Subject: Thassalocracy Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:20:28 GMT From: Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Salve, I'm working on an Antiquity AH with an initial setting POD of the planet forming period and a subsequent dramatic POD of the Second Punic War. In the first instance, I've allowed for an extra million years or so of rain in the planet forming period. While I have been unsuccesful in finding hard data to crunch of this time, I've arbitrarily settled on an increased sea level of approximately 75 feet. I'd initially set out by melting x portion of the Antarctic ice cap, but my science for such an event was too vague; thus the extra million years of rain. It's easier to drown the world this way... I've established a rough evolution of flora and fauna modelled partly on the Eocene and Miocene epochs and set up broad oceanographic and atmospheric parameters for the unfortunate civilisations of my dramatic period; some really BIG aquatic and avians, larger proportion of amphibious species, smaller mammals, more niche specific reptiles characterise the wildlife, in a physical setting dominated by oceanic weather systems, dimunitive landmass and distinct flora types. The dramatic portion focuses on the events of the Second Punic War (or more correctly in 'wet' terms, the Second Karthago-Roman War) but I have yet to establish the opposing forces. You see, I'm having trouble profiling what social characteristics a more naval Roman republic would have. The other main players, Kart Hadasht, a Massilian thassolocracy and a post-Macedonian influenced Hellenic confederation have proved a little easier to identify. But the Romans...? Historically, their navy developed in *response* to the Carthaginian threat. A limit to their land expansion exists in an Etruscan (Rasenna) culture that has managed to solve it's propensity to split into component parts; this would indicate to me that at some early point they would take to the sea. But here I can't see the wood for the trees. I've established Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily and the Dalmatian coast as likely areas for expansion. However, in each case there are competitors. So I guess my question for now is: which is more dominant in the Roman sailing tradition- their navy or their mercantilism? I'm inclined towards a naval emphasis, but am interested in what other points of view there are. Indeed, am I missing something entirely... Rohan. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:49:19 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz wrote: > You see, I'm having trouble profiling what > social characteristics a more naval Roman republic would have. The other main > players, Kart Hadasht, a Massilian thassolocracy and a post-Macedonian > influenced Hellenic confederation have proved a little easier to identify. But > the Romans...? Historically, their navy developed in *response* to the > Carthaginian threat. That's actually not quite true, so you needn't worry about it too much. _Duumviri navales_, for instance, well antedate the 1st Punic War. The "land power" vs. "sea power" element of Rome vs. Carthage was exaggerated in the historiographical tradition for two main reasons - 1) because it made for a nice dramatic contrast and 2) because ships have all sorts of nasty, corrupt associations, which, by definition, made them inappropriate for the pure and decent peasant society that early Rome was supposed to be. Not that there's no truth in it, but it looks to have been overstated. It's a comparatively small divergence for Rome to become a bigger naval power, earlier. It'd have political implications, of course, but early Roman politics are such a mess that you can handwave that away. A big, powerful, Etruscan threat is probably going to stymie any chance for Rome to compete on the level of the other powers you seem to be envisaging, IMO. I'd suggest perhaps something a little different - muck around with archaic Rome to put her at the head of an Etruscan-Latin League, which has excellent possibilities as a naval power. Accepting a history like OTL's with your altered environment does demand a large suspension of disbelief. You'll need to work out how timber resources are affected, if you haven't already. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:54:35 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Advance apologies for being the pedant, but it's thalassocracy or, if you prefer, thalassokratia. Subject: Thassalocracy- Etruria Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:12:29 GMT From: Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Salve, Gavin Weaire wrote:'A big, powerful, Etruscan threat is probably going to stymie any chance for Rome to compete on the level of the other powers you seem to be envisaging, IMO.' True enough. The guts of my 'what if' is based on a restriction of Roman influence. However, neutering Rome does nothing for what I'm trying to achieve. A strong, united Etruria would prove to be a big issue for geo-politics; going deeper into their cultural identity provides the solution methinks. The almost blind city statism which proved Etruria's downfall indicates to me a deep rooted civic individuality and clan based parochialism that largely precludes any 'national' co-operation on the level that the Republic demonstrates. I've identified their spiritual and philosophical tradition centered on the pan-Etruscan shrine at Voltumna as being the most likely glue that would enable the culture to maintain itself against external domination; that being said I don't feel it's enough to turn Etruria into a regional power capable of advancing too far from it's borders. Thus I'm pitching Rasnea/Etruria/Tyhrennia as a passive entity. They do participate in geo-politics and have a part to play in the 2nd Karthado-Roman War but aren't movers and shakers. Roman diplomacy will prove sufficient to maintain a status quo with the elder culture that the Rasnal will endeavour not to upset as the greater vigour of their southern neighbour would be recognised. Rohan. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy- Etruria Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:15:27 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz wrote: > Salve, > > Gavin Weaire wrote:'A big, powerful, Etruscan threat is probably going to stymie > any chance for Rome to compete on the level of the other powers you seem to be > envisaging, IMO.' > > True enough. The guts of my 'what if' is based on a restriction of Roman > influence. However, neutering Rome does nothing for what I'm trying to achieve. > A strong, united Etruria would prove to be a big issue for geo-politics; going > deeper into their cultural identity provides the solution methinks. > If modern Tuscany is flooded, how much of Etruria is there in this TL? > The almost blind city statism which proved Etruria's downfall indicates to me a > deep rooted civic individuality and clan based parochialism that largely > precludes any 'national' co-operation on the level that the Republic > demonstrates. I don't know that the Republic does demonstrate this - it is, after all, one city-state, and is pretty comparable with any one Etruscan city-state. IMO, the low level of solidarity along linguistic/ethnic lines is a west Italian, not an Etruscan thing. >I've identified their spiritual and philosophical tradition > centered on the pan-Etruscan shrine at Voltumna as being the most likely glue > that would enable the culture to maintain itself against external domination; > that being said I don't feel it's enough to turn Etruria into a regional power > capable of advancing too far from it's borders. > If Rome can, an Etruscan city could - they're all part of the same Etruscan/Latin/Greek/Other Italian cultural melange. Veii perhaps came quite close to being Rome. IMO, the dynamic of Italian politics was such that regional powers more-or-less had to become increasingly embroiled farther and farther abroad, until checked. > Thus I'm pitching Rasnea/Etruria/Tyhrennia as a passive entity. They do > participate in geo-politics and have a part to play in the 2nd Karthado-Roman > War but aren't movers and shakers. Roman diplomacy will prove sufficient to > maintain a status quo with the elder culture that the Rasnal will endeavour not > to upset as the greater vigour of their southern neighbour would be recognised. I'm not clear on what the Roman advantages in this TL are - could you fill in the geography a bit? Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy- Etruria Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 02:23:00 GMT From: Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Gavin Weaire wrote: 'If modern Tuscany is flooded, how much of Etruria is there in this TL?' The area occupied by modern Tuscany I've filled with another of the Italic tribes, the Umbrians and hence is known as Umbria. The territories of the Latins, Sabines, Samnites & Picentenes also impinge on this area. The 'homelands' of the Etruscans has been shifted northward of Liguria into the alpine regions of modern day Savoy/Piedmont. Etruria is bounded to the west by the Rhone Channel (no longer a river on account of the rise in sea level), extends northwards to modern day Grenoble and eastwards past modern day Milan (which isn't there due to no Po). I settled the Etruscans there following the seaborne migration origin theory from Anatolia. The higher sea level, plus additional erosion has combined to make the 'Alps' a series of large, rugged hills, with the 12 Etruscan cities nestling into valleys. (Rohan): "The almost blind city statism which proved Etruria's downfall indicates to me a deep rooted civic individuality and clan based parochialism that largely precludes any 'national' co-operation on the level that the Republic demonstrates." Responding, Gavin wrote: 'I don't know that the Republic does demonstrate this - it is, after all, one city-state, and is pretty comparable with any one Etruscan city-state. IMO, the low level of solidarity along linguistic/ethnic lines is a west Italian, not an Etruscan thing. The Roman Republic yes; I should have been more explicit. I'm using the Roman 'Commonwealth' of client and allied cities when I refer to the Republic. This organisation proved to be a strong and vigorous one (albeit following many years of campaigns). However, the Italian campaign of Hannibal showed the strength of unity of the Roman Commonwealth (be it fear or whatever- though the victor of Cannae was a terrible spectre) in the face of adversity and I've continued that through into my TL. During the piecemeal conquest of Etruria by Rome, the unwillingness of the Etruscan cities to come to each others aid proved to be a decisive social weakness. It is this fundamental inability to unify that I've papered over with the closer bonds wrought between cities by the priesthood of Voltumna. (Rohan): "I've identified their spiritual and philosophical tradition centered on the pan-Etruscan shrine at Voltumna as being the most likely glue that would enable the culture to maintain itself against external domination; that being said I don't feel it's enough to turn Etruria into a regional power capable of advancing too far from it's borders." Responding, Gavin: 'If Rome can, an Etruscan city could - they're all part of the same Etruscan/Latin/Greek/Other Italian cultural melange. Veii perhaps came quite close to being Rome. IMO, the dynamic of Italian politics was such that regional powers more-or-less had to become increasingly embroiled farther and farther abroad, until checked.' It is the uniqueness of Rome that becomes apparent here. Certainly, with Veii to the north and Cumae to the south, what was it that made Rome into a world beater? This cuts to the heart of what I'm looking at. While the city state system was the common denominator in examining points of difference between the Etruscan, Latin and Magna Grecian civic identity, the cultural qualities of the different peoples was substantially different. Certainly the 'junior' culture of the Latins owed much to Etruria and the interplay between all three must have been considerable. But what caused Rome to rise above it's competitors and become the pre-eminent force of the peninsula. It's easy (and likely foolish) to generalise, but I would hazard a guess at there being a quality peculiar to the Latins becoming the difference. I agree with your comment on the Italian regional politic being such that the pot will inevitably boil over into wider arenas; it is this that I'm looking at in a way. What was it about the 'Land of Calves' that made it such an irresistable force? (Rohan): "Thus I'm pitching Rasnea/Etruria/Tyhrennia as a passive entity. They do participate in geo-politics and have a part to play in the 2nd Karthado-Roman War but aren't movers and shakers. Roman diplomacy will prove sufficient to maintain a status quo with the elder culture that the Rasnal will endeavour not to upset as the greater vigour of their southern neighbour would be recognised. Gavein wrote: 'I'm not clear on what the Roman advantages in this TL are - could you fill in the geography a bit?' That's a big question. I'm pitching that cultural x factor that drove OTL Romans to still be present in the new environment regardless of the shift in geo-politics. The why of their advantage is as difficult to identify in my TL as OTL. Certainly, when you strip things down there is a Roman quality that simply demands respect; be it from the now slumbering elder civilisation of the Etruscans, the central Italian tribes, or the lofty Magna Grecian cities to the south. So really, I as yet have no clear answer to that question. As for geography, the Italian 'boot' is still visible. The south is much as it is OTL with the Magna Grecian cities still in place, though Sicily loses a considerable portiono of its eastern seaboard. The plain of Naples loses ground but not unrecognisably so. Where the big changes come is northern Italy. It's simply gone. No Po. Culturally, the tribal lands run from the north: Ligurians, Picentenes, Umbrians, Samnites, Sabines, Latins, Paeligni, Daunians, Oscans, Lucanians, Messapians and Bruttians. Each retains a reasonable portion of autonomy either within the Roman Commonwealth or Magna Grecia (actually, more so in MG). Rohan. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy- Etruria Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:45:50 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz wrote: > Gavin Weaire wrote: 'If modern Tuscany is flooded, how much of Etruria is there > in this TL?' > > I settled the Etruscans there following the > seaborne migration origin theory from Anatolia. I suppose I can accept that, but I'll register the caveat that, although the migration theory is still debated, there's now a fair degree of consensus AFAICT that "Etruscan culture," whatever the origins of the "Etruscans," developed in Etruria. > It is this fundamental inability to unify that I've papered over with > the closer bonds wrought between cities by the priesthood of Voltumna. > Well, the Etruscans remained loyal to Rome in the 2nd Punic War. To identify the source of the success of Rome's Italian confederacy as Rome begs the question IMO. One has to consider the role that special qualities of the Italian allies, including the Etruscans, may have played. > (Rohan): "I've identified their spiritual and philosophical tradition centered > on the pan-Etruscan shrine at Voltumna as being the most likely glue that would > enable the culture to maintain itself against external domination; that being > said I don't feel it's enough to turn Etruria into a regional power capable of > advancing too far from it's borders." > > > Responding, Gavin: 'If Rome can, an Etruscan city could - they're all part of > the same Etruscan/Latin/Greek/Other Italian cultural melange. Veii perhaps came > quite close to being Rome. IMO, the dynamic of Italian politics was such that > regional powers more-or-less had to become increasingly embroiled farther and > farther abroad, until checked.' > > It is the uniqueness of Rome that becomes apparent here. Certainly, with Veii > to the north and Cumae to the south, what was it that made Rome into a world > beater? Well, Veii had the obvious disadvantage of being destroyed by Rome - had that war gone differently, the reverse might have happened. Cumae is another matter, being rather differently located - Capua is probably better placed to dominate its immediate region, but Campania in general suffers from being too exposed to Samnium and Lucania. (Contrast Latium, which is only exposed to unpleasant mountain peoples on one flank.) Rome, as a site, does have significant advantages (Veii, because it's just down the road, shares most of them). It was pretty much bound to be an important center. But as important as it was - that's IMO highly contingent. >This cuts to the heart of what I'm looking at. While the city state > system was the common denominator in examining points of difference between the > Etruscan, Latin and Magna Grecian civic identity, the cultural qualities of the > different peoples was substantially different. I'd argue that the cultural difference between Latins and Etruscans looks to have been minimal (Greeks is a more complex issue). More exactly, as far as the elite goes, they all seem to have been participating in the same cultural koine. Etruscan aristocrat has more in common with Latin aristocrat than either do with the hoi polloi. Rome reflects this - an elite of strikingly mixed ethnic origins. > Certainly the 'junior' culture > of the Latins owed much to Etruria and the interplay between all three must have > been considerable. I'm not sure that I'd accept that Latium was "junior" to Etruria, an older model (not one known from any ancient source) that has been sharply questioned in the last decade. Both seem to evolve along parallel, presumably mutually interacting, lines, at about the same time. > But what caused Rome to rise above it's competitors and > become the pre-eminent force of the peninsula. It's easy (and likely foolish) > to generalise, but I would hazard a guess at there being a quality peculiar to > the Latins becoming the difference. > Rome, however, is IMO only marginally Latin. (Literally.) If I had to pick out an "original Roman quality" behing her success, I'd emphasize that in the ethnic mix of west central Italy, Rome is on the more ethnically mixed side - hence the famous extension of citizenship. Etruscans are obviously an important part of the mix. > I agree with your comment on the Italian regional politic being such that the > pot will inevitably boil over into wider arenas; it is this that I'm looking at > in a way. What was it about the 'Land of Calves' that made it such an > irresistable force? > Geography is a large part of it IMO. IMO, it's the tension between the Apennines/Alps and the fertile plains of the west and north, combined with the difficulty of communications across a narrow mountainous peninsula. Italy's a country where the geography is congenial to the unification of regions, but not to the unification of the whole. It's fairly easy to amass the resource base for adventuring outside your immediate area, hard to amass enough to do so with enough success to create a virtuous circle. The Romans managed to stay ahead of the curve - I'm not sure that was high probability so much as some lucky breaks when they really needed them. IMO things could have all gone to hell in the 340's, for instance. > > That's a big question. I'm pitching that cultural x factor that drove OTL > Romans to still be present in the new environment regardless of the shift in > geo-politics. The why of their advantage is as difficult to identify in my TL > as OTL. Certainly, when you strip things down there is a Roman quality that > simply demands respect; be it from the now slumbering elder civilisation of the > Etruscans, the central Italian tribes, or the lofty Magna Grecian cities to the > south. So really, I as yet have no clear answer to that question. > Some of this is certainly the Roman habit of annexing good agricultural land, and its inhabitants, into the Roman city-state, and of developing forms of semi-citizenship, which allowed the city of Rome to keep pace with its developing commitments in Italy in a way that ancient city-states in general found it hard to do. In this TL, that might translate into grabbing good harbours and naval bases to a greater extent than in OTL. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy- Etruria Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:38:49 +0100 From: Lewis Hutton Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 The message <8s5F6.2762$QV4.230050@www.newsranger.com> from Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz contains these words: > Etruria is bounded to the west by > the Rhone Channel (no longer a river on account of the rise in sea level), > extends northwards to modern day Grenoble and eastwards past modern day Milan > (which isn't there due to no Po). I settled the Etruscans there following the > seaborne migration origin theory from Anatolia. The higher sea level, plus > additional erosion has combined to make the 'Alps' a series of large, rugged > hills, with the 12 Etruscan cities nestling into valleys. River flood plains will adjust for the new sea level. For example the Rhone, Po and Nile all sit above buried canyons that are assumed to be those river's channels when the Mediterranean basin was dry. The rivers have in the 5 million year since the refilling of the basin established flood plains that are above sea level. This happens very quickly, not one of those rivers shows the signs of the channel it developed during the ice age, when sea level was lower. The long inlet or ria you have been envisaging would be better replaced by a river flood plain. Paradoxically in your senario the mouths of the Po and Rhone may be seaward of their OTL locations because of the greater level of erosion in the Alps. This would almost certainly be true of the Po which empties into the shallow Adriatic. -- Lewis Subject: Thassalocracy- Timber Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:39:02 GMT From: Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Salve, Gavin Weaire wrote: 'Accepting a history like OTL's with your altered environment does demand a large suspension of disbelief. You'll need to work out how timber resources are affected, if you haven't already.' Agreed. Playing about with the physical world transfers considerably more weight to my ability to explain and define than a more 'straightforward' fiddling with human affairs would do. Figuring out the science of it all is a big (and quite fascinating) learning curve of the project, but is not properly on topic so I won't delve too much into such things. With regards to timber, the Vitulic peninsula (a.k.a Italy) is quite thin (a mere 30 miles or so in the north and a tiny 10 miles to the south); the sea nearly swamps modern day Tuscany. The relationship between forest, weather and integrity of the land in the face of what can be extreme erosion would make quite plain the need for care in tree felling. This places Roman naval/mercantilism in a situation where they need reliable sources of timber. This would naturally come, IMO, either from Gaul via Etruria or from Illyria via Venetia. Either way their ability to source shipbuilding timber in abundance is limited. However, a way to get around this would be to have ships constructed by other nations; either client states or allied states. Money talks after all. The issue for the Republic then becomes skilled sailors. And there they might have a weakness, relying on client or allied states, leaving Rome with what essentially would be a mercenary navy. Unless they offer citizenship to sailors of other nations wishing to make the change. But now I'm diverting. The Karthadashtians and Hellenes (either from Hellas itself, Magna Grecia to a lesser extent and Massilia) have a much simpler situation. Both have large, stable landmass as hinterland; Hispania and Africa for Karthadasht, and Anatolia and Thrace for the Hellenes. The supply of timber supports native seafaring traditions and thus the barriers to their Thassalocracy is reduced (though not removed, as timber and sailors is only part of the issue). I have yet to identify all the key aspects to how a Roman thassalocracy would develop. Though properly speaking it wouldn't as Rome is a Republic, but the term has a use here. Rohan. Subject: Thassalocracy- Timber Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:39:02 GMT From: Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Salve, Gavin Weaire wrote: 'Accepting a history like OTL's with your altered environment does demand a large suspension of disbelief. You'll need to work out how timber resources are affected, if you haven't already.' Agreed. Playing about with the physical world transfers considerably more weight to my ability to explain and define than a more 'straightforward' fiddling with human affairs would do. Figuring out the science of it all is a big (and quite fascinating) learning curve of the project, but is not properly on topic so I won't delve too much into such things. With regards to timber, the Vitulic peninsula (a.k.a Italy) is quite thin (a mere 30 miles or so in the north and a tiny 10 miles to the south); the sea nearly swamps modern day Tuscany. The relationship between forest, weather and integrity of the land in the face of what can be extreme erosion would make quite plain the need for care in tree felling. This places Roman naval/mercantilism in a situation where they need reliable sources of timber. This would naturally come, IMO, either from Gaul via Etruria or from Illyria via Venetia. Either way their ability to source shipbuilding timber in abundance is limited. However, a way to get around this would be to have ships constructed by other nations; either client states or allied states. Money talks after all. The issue for the Republic then becomes skilled sailors. And there they might have a weakness, relying on client or allied states, leaving Rome with what essentially would be a mercenary navy. Unless they offer citizenship to sailors of other nations wishing to make the change. But now I'm diverting. The Karthadashtians and Hellenes (either from Hellas itself, Magna Grecia to a lesser extent and Massilia) have a much simpler situation. Both have large, stable landmass as hinterland; Hispania and Africa for Karthadasht, and Anatolia and Thrace for the Hellenes. The supply of timber supports native seafaring traditions and thus the barriers to their Thassalocracy is reduced (though not removed, as timber and sailors is only part of the issue). I have yet to identify all the key aspects to how a Roman thassalocracy would develop. Though properly speaking it wouldn't as Rome is a Republic, but the term has a use here. Rohan. Subject: Re: Thassalocracy- Timber Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:05:07 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 Rohanl@tepapa.govt.nz wrote: > Salve, > > Gavin Weaire wrote: 'Accepting a history like OTL's with your altered > environment does demand a large suspension of disbelief. You'll need to work > out how timber resources are affected, if you haven't already.' > > Agreed. Playing about with the physical world transfers considerably more > weight to my ability to explain and define than a more 'straightforward' > fiddling with human affairs would do. Figuring out the science of it all is a > big (and quite fascinating) learning curve of the project, but is not properly > on topic so I won't delve too much into such things. IMO, it's on-topic, and I find to my horror that I'm now one of the longer-term holdouts around here. (What with that, and RHRHS being a "classic," and 18-year olds calling me "Professor," I'm feeling very ancient at the moment. Went to hear Frank Black last night, which did *not* help.) We've had good alt-science WI's before, such as Birdwinia, which had more marginal "historical" content. If they threatened to take over the NG, I'd object, but compared to the current tolerance of blatantly OT political ranting, I for one am fine with them. In this case, more about the science would IMO be helpful to set up the environmental constraints within which these societies have to operate, which is IMO an irreproachably historical consideration. > > With regards to timber, the Vitulic peninsula (a.k.a Italy) is quite thin (a > mere 30 miles or so in the north and a tiny 10 miles to the south); the sea > nearly swamps modern day Tuscany. The relationship between forest, weather and > integrity of the land in the face of what can be extreme erosion would make > quite plain the need for care in tree felling. Rome itself is only c.24 km from the sea, and the Forum's about 11m above sea level, IIRC. Is it even in a position to be a major power? >This places Roman > naval/mercantilism in a situation where they need reliable sources of timber. > This would naturally come, IMO, either from Gaul via Etruria or from Illyria via > Venetia. Either way their ability to source shipbuilding timber in abundance is > limited. > > However, a way to get around this would be to have ships constructed by other > nations; either client states or allied states. Money talks after all. Where do they get their money from in this TL? > > I have yet to identify all the key aspects to how a Roman thassalocracy would > develop. Though properly speaking it wouldn't as Rome is a Republic, but the > term has a use here. Thalassocracy is compatible with many forms of government. Thucydides was happy with monarchs and democracies as thalassocrats, and I imagine he'd cheerfully have applied it to the British Empire, or quite possibly, the modern US. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Great 'Conference' of Nations Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:18:57 GMT From: Rohan Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if The Congress of Vienna. The Treaty of Versailles. Two examples of big meetings aimed at sorting out the aftereffects of a big war. In these cases organised by the victors. My ancient TL features an attempt to negotiate an end to a great war that involved much of the ancient world. The 2nd Karthado-Roman war involved Kart Hadasht, Rome, several (fictional) Hispanic states, much of the Hellenic world (Massilia, Syracuse, Magna Grecia, Macedon, Cyrenaica, Aetolian and Achaen Confederations), Illyria and Etruria and involved most of the other neighbouring states. Assuming circumstances existed for a common attitude to talk things through between the various combatants (the spectre of a widening conflict), what would such a 'congress' be called in contemporary ancient parlance? Roh. Subject: Re: Great 'Conference' of Nations Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 03:09:38 -0500 From: Kris Overstreet Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:18:57 GMT, Rohan wrote: >Assuming circumstances existed for a common attitude to talk things through >between the various combatants (the spectre of a widening conflict), what would >such a 'congress' be called in contemporary ancient parlance? Another war. The concept of balance-of-power barely existed in the ancient world, and the concept of allowing a vanquished enemy to continue in existence did not exist at all. Thus, there would be no conference to determine the future status of defeated nations and conquered territories; they HAD no status. Redneck Subject: Re: Great 'Conference' of Nations Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:37:44 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Kris Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:18:57 GMT, Rohan wrote: > > > > >Assuming circumstances existed for a common attitude to talk things through > >between the various combatants (the spectre of a widening conflict), what would > >such a 'congress' be called in contemporary ancient parlance? > > Another war. > > The concept of balance-of-power barely existed in the ancient world, Pretty well-known, from the C4th on. No educated Greek would not have read Demosthenes. > and the concept of allowing a vanquished enemy to continue in > existence did not exist at all. Oh no. This is the *norm*: "parcere subiectis et debellare superbos." It's quite rare for a defeated entity to be wiped out a la Melos and Carthage. Tribute, forced alliance - these are normal. Destruction isn't. Thus, there would be no conference to > determine the future status of defeated nations and conquered > territories; they HAD no status. More accurately, their status was normally up to the victor. But see the history of Greece in the C4th for attempts to establish a "common peace" by means of conferences. I'd use those as models. What Rohan seems to be thinking of is more-or-less the same thing, on a larger scale. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:32:40 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Mike Cleven wrote (re. AH Rome): 'My original point here is my main one; that it would be very difficult to account for a Roman Empire if the Romans themselves hadn't been the originators of their own navy/trade. The Massilians especially had a huge arboreal resource to call on, as did Greek (or Phoenician/Carthaginian) Iberia. This would seem to more point towards a Magna Graecian Empire. What's the superlative for Hellas anyway (the Greek equivalent to Magna Graecia, i.e.)? In a Thassalocracy Messina would seem to make the most sense for a capital, or at least one of the other Sicilian cities; and rather than have those rude Sabine-raping Romans running everything for a few centuries, it would have been Greco-Sicilians......' This issue is what prompted me to ask the initial question on how Rome could establish a thalassocracy in my AH. Following Gavin's queries and looking at the various issues raised, I'm reviewing all my assumptions about my TL Rome (which I'll post seperatly for further discussion); mainly, how in my modified geography (yet another issue) can Rome dominate the Mediteranean. That for later however. I've just come off holiday (to Roman Polynesia as it turned out) reading Thucydides. Upon Alcibiades exile from Athens, he reveals to the Spartans that the original plan re. subjugation of Sicily was to expand northwards into Italy and westwards to Carthage. His advice, with the pleas by the Egesteans and Corinthians got the Peloponnesians into the war; Gylippus fights a good war outside the walls of the besieged Syracuse and contributes to eventual victory over Nicias and Demosthenes. That got me thinking about WI Athens victorious at Syracuse. This cuts to Mike's observation above, and helps me look at my 2KR TL which calls for a stronger Hellenic world than in our TL. 1. Victory before Syracuse. Magna Grecian cities still hold aloof, the Sicilian cities hedge their bets a little more to see who comes out on top (result being token forces for Syracuse). Athenians don't delay in Messina but proceed straight to invest Syracuse. Athenians win first land and naval engagement. Athenians complete encircling wall. Athenians defeat Syracusan breakout. Syracuse rejects policy of Hermocrates and entreats for peace. Victory allows Alcibiades to shake off the accusations from home. 2. Change of Balance of Power. The Athenian's strengthen their ties with Argos, which initiates a bid for leadership of the Peloponnese against ancient rival Sparta. Following her recent defeats, Sparta adopts conservative foreign policy (as Alcibiades maintained his status in Athens, the advice to take Decelea was not given). General cessation of Hellas-wide hostilities; diplomacy see's minor re-shuffling of political map. Boeotia entreats with Athens. Athens regains hold over tributary allies. Intensity of Hellenic internal politics subsides somewhat; minor dramas still occur along usual pro and anti Athenian line but situation controllable. 3. Athens looks westward. Sicilian politics still volatile. Defeated Syracuse begins buddying up with nascent Carthaginian influence in south of island. Hellenic cities generally toe the line, though anti-Athenian feeling still present. Sicel tribes remain largely pro-Athenian. Internal dispute in Magna Grecia reprises Egestean situation; in order to support 'allies' request, Athens despatches fleet and army in similar force to that of Sicily. Similar representation in army of Athens, subject states and Argive led Peloponnesians. Initial successes in MG lead to plea from anti-Athenian camp to Rome; Rome abstains for time due to campaigns in Etruria (Veii falls in 396). 4. Carthaginians begins flexing muscles. Anti-Athenian party in Syracuse requests Carthaginian help in obtaining 'freedom'. Pro-Athenian party reasonably strong tips off Athens which diverts portion of MG army to Sicily. Beginning of Carthaginian-Athenian conflict. 5. Enter Rome. Astute politicking with timely use of force advances Athenian interests in MG. Rome takes notice and following Cumae plea begins dialogue with Athenian generals. Athenians respond by consolidating their gains; their motives become much more plain following several MG cities becoming allies to Athens following strong-arm diplomacy. 4. Escalation. Carthaginians win land victory in Sicily but lose naval action. Sparta approached by Carthaginians but declines involvement. Athens baulks at confronting Rome and negotiations begin over fate of MG. Rome maintains hard line and flys 'freedom from Athenian oppression' flag. Things begin to get dicey; anti-Athenian party in one of the new MG allies begins internal revolution- Rome approached for help which despatches an army following treaty loopholing. Athenian generals invest rebellious city; increase of rhetoric. 5. Sicily lost. Following tough campaigning, resurgence of anti-Athenian feeling combining with pan-Sicilian politicking led by Syracuse, forces Athenian withdrawal to Rhegium. Syracuse and Carthage almost immediatly fall out; war continues with more local flavour now as Athens is faced with difficult Roman situation. 6. Complications. Sparta and Persian dialogue leads to Persian movements in Asia Minor and Ionian sphere. Sparta denounced by Argos which moves against Spartan ally; Sparta responds militarily. Pelopponese descends into peninsular-wide warfare as Sparta tries to halt its decline. Weakening of Athenian forces in MG follows Spartan victory and recall of Argive troops from MG. Romes forces blockading Athenian army back. From here it gets murky. Renewed Persian influence in Asia Minor seeks to redress situation of upstart Greeks. Resurgence of Hellenic fragmentation in Argive-Spartan conflict unstitches delicate balance of power. Syracuse and Carthage at odds drags in numerous players. In MG, Hellenic cities have tough job balancing off strong Rome and homeward looking Athenians. Ultimately I would pick a Roman-Athenian clash resulting in Roman victory. Athens doesn't give up, gets up off the floor and is decked again. Syracuse picks off Carthage but not decisively. Sparta and Argos exhaust each other. Macedonia makes common cause with Persia in anti-Athenian dialogue. Athens maintains position (just) but long term issues loom with Rome. Further Persian involvement serves to divert Hellenes from internal squabbles, but weakens support for Carthage and makes Athenian presence in Sicily untenable without treaty generous to Rome and allies. Roh. 'War makes it's own conditions'. Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:42:15 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Roh wrote: > a Magna Graecian Empire. What's the superlative for Hellas anyway (the > Greek equivalent to Magna Graecia, i.e.)? 'Ellas Megaliteros or something like that. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:21:16 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 In article <3AF5E157.7F75BF7B@mediaone.net>, Robert J. Kolker says... >Roh wrote: > >> a Magna Graecian Empire. What's the superlative for Hellas anyway (the >> Greek equivalent to Magna Graecia, i.e.)? > >'Ellas Megaliteros or something like that. > >Bob Kolker > Doesn't Hellas denote the sum total of Hellenic culture? In other words, Hellas is the world of those who are connected by x,y &z cultural factors developed over the period of many centuries following the Dorian invasion of the peninsula. That would mean that Magna Grecia is as part of Hellas as Achaea, Attica, Boeotia, Laconia etc. Unless Hellas specifically refers to that portion of land bounded to the north by Illyria and Macedonia and enclosed by the Mediteranean. But that doesn't quite work as the Hellenic civilised model is the city state which can exhibit Hellenic characteristics but not be within the boundary of ancient Hellas. Massilia, Saguntum, Magna Grecia, Cyrenaica, Crete, Rhodes, Ionia etc all exist outside of ancient Greece but form part of the culture. And in the Diadochi period, Hellenic culture extends into Egypt and Persia. Roh. Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 03:10:36 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Roh wrote: > > In article <3AF5E157.7F75BF7B@mediaone.net>, Robert J. Kolker says... > > >Roh wrote: > > > >> a Magna Graecian Empire. What's the superlative for Hellas anyway (the > >> Greek equivalent to Magna Graecia, i.e.)? > > > >'Ellas Megaliteros or something like that. > > > >Bob Kolker > > > Doesn't Hellas denote the sum total of Hellenic culture? In other words, Hellas > is the world of those who are connected by x,y &z cultural factors developed > over the period of many centuries following the Dorian invasion of the > peninsula. > > That would mean that Magna Grecia is as part of Hellas as Achaea, Attica, > Boeotia, Laconia etc. > > Unless Hellas specifically refers to that portion of land bounded to the north > by Illyria and Macedonia and enclosed by the Mediteranean. But that doesn't > quite work as the Hellenic civilised model is the city state which can exhibit > Hellenic characteristics but not be within the boundary of ancient Hellas. > > Massilia, Saguntum, Magna Grecia, Cyrenaica, Crete, Rhodes, Ionia etc all exist > outside of ancient Greece but form part of the culture. And in the Diadochi > period, Hellenic culture extends into Egypt and Persia. Well, what I was looking for by my question was what the Greek name for Magna Graecia would be; since it obviously wouldn't be Latin, would it? Or did the Greeks just call Sicily Sicily, and Italy Italy? MC Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:22:48 +0300 From: Demetrios Rammos Organization: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Mike Cleven wrote: > Roh wrote: > > > > In article <3AF5E157.7F75BF7B@mediaone.net>, Robert J. Kolker says... > > > > >Roh wrote: > > > > > >> a Magna Graecian Empire. What's the superlative for Hellas anyway (the > > >> Greek equivalent to Magna Graecia, i.e.)? > > > > > >'Ellas Megaliteros or something like that. > > > > > >Bob Kolker > > > > > Doesn't Hellas denote the sum total of Hellenic culture? In other words, Hellas > > is the world of those who are connected by x,y &z cultural factors developed > > over the period of many centuries following the Dorian invasion of the > > peninsula. > > > > That would mean that Magna Grecia is as part of Hellas as Achaea, Attica, > > Boeotia, Laconia etc. > > > > Unless Hellas specifically refers to that portion of land bounded to the north > > by Illyria and Macedonia and enclosed by the Mediteranean. But that doesn't > > quite work as the Hellenic civilised model is the city state which can exhibit > > Hellenic characteristics but not be within the boundary of ancient Hellas. > > > > Massilia, Saguntum, Magna Grecia, Cyrenaica, Crete, Rhodes, Ionia etc all exist > > outside of ancient Greece but form part of the culture. And in the Diadochi > > period, Hellenic culture extends into Egypt and Persia. > > Well, what I was looking for by my question was what the Greek name for > Magna Graecia would be; since it obviously wouldn't be Latin, would it? > Or did the Greeks just call Sicily Sicily, and Italy Italy? Megali Hellas. Sicily was Sicelia, Italy Italia and Iberia well Iberia (the e inside the word being an eta). Demetrios Rammos Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:12:30 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Sun, 6 May 2001, Roh wrote: > > I've just come off holiday (to Roman Polynesia as it turned out) > reading Thucydides. Upon Alcibiades exile from Athens, he reveals to > the Spartans that the original plan re. subjugation of Sicily was to > expand northwards into Italy and westwards to Carthage. It's always been one of the biggest "Wow!" moments for me in any ancient historical text. But on balance, I find it entirely plausible that the Athenians were in fact planning on that scale, despite the rhetorical reasons for the speech to be framed in that way. But securing hegemony closer to home would IMO have been a priority, with the long-term plans for western imperialism kept in the long term. > > That got me thinking about WI Athens victorious at Syracuse. This cuts to > Mike's observation above, and helps me look at my 2KR TL which calls for a > stronger Hellenic world than in our TL. > --IMO generally plausible victory scenario snipped, although I have reservations about the Argive role in the Peloponnese-- > >Intensity of Hellenic internal > politics subsides somewhat; minor dramas still occur along usual pro > and anti Athenian line but situation controllable. It's an interesting question whether the damage done in the Archidamian War was sufficient that Athens would benefit from the perception that Athenian hegemony had established a common peace. This does of course depend on the Athenians restraining their urge to throw their weight around. Democracy is also likely to spread. IMO you can't underestimate the damage it would do to the oligarchic mindset for democracy to be associated with success over the long term. _Stasis_ would tail off in the immediate aftermath of the war; it might pick up after that. > > 3. Athens looks westward. Sicilian politics still volatile. > Defeated Syracuse begins buddying up with nascent Carthaginian > influence in south of island. Hellenic cities generally toe the line, > though anti-Athenian feeling still present. Sicel tribes remain > largely pro-Athenian. Beating up on the barbarian is central to Athenian ideology. IMO, they might use anti-Carthaginianism as the plank for their imperial hegemony in the west, much as they did ani-Persianism in the east. That kind of panhellenic thinking might lead them to defend Greek interests against Sicel interests also. > Internal dispute in Magna Grecia reprises > Egestean situation; in order to support 'allies' request, Athens > despatches fleet and army in similar force to that of Sicily. > There are some crucial differences between S. Italy and Sicily. There is no Italiote Syracuse, no giant potentially hegemonic Greek power. Croton, Taras, Thurii, etc - it's pretty balanced. More accurately, Syracuse was the Italiote Syracuse, often threatening to extend her power into S. Italy (as Dionysius did in OTL not too long after this point). The other big difference is the Italiote League, which potentially could give the Italiotes the unity to fight off Athens, and more likely perhaps, may change the terms on which they enter the Athenian empire. The likelihood is IMO that Athens would put her colony Thurii at the head of the League rather than break it up entirely - and Italiote federalism may eventually be an important model for Athens' eventual (and necessary) reorganization of her empire. Note that there's a role for Athens in defending Italiotes against Lucanians, Samnites, and the like. Similar representation in army of Athens, subject states and Argive > led Peloponnesians. Initial successes in MG lead to plea from > anti-Athenian camp to Rome; Rome abstains for time due to campaigns in > Etruria (Veii falls in 396). Rome's not the only state they could ask, though, nor the most likely. Why not (e.g.) the Samnites or Campanian powers like Capua? > > 4. Carthaginians begins flexing muscles. Anti-Athenian party in Syracuse > requests Carthaginian help in obtaining 'freedom'. Pro-Athenian party > reasonably strong tips off Athens which diverts portion of MG army to Sicily. > Beginning of Carthaginian-Athenian conflict. > This is possible. I suspect that Athens would drop S. Italy at this point, though, intending to return later. > 5. Enter Rome. Astute politicking with timely use of force advances > Athenian interests in MG. Rome takes notice and following Cumae plea > begins dialogue with Athenian generals. Athenians respond by > consolidating their gains; their motives become much more plain > following several MG cities becoming allies to Athens following > strong-arm diplomacy. What's the timeline here? I'm not really sure that Rome is in position to meddle on this scale at this point (c.390? Effects of the Gallic invasion?) IMO, Rome would concentrate on matters closer to home. Rome has at this point no reliable way to get an army to S. Italy - the intervening area is not allied to Rome. Besides, Athens is probably bad for the Oscans in Campania, which is good for Rome. IMO, Rome would sign a treaty with Athens along the lines of the Carthaginian treaties - Rome's right to expand in her neighbourhood preserved, Rome's allies free from Athenian depredation, Rome doesn't send ships into Athenian-allied territory. > > 4. Escalation. Carthaginians win land victory in Sicily but lose > naval action. Sparta approached by Carthaginians but declines > involvement. Athens baulks at confronting Rome Why? Athens is a much bigger power, and can do very nasty things to Rome without needing to get involved in a land war in central Italy (which would be different). Ravage the territory of Rome's allies, economic blockade, etc - Athenian specialities. Rome has pretty much no way to hit Athens on her home turf. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:11:33 GMT From: Roh. Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Gavin wrote (re. Thucydides): 'It's always been one of the biggest "Wow!" moments for me in any ancient historical text. But on balance, I find it entirely plausible that the Athenians were in fact planning on that scale, despite the rhetorical reasons for the speech to be framed in that way. But securing hegemony closer to home would IMO have been a priority, with the long-term plans for western imperialism kept in the long term. Part of me feels that the expansion from Sicily was an Alcibiades idea. His character seems to suggest long range thinking aimed at diverting the progress of the state into a direction whereby he can profit. In this sense I suspect that following a successful siege, he would have maneuvered things so that his private plan became state policy. All of this assumes he can shrug off the Hermae accusations. As for the hegemony closer to home being a more likely possibility, in adopting the Sicilian expedition, Athens showed it was willing to disregard Pericles strategy of not expanding the empire during the period of hostilities with Sparta. That suggests to me that the more logical strategy in our minds may not have been an automatic selection of foreign policy. Part of the reasoning for the Sicilian expedition was to increase the resources of the Empire; so expansion into MG would support that reasoning. Though again, how much of the proposed expansion was an Alcibiades pet project remains to be seen. I have the feeling that Nicias, and probably Demosthenes, would have opposed such a plan. Though again, Nicias seemed pretty keen to be put out to pasture prior to Sicily so he might bow out, or be forced out by his rival. Gavin wrote: '--IMO generally plausible victory scenario snipped, although I >have reservations about the Argive role in the Peloponnese--' I included that based on some mention of the Argive-Spartan treaty expiring without Argive desire to renew, that the Argives were keen to take leadership over the Peloponnese from Sparta and felt comfortable enough in doing so to gather some considerable support, that Argos and Sparta campaigned several times against each other and that the democratic ties between Argos and Athens strengthen following their treaty. > >> >>Intensity of Hellenic internal >> politics subsides somewhat; minor dramas still occur along usual pro >> and anti Athenian line but situation controllable. > > It's an interesting question whether the damage done in the >Archidamian War was sufficient that Athens would benefit from the >perception that Athenian hegemony had established a common peace. This >does of course depend on the Athenians restraining their urge to throw >their weight around. Democracy is also likely to spread. IMO you can't >underestimate the damage it would do to the oligarchic mindset for >democracy to be associated with success over the long term. _Stasis_ >would tail off in the immediate aftermath of the war; it might pick up >after that. The Athenian weight throwing is one of the problematic aspects to their empire building. It happened enough to indicate to me that it would continue to do so. I was interested in Cleon's observations on how Athenian democracy works, and wouldn't think it too out of reach for Athens to adjust their democratic model to a point that would support further exploitation and empire building. I think that maybe a Sicilian victory might have supported such a constitutional evolution, though what it would be I have no idea. Gavin wrote: 'Beating up on the barbarian is central to Athenian ideology. IMO, they might use anti-Carthaginianism as the plank for their imperial hegemony in the west, much as they did ani-Persianism in the east. That kind of panhellenic thinking might lead them to defend Greek interests against Sicel interests also.' Good point. They would no doubt have convince some of the Peloponnesian states that the Carthaginian is a menace to Hellas as a whole, rather than the Athenian empire; though that Empire comprises much of Hellas. Depending on how they develop anti-Carthaginianism would no doubt affect how far they pursue the MG expeditions. Conquest of Sicily would take a while, and naval action over Malta would be foreseeable. Gavin wrote: 'The other big difference is the Italiote League, which potentially could give the Italiotes the unity to fight off Athens, and more likely perhaps, may change the terms on which they enter the Athenian empire. The likelihood is IMO that Athens would put her colony Thurii at the head of the League rather than break it up entirely - and Italiote federalism may eventually be an important model for Athens' eventual (and necessary) reorganization of her empire. Note that there's a role for Athens in >defending Italiotes against Lucanians, Samnites, and the like.' So, Athens influences MG through the Italiote League and specifically Thurii. She over time develops a protectorship role, some small interventions that begin to build up a threat in the Italian mindset and thus helps create the circumstances for a larger intervention upon one of the Italian tribes losing patience and commencing some degree of hostility. > > Gavin wrote: 'Rome's not the only state they could ask, though, nor the most likely. Why not (e.g.) the Samnites or Campanian powers like Capua?' Ignorance of the Italian situation mainly. The Samnites would be the better be upon reflection. 4. Carthaginians begins flexing muscles. Anti-Athenian party in Syracuse requests Carthaginian help in obtaining 'freedom'. Pro-Athenian party reasonably strong tips off Athens which diverts portion of MG army to Sicily. Beginning of Carthaginian-Athenian conflict. Gavin wrote: 'This is possible. I suspect that Athens would drop S. Italy at this point, though, intending to return later.' Agreed. Unless an Athenian general (Demosthenes?) with a small force and a few triremes was despatched to organise and lead the native Italiot forces. 5. Enter Rome. Astute politicking with timely use of force advances Athenian interests in MG. Rome takes notice and following Cumae plea begins dialogue with Athenian generals. Athenians respond by consolidating their gains; their motives become much more plain following several MG cities becoming allies to Athens following strong-arm diplomacy. Gavin wrote: 'What's the timeline here? I'm not really sure that Rome is in position to meddle on this scale at this point (c.390? Effects of the Gallic invasion?) IMO, Rome would concentrate on matters closer to home. Rome has at this point no reliable way to get an army to S. Italy - the intervening area is not allied to Rome. Besides, Athens is probably bad for the Oscans in Campania, which is good for Rome. IMO, Rome would sign a treaty with Athens along the lines of the Carthaginian treaties - Rome's right to expand in her neighbourhood preserved, Rome's allies free from Athenian depredation, Rome doesn't send ships into Athenian-allied territory.' Yeah, I get muddy here. Not enough research really. So Rome keeps a northward focus, makes a status quo treaty with Athens. The rebelling city (of which there's bound to be at least one) approaches a closer power; is Epirus an option here? Roh. Subject: Re: Thalassokratia- WI Magna Grecia Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:07:56 +0300 From: Demetrios Rammos Organization: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Roh." wrote: > > I included that based on some mention of the Argive-Spartan treaty expiring > without Argive desire to renew, that the Argives were keen to take leadership > over the Peloponnese from Sparta and felt comfortable enough in doing so to > gather some considerable support, that Argos and Sparta campaigned several times > against each other and that the democratic ties between Argos and Athens > strengthen following their treaty. Argos actively tried this between the Archidamean and the Deceleian war. The end result was the first battle of Mantinea in 418 which ended with a Spartan victory. Demetrios Rammos Subject: 2KR: Rome sans Etruria. Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 04:31:24 GMT From: Roh. Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if 2KR is the working title I have for my alternate antiquity TL. The AH challenge is trying to reproduce the balance of power in the ancient world in the light of changed geography; it poses the question 'How would x culture have developed in this changed world?' 2KR looks at how the history of a people is determined when, 'history is governed, if not determined, by geography' (Studdard); by changing the geographical environment, does the moral and intellectual qualities of a people develop in a similar manner. Following previous posts, I'm working on the nature and flavour of Rome. I've broken that down into component parts, the first of which is the role that Etruria *didn't* play in the development of early Rome. In 2KR, we see an Etruscan heartland in the southern Alpine regions of our TL. There is no Piedmont/Lombardy due to the higher sea levels, making Etruria a hilly country (though increased erosion has made for less mountainous terrain). Subsequently these people look away from the mediteranean, and thus no cities of Etruscan origin exist in the Italian peninsula. The Etruscan influence on our TL Rome was significant; together with the Sabine's the Etruscans provided much to the initial foundation. Assuming a suitable site can be found (pending me securing a big enough map of Italy), how would pre-Republican Rome have developed without the impetus of the Etruscan kingship? More to the point, without a period of monarchy to turn from (and compare to), would Rome have developed into a republic? Would it have followed the Hellenic city state model, or would there have developed a native Latin kingship? These are the questions that I'm facing. Trawling through material takes time, and currently I have no answers. Any takers? Roh. Subject: Re: 2KR: Rome sans Etruria. Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:04:28 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roh. wrote: > Following previous posts, I'm working on the nature and flavour of > Rome. I've broken that down into component parts, the first of which > is the role that Etruria *didn't* play in the development of early > Rome. > > In 2KR, we see an Etruscan heartland in the southern Alpine regions of > our TL. There is no Piedmont/Lombardy due to the higher sea levels, > making Etruria a hilly country (though increased erosion has made for > less mountainous terrain). Subsequently these people look away from > the mediteranean, and thus no cities of Etruscan origin exist in the > Italian peninsula. > > The Etruscan influence on our TL Rome was significant; together with > the Sabine's the Etruscans provided much to the initial foundation. > Assuming a suitable site can be found (pending me securing a big > enough map of Italy), how would pre-Republican Rome have developed > without the impetus of the Etruscan kingship? More to the point, > without a period of monarchy to turn from (and compare to), would Rome > have developed into a republic? I suspect that there would still be a king. The Regia appears to be one of the earliest public buildings in Rome (c.625 perhaps). That suggests that the monarchy as an institution may have been very nearly contemporaneous with the development of a Roman "polis" in the first place, assuming that is related to the changes of the mid-to-late C7th (as IMO seems most probable). Of course, our evidence about this early period is extremely limited. What can't be answered is the degree to which Etruscans exercised a decisive influence on the form of the kingship, which indeed is itself extremely vague. > Would it have followed the Hellenic > city state model, That can involve monarchy (at all periods - the line between "basileus" and "tyrannos" can be very fuzzy, depending on where and when you're talking about). I'm inclined to think that the main possible alternative would be some sort of aristocratic state. (This gets us into the definition of patricians, a topic which is a little frightening.) > or would there have developed a native Latin > kingship? It's not IMO an either-or - Latin culture is "semi-hellenized," and incorporates Greek influence from the "start." We're unfortunately even more poorly informed about developments in other Latin cities in this period than we are about Rome, and they're also interacting with Etruria. Turning away from politics, it's clear that Roman religious practices would have been somewhat different. (How different, I can't say.) Extispicy is probably the clearest case of something that would be absent. The trappings of Roman officialdom would be different. The problem is that the only things we can be fairly confident that the Romans owed to the Etruscans are pretty marginal. I'm generally more comfortable with a model in which west central Italy develops culturally as a result of mutual interaction with itself and with the Greek world; Etruscans are clearly a big part of this, and Rome is always partly Etruscan, but it's hard to isolate one element in such a dynamic process. No one element can really have priority, except the Greek influence. Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: 2KR: Rome sans Etruria. Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:03:38 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 >> The Etruscan influence on our TL Rome was significant; together with >> the Sabine's the Etruscans provided much to the initial foundation. >> Assuming a suitable site can be found (pending me securing a big >> enough map of Italy), how would pre-Republican Rome have developed >> without the impetus of the Etruscan kingship? More to the point, >> without a period of monarchy to turn from (and compare to), would Rome >> have developed into a republic? Gavin wrote: 'I suspect that there would still be a king. The Regia appears to be one of the earliest public buildings in Rome (c.625 perhaps). That suggests that the monarchy as an institution may have been very nearly contemporaneous with the development of a Roman "polis" in the first place, assuming that is related to the changes of the mid-to-late C7th (as IMO seems most probable). Of course, our evidence about this early period is extremely limited. What can't be answered is the degree to which Etruscans exercised a decisive influence on the form of the kingship, which indeed is itself extremely vague.' Agreed. Of the seven legendary kings, only the last three display Etruscanisms. Thus it is easy to say that the Latins have a native monarchical tradition. On this consititutional issue, it would appear that the Etruscan period of dominance can be removed without altering the Roman kingship. What is required is the last king acting akin to L Tarquinius Superbus, that is highjacking the kingship to a more tyrannical model. This brings the 2KR TL back in step with OTL, by providing the basis for the revolution that establishes the republic. >> Would it have followed the Hellenic >> city state model, Gavin wrote: 'That can involve monarchy (at all periods - the line between "basileus" and "tyrannos" can be very fuzzy, depending on where and when you're talking about). I'm inclined to think that the main possible alternative would be some sort of aristocratic state. (This gets us into the definition of patricians, a topic which is a little frightening.)' An oligarchy of some form perhaps? This gets tricky. The foundation of the republic requires a tyrannical king to provide the cause for revolution. There are several issues here: there may be more kings than 7 before a tyrant emerges- indeed a tyrant may not emerge at all if the kingship is Latin in origin, rather than alien Etruscans-; the revolution could be less extreme in terms of the end result constitutional model- as in the oligarchic/aristocratic option. If I had to take a punt here, I would call that a tyrannical king does emerge in the early stages of the Latin monarchy. His power is broken by what passes for the aristocracy and a new form of oligarchic/aristocratic rule emerges with several key reforms established to keep the people happy. How long this period of rule lasts I couldn't say; nor do I have an idea if the republican constitution is a necessity for replicating the expansion of Rome in OTL terms. Gavin wrote: 'Turning away from politics, it's clear that Roman religious practices would have been somewhat different. (How different, I can't say.) Extispicy is probably the clearest case of something that would be absent. The trappings of Roman officialdom would be different. The problem is that the only things we can be fairly confident that the Romans owed to the Etruscans are pretty marginal.' True enough. The obvious ones can be spotted; but also lesser examples such as the adoption of the cardo and decumani road plan. The Etruscans had their fascination with boundaries, so that might be factored out. A bit of time and research should be able to ferret defunct Etruscanisms out. Be interesting to see. Gavin wrote: 'I'm generally more comfortable with a model in which west central Italy develops culturally as a result of mutual interaction with itself and with the Greek world; Etruscans are clearly a big part of this, and Rome is always partly Etruscan, but it's hard to isolate one element in such a dynamic process. No one element can really have priority, except the Greek influence.' I'm of similar mind. Latium, Samnium, Campania etc establish a cultural roundabout. This takes in Hellenic aspects from MG to the south. The Italian 'cultural critical mass' is challenged, responded to and refreshed by the eastern cultural complex represented by Hellenism. This input replaces the Etruscan element in OTL while keeping sufficient amounts of external stimulation to prompt the Latin temper towards it's own innovation of custom, law, society and tradition. Roh. Subject: Re: 2KR: Rome sans Etruria. Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:56:32 -0500 From: weaire gavin allen Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 O On Tue, 8 May 2001, Roh wrote: > An oligarchy of some form perhaps? This gets tricky. The foundation > of the republic requires a tyrannical king to provide the cause for > revolution. Not necessarily. Class conflict is still possible (obligatory caveat: "whatever its exact nature"). Appius Claudius the decemvir as distinct from Tarquinius Superbus the king, say. >There are several issues here: there may be more kings > than 7 before a tyrant emerges- indeed a tyrant may not emerge at all > if the kingship is Latin in origin, rather than alien Etruscans- Without signing off on the "Etruscan" nature of the kingship, I do think that if one accepts the "Greek tyrant" model of the later kings, there's no reason why a Latin king couldn't also play the role. After all, in many ways the most plausible figure in the legendary tradition to represent the equivalent of a Greek tyrant is Servius Tullius, who has a Latin name. (Without worrying about "Mastarna," for the moment.) I think you can construct more-or-less any kind of narrative that suits you; the traditional narrative is itself very likely to be heavily fictionalized. > How long this period of rule lasts I couldn't say; nor do I have an > idea if the republican constitution is a necessity for replicating the > expansion of Rome in OTL terms. > I suspect that it is - the entire thing is oriented towards warfare. But we don't really know how unusual it was in its archaic form - it could be that loads of Italian city-states had comparable institutions. So you're free to postulate a similar outcome, with maybe some differences for color: the consuls (praetors) are called _magistri populi_, and the dictator is called _praetor_, for instance. > The Etruscans had their fascination with boundaries, so that might be > factored out. The significance of the Etruscan influence on the customs surrounding the _pomerium_ has been questioned. (Note also that the cardo and decumanus have solid Hippodamian antecedents. But I'll admit that I'm perhaps a bit too inclined to emphasize the Greekness of everything in archaic Italy.) Gavin Weaire. Subject: Re: 2KR: Rome sans Etruria. Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:24:18 +1000 From: Sydney Webb Organization: Webb Family Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "Roh." wrote: > In 2KR, we see an Etruscan heartland in the southern Alpine regions of our TL. > There is no Piedmont/Lombardy due to the higher sea levels, making Etruria a > hilly country (though increased erosion has made for less mountainous terrain). > Subsequently these people look away from the mediteranean, and thus no cities of > Etruscan origin exist in the Italian peninsula. If you raise sea levels to flood Piedmont/Lombardy what are you doing to the rest of the Ancient World - particularly the Mediterranean basin? The changes you make to the Italian peninsular may be the least of the impacts you cause! - Syd Subject: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 04:40:17 GMT From: Roh. Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if This is an odd question. Of all the calenders in use in the Mediteranean of c. 300 BCE, which would be considered the one most used, or at least most widely understood? As certain currencies are worth more or less when compared to their rival coinages, which calender would be more widespread in the use of those who would have need for a more 'inclusive' calender? As the merchant travels from Ionia to Iberia, he deals in numerous coin (but likely compares to a certain standard), passes through numerous lingual areas (but no doubt knows the most effective 'trading tongue') and has to move through different 'time periods'... so what does he compare his time to? Certainly the calender of his birth culture makes a strong claim. But if he's moving around constantly, perhaps in contact with others arranging meeting times etc, and he's from Liguria, then the Ligurian calender aint much use. Especially if he's passing through Carthage, Massilia, Ostia and Corinth. I don't know enough about this subject to hazard a guess. What culture is widespread enough and dominant enough to have their calender reasonably well known? Carthage? This is going to haunt me, I can just tell... Roh Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 07:19:47 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "Roh." wrote: > > I don't know enough about this subject to hazard a guess. What culture is > widespread enough and dominant enough to have their calender reasonably well > known? Carthage? In OTL, the Christian Calendar has become the common calendard by virtue of the military and commercial success of Christian nations. People who use the calendar do not even have to be Christians to make sense of it. All calendars will agree on what a day is and what a month is. That is because these intervals are established in nature. All cultures will agree on what a solar year is. Same reason. Once that is set down, one might ask, is it necessary to have one calendar be dominant, or can one translate between one calendar and another. What is required? All one needs are common identifial events that relate to the calendars. Say there are 4 nations N1, N2, N3, N4. Assume N1, N2 have a common event E1. N2 and N3 have a common event E2, N3 and N4 have a common event E3. Using this one can eventually translate between all calendars and it will not be necessary for one calendar to predominate for a merchant or traders to set up coherent scheduling in all the nations N1 ... N4. Or things can go as in OTL and one nation can impose its calendar and other socials artifacts upon those nations which it dominates or influences. Rome would be a likely candidate, and it had a more or less stable calandar after Octavian. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:04:27 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Bob wrote: 'All calendars will agree on what a day is and what a month is. That is because these intervals are established in nature. All cultures will agree on what a solar year is. Same reason. Once that is set down, one might ask, is it necessary to have one calendar be dominant, or can one translate between one calendar and another. What is required? All one needs are common identifial events that relate to the calendars.' 'Say there are 4 nations N1, N2, N3, N4. Assume N1, N2 have a common event E1. N2 and N3 have a common event E2, N3 and N4 have a common event E3. Using this one can eventually translate between all calendars and it will not be necessary for one calendar to predominate for a merchant or traders to set up coherent scheduling in all the nations N1 ... N4.' Now that is cool. And simple enough to occur to the right people. So, given a bright spark who susses out such a convention, and that he/she also has either direct experiance of several key cultures, or has contact with those cultures, it becomes possible for the creation of a 'gutter' pan-calender. Excellent. That works for me. One thing I meant to elaborate on earlier, was the adoption of a 'Year One' prior to the OTL reorganisation of the years into BC/AD. This is *not* a specialist topic for me, but unless I'm off target, the BC/AD concept was put together in accordance with a Christian need to demarcate the world before and after Christ. The details I don't know, but thats the guts of it AFAIK. So my question now becomes, under what reasonable circumstances might there be developed in the antiquity of the 3rd C BCE a 'Year One'? If the BC/AD was instituted as an artificial solution to a problem, could there be a situation whereby a similar convention was adopted much earlier? Obviously it wouldn't have a Christian origin as that hasn't happened yet. My initial thoughts, would be that it would have to be a major event witnessed by all, or the imposition by a dominant culture. In 2KR there isn't a dominant culture (basically it's a three way tie between Hellenism, Latinism and Carthaginianism), and I'm leery about having a comet hit Anatolia (even though, upon saying that, I've just flooded the world). That doesn't seem to leave me with much room to maneuvere on this one. Roh. Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:47:06 -0700 From: pyotr filipivich Organization: Fortesque Labs Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 In soc.history.what-if on Wed, 09 May 2001 02:04:27 GMT , Roh was inspired to write: >Bob wrote: 'All calendars will agree on what a day is and what a month is. That >is because these intervals are established in nature. All cultures will agree >on what a solar year is. Same reason. Once that is set down, one might >ask, is it necessary to have one calendar be dominant, or can one translate >between one calendar and another. What is required? All one needs are >common identifial events that relate to the calendars.' > >'Say there are 4 nations N1, N2, N3, N4. Assume N1, N2 have a common >event E1. N2 and N3 have a common event E2, N3 and N4 have a common >event E3. Using this one can eventually translate between all calendars >and it will not be necessary for one calendar to predominate for a merchant >or traders to set up coherent scheduling in all the nations N1 ... N4.' > >Now that is cool. And simple enough to occur to the right people. So, given a >bright spark who susses out such a convention, and that he/she also has either >direct experiance of several key cultures, or has contact with those cultures, >it becomes possible for the creation of a 'gutter' pan-calender. Excellent. >That works for me. > >One thing I meant to elaborate on earlier, was the adoption of a 'Year One' >prior to the OTL reorganisation of the years into BC/AD. This is *not* a >specialist topic for me, but unless I'm off target, the BC/AD concept was put >together in accordance with a Christian need to demarcate the world before and >after Christ. The details I don't know, but thats the guts of it AFAIK. Actually, AD is "Year of Our Lord" something a pious Christian would want to know, and is based on the Birth of Jesus. That this creates a "Before Christ/After Christ" split wasn't considered that important, and at the time merely added yet another layer of Chronology. (Instead of writing "In the Third Year of the reign of Kestril the Babyslapper, in the tenth year of the Tax Cycle, two years before the start of Daylight savings time..." one would write "In the Third Year of the reign of Kestril the Babyslapper, in the tenth year of the Tax Cycle, two years before the start of Daylight savings time. being the Year of Our Lord One thousand two hundred four and thirty...." The calculation had an error, and Jesus's birthday wasn't in 1 BCE, but more likely in 7 BCE. But the convention stuck. >So my question now becomes, under what reasonable circumstances might there be >developed in the antiquity of the 3rd C BCE a 'Year One'? If the BC/AD was >instituted as an artificial solution to a problem, could there be a situation >whereby a similar convention was adopted much earlier? Obviously it wouldn't >have a Christian origin as that hasn't happened yet. "Year One" is usually thought to be some significant event in the past: the Founding of the City (Rome) was in year 754 BCE (IIRC), which makes today "MMDCCLVI A.U.C." The Founding of the World is another, but everybody has their own ideas on when that happened. The Jewish Calendars have those dates in mind. A common calendar is useful, but people still remember things by the events. I have to figure out what grade I was in, then where I was, to figure the dates of things when I was a boy. I've also had to ask the child how old she was, her mother having forgotten the year she was born. >My initial thoughts, would be that it would have to be a major event witnessed >by all, or the imposition by a dominant culture. In 2KR there isn't a dominant >culture (basically it's a three way tie between Hellenism, Latinism and >Carthaginianism), and I'm leery about having a comet hit Anatolia (even though, >upon saying that, I've just flooded the world). That doesn't seem to leave me >with much room to maneuvere on this one. Bingo. To further confuse you, "everybody" didn't keep time the same way. The Greeks and the Celts counted off by the fortnight, the Romans had Ides, Nones and Octaves of the Month (and leap year days were inserted into the middle of February, later March.) And we are overlooking the Chinese Calendar, which doesn't have a "year one", except "a long time ago". Ha - found the URL http://www.cs.washington.edu:80/homes/dougz/date/ It will give you today's date in a number of calendars, and links to other calendar sites. >Roh. > pyotr filipivich Ah - the good old days, when might made right, and the victors got the spoils - at knife point. One thing about knives, swords & axes - they don't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: 9 May 2001 12:47:24 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <3AF7D653.9084EBAE@mediaone.net>, bobkolker@mediaone.net (Robert J. Kolker) wrote: > Rome would be a likely candidate, and it had a more or less stable > calandar after Octavian. All Octavian did was rename a month and then shift a few days from another month so his was the same length as Julius's. Prior to Julius Caesar Rome used a Lunar calendar with intercalary days inserted every so often to keep it in alignment with the solar year. Lunar calendars seem to have been the most common. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 08:58:45 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > In article <3AF7D653.9084EBAE@mediaone.net>, bobkolker@mediaone.net > (Robert J. Kolker) wrote: > > > Rome would be a likely candidate, and it had a more or less stable > > calandar after Octavian. > All Octavian did was rename a month and then shift a few days from > another month so his was the same length as Julius's. > Prior to Julius Caesar Rome used a Lunar calendar with intercalary > days inserted every so often to keep it in alignment with the solar > year. Lunar calendars seem to have been the most common. Is that truly the case? Was the roman year 254 days long (this is what you get with a strict lunar calendar) plus intercalations? The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar with an extra month ( the month of Adar) added every 2.5 years (on average) to keep the seasons in synch with the holidays. Did Rome have such a calendar or was it a solar calendar? Bob Kolker Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:47:04 -0700 From: pyotr filipivich Organization: Fortesque Labs Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 In soc.history.what-if on Wed, 09 May 2001 08:58:45 -0400 , "Robert J. Kolker" was inspired to write: > > >kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > >> In article <3AF7D653.9084EBAE@mediaone.net>, bobkolker@mediaone.net >> (Robert J. Kolker) wrote: >> >> > Rome would be a likely candidate, and it had a more or less stable >> > calandar after Octavian. >> All Octavian did was rename a month and then shift a few days from >> another month so his was the same length as Julius's. >> Prior to Julius Caesar Rome used a Lunar calendar with intercalary >> days inserted every so often to keep it in alignment with the solar >> year. Lunar calendars seem to have been the most common. > >Is that truly the case? Was the roman year 254 days long (this is what >you get with a strict lunar calendar) plus intercalations? The Hebrew >calendar is a lunar calendar with an extra month ( the month of Adar) >added every 2.5 years (on average) to keep the seasons in synch with >the holidays. Did Rome have such a calendar or was it a solar calendar? Yes. Pre- Julius, there were extra days and months added to make the calendar stay in sync with the seasons. But by the time Julius gained power, the political shenanigans had gotten the calendar so out of sync with the seasons, that the first day of spring by the calendar was in the midst of winter by the season. Julius "simply" set a "hard and fast" rule about the leap years, added a couple months to the current year (I think 144 days, I don't have my notes handy), and went on from there. pyotr filipivich Ah - the good old days, when might made right, and the victors got the spoils - at knife point. One thing about knives, swords & axes - they don't run out of ammo, and they don't misfire. Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:56:16 +0300 From: Binyamin Dissen Organization: DISSEN Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Ltd. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Tue, 08 May 2001 04:40:17 GMT Roh. wrote: :>This is an odd question. :>Of all the calenders in use in the Mediteranean of c. 300 BCE, which would be :>considered the one most used, or at least most widely understood? As certain :>currencies are worth more or less when compared to their rival coinages, which :>calender would be more widespread in the use of those who would have need for a :>more 'inclusive' calender? :>As the merchant travels from Ionia to Iberia, he deals in numerous coin (but :>likely compares to a certain standard), passes through numerous lingual areas :>(but no doubt knows the most effective 'trading tongue') and has to move through :>different 'time periods'... so what does he compare his time to? :>Certainly the calender of his birth culture makes a strong claim. But if he's :>moving around constantly, perhaps in contact with others arranging meeting times :>etc, and he's from Liguria, then the Ligurian calender aint much use. :>Especially if he's passing through Carthage, Massilia, Ostia and Corinth. :>I don't know enough about this subject to hazard a guess. What culture is :>widespread enough and dominant enough to have their calender reasonably well :>known? Carthage? Probably the Jewish calendar. Messengers were sent all over the world (where Jews lived) to make sure the calendars were in sync and that Passover (which is determined by the season - it must be in spring, and as the lunar calendar loses 11 days or so a year relative to the solar calendar a determination must be made if a leap month is required) was observed approximately at the correct time (to this date, Jews outside of Israel celebrate an extra day for the major holidays because of the ancient difficulty of publicizing the first day of the month - which was declared by the court in Jerusalem - the procedures of which are a major topic by itself). Testimony required, among other information, specifying the date of the month and the day of the week. A one day error was acceptable because until one heard the declaration one did not know if the previous month was 29 or 30 days. -- Binyamin Dissen Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:46:56 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 I wrote: "Of all the calenders in use in the Mediteranean of c. 300 BCE, which would be considered the one most used, or at least most widely understood?" Binyamin wrote: 'Probably the Jewish calendar. Messengers were sent all over the world (where Jews lived) to make sure the calendars were in sync and that Passover (which is determined by the season -it must be in spring, and as the lunar calendar loses 11 days or so a year relative to the solar calendar a determination must be made if a leap month is required) was observed approximately at the correct time (to this date, Jews outside of Israel celebrate an extra day for the major holidays because of the ancient difficulty of publicizing the first day of the month - which was declared by the court in Jerusalem - the procedures of which are a major topic by itself)'. 'Testimony required, among other information, specifying the date of the month and the day of the week. A one day error was acceptable because until one heard the declaration one did not know if the previous month was 29 or 30 days.' Very interesting. I hadn't thought of the Jewish calender. I'm entering foreign territory here as I know very little on this subject. However, in summary to what you say above, in the Jewish calender we have considerable religious significance attributed to the passage of time which makes accuracy important. The question then becomes, how widespread were Jewish communities at my narrative point? (3rd C BCE). Or alternatively, was their any critical comparisons made between different calenders at the time by academic peers? However, answers to those questions besides, I'm happy with the Jewish calender. The point to which all this is addressed is my need for a more 'authentic' dating process for the 2KR narrative. All the spadework being done on higher sea levels, Rome without Etruscans etc is background to a 'false' history of the ancient world. I couldn't have my narrator speak in terms of BC as the C part hadn't arrived yet. Hence the need for a calender that *his* intended audience (other scholarly types) would understand. For this requirement, I think the Jewish calender works. If there happened to be a pan-Hellenic calender then I'd probably have to go with that on the basis of a wider exposure. But AFAIK that doesn't exist... though I would love to be corrected on this point. Roh. Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: 9 May 2001 03:05:43 GMT From: akup@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) Organization: Library of Congress Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 There are basically only three types of calendars: solar (e.g. the Gregorian-in sync with sun but not moon), lunar (e.g. the Muslim in sync with moon but not sun), and the luni-solar (in sync with moon and sun). Christians in America tend to understand only the solar. The science behind all three was known in antiquity. Roh (nospam@newsranger.com) wrote: : I wrote: "Of all the calenders in use in the Mediteranean of c. 300 BCE, which : would be considered the one most used, or at least most widely understofod?" : Binyamin wrote: 'Probably the Jewish calendar. Messengers were sent all over the : world (where Jews lived) to make sure the calendars were in sync and that Subject: Re: 'Alpha' Calender? Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 04:25:39 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Aaron wrote: 'There are basically only three types of calendars: solar (e.g. the Gregorian-in sync with sun but not moon), lunar (e.g. the Muslim in sync with moon but not sun), and the luni-solar (in sync with moon and sun). Christians in America tend to understand only the solar. The science behind all three was known in antiquity.' When you say the science behind all three was known in antiquity, are there any individuals noted for their study of such science? (there's got to be a name for it). I see here... http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html .. that the Jewish calender is luni-solar. What advantages, aside from those of a religious nature, come with the adoption of the lunisolar over the other two? I also see that AM1 equates to 3671 BCE. That's a lot of time; the relative age plus the stability of the calendar definitely supports the use of the Judaic calender to factor the passing of years amongst my 2KR 'academics'. This combined with the pan-calender convention suggested by Bob goes a long way to solve my time problems. As an aside, I see here... http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-ancient.html .. that 'In the eighth century B.C.E., civilizations all over the world either discarded or modified their old 360 day calendars. The 360 day calendars had been in use for the greater part of a millennium. In many places, month lengths immediately after that change were not fixed, but were based instead upon observation of the sky.' I hadn't heard about this before and the site doesn't expand on the statement. Does anyone know of/care to speculate on this? Roh. Subject: 2KR Ancient World Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:16:13 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Syd wrote: ‘ If you raise sea levels to flood Piedmont/Lombardy what are you doing to the rest of the Ancient World - particularly the Mediterranean basin? The changes you make to the Italian peninsular may be the least of the impacts you cause!’ True enough. There are many, many implications to work through on this project. But that’s half the fun… When I began working on this in 94 I initially lowered the sea level, but ran into huge problems with finding peoples to fill the land. At this point I don’t have an effective online map; though I’m working on it. If you take a glance at an atlas, it becomes a little clearer. Find the green relief colour/s and take it/them away. What you have left is the land mass (though some maps use different colours, basically find the 50-75’ above sea level colour and remove it. Anyway, the implications. Spain becomes an island, seperated by a channel between it and southern France. A bay opens up south of the Pyrenees, and some plain is lost in the south and west. Spain being isolated in this way makes for a really interesting exercise. At present I have extrapolated what I can (with a bit of creative license) for a 'kingdom' of Tartessos, a kingdom of 'Vascones', at least one big Hellenic city (Saguntum) and the Carthaginian territory of Cadir. I then filled the space with hypothetical 'native' Hispanic cultures (various representations of the Celtiberian model). France loses its Atlantic and Channel coast, with four islands (Arcoetica, Armorica, Aulerica and Icenica) forming from the uplands stretching NE from Brittany. The western shoreline of continental Europe is formed by what is OTL Massif Central. This shoreline continues northwards with the contours until it begins to curve eastwards. Not much work has been done on Gaul except a rough profile of a respected and working High Kingship keeping the Gallic tribes together. The northern European plain is lost; the ‘German’ shore can be traced by following a line from Bonn to Leipzig via Essen. This line continues through the mountains of Bohemia before moving SE along the Carpathians. The coast turns westward into the flooded plain of Hungary, which is bound by the uplands of Slovakia, Austria and the Balkans. I've done no work here as yet. Hellas and Italy remains much the same, though Piedmont and Lombardy are lost and the Peloponnese becomes an island. Anatolia remains largely unchanged and moves into Asia, there being no northern shore to the Black Sea. Egypt is much the same, though a bay opens up at the mouth of the Nile. Cyrenaica forms two islands some distance away, and a large bay opens up in the lowlands of Algeria and Tunisia (big advantage for Carthage). This then is the continental island of Europe, and it is here that I am initially focusing. The climatic changes are immense and I’m working through the various implications with some oceanographic and botanist contacts I’ve picked up. Initial thoughts at this point indicate that the changes are not so inimical to society that progress is arrested, though it’s a damn sight tougher. Until we hit big snags I’m continuing the project on the basis that it’s viable. My task is to try and replicate the evolution of societies to the point where they begin to resemble OTL. I chose the ancient period because it’s so full of question marks and there was less to contradict. This is a monster WI that throws up big obstacles periodically but, touch wood, we’ve managed to circumvent them reasonably well so far. It’s taken this long to simply work out and learn the climate and geography of the project; now I have to people the place. As the ‘flashpoint’ for the narrative is the 2nd Punic War (with a different name), beginning with Rome is a good starting point. Roh. Subject: WI Thassalokratia: Avoiding Hellenic Impotence Pt 1 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 05:13:54 GMT From: Roh. Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if It’s always fascinated me how, generally speaking, that following the Peloponnesian War the classical Hellenic city states gradually fell into disarray, defeat and then domination as the Latin culture to the west conversely rose. How unfair to the armchair historian. The WI for avoiding this is a tough one as it encompasses several key POD’s from OTL. There are not too many which are impossibly far fetched;however, it would still be a 50:50 prospect. So, without further ado, the POD’s begin: Hellas. Perikles doesn’t perish from the plague (429). He continues his skilled leadership of the Athenians for a little longer (dies 426). What is important about his continued survival is that his policy of not increasing the empire during the period of conflict with Sparta is maintained and continued by his successors (Nikias and Demosthenes probably; maybe another individual of a similar mould appears to continue his agenda). Equally important, is that Kleon does not rise to power. In step with Periklean doctrine, caution prevails over the direction of the war effort. The Theban victory at Delion (424) makes for a setback, but the victory is balanced out by Demosthenes victory in Pylos (426). Spartan initiatives begin to falter with the failure of Brasidas in Thrace due to the treachery and continual and manipulative harassment by the Macedonians under Perdiccas (422). Eventually the Peace of Nikias (421) ends this stage of hostilities, though the peace is an armed one. The Spartan determination for war has fallen away somewhat, their prestige amongst the Peloponnese is shaken and soon they have problems closer at home to deal with. Following Pylos, the helots have become uneasy, several revolts break out and considerable effort is expended keeping them in their place. The Mantineans garrisoning Pylos fuel this internal strife, causing ineffectual and ignored Spartan protestations to Athens, and the stage is set for the Argive confrontation below. The barely maintained peace is a hostile one but the threat is of a lesser scale as the Spartans aren’t coming out to play anymore, and the anti-Athenian opposition comes under leadership of Thebes. Eventually, without Sparta and with the Argive-Spartan conflict dividing the Peloponnese, Thebes and Athens reach a quiet agreement (420) and Hellas begins settling nervously down. Following the withdrawal of Sparta from the war, Argos begins to flex her muscles with regards to the long held desire for leadership over the Peloponnese. By degrees a conflict is moved towards by the two states until finally a military confrontation results. At Mantinea (418), the Spartan forces are a little on the slim side due to several of their allies sending smaller forces; sensing a possible change in the air they exercise political nous and hedge their bets. Just as well; for with the punishing losses inflicted on the Spartan centre, the right wing caves and a rout ensues. Although Argive losses are not inconsiderable, they are able to entreat from a greater position of strength and this victory sees Argos confirmed as the new power broker in the peninsula. Via their newfound ties with Athens, Argos negotiates the removal of the garrison in Pylos in return for the re-instatement of the Mantineans. The humiliation is complete for Sparta and the states decline is long and slow; in spite of some energetic kings, Sparta is now much a spent force. Spartan hoplites still make a formidable presence on the field but it is their geo-political desire for hegemony that is falling away. In broader strategic terms, the Spartan decline robs oligarchic parties within democratic cities contemplating revolution of the trump card of Spartan military intervention. With Argos remaining democratic, she and Athens begin to develop a tentative bond that was formed when the Argives fought with Athens before Syracuse. However, the city is not keen on becoming a tribute paying city of the Athenian thassalokratia; nor are the Peloponnesian oligarchic cities that she speaks for. This becomes an issue in Athens as well, with one party favouring a qualified adjustment to the terms by which subject cities relate to Athens in order to bring Argos into a closer and more strategic relationship, and the other vigorously maintaining the wisdom of the traditional situation. Events and tension begins to build over the issue and eventually, with a surprise Boeotian treaty, Argos puts the hard word to the Athenian assembly; delicately worded of course. A great debate ensues (no doubt Thucydides relates of it in his triumphant ‘Victory of Athens’) that draws in most of the Hellenic cities as it quickly becomes apparent that here is potential for a more favourable deal (if not a bigger war as some warn). Indeed, it is a brilliant speech by the Syracusan delegates that sways the issue. Pointing to their history vis a vis Athens and their current treaty arrangement [see second post Magna Grecia], they indicate that it is through their example that the way to a delicate compromise situation can be found. Whereby a wider confederation is entered into while still retaining for Athens those issues of suzerainty so dear to the Athenian conservatives. The older Athenian tributary cities are in general agreement with the Syracusan compromise and, while swearing their love for the great city, plead for a change in circumstances that would allow them to more properly support their gracious mistress in this her greatest age. The Athenians withdraw to discuss matters amongst themselves. It is only through careful maneuvering around the obstinate conservatives that a wording is finally arrived at that allows for greater self determination amongst the hitherto ‘subject’ cities while still maintaining Athenian superiority. Some considerable scaremongering had to be resorted to by the progressive party, pointing to the groundswell of opinion that could not fail to consolidate on Argos should Athens prove obstinate. Eventually several grades of treaty status are arrived at and the way is grudgingly found for closer relations between Argos and Athens. It is by no means a happy marriage; for many years there is agitation between the various parties as efforts are made to exploit maximum advantage out of the uncertainty surrounding the new state of events. However, as the gods would have it, no emergencies arise to test this new status quo. This hopeful, but fragile, unity is tested in the most dramatic of manners. Roh. Subject: Re: WI Thassalokratia: Avoiding Hellenic Impotence Pt 1 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:53:03 -0500 From: "Mark R. Whittington" Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 What's the role of Alcibiedies (SP?) in this? Does he still get exiled or does he take up his command in Sicily? Subject: Re: WI Thassalokratia: Avoiding Hellenic Impotence Pt 1 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 06:39:41 GMT From: Roh Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Mark wrote: 'What's the role of Alcibiedies (SP?) in this? Does he still get exiled or does he take up his command in Sicily?' Unfortunately for Alkibiades he does not pass go. I'm plotting his fate in the second post; but suffice it to say that he falls victim to his enemies over the Hermae issue. In this TL he never takes up his OTL post in the Sicilian Expedition. The leadership culture in this TL is different at this juncture. There has been no Kleonic period of governance. The survival of Perikles and subsequent promulgation of his policy into reasonably worthy successors has maintained a degree of stability within the Athenian corridors of power that worked against the machinations of an Alkibiades. As he muscled his way to the top he quickly became a persona non grata and his enemies were presented with numerous opportunities to strike him down. There was a perspective of how sad the loss of such an energetic, if flawed, individual; but few showed their hands in support of the volatile young man. He never got past the first accusations of his complicity in the Hermae scandal. Before he had time to butter up key figures or launch into impassioned speeches before the assembly he was quickly done away with. In fact, it is a disquieting aspect of the leadership at this time that they willingly turned aside and allowed the execution on such clearly dubious grounds instead of seeking to turn the situation in their favour. Ranks were closed and Alkibiades could find no way through. Pity; as an historical figure his later antics are fascinating. Roh. Subject: Re: WI Thassalokratia: Avoiding Hellenic Impotence Pt 1 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 06:04:08 -0500 From: "Mark R. Whittington" Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 That implies he's going to be killed rather than exiled, since his "later antics"included aiding and abetting the enemies of Athens. Fascinating.