Stillborn Rome: Who dominates the Mediterranean

[Skallagrim]

I'm not at all certain the Greek states would be that one sidedly pro-Phillip. Certainly they're not going to be welcoming a Seleucid yoke but neither are they going to be welcoming a Macedonian yoke. Why side with Phillip against Antiochus when Phillip is the more immediate presence, and at least initially the Seleucids will downplay any desires for conquest. They can always turn on the Seleucids later-like they did the Romans after their usefulness ran out, and like they almost certainly would have attempted with Antiochus had he triumphed. Perhaps conquest is off the table, but Antigonid Macedon is always going to be tied down in intra Greek affairs

Well, "one-sidedly" can be seen in gradations. There are those opposed, but I'm fairly sure they could be kept in line with relative ease. After all, Philip's full ambitions regarding Greece in the context of the Social War were interrupted by... Roman shenanigans. Hannibal was doing his thing, and Philip sought to exploit that. This came back to bite him. Rome allied with the Aetolian League in 211 BC, and then Pergamon was convinced to act on Rome's behalf. Philip still won, but without Rome, all this would have gone quite differently. To the tune of: Philip gets to own Greece, because he's never side-tracked and also basically no-one can beat him.

Pergamon? They failed even in OTL, and their position is weaker here. Antiochus is going to be eager to ally with Philip - as in OTL - so he can crush Pergamon and then divvy up the northern Ptolemaic holdings between himself and Philip (again, OTL). Conceivably, Antiochus could turn against Philip right thereafter, but I really think it's more likely that he'll focus on the Ptolemies instead (once more, as per his OTL strategy). Which would give the Antigonid Kingdom at least some time to consolidate. Time it would probably use wisely.

Sooner or later, and probably sooner, the Seleucids will become a threat to the Antigonids again. Sure. But Philip V had a lot of supporters, and was seen as a very generous and beloved ruler. If he proves a benevolent hegemon, I don't see a substantial Greek contingent turning against him just because the Seleucids make pretty promises. Sticking with Philip, "beloved of the Hellenes", really seems like the better option.

There's also another route this could take of course. IOTL there was that agreement between Phillip V and Antiochus to partition the Ptolemaic Empire after the death of Ptolemy IV. Now while I doubt that agreement will hold long term, it doesn't necessarily need to for it to be put into practice. Certainly a free hand in gaining hegemony in the Aegean is too attractive for Phillip to pass up (and, as seen IOTL, he didn't pass it up) and for Antiochus it neatly wraps up his issues in the west in the short term. Without Roman interference, Antionchus's plans won't be interrupted. He can continue seizing Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor before moving back on to Egypt after Panium, while Philip is embroiled in the Cretan War. I'm not sure how successful any invasion of Egypt would be but certainly the Ptolemies are in a precarious position dealing with the Egyptian Revolt. The opportunity is there.

This actually pretty much fits with what I outlined above-- although obviously it involves much earlier Seleucid action against the Ptolemies than I'd imagine. It's a gutsy move, and if it succeeds, it will no dout get the Seleucids supremacy. A matter of building up their power base, waiting out the Antigonids, and striking when they make a mistake (which everyone eventually does). But on the other hand, if this fails, it carries great risks. An invasion of Egypt is not the same as a war in Syria. And Philip, even involved in war elsewhere, will no doubt make peace on any terms he can get and speed for Egypt. Because he'll be there to liberate. And if Philip manages to win and succesfully defends Egypt, Antiochus has just given Egypt to his rival on a silver platter...

I'm not so sure he'd take that risk. OTL Seleucid policy regarding Egypt was more "weaken, weaken weaken". Soften it up before landing the killing blow. Antiochus may not want to jump the gun there. (Although I admit, if he wins, it will win him immortality. What a move that would be!)

Could a westward-looking Epirus become a state of consequence? I know Pyrrhus' conquests were prompted by Roman aggression, but Magna Graecia could still be threatened by other Italic peoples, and Sicily has a Carthaginian problem that the Romans aren't around to fix. A kingdom comprising Epirus-South Italy-Sicily would make an interesting counterbalance to Carthage and seems like it would be in a good position to be a strong naval power, but I don't know if those territories could have really held together as a polity.

The POD for this whole scenario could conceivably be a total Roman disaster during the Pyrrhic War, with ill fortune striking them at every turn: commanders dying, their armies repeatedly facing adverse conditions by sheer bad luck and getting solidly beaten, and then an ill-timed plague decimating them. To top it off, retreating soldiers carry that plague back to Rome, and it gets hit hard by that. Basically every other Italic people takes advantage in the worst way. Rome gets burned to the ground by looting Samnites. End of story.

The problem is that this almost certainly changes the further life of Pyrrhus, and then the whole history of Greece is affected, etc. etc. -- and then all our fancy extrapolations on what Philip V and Antiochus III might do become meaningless, because they'll be butterflied. But assuming the above POD (and frankly, I have trouble thinking of something else to really crush Rome post-Alexander!), and accepting for the moment that Pyrrhus goes back to Epirus, intervenes in Macedon as per OTL, and later dies in a dumb way at about the same point in time, we can (with just a little butterfly repellant) keep the events and players in the Eastern Med pretty much the same as in OTL up to the point of Rome's OTL interference there.

For Italy, this means major changes. Megale Hellas is preserved, at least the peninsular part. Sicily, without Rome, is facing Carthage and will in all likelihood get absorbed. I have little doubt that Carthage will not stop with Sicily, and will also grab up Sardinia and Corsica (in addition to the Balearics and its substantial holdings in Iberia). North of Megale Hellas, the demise of Rome leads to squabbling Etruscans, Samnites, and so on and so forth. A great big mess-up. In other words: ripe for some invading Celts to roll in sooner or later.

Assuming that Celts do successfully invade Rome-less Italy, I wonder if Megale Hellas can resist. Possibly not by itself, which would lead them to call for aid from their fellow Greeks. Lots of potential there! Epirus going for it? Dangerous, because the Antigonids can stab them in the back. The Antigonids going for it? Dangerous, because the Seleucids can conspire with Epirus against them. Epirus and the Antigonid Kingdom joining forces to intervene on behalf of Megale Hellas? Probably the likeliest option.

Which would nicely occupy them in the west, giving the Seleucids a chance to move against Ptolemaic Egypt. (@SlyDessertFox will like that!)

 

[Historyman 14]

Ptolemaic Kingdom's navy was, for a time, one of the strongest in the Mediterranean before it decline under figures like Ptolemy IV and so on. If you can keep the Ptolemaic Kingdom strong and stable, or make a comeback of somekind, they could keep this.

Before Rome, Carthage was the big kid on the block before it got screw over in the Punic Wars. If the POD is Pyrrhic War and Rome gets wreck, it would be mostly smooth sailing for Carthage.

You have the Greeks in Gaul base around Marseille, having a good deal with the coast of southern Gaul, and was a centre of culture. If Carthage focus on Hispania and Megale Hellas and coming to blows with the Ptolemaic Kingdom, Marseille could become a power of itself.

The Celts was not the wild barbarians Rome and general public see them.They had cities, and all that, but they always lack a true uniting force they could become a Empire, or Major power, and was always warring tribes.

Could the POD save the Etruscan?

 

[Magnum]

Without the Romans, Pyrrhus probably takes up the offer of Kingship over Macedonia at the time of the Celtic invasion. The ever-present Samnite threat in southern Italy will eventually force local Hellenistic city-states to accept Epirote-Macedonian (let's call it 'pyrrhic') overlordship. During times of strength, this state could end up dominating most of Italy, Illirya and Thrace and contest the western end of Anatolia.

Without the Romans, the Ptolemies are gonners. It was Roman threats that ultimately prevented the Seleucids from just marching in and taking the place. That said, it's not a given that the Syria-centred Seleucids will be able to maintain control over their eastern holdings, whether due to a dynastic split, a local uprising, the Parthians/Baktrians swooping in, or a combination of the above. I doubt they would be able to consistently project power into mainland Greece while the Pyrrhic dynasty is strong. Also, the interior of Anatolia or Armenia will be a bitch to control effectively.

Lastly, the Carthaginians are probably not going anywhere, but neither are they able to expand significantly IMO. In fact, they're even liable to actually lose Spain alltogether if a particular family (say, the Barcids) is feeling particularly independent-minded - with the resulting state eventually going 'native'.

So basically a three-way split, with the borders see-saw-ing based on various factors, but with neither power's core territory being threatened. Kinda like '1984'

 

[Historyman 14]

View attachment 364674

Without the Romans, Pyrrhus probably takes up the offer of Kingship over Macedonia at the time of the Celtic invasion. The ever-present Samnite threat in southern Italy will eventually force local Hellenistic city-states to accept Epirote-Macedonian (let's call it 'pyrrhic') overlordship. During times of strength, this state could end up dominating most of Italy, Illirya and Thrace and contest the western end of Anatolia.

Without the Romans, the Ptolemies are gonners. It was Roman threats that ultimately prevented the Seleucids from just marching in and taking the place. That said, it's not a given that the Syria-centred Seleucids will be able to maintain control over their eastern holdings, whether due to a dynastic split, a local uprising, the Parthians/Baktrians swooping in, or a combination of the above. I doubt they would be able to consistently project power into mainland Greece while the Pyrrhic dynasty is strong. Also, the interior of Anatolia or Armenia will be a bitch to control effectively.

Lastly, the Carthaginians are probably not going anywhere, but neither are they able to expand significantly IMO. In fact, they're even liable to actually lose Spain alltogether if a particular family (say, the Barcids) is feeling particularly independent-minded - with the resulting state eventually going 'native'.

So basically a three-way split, with the borders see-saw-ing based on various factors, but with neither power's core territory being threatened. Kinda like '1984'

What, no love for the Greeks of Marseille?

 

[Magnum]

What, no love for the Greeks of Marseille?

none whatsoever

 

[Eruntano]

View attachment 364674

Without the Romans, Pyrrhus probably takes up the offer of Kingship over Macedonia at the time of the Celtic invasion. The ever-present Samnite threat in southern Italy will eventually force local Hellenistic city-states to accept Epirote-Macedonian (let's call it 'pyrrhic') overlordship. During times of strength, this state could end up dominating most of Italy, Illirya and Thrace and contest the western end of Anatolia.

Without the Romans, the Ptolemies are gonners. It was Roman threats that ultimately prevented the Seleucids from just marching in and taking the place. That said, it's not a given that the Syria-centred Seleucids will be able to maintain control over their eastern holdings, whether due to a dynastic split, a local uprising, the Parthians/Baktrians swooping in, or a combination of the above. I doubt they would be able to consistently project power into mainland Greece while the Pyrrhic dynasty is strong. Also, the interior of Anatolia or Armenia will be a bitch to control effectively.

Lastly, the Carthaginians are probably not going anywhere, but neither are they able to expand significantly IMO. In fact, they're even liable to actually lose Spain alltogether if a particular family (say, the Barcids) is feeling particularly independent-minded - with the resulting state eventually going 'native'.

So basically a three-way split, with the borders see-saw-ing based on various factors, but with neither power's core territory being threatened. Kinda like '1984'

Of these three realms Cartage seems safest from external threats pyrrhyc kingdom is going to get hammered by celts, especially in Italy And seleukid syria Is target for parthians or persians. However Cartage is probably also weakest militarily.