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.