Invade the unwary Ptolemy kingdom.
17. And the Seleukeia hegemony grows larger and larger, now defeating Ptolemies and taking entire Egypt as well...
18. And as it had been written before, Jesus was born in Israel... but now, he was born when Antiochus 19 order the census of the entire world.
19. He then teach as what the bible said, and the Pharisee didn't like Him as usual... then, he was captured, and taken to the Satrap of Iudaios, Pharnakes Philatos... and while the Satrap couldn't find anything wrong with him, the pharisee said that he want to be Basileos of the Iudaioi, and for that, the Satrap wash his hands...
20. And then Jesus was crucified, a miracle happened as he passed away, and earthquale, as well as darkness ensues.... a Strategos that was charged to oversee his execution, and seeing all the signs, knelt himself before Jesus, and said "I know that this man was really a Son of God"
21. The Satrap order his men to guard the Jesus' tomb, but on the sunday morning, the Pezhetairos guarding his tomb are shocked to see Jesus was risen with bright light comes from him... because they are not Romaioi who run away... they decide to check what's happened, and found that Jesus was allready risen.... and they seeing him alive, folding his shroud, and they ask.... "Did you really son of God?" and Jesus replies "As You have said..."
22. And then Mary and the women comes, found Jesus was alive and all Pezhetairos that guarding his tomb was knelt before Him... they are so joyful, and spread the word of it, of course, the Pharisee still want to cover the news, but as that news spread, the Satrap personally comes to check if Jesus was really alive or not, and in his way, Jesus suddenly appeared before him, and said that God forgive what he has done before...
23. And in the 40 days, Jesus is going back to heaven....
24. The Christianity spread rather wildly... and in turns, the Arche didn't like what happened, and start to prescute the Christians.... and Christians fled to the west, to the land of Kart-hadast... and still persecuted because they refuse to bow for Baal... of course, the only way left to live peacefully was the Arvernii and Sweboz land, and they go there...
25. A miracle happened, when a Sweboz chieftain fought a dire battle against arvernii force, a cross sign seen in the sky, and in this sign, he got a victory against the Arvernii, of course, that means the Sweboz become Christian, and with God's blessings, they unite all the Northern Europe...
26. Because Christianity never grows much in the east, and grows in Northren Europe instead... there will be No Islam....
27. Sauromatae also got much influence from their Sweboz neighbours, and all the Steppe will become Christian, leaving Hellenic and Kart-Hadast wolrd still in Pagan majority....
28. Because the Steppe tribes become Christian, the Xiongnu become Christian too, and invade China sucessfully, made China the biggest Christian nation on earth, and as the Sweboz in the west was defeated by then Buddhist Hellenic states, the Asia will envolve as Christian lands, and Europe as Buddhist lands.... except the north scandinavians that was still largely Christians...
29. Maya civilization then launched surprise invasion to the Buddhist hellenic Europe....
30. And The Americans start to colonize Europeans, and put the Europeans in their "European Reserve area", taking much of their land... and devastate Hellenic and Kardechoi civilization...
--------

[Fluvius Camillus]

Christianity will not exist because the Parthians will conquer the Seleucid domains and Judea will be an ally or protectorate of Parthians and the Jewish society won’t require a messiah to free them.
Probably the Hasmoneans and the Ptolemeis will remain in power as puppets of Parthians. First, they will require Parthian help against the Seleucids, and later to remain in power. I imagine this because in real history they allied with the Romans against Seleucids, and with no Romans it's naturally they will go tho the Parthians

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus will manage to reform the Orthodox Judaism but it will be a reformed Judaism (not Christianity), only for Jews. So please try to imagine the historical evolution without Christianity and Islam......
You have Zoroastrianism, Zalmoxianism, Germanic and Celtic Polytheism....etc. so live Christianity and Islam
You could imagine however how the Phenician religion will evolve in South-West, perhaps will evolve in monotheism, with Baal as the only god.

Says who?

Without Magnesia or without Roman intervention when Antiochos IV Epiphanes was at the gates of Alexandreia, the Seleukids were not as weak as they sometimes seem.

Rome would not tolerate a powerful eastern kingdom (Ptollies, Seleukids). Without a supreme power in the west who is policing them, the Seleukids could have had much more and been far more stable (no Rome setting up rival kings for example).

I have no time now to write a full world review, so I'll do that another time, I just wanted to point this out.

~Fluvius

[Imperator Invictus]

Sorry Fluvius Camillus, I haven’t detailed the fall of Seleucids. I agree that the Seleucids will not be conquered only by Parthians, the western possessions will be under Tigranes (as they were) but this time, Armenia will (later) fall to the Parthians, so finally Syria and Anatolia will be Parthian an Zoroastrian. That is why I’ve said that the Parthians will dominate.



And Cute Wolf, we are talking here about alternate history not about the game EB!!!!!!!!!
….so live the !!!Koinon Hellenon!!!! :)) and that Christian fanaticism (And the fact that the Seleucids will adopt the crucification as punishment because they want to respect what you will learn after 2000 years)

LOOOOOL
And the Mayan invasion, and the Christian Huns……and the Sith Empire.......... and Superman who will beat the Mayans....... and the Klingonian Buddhists or Communists or………..

[Duguntz]

anyway cristianism without rome would be a small regional religion and nowaday hippies would sit in tea shops drinking their grass and discussing about cristianityjust like today's hippies sit in tea shops drinking their grass and talking about buddhism and eastern philosophies...

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

anyway cristianism without rome would be a small regional religion and nowaday hippies would sit in tea shops drinking their grass and discussing about cristianityjust like today's hippies sit in tea shops drinking their grass and talking about buddhism and eastern philosophies...

But Buddhism is actually very widespread....

[Duguntz]

compare it to islam or cristianity, the number of worshiper for their respective religion... no, buddism is still marginal in most of the world! I'm not saying it as a buddism basher, I like their philosophy, but it's a fact that not many monk in orange dress walk the streets

[satalexton]

Buddhists don't get enough attention cuz they prefer "getting on with life in a good way".....Either that or the occasional utopian Basileus like Ashoka. Notice how it all falls apart when the saint kicks the bucket.

[Brennus]

Well so far I must commend Plutoboyz (nice map BTW, some of it was lost on me-colour blind-but from what I could see it was lovely), Imperator Invictus and Ca Putt for their theories, although I don't agree with some of your conclusions you have backed them up well and that's what counts.

I must say Cute Wolf's mammoth sized history is also very impressive and (Mayan invasion theory aside, lol nice touch) his idea of a formidable Seleucid Empire acting as a vessel for the spread of Christianity is very clever!

The baloon is still all to play for, but so far gentlemen this has been some first class theory. Thanks to commenting!

[Imperator Invictus]

The World without Rome:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=612

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I don't understand why you people are thinking that American cultures couldn't form some great empires? Have you forgot the Incas and the Aztecs? They are a bit out of the timeframe but I doubt Carthaginians would've sent armies across the ocean to conquer some strange lands. First of all, Europeans only managed to conquer the New World because of their plagues and gunpowder. Civilizations in New World and in the Old World were not that different if we consider the technology. So, it would take a 20000-40000 men to start conquering the America. But considering the amount of money and supplies needed to support that money..
Any empire in the Europe at that time would've been bankrupt very fast! They couldn't support larger armies for a long time in Europe why do you think they could support and army thousands of miles from Europe across the ocean? So, thinking that some Celtic people would colonize the Northern America and Carthaginians would take over Southern America is utopia and fantasy!
There would be contacts of course but no conquests or something like that.

[SwissBarbar]

Carthage would not have conquered anything. They would have founded a great trade-empire, yes, but not an empire like the romans

[Brennus]

The World without Rome:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=612

Nice map, but (forgive me if I am reading this wrong) what makes you think that Germans would have established themselves in Britain? Also your Gothic settlement of North America seems a little questionable- any possible evidence to suggest the Goths could have achieved such gains?


With regards to Ibn-Khaldun, I doubt that Native Americans could have become major powers in Europe mainly becuase of their lack of metallurgical technology. However I agree with you there is no evidence to suggest Carthage would have become the Spanish Empire of an alternative future.

Folks could you simply focus on Eurasia and Africa without theorising what goes on in the New World, please. Any theories of what would happen to America I think have the tendency to become clouded by nationalist feelings e.g. any Welsh forum users will likely colonize the Americas with Celts whilst Polish would probably do the same with Slavs... I only dread to think what Cute Wolf would colonize it with.

[plutoboyz]

The World without Rome:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=612

Phoenician seems too distorted. also why chola is in Indonesia? they in fact never managed to conquer anything here. inflience? yes, conquest? no.
also there is any posibility for Native American to expand.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

@Brennus, I think you misunderstood. I never said that Native Americans would become major powers in Europe. I meant that Europeans were not that technologically superior over the Americans. If there would've been some trading between the Native Americans and Europeans then most likely the former would have learned how to make iron etc and the difference between the two worlds would've become even smaller.

[Brennus]

@ Ibn-Khaldun I do apologise, i see what you mean now. Yes your quite right cross-Atlantic trading links could have enabled Native Americans to have developed a level of technology on par with Europe. Thinking about it now the Vinland settlement did not enjoy any great technological advantage of the native neighbours, and the massive Spanish gains can be attributed to sheer good luck on Spain's part.

And thats the last I am saying on America or I will be a hypocrite, now, back to Eurasia!

[plutoboyz]

@Brennus, I think you misunderstood. I never said that Native Americans would become major powers in Europe. I meant that Europeans were not that technologically superior over the Americans. If there would've been some trading between the Native Americans and Europeans then most likely the former would have learned how to make iron etc and the difference between the two worlds would've become even smaller.

Maybe in late medieval times, some Polynesian encounter american and boom! American Have army polynesian have navy. if they not at war of course.

[Cute Wolf]

and yes, if without Rome, means no Islam, then Majapahit empire will conquer All asia....... HAHAHAHAAHAH

[plutoboyz]

and yes, if without Rome, means no Islam, then Majapahit empire will conquer All asia....... HAHAHAHAAHAH

but will never whole Java! hahahhahaha....

[Cute Wolf]

but will never whole Java! hahahhahaha....

pretty true, especially when I made most Pajajaran units have 2 HP... (btw, they are fewer, lightly armoured but more skilled = result in having bunch of 2 HP guys running arround)

[Brennus]

Ok I think this thread is in danger of going the way of the Diadochi so if there are no major new theories about what the world would have been like without Rome within 48 hours I will award the baloon.

[Andronikos]

So to return this thread to an original topic. My opinion (which can't be called qualified):

I think that other parts of the world besides Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa would be almost unaffected. There would be a lot of struggles in Europe, many small states fighting each other to win a short-term dominance. I wouldn't put so much trust to Phoenicians, Their military system, mostly mercenaries while own people were traders and politicians, was very modern, but too much. I believe they would have been crushed by a civilisation with a warrior class in their society, either European "barbarians" or Hellenes.
The East - many huge empires like Seleucids or Ptolemies or Indo-Greeks, but with one major drawback - near to steppes -> nomads. Nomads were terrifying and very difficult to defeat or subjugate in that age. But they can't form a united and stable state if they don't settle (like Parthians, Magyar tribes, even Arabs or Yuhezi and Sakas - the Kushan empire). The descent of nomads would start by the invention of light firearms. By that time every kingdom neighbouring the steppes would be under constant raids and could not develop.
OTOH constant pressure and threat of war would be a catalyst of technological development in western and central Europe. Fragile peace and unstable alliances would cause the small states to improve their technology. Their wars wouldn't be so devastating like nomad raids and they would have advanced weaponry. Eastern kingdoms would have advanced peace technology like it really was.

So we would end with many small states with advanced technology in the west, large but fragile empires in the east, nomads in the steppes (perhaps some of them would settle and rule large lands), eastern Asia and Americas almost unchanged (we are speaking about pre-exploring age).

I would finish it later, perhaps write something about religions or so on, I have a lecture to attend now. :book: :laugh4:

[Brennus]

Some excellent thoughts there, Andronikos, I agree with you on alot of it especially your views on Carthage.

[Watchman]

You know I seem to recall that historically Carthage got stomped by an opponent which quite specifically lacked a true warrior class, seeing as how the Romans were working off a citizen-militia system...
Another thing to note is that dedicated warrior classes can also be quite easy to subvert if you know what to offer - a combination of phat lewts and them getting to keep their old status and privileges has often done wonders to win an invader allies, and often enough they've been only too keen to take on mercenary service.

[Andronikos]

Thanks Brennus, so I am back, and I would like to expand some ideas.


Eastern kingdoms would have advanced peace technology like it really was.

The technological advancement of the east would come from the heritage of Persia and Hellenic age. For many times in history, this area was conquered by some nomad tribe, which took over some of the old customs and ideas (actually this is the way how Hellenic ideas came back to Europe after the fall of Rome). So some, nomad warlord with his tribe conquers the settled nation, becomes the continuator of the old kings, perhaps adopts the title Shahanshah, Basileus or Philhellen, his tribe settles and after few decades of centuries another tribe replaces them in the same way.

And there is one factor we have to consider when speaking about nomad tribes - The great migration, it's cause was in Asia and many warlike tribes entered Europe, without Roman empire perhaps there wouldn't be any single superpower to face them. But I think it wouldn't matter, they would be stopped by one large kingdom which would be on the peak of power that time or some alliance of tribes and if not they would be stopped by nature - rivers, forests, mountains, that isn't ideal for nomad warfare. They would conquer something, rule it for a while, but such empire would collapse like Hun or Mongol ones did, than settle and adapt the western or eastern style of warfare and government.

I also haven't noticed anyone to foresee a great role for Slavic people, but if we look at our world, there is a huge piece of land inhabited or ruled by Slavs. Neither did I but I haven't specifically mentioned any nation to dominate as important events in history many times depend on little things that can't be predicted.

[Watchman]

What has always stopped nomads from entering too far into Europe is the simple fact the subcontinent for the most part plain can't support the nomad lifestyle (in any larger scale, anyway; stuff like the "vertical pastoralism" practised in mountainous regions is a rather different kettle of fish than horse nomadism on the high plains). The Great Hungarian Plain is pretty much the final outlier of the Eurasian Steppe Belt, and it's a cul-de-sac "deathtrap" for nomads; every single group that entered it gave up pastoralism as unsustainable inside two generations.

Also I'd point out there was an acute shortage of superpowers around to check them when first the Avars and later the Hungarians rolled into Central Europe...

[Andronikos]

every single group that entered it gave up pastoralism as unsustainable inside two generations.

Could you please explain this part? It somehow makes no sense in the context for me. Perhaps I didn't get the point of that post.

[Watchman]

The Great Hungarian Plain doesn't have enough pasturage to sustain horse nomadism on more than a small scale, with the due result that any westwards-drifting steppe nomads setting up shop there found themselves forced to abandon their old lifestyle in rather short order. From what I gather most promptly shifted to sedentary agriculture and/or established themselves as an equestrian warrior aristocracy over already-established agrarian communities.

[Brennus]

One thing I would like to point out that's only been briefly touched on is that we wouldn't be using this alphabet and it's unlikely we would be conversing in English.

Good point about the Slavs by the way Andronikos, considering they settled such a massive region of Europe there has been almost no mention of them. I agree with both of you about nomadic migrations probably having little migration. Strangely there doesn't seem to have been much support for an Iberian power rising so far, consider how advanced the Tartesan state was for example.

[Watchman]

The Tartessans kind of fell apart on their own, so yeah... Also I don't recall them being particularly important in more than a regional, if not strictly local, scale. From what I understand of the relevant geographic dynamics (ie. how the trade routes were wont to run) most of the Iberian peninsula had a rather poor starting position should it have come to competing with more advantageously situated regions. For example, take the "Gallic corridor" linking the Atlantic and the Mediterranean with several fortuitiously situated major rivers and their attendant valleys (and rounding it off with some of Europe's best farmland); or the Danube communications complex linking the Baltic, the Adriatic and the Black Sea to both each other and the European interior. Or the major peninsulas of the Mediterranean interior, that is, the Apennine and Balkan ones which straddle the east-west shipping lanes. (The Southern Italy - Sicily - Tunisia region indeed forms a veritable chokepoint.) Or the Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea axis which is basically the convergence/interface point for *several* major continental-level trade routes... there's a reason Constantinopole was so fabulously rich, and why Charlemagne's short-lived empire (arguably just about the only one that could be said to have genuinely conquered the better part of the European subcontinent, if only fleetingly) grew out of the region of old Gallia.
You get the idea.

The Slavs get kind of a short shrift probably largely because when considered from the perspective of the "nexus zones" of the European subcontinent and the Mediterranean region they were and remain somewhat by the wayside. Basically, from where they started out of it would have been next to impossible to to rise to a position where they could have begun seriously affecting the "big picture", so to speak, of European and Mediterranean history what with only too many other groups being far better positioned to snatch the strategically vital key regions regions from which to grow to prominence.

[TancredTheNorman]

This is a quick reply I left out a lot but

1. The Italic Celts and Ligurians unite for the purpose of an expedition into Italy, unlike historically which involved the Romans defeating them because there is no Rome they conquer Etruria, very easily thanks to Etruscan lack of unity and willingness to hope that the Northerners are just there to take on one of them (in other words the same reason the Romans won against the Etruscans).

2. In the South of Italy the Samnites have managed to come out on top, having very similar militrary arrangements to the Romans, and often being the original source of Roman innovations by defeating the Romans, the Samnites primary problem as they become more and more successful, is the Tribes become more and more independent of each other and more and more like Nations instead of Tribes.

3. Taras has entered into a convenient treaty with the Bruttians and together are holding off Lucanians, who in turn make an Alliance with Carthage, in response the Bruttains and Greeks make an Alliance with Epirus and Syracuse, the Carthaginians counter this by entering into an Alliance with the more powerful Samnite Tribes, and becomes very influential with the Samnites.

4. Gaul and Germania see much migration, and much balance of power and war but nobody ever comes out on top, coalitions form to defeat new comers but they tend to fall apart, there are no Caesar figures to inspire a Vercingetorix.

5. In the East things are very much the same up untill the time Rome interfered so I will get back to the Diodachi later.

6. The Barcids are triumphant over the Senate thanks to popular support, and so Carthage is engaged in a war against the Greeks, but with the support of Lucanians, at first things are going very well, but the clever Greeks exploit Samnite internal differences and inspire civil war and become an ally to the Tribes least likely to turn on them, this of course forces the Carthaginians to transfer forces away from fighting Greeks to fighting Samnite ex allies, leading to a peace in favor of the pre-war divisions, nobody is happy but increasing "Barbarian" power in northern Italy has alarmed both Carthage and Epirus.

7. With the war in Italy over, the Carthaginian Senate decides to try and either gain the riches of Spain, or lose the payment due to the mercenary forces, and so sends their veterans to Spain, Taras and Syracuse being busy rebuilding their economy, while Epirus doesn't care about Spain leads to Carthaginian victory.

8. With no fear of Rome the AS finally conquer Egypt, reducing the Ptolemy Dynasty to puppet status, however because of the resources used on Egypt Attalus I has had the opportunity to assemble a host consisting of all the Greek Cities in Asia Minor, Rhodes, the finnancial support of Macedonia (without official support) Galatia, Pontos, and Parthia, the victory over Egypt is short lived as Attalus leads a mighty expedition against the forces left in Asia Minor, despite reinforcements the Selucids are decisively defeated and to commemorate the victory and acknowledging that the Galatians were essential Attalus commissions "The Conquered Gaul" depicting a Philosopher turning a savage Gaul into a civilized Greek, and his wife retires seeing that she has a new place in the woman's quarters. The Selucids save face by bringing all forces to Asia Minor and offering independence in return for a very modest amount of gold, silver, and gems, and marble, and an agreement not to invade Caria which alone remained loyal.

Back in the West the Samnites with continued help of Carthage manage to repel Barbarian Invasions, but Carthage is unable to exert more then a cultural influence, while the Lucanians and Taras fight through proxy with Bruttians.

9. Carthage faces endless insurgency in Spain, and is unable to conquer more, but even if it didn't face insurgency it wouldn't want to conquer, Carthage doesn't see the profit, it does see profit in Sicily, but Syracuse prevents Carthage from conquering the Island.

10. Attalus I is assasinated, and war becomes a plague in Asia Minor as his work all falls apart, and the Parthians or Selucids are only unable to conquer Asia Minor thanks to being each other's enemies, the Ptolemy Dynasty remains a puppet state because of how much resources it spent losing to the Selucids earlier.

11. As the West never produces anything equivalent to Rome, and the East, and North Africa are the areas of the ancient world's greatness. Christianity never spreads because the conditions for it are horrible, Islam never rises because of no Christianity, the Dark Ages still happen as there are as many wars between independent nations and tribes as civil wars in the Dominate. The difference is there is a lot less lost, progress has been very slow in the context of never ending warfare, there is no pax romana, but there is the saving grace that unlike Ancient Rome, some of these ancient civilizations endure in the Dark Age and prosper in a sea of barbarian invasions. Carthage with it's great fleet and impenetrable walls is not left ungarrissoned so remains a great trading power, the Samnites, and other Southern Italic tribes do collapse, as does Sicily, and there is no more Carthaginian Empire, Macedonia and Greece succumbs entirely to the Dark Ages thanks to the Plague, Asia Minor to falls partly because of plague, partly because of how much warfare there has been without the coming of the Barbarians, Iudea, and Syria are conquered by Parthians, but there is no diaspora forced on the Jews, Egypt re-emerges as a power, having cast off the aging Ptolemy Dynasty but Barbarian raids, and the break down of trade reduces it to poverty, and as the Dark Ages happen there is less lost, but also so much less preserved because there is no Catholic Church so nobody realizes there was a Dark Age.

[Brennus]

The Tartessans kind of fell apart on their own, so yeah... Also I don't recall them being particularly important in more than a regional, if not strictly local, scale. From what I understand of the relevant geographic dynamics (ie. how the trade routes were wont to run) most of the Iberian peninsula had a rather poor starting position should it have come to competing with more advantageously situated regions. For example, take the "Gallic corridor" linking the Atlantic and the Mediterranean with several fortuitiously situated major rivers and their attendant valleys (and rounding it off with some of Europe's best farmland); or the Danube communications complex linking the Baltic, the Adriatic and the Black Sea to both each other and the European interior. Or the major peninsulas of the Mediterranean interior, that is, the Apennine and Balkan ones which straddle the east-west shipping lanes. (The Southern Italy - Sicily - Tunisia region indeed forms a veritable chokepoint.) Or the Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea axis which is basically the convergence/interface point for *several* major continental-level trade routes... there's a reason Constantinopole was so fabulously rich, and why Charlemagne's short-lived empire (arguably just about the only one that could be said to have genuinely conquered the better part of the European subcontinent, if only fleetingly) grew out of the region of old Gallia.
You get the idea.

Bloody Finns, lol.

[Brennus]

Tancred the Norman... very in depth but what happens after that? Also isn't alot of it based purely on assumptions? Like plague in Greece or a revolution in Egypt.

[Brennus]

Ok folks last day for theories and then I give out the balloon. I will ask to have this thread closed at 10.40 (GMT) tonight. Thanks for your participation!

[antisocialmunky]

I wonder if capitalism and humanism would have developed? Or would it have taken a different shape or would we have stayed in a preindustrial cycle of fedual state -> centralized state and back and forth.

[Apázlinemjó]

I wonder if capitalism and humanism would have developed? Or would it have taken a different shape or would we have stayed in a preindustrial cycle of fedual state -> centralized state and back and forth.

Without Rome, we would live on space stations already.

[oudysseos]

The answer to what the world would have been like without the Roman Empire depends entirely on the reason why there would not have been a Roman Empire in the first place.


There are a couple of plausible scenarios.

1. Brennus burns Rome and kills every last man woman and child, sows the fields with salt, and eats all the dogs. After that it's hard to say: the urban societies of the Etruscans were already somewhat in decline by this point, and I can't buy a Samnite or Sabine empire. Possibly without a strong Italian power, Greek influence would have spread up the peninsula.

2. Alexander didn't die in 323 BC, but lived at least another 20 years, and carried out what were reputed to have been his plans for western conquests against Carthage and Sicily. I find it likely that he would have been drawn into the Italian peninsula, and given for the sake of argument that he would have won, that's Rome nipped in the bud. After that, what happens depends on whether Alex ever stopped to consolidate his empire and provide for an orderly succession - assuming that he left an adult male heir, we can posit an Alexandrine Empire lasting for a while, I think. Longer if the Greeks adopted some Roman civic virtues. This scenario is put forward in Mary Renault's The Nature of Alexander the Great.

The successful conquest of Rome by Phyrrus is an alternate version of this scenario, with smaller results - Phyrrus conquers Italy, Sicily and Greece.

3. Rome loses to Carthage in either of the wars. I can't bring myself to believe that Carthage would have eradicated Rome or replaced the population, so the eventual outcome of this is harder to imagine - it possibly might have just meant a delay in events, or a later repeat of scenario #1 - no strong regional power in Italy.

While I would never say that history is inevitable, there are important reasons why Rome succeeded and Carthage, the Greeks and the Celts did not - and just removing Rome via deus ex machina wouldn't necessarily change those conditions. The Greeks had much more conservative and parochial notions of citizenship than the Romans did (as did the Carthaginians), something that limited the ability of both to sustain expansion over time. Geographical position is also very important.

[Brennus]

THAT'S IT! The time on my laptop has just gone 10:40 as I start writing this so I will announce who (in my opinion) has won them self a balloon. I have based my decision on who presented the most logical argument which included as many cultures as possible:

1. Plutoboyz for his convincing map (even if Carthage's importance was emphasized possibly too much) and for his constant input during this discussion. Please accept a balloon.
2. Imperator Invictus.
3. Cute Wolf
4. Ca Putt
5. Oudysseos (did not actually present an alternate future but instead gave the most interesting answer in my opinion).

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the discussions including those not in the top five. In particular i would like to thank Wathcman, Andronikos, Duguntz, Ibn Khaldin and Hannibal Khan the Great as well for educational input. I hope you enjoyed this thread. Thank you all again!

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Hmm... I am Ibn-Khaldun not Ibn Khaldin! Thank you very much. :brood:

But this is a nice topic that people can talk about hours and hours. :yes:

[Brennus]

Hmm... I am Ibn-Khaldun not Ibn Khaldin! Thank you very much. :brood:

But this is a nice topic that people can talk about hours and hours. :yes:

I do apologise, sir. I only got out of work a few minutes before writing that.

Well I am happy to let this thread stay open for discussion if people still want to discuss it. I only put in the baloon to attract interest.

[Duguntz]

Thanks for opening that thread at first Brennus!

[plutoboyz]

THAT'S IT! The time on my laptop has just gone 10:40 as I start writing this so I will announce who (in my opinion) has won them self a balloon. I have based my decision on who presented the most logical argument which included as many cultures as possible:

1. Plutoboyz for his convincing map (even if Carthage's importance was emphasized possibly too much) and for his constant input during this discussion. Please accept a balloon.
2. Imperator Invictus.
3. Cute Wolf
4. Ca Putt
5. Oudysseos (did not actually present an alternate future but instead gave the most interesting answer in my opinion).

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the discussions including those not in the top five. In particular i would like to thank Wathcman, Andronikos, Duguntz, Ibn Khaldin and Hannibal Khan the Great as well for educational input. I hope you enjoyed this thread. Thank you all again!

thank you for the baloon. I'm honored. I'll put it in my sig

[Cute Wolf]

yay, thanks brennus ..... :grin:

[WinsingtonIII]

You know I seem to recall that historically Carthage got stomped by an opponent which quite specifically lacked a true warrior class, seeing as how the Romans were working off a citizen-militia system...
Another thing to note is that dedicated warrior classes can also be quite easy to subvert if you know what to offer - a combination of phat lewts and them getting to keep their old status and privileges has often done wonders to win an invader allies, and often enough they've been only too keen to take on mercenary service.

It's not the prescence of a warrior class specifically that would allow many cultures to defeat the Carthaginians, it's the simple reliance on their own men as troops. It doesn't matter if it is a warrior class or a citizen militia, either system is much more stable and reliable in the long term than a mercenary army like Carthage. True you can subvert a warrior class by parceling out gifts and land, and in actuality, I think a citizen-militia system is much more difficult to subjugate, as a large proportion of the population is trained, armed, and ready to fight for their "nation;" but realistically this isn't the point here. The point is that Carthage, with their heavy reliance on mercenaries, would always have difficulty maintaining control over a large empire. Now, I don't view Machiavelli as much of an authority on anything, but I do think he makes a very good point about mercenaries. "If a prince holds onto his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure. Mercenaries are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, and disloyal." He is of course biased because he just saw his beloved Italy fall magnificently quickly to the French in part because the Italian princes relied quite heavily on mercenaries. But even so, he's got a point. Carthage would never be able to recreate the same sort of control that the Romans had, even if only in the Western Mediterranean, and certainly not over the entire area that the Romans achieved. As we all know, distance and power both corrupt, and the larger their territory expanded, the more problems they would have had with ambitious mercenary bands (who's to stop them from seizing power over a colony when they are the primary military force in the area?), abuses of power, and of course revolts of the population.

Beyond that, I think others have answered the question far more extensively than I could, so I'll leave it there.

Edit: Oops, sorry, I thought you meant it was open until 10:30 pm tonight....

[Brennus]

Edit: Oops, sorry, I thought you meant it was open until 10:30 pm tonight....

Well the chance to get a balloon has passed but please keep giving your theories. Until this people lose interest in this thread or a moderator closes it down its still open. There is still plenty to talk about. Nobody seems to have touched on the fate of the British Isles yet.

[antisocialmunky]

Without Rome, we would live on space stations already.

People already do.

[Brennus]

People already do.

lol, :laugh4:

[Apázlinemjó]

People already do.

But not like in the science fiction movies. :(

[Watchman]

But not like in the science fiction movies. :(I want my jetpack, laser gun and flying car too! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetPack) :klingon:

[Apázlinemjó]

I want my jetpack, laser gun and flying car too! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetPack) :klingon:

Jabba said you would show up. I want a floating toilet made by Jules Verne.

[A Nerd]

Hopefully that floating toilet comes with plumbing!

[antisocialmunky]

No impractical fancy gadgets, but I think we do pretty good for ourselves...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=628&d=1272169549https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=627&d=1272169468

Oh wait, I was wrong. (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/02/ipad.jpg)

[Brennus]

Seriously I think if we had replicators like in Star Trek we could solve ALOT of problems, no more having to damage the environment for materials, no more world hunger, no more running out of drink when the off licence is closed.