History Buffs: What if?

[ergeheilalt]

This will be a bit of guess work but ...

If Carthaginian Empire is still around, there would probably be sporadic wars between them are Rome. With the Romans effectively cut off from expanding southward, they would probably go westward in modern day France, but stop short of the strait between England and France. If you really want Rome to expand, they may have discovered/stolen magic from the Greeks or Egyptians that allows them to cross the Rhine (the on of the reasons German Barbarians were left alone by the Romans.

Rome would probably not have the great leagions it one had (with a noticeable lack of slaves from Spain and North Africa - Tower Shields and the gladus (sp) might not exist or could be very unusual due to lack of demand. The Coliseum would probably not have been built unless Rome had in fact had become a great empire. Although, if it were the various types of gladiators would make for some fun PCs.

If the Babylonians eliminated Judah, they would probably still be in the region, with the Greeks being in the way of an Roman advances into the region. Again, you are a little unclear as far has how advanced the Greeks have progressed in their own empire (did they eliminate the Persian threat in the Eastern Mediterranean - if so, they are in they would replace the Babylonians.) The Babylonians (or Persians) would be the only people with land trade-routes to the Far East and would probably be a fairly rich society.

The Egyptians would be a very old empire, with a fairly long history and would have earned the respect of it's neighboring countries. In the skirmishes between Rome and The Carthaginians, there would always be the vying for Egypt's support - as being a powerful ally with the possible access to magic. Egypt - being along the eastern coast of Africa would have possibly developed great vessels for trade eastward and on the Mediterranean. Egypt might have expanded southward and would have access to ivory and salt. Egypt would probably still have many bronze tools, but would have strong iron scimitars for their military.

This sounds like a fun idea...

Erge

 

[fusangite]

What a great thread!

Here are my few coppers:

But first, a note on plagues: the 7th century was a terrible time for plagues. The Black Death first hit Byzantium in the 6th and 7th centuries. "Justinian's plague" was key in frustrating the already ill-conceived reconquest of the West. Secondly, major epidemics almost always result from the same thing: intensive animal domestication. Societies which keep domestic animals at close quarters are more likely both to suffer epidemics themselves and to have a higher resistance to such epidemics, often being filthy and contagious. American cultures did not domesticate animals heavily and did not live with the animals at close quarters when they did -- thus, they were especially susceptible to the various plagues which ripped through the continent from 1500-1900.

1. What kind of state would Rome be?

So much of who Rome became was predicated on their conquest of Greece: their respect for the rule of law, their philosphical and theological sophistication, etc. In many ways, Rome without Greece isn't even a fully imperial power; it's simply the best organized group of barbarians. Furthermore, so much of the imperial Roman basis economically and logistically was the use of the Mediterranean Sea as the empire's mechanism for transporting goods.

I would therefore suggest that Rome might, when it encountered the Germans, find it had much more in common with them than in our timeline. I therefore see Rome developing into a political formation more like the early Holy Roman Empire: a loose Italo-German federation with the Alps at its centre. I would suggest that the empire's ideology would be highly ascetic (stoicism being the only indigenous Roman philosophy) and disciplined.

I would see the Roman Empire as having three main parts:
Italy: the ascetic agrarian urban civilization
South Alps: a heavily militarized territory in northern Italy dominated by German-speaking allies with a pastoral economy
Germany: the sparsely settled lands of Rome's Germanic allies

These lands would regularly raise armies that would march overland to demand tribute from Iberia and Illyria who would produce most of Rome's luxury goods.

Politically, I see this state as sort of like Russia: a brutal autocratic regime based on a national ideology of militarism and self-sacrifice with little concept of the rule of law.

Wildcard: Such a Germanic alliance might lead to early development of cavalry units. I would argue that the horse, not the trireme would become the basis for Roman military dominance.

2. Who would Carthage be?

Without the security of the Mediterrranean under the control of a single power, Carthage would probably continue its Atlantic rim expansion. I would suggest that they might develop an Atlantic coastal empire in a narrow band along the Atlantic Coast including modern-day Cornwall, Brittany, Bordeaux, Spain, Portugal, Morocca and Western Mauritania. There is also some scholarship about them having reached the Sargasso Sea; it might be quite exciting to give them colonies in Bermuda, Hispanola, the Canaries and the Azores.

The Carthage I imagine would therefore a kind of Semitic-Mediterranean-Celtic amalgam with African influences. I think one could make Carthage more like the actual Rome: the multi-ethnic pluralistic empire with people of all colours and ethnicities but lacking the strong trade and administration Rome had, except in the core areas of North Africa and possible colonies in the formerly Phonecian territories in Palestine.

I have no idea of what the Carthaginian religion was like so I have a little difficulty figuring out how the state would see itself.

3. What would be happening out east?

I would argue that monotheism and orthodoxy are naturally desired in cultures that are highly heterodox and pluralistic for a long time. Thus, I would argue that Egypt and Greece, after a thousand years, would be especially vulnerable to the rise of monotheistic religions.

There are a number of possible sources for the monotheistic movement: (a) Egypt -- one could argue that Ikhnaton's heresy could be ressurrected in Egypt and spread elsewhere; (b) Persia -- most people think that Ikhnaton's heresy was a modification of Persian Zoroastrianism; (c) India -- monotheistic heresies begin to emerge in India by about 600 BCE -- any one of them could conceivably move west, the most likely being Buddhism which came into existence around the time of Christ.

Which version of monotheism challenges European/Aryan civilization must, to some degree, be determined by how things have shaken down in the Babylon-Persia-Greece-Egypt conflict.

In my version, the following would have happened: the Sassanid Empire's rise would have, in fact, proceeded more spectacularly as it would be bordering decayed and backward post-Alexander Greek and Egyptian states, along with an atrophied Babylonian Empire.

I would therefore envision the Sassanid Empire as taking all of Asia Minor and the Middle East, imposing a monotheistic fire worshipping faith on the people. The Sassanids would be in the middle of the Sinai and the Bosphorus, trying to overcome these significant natural ecological boundaries in order to mount their assaults on Thessaloniki (the Greek capital) and Alexandria (the Egyptian capital). These two exhausted states would probably be in some kind of federation against Persia and would be especially susceptible to Roman and Carthaginian pressure and extortion.

4. What would be happening up north?

In my scenario, Rome has become the leader of the East Germanic tribes. These tribe would probably be engaged in ongoing war with the Franks, Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Danes, Geats and Swedes.

Further east, however, the big story of the 6th century was the massive Slavic migration into Central Europe. These primitive agrarian pastoralists would be pouring into the region, harrying the eastern border or Rome and the northern border of Greece/Macedonia. The Slavs arrived on such a large scale due to the migration of central asian peoples into the pontic steppe: Bulgars, Khazars, Avars, Huns, Pechenegs, etc. These asiatic peoples were of widely differing technology levels but were militarily superior to the primitive slavs.

This would make for a terrible situation in Illyria and Pannonia which would see the Slavs invading the frontier region between Rome and Greece. I would imagine that as in actual history, the Slavs would mostly ally with Greece as their continuous march into Germanic territory would make it impossible for them to ally with Rome. Thus, 6th century Illyria and Pannonia would look much as they actually did: weak Slavic buffer states nominally allied with Greece and dependent on them for aid.

I'm not too sure what to do with the asiatic tribes at this point: however, they could be a potent destabilizing factor in the region, threatening Greece, Rome and Persia.

5. Out west?

I'm not sure what the actual plan is here. I would suggest that the culture most suited for this new role is probably the Mississippian mound-building culture that existed through the eastern continental US until about 1000 AD. We know little about this culture except that their styles of urban planning and religious observance more some resemblance to the Mexica and other groups we identify with Latin America.

I would recommend that the culture be based around an extension of the Huron custom of the domestication of bears (they could carry whatever special plague bears are just waiting to give us). I would suggest that the culture could be an amalgam of the Iroquoian and MesoAmerican indigenous cultures with sophisticated theology, astronomy, theories of government and urban planning but still be a stone age culture. In my vision, they would have arrived in Europe via the same route the Vikings took to America: around the Atlantic Rim. The superiority of American agriculture and urban planning could have led to an overpopulation of the northern woodlands resulting in emigration to peripheral European territories. I would suggest that their first really big foothold in Europe would be the Celtic Britons promising them whatever land they could drive the Saxons off.

There are many cultural affinities between the Iroquoian and Celtic worlds in terms of mythology and political theory -- given that the 6th century is when Arthur is supposed to have lived, and given that the Dux Bellorum concept is shared by the Iroquois, I could see a different sort of Arthur: an American Arthur uniting the Britons and Mississippians and Britons against the Germanic invaders. He could also be a British Glooscap: the strange god from far away who comes up out of the sea with his flying canoe.

Perhaps another technological advantage the Americans could have in this world is a better understanding of and proficiency with magic.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll think of more but that's off the top of my head. Hope it helps.

 

[fusangite]

One more thing:

Crimea should be an especially interesting place. The civilization that the Slavs were a part of, which was wiped out by the Asiatic invaders was a Hellenic civilization of the Sarmatians (successors to the Cimmerians). This agrarian Greek civilization might have been far more closely integrated into the Greco-Macedonian state if Rome had not absorbed it. Thus, instead of primitive Slavs migrating into Dalmatia, Pannonia and Illyria, it might be that the whole Greco-Sarmatian civilization of the modern Ukraine would be displaced, some holing-up in a highly fortified Crimea while others made the trek to the lands in the West. One could see the Cyrillic alphabet already being in existence for different reasons.

 

[Fenris]

In regards to Carthage, I think it may not have been as powerful an empire as we think. Do not discount the deforestation that Carthage was engaged in. The IRL salting of the Carthigian lands by the Romans accelerated it. But this is some 600 years later. The Sahara was already creeping in on the lush vegetation of Carthage when it fell. By 600 CE, with a prosperous and land hungry empire still there, I think that the desertification of the Mediterranian coast would have accelerated. Perhaps Carthage is an empire, but where?

 

[Utrecht]

Couple of questions:

During the above discussions it seems that the Persian empire has been sold short. I see nothing in Corey's scenario that would preclude the rise of Persia (and the consequential elimination of Babylon)

Granted the Alexander the Great then comes along and eliminates them - leaving a rather substantial power vacuum - perhaps with the Syrians battleing the Egyptians (hellenized) - but I would see some of the steppe people move into Asia Minor/Crimea given the power vacuum.

Second question - Correct me if I am wrong, but did Rome not become a repuplic long before it conquered Greece @ 500 BC (heck even before it conquered the Eutrescans) - with Carthage following suite. In many ways with Rome being kept from Empire I would see Humanistic ideals spreading even further - perhaps into Africa - dramatically rewriting its history.

 

[MaxKaladin]

Let me just address Rome.

First of all, I find it hard to believe that Rome and Carthage would not continue to have bloody wars until one or the other was conquered.

Assuming they reached a wary truce though Rome would either not exist or be unrecognizable long before the 7th century A.D.

First of all, no victory over Carthage means no Spanish or African provinces. That changes everything. A lot of early wealth for Rome came from Spain and Africa province was a breadbasket for Rome before (and still after) it got Egypt.

Second, it changes the political careers of some very important folks. For starters, there was this Roman named Gaius Marius. He lived in the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. He wasn't from an aristocratic family and got where he did based on ability and wealth. The problem? Well, he got his start by impressing people while serving with Scipio Aemilianus in the final conquest of Carthage. Later, he went on to serve a governorship in Spain for a while, where he became very rich. He won more fame fighting King Jurgatha in Africa under another general and then was elected Consul and put in charge himself to settle things one and for all, which he did. After this, he went on to defeat a huge hoard of migrating Germanic tribesmen who had already defeated several Roman armies and who were about to enter Roman Gaul (the part they had before Caesar took the whole thing.) During all this, he reorganized the Roman army into what we think of as the legions, introduced the Pilum and introduced the practice of recruiting landless men into the army all of which had important consequences. Until Caesar, he was considered the finest General Rome had ever produced.

There was another guy named Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who learned at the feet of Marius and became the first Roman to march on Rome to impose his will. By that point in his life, he was fighting bitterly with Marius, who also marched on Rome at one point. Sulla also introduced proscription lists, which were lists of people who were supposedly criminals against the republic and who could be killed with impunity. Their property was confiscated by the state to fill the treasury and physical assets were sold at auction to turn them into cash for the treasury.

Both of these men also profited from wars in the east beyond Greece at one time.

Among the folks who profited from Sulla's proscriptions was a guy named Marcus Licinius Crassus. He became the richest man in Rome by buying property at bargain basement prices during the proscriptions. He used his private fortune to help Caesar once or twice. He also used his private fortune to build the army that finally brought Spartacus down, though the veteran armies also arrived at the end of things. Then again, without foriegn conquest, the slaves who revolted probably wouldn't have been there anyway. At least not in those numbers.

Now, Gaius Marius also had a wife and she had a sister who was married to someone named Gaius Julius Caesar. No, not that one. He was their son, which makes him Marius' nephew. There is some speculation that he learned a great deal of his generaling skills at Marius' knee, though Marius eventually turned against him for fear that Caesar would outshine him.

Caesar himself got a great deal out of both Spain and the East. He was Governor of part of Spain for a while and made some good money there.

Also consider Pompey, who built a reputation as a general fighting in Spain. He would eventually sweep the Mediterranean of pirates and be Caesar's opponent in the Civil War after he crossed the Rubicon.

Now, all of that doesn't happen because Carthage never falls. Do those Germanic tribesmen overrun Rome since there isn't a Gaius Marius to oppose them? Is there another possibility? Yes. One of the big events of the 1st century BC was the Social War. Basically, the Italian and Greek cities of Italy , who had been under Roman rule for a long time, had had enough of being inferior to Rome and revolted. There was a big war that Rome eventually won with the help of Marius and Sulla, among others. Would Rome have survived that war without the experience of these veterans of so many foriegn wars and without their veteran troops?

There are a number of other things that wouldn't happen. Among them, there would be no influx of slaves to Italy replacing men who were away serving in the army for years at a time. This means that the roman citizen-farmer would not be eliminated like it was in real life.

I figure either Rome would have been crushed by marauding barbarians or defeated in a revolt by its italian subjects before 600AD.

 

[Desdichado]

A lot of the scenarios described seem to discount the Celts of present day Austria, northern Italy and France (and Iberia, for that matter.) If Rome is not the Imperial power it was in real life, where do those guys go?

In reality, of course, they never went anywhere, but became thoroughly Romanized in a relatively short period of time. In this time frame, though, they are probably still around. They gave Caesar a real run for his money (and fact, Caesar was very disdainful of the eastern armies he later faced after having warred with the Celts, who actually were fairly well united under Vercingetorix.) I think it's a mistake to say the Celts are all in Britain, and everyone else besides Romans and Slavs and Greeks in Europe are Germanic peoples.

Also, Carthage could well have lasted as an empire even with deforestation. After all, Rome certainly made quite a bit of the area for centuries, and in the 400s AD Gaiseric and his Vandal/Alan empire were almost a successor of Carthage in many ways, acting as a kind of south Mediterranean Viking power that Rome really struggled to deal with successfully.

 

[Farland]

The Romans without mithraism or Greek influence would have a very nebulous religion similar to their original one. They would worship noumena or unnamed spirits for the most part. In fact religion would be a relatively small part of their lives compared to most people in the world.

 

[Desdichado]

The Romans without mithraism or Greek influence would have a very nebulous religion similar to their original one. They would worship noumena or unnamed spirits for the most part. In fact religion would be a relatively small part of their lives compared to most people in the world.

Why do you say that? The Romans didn't worship unnamed spirits, or have an irreligious life. There was a healthy Roman religion, based on the ancestral Proto-Indo European gods for the most part. It was only later that these gods picked up Greek overlays to the point that the original Roman-ness of them was almost lost. But there were very strong Mars and Jupiter traditions (for example) that servived the Hellenization to some extent, and show the strength of the original Roman religion peeking through.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

So far, noone has mentioned the extremely strong position this puts the Hellenistic powers of the east.

No Roman conquest in the east, a balancing Carthaginian empire in the west, and a lack of strong native religions means that the successor states have no real challengers.

I would presume that neo-Platonism, Zoroastrianism, and Manicheasm become the dominant religious and philosophical institutions of the known world outside of India and China. All of these stress intellectualism but without the curiousity and preservative qualities of the Big Three.

A lack of real civilizing empire in the west means that the constant barbarian kicking around and chaos that characterized pre-Roman conquest continues. Gaul would have to remain a neutral ground between Carthage and Rome. One subject to their plots and subseversive domination.

Language is going to be interesting. The west would be characterized by Semetic Carthaginian pigin toungues and the remains of Gaellic. The East by straight up Greek and Farsi. The Central Regions by Latin, German, and Greek.

Every few years your going to have a new tribe come in from off the steps as the Hsiung-Nu and Chinese duke it out over in the East. The Romans would probably work to stabilize the Alps in order to counter this and make their Empire more centered around their holdings in the central med. islands and around the Adriatic. Venice and Ravenna would become increasingly important. Constantinople would probably be in Yugoslavia.

Magic, who the heck knows? Probably reinforces the slave holding cultures of the mediterranean. Rome becomes entirely dominated by the Patricians. The Greeks enjoy stronger naval power. Terrorism is an incredible danger for every side. The civilized lands become very reliant on training and taming wizards for use against the barbarians. If it has any nature qualities and the now magically reinforced aristicracies care it might be used to prevent the horrifyingly crippling deforestation of the mediterranean.

The vikings would be Carthage's main issue.

The Black sea would develop a hybrid Greek/nomadic refugee culture centered in the Crimea.

Egypt would be the new Rome.