World w/ Carthage Win

Say Carthage wins the Punic Wars, Roman power is contained in Italy, etc -- how is the eastern Mediterranean and continental Europe affected in the following centuries? And how does this change Western History over the course of millenia?

The Seleucids have more leg-room to tighten their hold over the Near East, especially against the Parthians encroaching on their eastern lands. Rhodes and Pergamum would be crushed by Antiochus III who have no threat of Rome to concern himself. This might in turn lead to worse relations between Macedon and the Seleucid Empire since Egypt is already subdued and Rome would be crippled by the Punic Wars, depending on the severity of the victory. I think it is likely that there would be a war between the two, which lead to Macedon being incorporated into the Seleucid realm. Pontus and all the smaller Anatolian kingdoms would end up annexed or subjugated. King Ptolemy IV IOTL experienced a native revolt by the Egyptians who sought to expel the Greeks from their homeland and almost succeeded. It could go many ways, with the Egyptians succeeding in overthrowing Ptolemy and re-establishing a native dynasty of pharaohs. If Ptolemy is killed, the Alexandrine Greeks might appeal for Antiochus to conquer Egypt or Antiochus might cut a deal with the native Egyptians, giving them the country in exchange for vassalage and the port of Alexandria to go under Seleucid hands.

Cuahtemoc makes good points though one thing if like to mention is Seleucid control of Greece is going to be short lived. Assuming Antiochus wished to conquer Phillip and Greece, he'd face a whole host of trouble from the Aetolians, the Achaeans, even Athens and Sparta, not to mention the inevitable pretender popping up in Macedon at some point. He doesn't have the resources to focus too much attention on this and besides events in Egypt are far more enticing. After his death however look for a continued fragmentation in the east-by that I mean increased independence of baktria.

As for the western Mediterranean, it depends what exactly happened to Rome?

slydessertfox said:

As for the western Mediterranean, it depends what exactly happened to Rome?

Click to expand...

Defeated in the Second Punic War, as part of the peace was to not expand their influence outside of the Italian Peninsula; so, at best, Rome exists as an Italian power with no real "sea power" to expand her horizons.

Thats not exaclty much worse for Rome than the staus quo ante bellam. Sure, it would hurt to lose Sicilia (ooo my iPhone suggested that instead of Sicily).

Cuāuhtemōc said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

So long story short, the Selucids dominate the Eastern Mediterranean? And I'm guessing Carthage throws her weight in the Western Mediterranean (Spain, Sicily, etc)? Will there be potential between these "empires", or are they more likely to stay out of each other's way?

And of course, there's still the question of Gaul, Germania, etc...

The Carthaginians arre going to end up taking most of Iberia, but the Gauls and Germans remain untouched by anyone.

Harald Sigurdson II said:

The Carthaginians are going to end up taking most of Iberia, but the Gauls and Germans remain untouched by anyone.

Click to expand...

Does this mean that Mediterranean trade routes and politics largely don't affect Central or Northern Europe? Do they never develop more advanced agriculture, complex states, history, etc, and just remain the "barbarians" to southern "civilization" for many more centuries?

John Fredrick Parker said:

Does this mean that Mediterranean trade routes and politics largely don't affect Central or Northern Europe? Do they never develop more advanced agriculture, complex states, history, etc, and just remain the "barbarians" to southern "civilization" for many more centuries?

Click to expand...

Doubt it. Rome's influence would no doubt be diminished due to being nerfed in the Punic Wars but the Gauls would still pick up plenty from the Greek colonists in Massilia and Carthage's empire. Gauls were already building roads, minting coins and its cities, while nothing comparable to Alexandria or Carthage, were growing in size. A prime candidate for the tribe that ends up unifying Gaul would be the Arverni. They have the goldmines, the trade routes and had a professional army under their disposal to unite the tribes. The rival Aedui had a government vaguely familiar to Rome's republican system.

Cuāuhtemōc said:

Rome's influence would no doubt be diminished due to being nerfed in the Punic Wars but the Gauls would still pick up plenty from the Greek colonists in Massilia and Carthage's empire. Gauls were already building roads, minting coins and its cities, while nothing comparable to Alexandria or Carthage, were growing in size. A prime candidate for the tribe that ends up unifying Gaul would be the Arverni. They have the goldmines, the trade routes and had a professional army under their disposal to unite the tribes. The rival Aedui had a government vaguely familiar to Rome's republican system.

Click to expand...

OK, so the Gauls unite under one of these growing tribes. What does that mean for Germania and Britain? And what does this alternate balance of power in the West (Gauls, Carthage, Selucids, et el) mean in the following centuries? Does no Empire comparable to OTL's Rome emerge? If not, what does this, in itself, mean for the region in centuries to come?

Cuāuhtemōc said:

Doubt it. Rome's influence would no doubt be diminished due to being nerfed in the Punic Wars but the Gauls would still pick up plenty from the Greek colonists in Massilia and Carthage's empire. Gauls were already building roads, minting coins and its cities, while nothing comparable to Alexandria or Carthage, were growing in size. A prime candidate for the tribe that ends up unifying Gaul would be the Arverni. They have the goldmines, the trade routes and had a professional army under their disposal to unite the tribes. The rival Aedui had a government vaguely familiar to Rome's republican system.

Click to expand...

More importantly, the Arverni are prime candidates for taking over Massalia. Which is a venerable gold mine as far as access to Mediterranean trade goes. Gaul is a massive market for the Greek and Carthaginian traders.

John Fredrick Parker said:

Defeated in the Second Punic War, as part of the peace was to not expand their influence outside of the Italian Peninsula; so, at best, Rome exists as an Italian power with no real "sea power" to expand her horizons.

Click to expand...

The treaty would have to confine Rome to far less than just the Italian peninsula, or else they are in a prime position to defeat Carthage later (seriously, Italian manpower was ridiculously massive). Something like in Monopolist's timeline, where Rome only controls Latium, Etruria, and IIRC parts of Campania, would work since Rome would have to worry more about the Gauls in the north, the Samnites Samnium, and the Greeks in Magna Graecia (alongside of course, constant Carthage interference/support for these groups).


Anyway, it would be interesting what trade routes Carthages establishes over the next couple of centuries. You might see some Phoenician outposts in Britain.
EDIT: How could I have forgotten-expect for Syracuse to resist Carthaginian rule.

slydessertfox said:

The treaty would have to confine Rome to far less than just the Italian peninsula, or else they are in a prime position to defeat Carthage later (seriously, Italian manpower was ridiculously massive). Something like in Monopolist's timeline, where Rome only controls Latium, Etruria, and IIRC parts of Campania, would work since Rome would have to worry more about the Gauls in the north, the Samnites Samnium, and the Greeks in Magna Graecia (alongside of course, constant Carthage interference/support for these groups).


Anyway, it would be interesting what trade routes Carthages establishes over the next couple of centuries. You might see some Phoenician outposts in Britain.
EDIT: How could I have forgotten-expect for Syracuse to resist Carthaginian rule.

Click to expand...

Indeed Italia was to Europe and the Western Mediterranean what France would be in the 16th to 18th Centuries. However I think that the treaty limits set by JFP are more likely to be an achievable outcome as I suspect any Punic victory would be relatively marginal rather than unequivocal.

At first the Carthaginian authorities would probably assume they could defeat any efforts by Rome to rebuild their naval forces and use their own fleets to support mobile land forces to harass Roman supply lines to the north much as the British would do against Napoleon in OTL.

However the manpower reserves and fiscal resource Rome could call upon would suggest that any Punic ascendancy would remain tenuous at best. In relation to the question of which tribe is most likely to unite Gaul I would cheekily but not unreasonably suggest the Aemilia (Scipios tribe) if not the Julians this time around.

Perhaps during a 'cold war' scenario when each of Carthage and Rome are scrambling for position against the next direct conflict without quite daring to push the other over the edge.

Another element comes to mind -- if the Selucids are doing better overall in the next century (200-100 BCE), is it likely they don't fall or lose as much ground to the Parthians? If not, they might establish trade relations with the east sooner when the Han start sending ambassadors to the far west.

slydessertfox said:

More importantly, the Arverni are prime candidates for taking over Massalia. Which is a venerable gold mine as far as access to Mediterranean trade goes. Gaul is a massive market for the Greek and Carthaginian traders.

Click to expand...

This feels oddly familiar to my past few playthroughs as the Arverni in Rome 2 but yes I do agree.

Another element comes to mind -- if the Selucids are doing better overall in the next century (200-100 BCE), is it likely they don't fall or lose as much ground to the Parthians? If not, they might establish trade relations with the east sooner when the Han start sending ambassadors to the far west.

Click to expand...

I don't think it would really change things. There's still the matter of the Xiongnu who are in between the Seleucids, should they not re-lose control of their eastern satrapies, and the Han dynasty. Maybe instead of building an alliance with the Yuezhi, Zhang Qian or his counterpart would try to foster diplomatic and trade relations with the Seleucids who would have a common enemy in keeping steppe nomads out of their lands. Heck, Confucianism or Legalism might gain a small following in the west.

Cuāuhtemōc said:

I don't think it would really change things. There's still the matter of the Xiongnu who are in between the Seleucids, should they not re-lose control of their eastern satrapies, and the Han dynasty. Maybe instead of building an alliance with the Yuezhi, Zhang Qian or his counterpart would try to foster diplomatic and trade relations with the Seleucids who would have a common enemy in keeping steppe nomads out of their lands. Heck, Confucianism or Legalism might gain a small following in the west.

Click to expand...

It would help that, unlike the Parthians of OTL, the Selucids are unlikely to have a strong empire to their west.

I don't think the Seleucids would necessarily thrive though. They had gone into serious decline before Antiochus III ascended the throne and I can see them regressing after his death. Not to anywhere near the point they would become OTL though

First of all I would like to address the Seleucids because they seem to be a favorite in this thread. I believe that some people are overestimating the Seleucids ability in this scenario. Unless the Seleucids adopt Persian culture and language, almost immediately they will be hard pressed to keep hold of Iran, which once rebelled the Parthians will swoop in like otl and take it all. Without the vast territory of Iran, they are put on a even playing field with the Ptolemics and Armenia and are at a huge disadvantage against Pontus. Once lossed, I feel like the Seleucids will be unable to retake the east. They will then be put in a war zone between Pontus,Armenia,Ptolemics and Parthia, which I doubt they survive.


As far as Ptolemics go, without Rome they will not have a impossibly powerful foe forcing them into submition, will be significantly more stabile. With the rise of Parthia and Pontus it is possible they take the fight to the Seleucids, however I doubt they gain much.

Maurya and Aksum are most likely unaffected. Except for trading partners in the case of Aksum.

Pontus and Armenia however I believe could be the true winners in this scenario. With an adopted Greek culture and language Pontus is set to dominate the Hellenic world like otl if it wasn't for Rome. Armenia with the help of Pontus and Parthia will be able to take Syria. However soon we could see Pontus and Armenia face off against Parthia as the three inevitably battle for Iraq.

Carthage is also being somewhat overestimated. While Carthage will be able to retain naval dominance over the western med. a probable conquest of Sicily, and rule of southern spain, it is unlikely they extend their control over the entirety of Iberia. For one thing Carhage plus all the Punic cities lacked the effective manpower to conquer these areas, especially when Carthage had enough problems with Corisca. Also how exactly will they deal with the Numidians, who will only get stronger and bigger while there is no more Phoenician settlers to bolster the Carthaginian numbers. However I will concede that Carthage will keep a monopoly on sea trade in the western Mediterranean, gaining clients every where it can.

One thing we should consider though, is that Rome still rules all of mainland Italy giving it huge manpower and tax base. Enough to mount a war against Carhage once again. In order to ensure Punic culture and the Carthaginian hegemony, is to remove Rome because unlike tthe others states of the Mediterranean, they did not quit and fought with the vision of an empire whereas Carthage and other city states fought only to ensure wealth and security and would attempt to peace out at the first sign of danger. It is likely that Rome still rises in the west but is unable to conquer the east. Idk enough about the Gauls to make any suggestions on their future, other than to get curbstomped by Rome.

Also a question, does anyone have any thoughts on a continued Maccabee state in this scenario?

What about Sicilian manpower? If Carthage is able to totally control Sicily and incorporate their population, how would that increase the available amount of warriors?

And if Carthage is forced out of most of Iberia and Gaul, could they look outside of the Mediterranean, to Britain and western Africa?

What's really interesting is that we seem to be coming to a consensus that no empire or power is going to come close to Rome's OTL influence -- which, in itself, means massive, fundamental changes for millennia to come. Aside from Rome's influence on language, religion, et el now vanished, we also have to contend with Europe never being as politically bound together around this time, or being as tied (economically, politically, socially, religiously, etc) to the eastern mediterranean. This really is a HUGE change in Western Civilization -- if such a thing can even be said to exist TTL -- and I can't help but think it should be possible for us, in very general terms, to intelligently speculate on these changes over the course of periods 1600 years.

John7755 جوز said:

Also a question, does anyone have any thoughts on a continued Maccabee state in this scenario?

Click to expand...

I imagine they don't do as well as OTL; even if the Selucids aren't wanted, they'll at least do somewhat better, and that alone will be worse for the Jews in the short run. (Mind you, I'm going by what I remember of the Book of Maccabees here, which is likely biased as hell.)