SPQR? Who?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.