ROME DESTROYED IN 450 BC

The discussion in the "Carthage Triumphant" thread got me to thinking...

In OTL, the Carthaginians had an alliance with a league of Etruscan cities against the Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily during the period from roughly 500-350 BC. Etruscan and Carthaginian fleets actually cooperated in battle against the Greeks, and gave the Greeks a hard time of it. Meanwhile, the Etruscan cities were also beginning to be engaged in conflict against Rome...but Carthage was at that time signing treaties of friendship with Rome. But it didn't have to be that way.

Let's suppose that, instead, the Etruscans and the Carthaginians sign a new treaty in 450 BC which commits them to support each other against not only the Greeks, but also Rome. Rome has not, by this time, had time to establish control over more than a few nearby Latin cities, and is quite weak at this time. The Carthaginians and Etruscans defeat the tiny Roman army, capture the city, slaughter the inhabitants (or sell them all into slavery) and destroy the town itself. Later, Etruscan colonists re-settle the site, but the new town, like other Etruscan cities, is never able to form more than a temporary alliance with other Etruscan cities, and Italy never is united under one power, or if it is, it happens much later and a different culture prevails.

So with Rome removed from the picture, what happens? I see several possible outcomes...

--Will Carthage prevail in it's wars with the Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily? If so, what will be it's relationship with the Hellenistic kingdoms to the east?

--Will Pyrrhus of Epirus defeat and conquer Carthage, extending Hellenistic rule throughout the Mediterranean basin?

--Can the Etruscans eventually get their act together and unite, perhaps in response to pressure from the Celts, and become a rival to Carthage for power in the western Mediterranean?

--Would some other non-Etruscan Italian city or tribe (Samnites, for example)be able to play the role of Rome and unite Italy (and eventually, the Mediterranean world) under it's domination?

--Could the Celts eventually (in Gaul, perhaps, or in Iberia) form a unified state capable of surviving for a long period of time?

--Perhaps the Parthians re-establish control over the whole extent of the old Achaemenid Persian Empire, and even invade Europe? They pretty much spanked the Hellenistic armies they came into contact with, but Rome did a better job of resisting them (not always, of course, but enough to keep them out of Syria, Anatolia, Palestine, and Egypt most of the time, and Europe all the time).

Are there any possibilities I am leaving out?
 
I've always been partial to ATLs where Greece conquers the Roman barbarians. :D (See Toynbee's Alexandrian Ecumene, or Carl Sagan's musings on the subject.)

More likely than not, a successful Hellenistic world would likely be interplanetary or even interstellar by now.
 
chrispi said:
More likely than not, a successful Hellenistic world would likely be interplanetary or even interstellar by now.
Why that? I would be guessing exactly the opposite: an Hellenistic world would be likely to stagnate, and fragment very quickly into smaller and smaller warring and squabbling successor states.
I would like to make two points:
- the Hellenistic culture was of Greek origin, but at the same time very heavily influenced by Eastern views of thinking. I expect that the Greek component would be progressively diluted.
- a point which is often overlooked is that Rome built an empire which lasted more or less from 150 BC to 450 AD. Or you might even say that in a different form it survived until 1450 AD. There are no comparable achievements in all the history of the world (the only possible comparison might be China, but I rate the Roman empire the better one).
- Rome and Romans picked up the torch of civilisation from the Greeks, and made it burn brighter and stronger to create the world in which we live. Which might not be the best of the worlds, but a case could be made that OTL is the best of possible worlds
 
LordKalvan said:
Why that? I would be guessing exactly the opposite: an Hellenistic world would be likely to stagnate, and fragment very quickly into smaller and smaller warring and squabbling successor states.
I would like to make two points:
- the Hellenistic culture was of Greek origin, but at the same time very heavily influenced by Eastern views of thinking. I expect that the Greek component would be progressively diluted.
- a point which is often overlooked is that Rome built an empire which lasted more or less from 150 BC to 450 AD. Or you might even say that in a different form it survived until 1450 AD. There are no comparable achievements in all the history of the world (the only possible comparison might be China, but I rate the Roman empire the better one).
- Rome and Romans picked up the torch of civilisation from the Greeks, and made it burn brighter and stronger to create the world in which we live. Which might not be the best of the worlds, but a case could be made that OTL is the best of possible worlds

The only real "torch" of note that the Romans bore regarding Greek civilization was the one that they used to set the Library of Alexandria ablaze. Everything else was a sick parody. An ATL with a long-lived Alexander the Great (and his heir through Roxanne, Alexander IV Aegeos) would see the Hellenistic world more like China, where dynasties come and go, but there is always an Alexander, or someone who wants to be him...

I most certainly don't argue that OTL is the best of all possible worlds, like Dr. Pangloss in Candide.
 
chrispi said:
The only real "torch" of note that the Romans bore regarding Greek civilization was the one that they used to set the Library of Alexandria ablaze. Everything else was a sick parody. An ATL with a long-lived Alexander the Great (and his heir through Roxanne, Alexander IV Aegeos) would see the Hellenistic world more like China, where dynasties come and go, but there is always an Alexander, or someone who wants to be him...

I most certainly don't argue that OTL is the best of all possible worlds, like Dr. Pangloss in Candide.

I feel you are supporting my point: even if the Alexandrian empire were to last (which I doubt very very much, even under the most auspicious of PODs), it would become like OTL China, i.e. a place where bureaucracy, state pageants and stagnation are rampant (the Byzantine empire comes also to my mind).

In a way, what happened OTL should have given many more chances to a successful Alexandrine TL to develop: you had much better than a single, huge and very difficult to manage empire. The Diadochs were lords of much more manageable kingdoms. You would expect one of them might have managed to consolidate his holdings, create a viable dinasty and sooner or later claim the mantle of Alexander. This did not happen.

The prosecution rests.
 
LordKalvan said:
I feel you are supporting my point: even if the Alexandrian empire were to last (which I doubt very very much, even under the most auspicious of PODs), it would become like OTL China, i.e. a place where bureaucracy, state pageants and stagnation are rampant (the Byzantine empire comes also to my mind).

In a way, what happened OTL should have given many more chances to a successful Alexandrine TL to develop: you had much better than a single, huge and very difficult to manage empire. The Diadochs were lords of much more manageable kingdoms. You would expect one of them might have managed to consolidate his holdings, create a viable dinasty and sooner or later claim the mantle of Alexander. This did not happen.

The prosecution rests.

Just because I said that a large Greek empire will be like China in one respect doesn't mean that the Hellenic world will be like the Orient in all respects. Clues lie in Alexander himself: his conquests were explorations as much as anything else, the drive to see what was beyond the horizon was what propelled the Macedon army of OTL beyond the Indus. No comparable expansionism is found in Chinese history (the trading junks exploring Africa in the 15th century notwithstanding.) There are other differences between Greece and China, the most important of which, perhaps, was the invention of democracy (an offshoot of the argumentative nature of the Hellenes, no doubt!)

One feature of a strong Alexandrian empire (or Ecumene if you prefer) is that it would have to be very loose, as communication was poor at the time, a feature it shares in the Persian empire, so expect the satrap system to continue. All in all I expect this Ecumene to be less like the Roman Empire and more like the Holy Roman Empire!
 
There are a lot of differences between China and greece, obviously. Such as the poor productivity of Greek land, which forced the greeks to migrate.
But we are not talking of Greece, are we? We are talking of an Oikumenes were the drop of greek ink is diluted in tons of "barbarians" (a la Greek, obviously).
Democracy was invented in greece, agreed. It was very well suited for that contentious and brilliant people (I like Greeks, even if at times they are unsufferable! but the world without Greeks would be a sad and drab place).
But...democracy was good when the voters were a few thou. of citizens. not when you have a divine king reigning over an empire.
It might be a situation similar to italian cities in the late middle ages (12th-13th centuries), which under many aspects resembled the Greec poleis: again civilised, contentious and treacherous. And democratic (as far as the concept of our democracy can be translated to their way of doing politics).
Or as another examples similar to Swiss cantons: everyone would agree that the population meeting on a forest glade, discussing and voting is the epythome of democracy. But when you have to go to a national state (if not an empire)....

Mind, it's a bit like the discussion between Legolas and Gimli in the Lord of the Rings: you have chose the glory that was Greece, I prefer the majesty that was Rome :eek:
 

Faeelin

Banned
LordKalvan said:
I feel you are supporting my point: even if the Alexandrian empire were to last (which I doubt very very much, even under the most auspicious of PODs), it would become like OTL China, i.e. a place where bureaucracy, state pageants and stagnation are rampant (the Byzantine empire comes also to my mind).

There's something ironic about some one saying the roman empire saved us from bureaucracy, state pageants, and stagnation, and then citing how the Byzantine (Roman) Empire was suffering from those.

In a way, what happened OTL should have given many more chances to a successful Alexandrine TL to develop: you had much better than a single, huge and very difficult to manage empire. The Diadochs were lords of much more manageable kingdoms. You would expect one of them might have managed to consolidate his holdings, create a viable dinasty and sooner or later claim the mantle of Alexander. This did not happen.

The prosecution rests.

A case could be made that this is what happened.
 
Faeelin said:
There's something ironic about some one saying the roman empire saved us from bureaucracy, state pageants, and stagnation, and then citing how the Byzantine (Roman) Empire was suffering from those.



A case could be made that this is what happened.
LOL, that's just apparences. The Byzantine empire (a personal opinion) is how the Greeks re-visited and changed the Roman empire. Even if the Byzantine still had SPQR on their shields, they were quite different.
As far as bureaucracy, Rome (at least until Caesar) considered it a despicable and perverted practice. Which makes some sense: bureaucracy is a typical product of the "water empires", and Rome was never that.
About the Diadochs: sorry, but I've not get yr point
 

Faeelin

Banned
LordKalvan said:
LOL, that's just apparences. The Byzantine empire (a personal opinion) is how the Greeks re-visited and changed the Roman empire. Even if the Byzantine still had SPQR on their shields, they were quite different.

They were different, but not that different. The change was gradual.

As far as bureaucracy, Rome (at least until Caesar) considered it a despicable and perverted practice. Which makes some sense: bureaucracy is a typical product of the "water empires", and Rome was never that.
About the Diadochs: sorry, but I've not get yr point

I'm a bit confused. Rome, first of all, had a bureaucracy way before that, going back to the Carthaginian wars. And how was an Empire that ruled the Mediterranean not a water empire?

A lot of Greeks saw Rome as the restoration of universal rule, once the genocide was done.

Besides, I think it's arguable that the Romans get a better rap than they deserve. These are the people who invented Crucifixition, after all.

Ceasar boasted of slaying a few million people and enslaving a few million more in Gaul. When it looked like the Romans would be kicked out during the reign of Mithridates in the East, 80,000 romans were killed in a revolt in the Eastern Med.

Boudicca, the Queen of a loyal vassal tribe, was basically beaten while her daughters were raped for defending their last possessions from the Romans.
 
LordKalvan said:
Mind, it's a bit like the discussion between Legolas and Gimli in the Lord of the Rings: you have chose the glory that was Greece, I prefer the majesty that was Rome :eek:

But is that really the only choice we have here? Rome actually cut short several interesting societies which could have become great in their own right, given time to further develop.

For example, the Etruscan city states were abandoning monarchy and establishing Republics when the Romans put an end to their independent existence, and the Celts of Gaul were gradually consolidating, becoming urbanized, and had recently (in some areas) adopted writing from the Greeks when Julius Caesar marched north. Other examples include the Hasmonean state in Judea, and of course Carthage.

I think the really interesting thing about this POD is the potential evolution of these societies that Rome extinguished pre-maturely.
 

Hendryk

Banned
LordKalvan said:
I feel you are supporting my point: even if the Alexandrian empire were to last (which I doubt very very much, even under the most auspicious of PODs), it would become like OTL China, i.e. a place where bureaucracy, state pageants and stagnation are rampant (the Byzantine empire comes also to my mind).
Uh oh, no dissing China within sight of this very partial and prejudiced member! Both of you have a point about the comparative merits of Greek and Roman civilizations, but don't dismiss China as a stagnating empire. It only appears this way because official historians had a vested interest in emphasizing continuity rather than change, but in reality the Chinese empire was for most of its history a dynamic and resilient system, and it took the synergy of civil war (the Taiping uprising: 20 million dead!), foreign occupation, opium foisted on the population (by the same Western countries who now fight drug smuggling at their own borders) and a string of uncommonly corrupt and incompetent rulers to eventually bring it down.
When comparing the Chinese and Roman empires, keep in mind that in the Western world the only country that can compete with China in terms of historical heritage is Egypt. Imagine if you will an Egypt the size of Europe (and then some) that would have maintained political and cultural continuity until the early 20th century: that's China.
 
Faeelin said:
They were different, but not that different. The change was gradual.
The change was gradual. But by the time of Justinian it was also irreversible.



Faeelin said:
I'm a bit confused. Rome, first of all, had a bureaucracy way before that, going back to the Carthaginian wars. And how was an Empire that ruled the Mediterranean not a water empire?
A "water empire" has nothing to do with the sea. It is a definition of a state where the agriculture must be supported by irrigation (Egypt and China come to mind), and where the stranglehold on society is the capacity of witholding water for irrigation. These kind of states are characterized by a strong and poweful bureaucracy, and there are lists of citizens, and records of land property very accurate.

Faeelin said:
A lot of Greeks saw Rome as the restoration of universal rule, once the genocide was done.

Besides, I think it's arguable that the Romans get a better rap than they deserve. These are the people who invented Crucifixition, after all.

Maybe you're right. OTOH, neither the Huns nor the Spaniards of the 16th Century got a very good character report, even if they were quite successful in conquering, slaughtering and in general in imposing their rule over other civilizations. The Romans did, even from the same people they enslaved and killed in the tens of thousands (aka, the Gauls, the Germans, and so on). What does it mean?
I really don't know, possibly it is a question without sense.
For many reasons, even personal ones, I've not a lot of sympathy for the Romans (in particular the modern ones :D ). The Romans of yore are another matter

Faeelin said:
Ceasar boasted of slaying a few million people and enslaving a few million more in Gaul. When it looked like the Romans would be kicked out during the reign of Mithridates in the East, 80,000 romans were killed in a revolt in the Eastern Med.

Boudicca, the Queen of a loyal vassal tribe, was basically beaten while her daughters were raped for defending their last possessions from the Romans.

A few MILLIONS?? The final solution of the Gallic problem, you mean? :D
 
robertp6165 said:
But is that really the only choice we have here? Rome actually cut short several interesting societies which could have become great in their own right, given time to further develop.

For example, the Etruscan city states were abandoning monarchy and establishing Republics when the Romans put an end to their independent existence, and the Celts of Gaul were gradually consolidating, becoming urbanized, and had recently (in some areas) adopted writing from the Greeks when Julius Caesar marched north. Other examples include the Hasmonean state in Judea, and of course Carthage.

I think the really interesting thing about this POD is the potential evolution of these societies that Rome extinguished pre-maturely.
No doubt. But I am (lol, we most are, at least on this site) the sons and heirs of Greeks and Romans. It would make almost as big a difference to eliminate Christianity
 
Besides, I think it's arguable that the Romans get a better rap than they deserve. These are the people who invented Crucifixition, after all.

Not true. Crucifixion was used by Carthaginians and Greeks long before the Romans adopted the practice. I believe I read somewhere that it may have first been used by some of the Phoenicians. In any case, when the Romans adopted the practice it had become widespread throughout much of the Mediterranean as a form of execution.
 
LordKalvan said:
Maybe you're right. OTOH, neither the Huns nor the Spaniards of the 16th Century got a very good character report, even if they were quite successful in conquering, slaughtering and in general in imposing their rule over other civilizations. The Romans did, even from the same people they enslaved and killed in the tens of thousands (aka, the Gauls, the Germans, and so on). What does it mean?

Most of those peoples did not write histories. Those who did (the Greeks, for example) wrote them while under the rule of the Romans, and the historians were seeking to ingratiate themselves with the ruling authorities. Most histories of Rome were written by Romans, and with a Roman bias. Most histories of the Huns were written by Romans...with a Roman bias. Most histories of the Spaniards in America...or the ones that most people are familiar with, at any rate...were written by their enemies. I think that accounts for the difference in the "character reports."
 
Paul Spring said:
Besides, I think it's arguable that the Romans get a better rap than they deserve. These are the people who invented Crucifixition, after all.

Not true. Crucifixion was used by Carthaginians and Greeks long before the Romans adopted the practice. I believe I read somewhere that it may have first been used by some of the Phoenicians. In any case, when the Romans adopted the practice it had become widespread throughout much of the Mediterranean as a form of execution.

That's true. IIRC, Alexander the Great had the men who murdered King Darius of Persia crucified. And the Carthaginians were definitely using it very early on, even before Rome was founded.
 
LordKalvan said:
No doubt. But I am (lol, we most are, at least on this site) the sons and heirs of Greeks and Romans. It would make almost as big a difference to eliminate Christianity

This is true. But then, the whole point of an alternate history board is to speculate on ALTERNATE history. And eliminating Rome opens up a lot of fascinating possibilities.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Paul Spring said:
Besides, I think it's arguable that the Romans get a better rap than they deserve. These are the people who invented Crucifixition, after all.

Not true. Crucifixion was used by Carthaginians and Greeks long before the Romans adopted the practice. I believe I read somewhere that it may have first been used by some of the Phoenicians. In any case, when the Romans adopted the practice it had become widespread throughout much of the Mediterranean as a form of execution.

Alright, I withdraw delivering credit for this wonderful thing to the Romans. I stand by the rest, however.
 
Top