Sorry, kinda answered a guy before who said that we didn't bring the macedonian states.
A greek city states replaces Rome?
- Thread starter Fabilius
- Start date
Sorry, kinda answered a guy before who said that we didn't bring the macedonian states.
I think Syracuse is one of the best possibilities. They pretty much had dominion over the eastern coast of Sicily IOTL and interests in Italy, and the Syracusan tyrants had semi-monarchical ambitions. Wouldn't take a massive deal of prodding, I don't think, to consolidate Sicily, and go from there.
Alexander's Factor, Hannibal's Presence/Non-Presence
It all depends on Alexander the Great surviving to an older age; what else would he have conquered, and would his troops have continued to follow him beyond India? Would they have mutinied again? Historically, Alexander was thwarted of his ambitions twice: by stubborn refusal of his own soldiers, and by death itself.
It's documented that Alexander planned to march south into Arabia, then take on the Carthaginians. Hannibal wouldn't have been born until decades later, thus Carthage may well have lacked a general to match Alexander's excellent leadership skills. Assuming Macedonia would be flush with success, such peoples assimilated into the phalanx ranks, a massive force would then move on to its next target.
The Romans were known to the Hellenic world - rich in culture, tough, capable, resourceful warriors, backed by a high degree of intelligence. Around this point in the AH timeline, they would have crushed Samnite resistance, laid claims to Sicily, parts of Iberia (partially due to a wane in Carthaginian hegemony of the Mediterranean), perhaps embroiled in a war with the Gauls. In the short term, Alexander's warmongering would have saved Rome from the near-catastrophic Cannae. For a time, the far-sighted politic Roman Senators might have sealed an alliance with Alexander in order to end the Carthaginian threat. However, ultimately, the alternative here might well have been an even worse fate for Rome!
Very likely Alexander wouldn't have dawdled as did Hannibal. I'm certain a besieged Rome by a powerful Hellenic force would have fallen. On the other hand, if by this time he died, then this conceivably would have rent his invading army into seperate factions, civil war divided his empire - and the wily Romans ready to take advantage of any opportunity! We could have seen many such soldiers join in with Rome's ventures towards an Empire of their own...
If Alexander died as he did in OT, then we must ask the question: 'what if Hannibal followed his victory at Cannae through to a conclusion?' The conquest of Rome itself would have left Gaul, southern Europe, and Asia Minor at the mercy of a triumphant Carthage. It's difficult to know if they would have followed Rome's 'gradual web spinning' policy at empire-building (i.e: first North Africa, then Gaul, then hundreds of miles away in Egypt, etc). Would we have seen Numidian mercenaries and Elephants striding ashore to fight the Celts? Or would the great Carthaginian Empire have stalled, never to reach what a fallen Rome 'might' have achieved? Would there have been a mighty war between Carthage and Gaul? Who would win such a premise?
It all depends on Alexander the Great surviving to an older age; what else would he have conquered, and would his troops have continued to follow him beyond India? Would they have mutinied again? Historically, Alexander was thwarted of his ambitions twice: by stubborn refusal of his own soldiers, and by death itself.
It's documented that Alexander planned to march south into Arabia, then take on the Carthaginians. Hannibal wouldn't have been born until decades later, thus Carthage may well have lacked a general to match Alexander's excellent leadership skills. Assuming Macedonia would be flush with success, such peoples assimilated into the phalanx ranks, a massive force would then move on to its next target.
The Romans were known to the Hellenic world - rich in culture, tough, capable, resourceful warriors, backed by a high degree of intelligence. Around this point in the AH timeline, they would have crushed Samnite resistance, laid claims to Sicily, parts of Iberia (partially due to a wane in Carthaginian hegemony of the Mediterranean), perhaps embroiled in a war with the Gauls. In the short term, Alexander's warmongering would have saved Rome from the near-catastrophic Cannae. For a time, the far-sighted politic Roman Senators might have sealed an alliance with Alexander in order to end the Carthaginian threat. However, ultimately, the alternative here might well have been an even worse fate for Rome!
Very likely Alexander wouldn't have dawdled as did Hannibal. I'm certain a besieged Rome by a powerful Hellenic force would have fallen. On the other hand, if by this time he died, then this conceivably would have rent his invading army into seperate factions, civil war divided his empire - and the wily Romans ready to take advantage of any opportunity! We could have seen many such soldiers join in with Rome's ventures towards an Empire of their own...
If Alexander died as he did in OT, then we must ask the question: 'what if Hannibal followed his victory at Cannae through to a conclusion?' The conquest of Rome itself would have left Gaul, southern Europe, and Asia Minor at the mercy of a triumphant Carthage. It's difficult to know if they would have followed Rome's 'gradual web spinning' policy at empire-building (i.e: first North Africa, then Gaul, then hundreds of miles away in Egypt, etc). Would we have seen Numidian mercenaries and Elephants striding ashore to fight the Celts? Or would the great Carthaginian Empire have stalled, never to reach what a fallen Rome 'might' have achieved? Would there have been a mighty war between Carthage and Gaul? Who would win such a premise?
And as soon as Alexander left Africa, it would have revolted. His empire had swollen so large that after his death there was no one man capable of holding it all. His conquest of further land would have just exacerbated the problem- it's likely that Alexander might not be able to even hold onto that land.
I'm not quite sure, however, how relevant this is to the topic at hand- "a greek city state replaces Rome," but it's a reasonable argument.
amphibulous
Banned
The Carthaginians were notorious for using mercenary troops and avoiding fighting. So no.
To romans, carthiginians were also ,easterners' and all that. The rumors of human sacrifices, the use of mercenaries.. they where repugnated, from what I heard.
Greeks... they where kinda decadant, effetes now, but heirs of a glorious culture for a good portion of the roman elites.
It is clear greeks came second - first, delendo carthagum(?). After...
This is not entirely correct. For a start, Carthaginians are actually South of Rome, not east
. You are right that they didn't take too kindly to rumoured sacrifices, but all of the latin testimonies about it come after the Punic Wars when Carthage had been thoroughly villified in Roman culture.And the Romans only came into conflict with Carthage after they had fully absorbed the Greek communities of Italy. Greeks came first. Or at least the Greeks next door to them did. They also had a trade treaty and later alliance with Carthage for a large number of years, the main reason they even became hostile to Rome (and vice versa) is that both powers became involved with the struggles of powers in Sicily.
In other words, it's actually not written in stone that Rome would become Carthage's enemy. The attitude of Roman authors looking back several centuries at the Punic Wars does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of Romans in the early Republic.
To get back to the question, it seems we've decided that Syrakuse and Taras/Tarentum are the most likely candidates for 'successful Italy-based city-state' after Rome. If you go back earlier I'd argue Sybaris is another good candidate. Having decided on those two as our main focus then, what sort of PoD are we looking at?
I don't know, could we possibly see Athens becoming just such the polis needed to step into the role of unifying Greece instead of Sparta? There were many opportunities for the citizenry to be expanded, though I'd say the best would be when many of the mercenary rowers of the Athenian navy were lured away by the pay raise introduced by Lysander with the aid of the Persian gold. Many of the Athenians had to step up to replace the rowers in a very short time period. Maybe the Athenians, faced with such tremendous odds and hardships, extend citizenship to a good amount of people in order to bring a massive amount of manpower to bear that was desperately needed at this time?
Winnabago
Banned
An Alexandrian Arabia is big enough: that means, more importantly, a civilized Arabia oriented more towards the West (i.e., Byzantium).
That means a LOT for Islam’s survival. What if the Muslims were fighting tough, organized troops that outnumbered them three to one, instead of undisciplined nomads that could be broken by sheer Muslim fervor?
Muhammad could have died many times if that was true. A better-united Alexandrian Empire would be the best bet for a Greek-style massive empire.
That means a LOT for Islam’s survival. What if the Muslims were fighting tough, organized troops that outnumbered them three to one, instead of undisciplined nomads that could be broken by sheer Muslim fervor?
Muhammad could have died many times if that was true. A better-united Alexandrian Empire would be the best bet for a Greek-style massive empire.
This is not entirely correct. For a start, Carthaginians are actually South of Rome, not east
And the Romans only came into conflict with Carthage after they had fully absorbed the Greek communities of Italy. Greeks came first. Or at least the Greeks next door to them did. They also had a trade treaty and later alliance with Carthage for a large number of years, the main reason they even became hostile to Rome (and vice versa) is that both powers became involved with the struggles of powers in Sicily.
In other words, it's actually not written in stone that Rome would become Carthage's enemy. The attitude of Roman authors looking back several centuries at the Punic Wars does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of Romans in the early Republic.
To get back to the question, it seems we've decided that Syrakuse and Taras/Tarentum are the most likely candidates for 'successful Italy-based city-state' after Rome. If you go back earlier I'd argue Sybaris is another good candidate. Having decided on those two as our main focus then, what sort of PoD are we looking at?
Despite being southwest of Rome and Greece, Carthaginians were often regarded as a subcategory of "Medes," This was a view oft propagated by Syrakusans.
The guy missed maybe that it was a colony of a phoenician - eastern culture - city-state at first, who became a power and colonial head of it's own too.
Me?
Carthage reputedly sent aid to Tyre when Alexander besieged it- they held the "Mother Country" with great respect, despite the fact that Phoenicia had ceased to be a major power centuries before.
Actually Rome had a pretty good reputation for standing by its allies and in general giving them a pretty good deal for their vassalage.
Me?
Carthage reputedly sent aid to Tyre when Alexander besieged it- they held the "Mother Country" with great respect, despite the fact that Phoenicia had ceased to be a major power centuries before.
My point was, they remained a 'levantine' culture in Africa. Easterners.
Indeed, romans at times did.. things, but they believed in rules of diplomacy, allianmces and all. Betray them, and you paid DIRELY.
Kaiphranos
Donor
If there are any butterflies at all in this world, there will be no Islam. Probably no recognizable Christianity, either...
there would be no islam. there would be no christianity. a christian analogue, eh, maybe if done right. but to further that and create an islamic analogue with such an early POD (at least 900 years earlier) is impossible.
Massalia?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26w5y_iam-le-feu_music
I am sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.
(Anyone know the movie(s) used in this clip, btw?)