SPQR? Who?

[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.

[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.

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

[Brennus]

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

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

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 .....

[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,

[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!