History Buffs: What if?

Corey · Jun 25, 2003

Given this list of changes to history, what do you think the effects would be on the Mediterranean world and more importantly the British islands, assume the current date is 600 AD:

* The Romans fought to a stalemate with Carthage during the Second Punic War. Currently, the Carthaginian Empire controls much of North Africa and Iberia. For the sake of security and trade in the eastern Mediterranean the two powers cease open fighting, the Iberus River in Iberia is the dividing line.

* Rome never conquered Greece. (197 BC-Philip V defeats Titus Quinctius Flaminius at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in Thessaly.)

* The Babylonians eliminated Judah. (597 BC Nebuchadnezzar executes Jehoiachin and a large number of Judah’s population following a revolt. Later, Zedekiah, placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, also revolts. 586 BC Soloman’s Temple razed and large numbers of Jews executed. Some may have been taken east, but they are lost to history.) There was no Jesus. (Possibly replace with Appollonius of Tyana?)

* Magic exists. It is uncommon and, with the exception of hedge-wizards selling love potions and amulets to protect against the evil eye, viewed with suspicion. Its ancient traditions have their deepest roots in Persian and Egyptian culture. Today, Greece dominates arcane wisdom.

* Approximately a century ago explorers from the west visited Ireland, Briton, and Iberia. A plague that spread in their wake killed half of Europe’s population. This culture claims descent from an earlier civilization whose homeland was in the south and sank into the ocean. They have established some trading posts in Europe.

Your ideas are appreciated,
Corey

bwgwl · Jun 25, 2003

i'd expect a much smaller Roman Empire, or perhaps no empire at all (it might remain a republic if its just one power among many in the region).

Britain probably would not be totally conquered by Rome -- i'd expect there to be Carthaginian colonies in the Isles as well (i vaguely recall reading something about contact / trade between the Carthaginians and the tin miners of Cornwall).

sounds like you've got a nice four-way power struggle in the Med between the Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, and Babylonians. i'd expect to see a lot of shifting alliances and wars between the "Big Four."

Mark · Jun 25, 2003

Make it five. Egypt might also be in a much different situation.

kengar · Jun 25, 2003

The British isles would be more "barbaric" Picts, Celts, etc. No real church presence.

If Rome never conquered Greece, then it probably wouldn't be recognizably "Roman." Too much of their culture is based on what they learned from Greek slaves, etc. to count that out of the equation.

Hand of Evil · Jun 25, 2003

The power of Rome was in its organizational skills but most of its wealth came from the Mid-East. I think it would fall to the hordes from the north or Carthage (which was a sea power).

The Babylonians would be a vast power, control of the far east and without the Mongal hordes would have maintained the knowledge and power. They were advanced.

Greece would fall to the Babylonians, too much power.

Desdichado · Jun 25, 2003

Britannia is not a Roman province. For that matter, Gallia might well not be either.

Clearly the British are not Christian. Nor are they likely to be heavily burdened with Anglo-Saxon incursions.

Rome remained a Republic (unless some other stimulus arose to turn it into an Empire?)

Religion is instead a pan-cultural pantheism: Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Persian, etc. gods all get their due depending on the population.

I'm not sure what you mean by Rome not conquering Greece -- there must have been a very different Greece than the one we know from Roman history. Presumably the character of the Romans is much more Roman and not Hellenized.

I'm also not sure what you meant by the last tick-point. Explorers from the mainland and the British Isles certainly did go back and forth for centuries and centuries before 600 AD. Are you trying to say that Ireland is settled by Atlanteans or something?

Desdichado · Jun 25, 2003

Mark said:
Make it five. Egypt might also be in a much different situation.

It'd probably still have the gasping remains of the Ptolemaic dynasty, unless you want Egypt to have been conquered by yet someone else. So Egypt in this scenario is fairly Hellenized I'd think.

Fenris · Jun 25, 2003

Joshua Dyal said:
Religion is instead a pan-cultural pantheism: Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Persian, etc. gods all get their due depending on the population.

Actually I think Rome would have turned to the Mithraic Mysteries a cquite popular cult especially among the soldiers and one that IRL almost edged out christianity as the official religion of Rome.

Also factor in the germanic tribes moving in by this time rapidly into the west. What of the Nordic lands? Do Viking raiders appear earlier?

Perhaps the mongol hordes now threatened Babylon.

And no Jesus, what about Islam?, Does the loss of the other monothesistic religions affect the panthesitic Arabs?

johnsemlak · Jun 25, 2003

Tough question

I don't think the above points would have made the Eastern Mediterranean any more Hellanized than they were in history. The Hellinistic states in Egypt and the Near East after Alexander were very exploitive, colonialistic regimes of foreign (Greek) rulers that never won the hearts of the people they ruled. The same trend continued with the Roman and later Byzantine Empire's rule in those areas. When Islam appeared and swept through the region, it took advantage of this.

Which leads to my next point. Well, with Judah eliminated you might theorize that Islam would also never have existed, but I think some sort of similar movement would have appeared out of the middle east, and might have penetrated Europe more becuase it would have faced (even) less organized opposition.

All this is pure speculation of course. As far as magic existing I have know idea how to judge its effect. It's kind of like trying to speculate what would have happend if the armies of the Seul Empire had met the Roman legions on the battlefield.

Desdichado · Jun 25, 2003

Fenris said:
Actually I think Rome would have turned to the Mithraic Mysteries a cquite popular cult especially among the soldiers and one that IRL almost edged out christianity as the official religion of Rome.

Also factor in the germanic tribes moving in by this time rapidly into the west. What of the Nordic lands? Do Viking raiders appear earlier?

Perhaps the mongol hordes now threatened Babylon.

And no Jesus, what about Islam?, Does the loss of the other monothesistic religions affect the panthesitic Arabs?

Your points, in order:

1) Yes, but now that I think about it, a Rome that doesn't even conquer Greece probably doesn't have all that Persian influence. Rome simply doesn't look that far east in this scenario. Ergo no widespread Mithraic mystery cult.

2) Germanic tribes moved westward largely because of the weakness of the Roman institutions in Gallia and Britannia (not to mention the specific invites of the Romans to come settle the area and serve as foederati -- there's no telling what they would have done in this scenario. Possibly, continued to exist as they were, bulwarked in by the cultural relatively similar Gallic tribes to the west, or -- doing something perhaps like the Franks in Gallia. Coming in and establising dynasties that eventually left little other than a few loanwords or places and things, to the area in which they settled.

3) Without a strong Rome, all kinds of Easterling invaders from the Scythians to the Huns to the Alans to the Mongols, etc. have probably penetrated much farther and done much more damage than we saw historically. I still wouldn't expect them to be a serious threat to Britannia, though -- or whatever you're calling it in this scenario. But it probably would have produced a very different cultural outlook amongst the Europeans than the one we got.

4) Too true -- it was Islam that united the Arab tribes in the first place.

In all, I'd suggest you check out the this book and read through some of the earlier chapters at the very least. The problem is, though, that you're introducing too many changes. At some point, you can't expect to come up with anything that really resembles the world we know anymore, because the implications of the other changes are too great. I'd start with a smaller change -- Rome and Carthage stalemate in the second Punic War, and work forward from there, plotting out all the changes that would entail. Many of the ones you've put out there would probably be results of that anyway, but it wouldn't look exactly the same.