What If There Had Never Been a Roman Empire?

I'd like to throw this out there as it's something that I often think about, and I would love to hear what the serious people on the EB forum have to say. It's two questions really:

1. Given for the sake of argument that there had never been a Roman Empire, what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been, e.g. Brennus, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, etc? Your EB campaign may give you some ideas here.

2. What would our world be like if there never had been a Roman Empire?


Of course it's all total speculation, but there are some things that we could say with confidence. Spanish, French, Italian of course would never have developed. But what about English? Or Christianity? Or representative democracy? What would today's political boundaries be? And going back in history, would Attila have stopped where he did? The Turks? Would technological progress have been faster or slower? And on and on.

Just thought it might be more interesting than the usual spam. And no, it's not an "I hate the Romani" thread, so don't go there.

All I have to say is that the entire history of mankind is based on the question "what if". Just what would have happened if Alexander died much later and really conquered the whole world (including the romans)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maximus Aurelius

All I have to say is that the entire history of mankind is based on the question "what if". Just what would have happened if Alexander died much later and really conquered the whole world (including the romans)?

---

Then the Vandals, Goths etc. would have conquered that and life would be pretty much the same except that our languages would be based on Greek.

I've always been keen on "alternate" history questions like this. This one is as hard to answer as any of them though, because the cogs of history are huge and complex. Break off even a small tooth, and you have a completely different machine. It's hard to say. One could interpret you question as asking if Caesar and others hadn't set in motion a chain that brought low the Republic. What if the Republic carried on? I assume, however, that you mean what if no Rome came into being, right? I don't like to think of it. That's how much I love Rome...

I'd definitely be interested in what the expertise here thinks though. I'm barely qualified to be an amateur amateur historian.

As a rule, I do not indulge in such HUGE acts of "What If?". But there are some minor points I'd like to address.

"But what about English?"

English would still exist, but it would have evolved differently without the introduction of French into the language around the time of the Norman Conquest. We could still be speaking Saxon English. Hwæt!

"Or Christianity?"

Christianity was not dependent on Roman control of the Holy Land. It could have arisen under the occupation of any foreign power.

"Or representative democracy?"

Liberal democracy is mostly an invention of the Enlightenment which primarily drew from Greek authors (or in some cases, prior secondary works which drew from Greek) as opposed to Roman. About the only contribution of Roman government to modern democracy is lingual.

Nearly all would be as it is today, plus or minus a few ruined buildings here and there. Gallic would have become the Latin of its day or some other Italic tribe would have become Roman like. History has many treads that run in a similar direction; if several are removed one will still have a similar outcome as other treads rise to take the place of those removed. Now if one reorders the entire universe; thats literally another story all together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

I'd like to throw this out there as it's something that I often think about, and I would love to hear what the serious people on the EB forum have to say. It's two questions really:

1. Given for the sake of argument that there had never been a Roman Empire, what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been, e.g. Brennus, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, etc? Your EB campaign may give you some ideas here.

2. What would our world be like if there never had been a Roman Empire?


Of course it's all total speculation, but there are some things that we could say with confidence. Spanish, French, Italian of course would never have developed. But what about English? Or Christianity? Or representative democracy? What would today's political boundaries be? And going back in history, would Attila have stopped where he did? The Turks? Would technological progress have been faster or slower? And on and on.

Just thought it might be more interesting than the usual spam. And no, it's not an "I hate the Romani" thread, so don't go there.

---

My answer to #1:

One of the most overlooked important events in history is the murder of Seleukus Nikator by Ptolemy Keraunos on the shores of Thrace in 280 BC. Had this not occurred, Seleukus would have taken over Makedonia and Thrace (having just defeated and killed Lysimachus in the Battle of Corumpendium.) This would most likely have given the Seleukids the strength necessary to subdue Ptolemaic Egypt and unite Alexander's empire once more.

If think such an alternate Arche Seleukia would have easily been able to stop the rising power of Rome.

It all depends when you imagine the Romans to have lost out - Tarquin and the Etruscans easily crush the rebel upstarts? Brennus' Gauls burn the city to the ground? Pyrrhus wins? Hannibal wins? The Gauls kill Caesar and Vercingetorix launches a counter attack? They would all lead to different outcomes.

"what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been"

The Etruscans not having allowed the latin tribes to become powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seleukus

If think such an alternate Arche Seleukia would have easily been able to stop the rising power of Rome.

---

Lotta major what-ifs in its emergence process already, but anyway, Italy - and the western Mediterranean basin in general - was very very far away from the Seleucids' Persian heartlands...

~:confused: - Rome had NOTHING to do with English as a language or culture... thus why the Irish had to convert Anglo-Saxons, and even much of Europe. all it would have done is increase the time between oral cultural and literate culture. I know this is at odds with Britain's wannabe-Rome status, but that's as accurate as Berlin having anything to do with Rome, a thing of modernity and European civ... although Runes as we know them would not be around - NOO! my tats are gone! [strokes place on arm where they'd been] ~;) but Runes would then have developed from a different Alphabet, prob. Greek, just as Slavic language was based on Cyrillic.

in fact, without Rome destroying everybody's culture, much of Europe would still be Celtic, and the Germanic tribes probably would have developed a centralized government at some point, during the Dark Ages at the very least- rather than being purposely battered and scattered into all the various kingdoms and not becoming Deutschland until the 1800s.

'what-if's' are great, though - don't let them get you down... in fact, my novel is a historical fiction 'what-if' (although technically that makes it sci-fi) concerning the 2nd Punic War and stopping Rome's navy and expansion short of the Alps - which alows some depth into how the Celtic, Germanic and steppe tribes might have been. Persian Christians would be killing Germans for not converting to Christianity- now that I think is ironic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Nearly all would be as it is today, plus or minus a few ruined buildings here and there. Gallic would have become the Latin of its day or some other Italic tribe would have become Roman like. History has many treads that run in a similar direction; if several are removed one will still have a similar outcome as other treads rise to take the place of those removed. Now if one reorders the entire universe; thats literally another story all together.

---

I'd have to agree with you. If Rome (or Macedonia,on the subject of what ifs) hadn't become the dominant power in Italy,Etruscan hegemony would most likely have remained intact and we would probably be talking about an Etruscan empire much like we are the Roman Empire.
Same could be said about Carthage,had it instead been Rome sacked and destroyed at the end of the Third Punic War.

Maybe it's just a kind of hopeful thinking,but I always ask myself,'What if Sparta had remained the dominant Greek military power up to the Roman invasion?'

Well for one thing the Romans' great Eastern rival would have been Achaemenid Persia, since the southern Greeks were patently incapable of doing much about that one by themselves.

For another, given the Spartans' chronic conservatism even in most military matters, it'd have been a cakewalk for the Romans. The hoplite shieldwall seems like a really bad idea against an enemy with a fetish for heavy "shield-destroyer" javelins...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

...which alows some depth into how the Celtic, Germanic and steppe tribes and how they might have been.

---

I can vouch for the steppe guys not having been one jack different, though. Not only were they rather little affected by the goings-on among the distant settled empires in general, already due to the blunt fact few in their right minds tried any territorial expansion into the seas of grass, the fundamentals of their ecology and lifestyle starkly restricted their "developement potential" - when you look at it, around the only thing that changed between the Sarmatians and Mongols was level of political organisation, and that was largely because the Mongols shemelessly copy-pasted Chinese sedentary management practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Rome had NOTHING to do with English as a language or culture.

---

Modern English is, essentially, an evolved combination of Saxon English (brought over by the Saxon/Angle/Jute invasions with some mixing with local languages, but not a whole lot) and Old French (brought over with the Norman Conquest).

The population of Northern France speaking a corrupted form of Latin--and it subsequently being picked up by the Normans--is a direct result of Rome conquering northern France.

The Huns would have had a different enemy instead of a bunch of constantly hedged and harassed Germanic tribes fleeing before them. The Goths would prob. still have joined their ranks as some Germanic tribes would have, being lost in the vagueness of 'Scythian' in Greek accounts. Attila could never make for France without a terribly weak and uncentralized Deutschland.

I dont talk about Modern English or Middle English because that would be meaningless. All Modern languages borrow from way too many cultures- with maybe the exception of Icelandic.. Old English did have influences simply by circumstance from Latin since Christian monks were educated and promoted that as their elite and holy script, but the OE language stood fine on its own 2 legs.

no word 'beer' without Latin (biber), although 'ale' would be available :grin: what people called 'beer' was much different than today anyways- medieval records show it to be more expensive and a distincly different drink from ale, thought to be made from fruits/berries of some sort, possibly akin to strong cider, or 'Welsh ale'

here's a question: what would be going on with the ACTUAL city Byzantion without Rome? its prehistory and pre-Roman history is quite vague, so I wonder sometimes, it's still an excellent location

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

here's a question: what would be going on with the ACTUAL city Byzantion without Rome? its prehistory and pre-Roman history is quite vague, so I wonder sometimes, it's still an excellent location

---

The Russians would have a warm-water port with easy ocean access and Britain would have had a naval arms race with them instead of Germany?

That one could as well have been named "the geese that lays the golden egg" as far as location is concerned, so you can comfortably bet whatever else happened there'd be a major city or few in that region. Cities virtually exist for trade, and that strait/landbridge is a jugular artery.

We would all be here wondering: what if there had never been the empire of megas moose?

What if the "Yutseb Elephants had been used by Hannibal instead of normal regular African Bush Elephants?"

I have two books entitled What If and More What If which are a series of essays written by historians on military and political history from ancient greek times to the Cold War. One of these details was "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. The scenario if Alexander died at the Grancius (which nearly happened). It argued that Achaemenid persia would retain Central Asia and Mesopotmaia with Asia Minor. Meanwhile Athens would remerge in the Western Mediterranean and figth Carthage. Both would be exhausted and leave Rome able to gain the Mediterranean as its own.

Theres a lot of interesting topics in it and you can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_%28essays%29 :2thumbsup:

"Kill them all. God knows his own."
- Albigensian leader during their 13th century crusade against 'heretics'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

The Etruscans not having allowed the latin tribes to become powerful.

---

In that case there wouldn't have been anything to stop Pyrrhos conquering Italy. The Greek cities in Southern Italy and Sicily would have been a flashpoint for rivalry between the Greek Leagues, Carthage, Epiros and Macedonia and it would depend who, if anyone, won out - until Mithridates of Pontus made his move...

Elsewhere, Carthage would have consolidated their hold on the Western Mediterranean. Probably Ptolemaic Egypt would have fought it out with Parthia over who got the last scraps of the Seleucid territory, but we would have seen pretty much the same split between the East and West, a Greek East versus a Phoenician, rather than Latin, West. Perhaps Gaul under Vercingetorix or some other leader and Dacia would have created powerful states on the edges. The effect of Hunnic and Germanic invasions would probably have been a lot less on empires centred on Carthage and Egypt than on ones centred in Rome and Byzantium, but Dacia and Macedon would probably have gone under. I doubt the religious situation would have been anything like today with no single empire. Even if the Graeco-Egyptian Empire had converted to Christianity that would be no reason for the Carthaginian one to do so. Unless Egypt and Persia behaved in the same way as the East Romans and Sassanids, Islam, if it arose, would not have been able to expand as easily, leaving us with a Buddhist central Asia and a Zoroastrian Iran and Caucasus, and a Zoroastrian Russia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

"Or Christianity?"

Christianity was not dependent on Roman control of the Holy Land. It could have arisen under the occupation of any foreign power.

---

But the Catholic Church would not have existed. That would have had a huge impact on the development on Europe. And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.

Then again I'm not too familiar with Jewish political history.

And could the idea of personal salvation though acts have arisen without Jesus? Maybe, maybe not.

That would depend on whether or not you believe Jesus was responsible for the idea, but I would have thought that someone would come up with it eventually.

What if there had never been a Roman Empire, as the Roman Republic would continue.

In this scenario, Caesar nevers crosses the Rubicon. Around 50 AD the Romans reintroduce the initial Marian ideas. So the States pays for the recruits arms and armour, but the recruit does not get pay for until he pays off the equipment.

With such revival of military service, Romans would return to being a highly militarized nation and resist all later invasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.

---

I disagree.

Judea was a small land at a crossroads between great empires. It was always occupied by some foreign power or another. First the Hyksos, then the Egyptians, then the Assyrians, then the Persians, then the Macedonians, then the Selucids, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, the list of conquerors of Judea is endless!

Judea spent very little of its history being a free and independent power. Very little indeed. And foreign occupation leads to oppression, which leads to misery, which leads to religion to help the people cope with misery, which leads to the myth of the Messiah, which leads to Jesus, which leads to Christianity in some form or other. It's practically inevitable.

If there had never been a Roman Empire, or if there had never been a Rome at all? They're different questions.

If there had never been a Rome at all, we'd all be speaking Modern Carthaganian Semitic by now. If there had just never been a Roman Empire, in the sense that Octavian never consolidated power, well then I'd say the most likely reason would be that Hannibal got his siege engines and sacked Rome, 115 years before Gaius Julius was born.

If Caesar had died in Gaul, like say when fighting Vercingetorix, there probably still would have been an empire. Civil war was inevitable at that point, but the outcome of it wasn't. That would have come down to a political battle between Pompey and Cato. Cato was a True Believer in the Republican Senate, while Pompey wanted at least a dictatorship.

There also never would have been a Rome had Alexander gone west instead of east. But Macedonian interests did not lie in that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

But the Catholic Church would not have existed. That would have had a huge impact on the development on Europe. And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.

Then again I'm not too familiar with Jewish political history.

And could the idea of personal salvation though acts have arisen without Jesus? Maybe, maybe not.

---

Any religious thinker could have become a Jesus figure and be killed and be the focal point for a new religion. Jesus of Nazareth didn't start Christianity--his followers did.

Not to knock Christianity--I have great respect for the power of religion and I view it as a necessary component of a healthy society--but it really had little which was new about it. Its original components are clearly derived from existing religions and made to fit the mold.

The Roman Catholic Church would not exist, no. But that isn't to say that Alexandria or Baghdad or Jerusalem itself couldn't have been Augustine of Hippo's City of God.

I am fairly certain that Christianity would have spread as it historically did in any atmosphere of oppression--it is a faith well suited to popular acts martyrdom. As long as the people in charge of the region--be they Hellenistic or Persian or whatever--tried to stop the religion, it would have spread and become powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaberHRE

What if there had never been a Roman Empire, as the Roman Republic would continue.

In this scenario, Caesar nevers crosses the Rubicon. Around 50 AD the Romans reintroduce the initial Marian ideas. So the States pays for the recruits arms and armour, but the recruit does not get pay for until he pays off the equipment.

With such revival of military service, Romans would return to being a highly militarized nation and resist all later invasions.

---

Don't think so.

The Republic was based on the fighing power of its peasant militia. The Republic's legionaries were small farmers, fiercely devoted to their land and their state - the Senate and People of Rome.

But the great Roman victory in the Second Punic War led to the noble patrician class gaining too much wealth and too many slaves. They bought up all the little farms in Italy and turned them into vast slave-run enterprises. The small farmers became paupers and turned into the mobs of Rome.

When the young men of the mob joined the legions, they fought not to preserve their land, their families and their country - they fought for booty. And the booty was distrubuted by the generals, not the state. Effectively the patriotic legionaries of the Republic became no better than mercenaries fighting for pay and booty - their loyalty was to their general for getting them booty.

That's why Ceasar was able to make himself dictator of Rome - because his soldiers were loyal to him and not to the Roman state.

So by Ceasar's time, the Republic was already doomed, because the soldiers weren't loyal to it anymore. If it hadn't been Ceasar who made himself dictator, it would have been Pompey or Brutus or Mark Antony or someone else. It was inevitable.

For the Republic to survive, the patrician class must be stopped from becoming too rich and powerful, and the spoils of victory must be shared more among the veterans and the people instead of the nobles keeping it all for themselves. And Rome mustn't take too many slaves, otherwise it becomes a slave economy instead of a citizen economy.

But again the goal is not to revive patriotism among the Quirites, but military vigour.

Soldiers who fight for whatever reasons, are still soldiers. So whilst facing invasions on many fronts a Huge number of men can be mustered. Further the problem which the 2nd Century B.C commanders faced could be nullified by incorporating limited numbers of the subjagated peoples and by auxilia. So there is no sense of sending large numbers of Italians into the Syrian front, but use Syrian natives and Roman colonists.