AH challenge: Alternate Roman Expansion

Hello, fellow AHers! I'm new here!:D
So the challenge is to have the romans conquered Gaul and Egypt between 200 and 100 BC, while Greece and Carthage is conquered between 100 and 0 BC.
Is that possible?
(oh, and sorry for my bad english, I'm an Asian:cool:)
 

Typo

Banned
Because clash between Carthage and Rome seems to be pretty much inevitable in the given time frame.

Greece on the other hand, was territory the Romans took rather reluctantly. And was basically conquered because it was better than the alternatives, it required repeated and avoidable escalations in Roman involvement to get to that point. If you have a more cautious series of Macedonian kings who avoided siding with Hannibal and reigning in the Illyrian pirates, then Greece and Macedon remains independent for a lot longer.
 
I agree with your opinion about Greece and Macedon, but how about a "cautious series" of carthiginian senate? Is that impossible?
Oh and how do you think about Gaul and Egypt?
 

Typo

Banned
Gaul could definitely be taken earlier if war with Carthage is avoided.

Egypt...I can't see the Romans taking it before it had already gobbled up most of the Hellenic world and before imperial politics rose up.
 
If Carthage decided not to expand into Hispania, Rome might concentrate its activities there. Compared to Italia, it is huge, full of fierce opponents but still a kind of "land of opportunity" for settlers. If Rome develops its interest into this region as in OTL around 220 BC, Iberia might keep them occupied for almost a century until Carthage sees renewed pressure.

Considering Gaul, I do not see an earlier expansion there except for the Narbonensis.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I have thinking about this for a while and this is what I get:
The Roman-Carthiginian alliance (which have been formed against Pyrrhus) is renewed, then the western Mediteranean is flourished by trade between both sides.
The Senate choose to directing Roman army to Gaul, and in around 200 BC the entire Gaul is conquered by Roman generals Gaius Claudius Nero, Marcus Livius Salinator, and Cornelius Scipio "Gallicus" (the generals that fighting Carthage in OTL).
Meanwhile, Seleucids has formed an alliance with Ptolemies against Macedon, which forced Macedon to requesting help from Rome. The Roman army (with help from Macedon, Pergamum, and Rhodes) under general Quintus Caecilius Metellus and Lucius Mummius "Aegypticus" (generals who fought Macedon in OTL) has succesfully conquer Egypt and Syria around 150 BC.
A hundred years later, Julius Caesar conquer Macedon and Greece, while Pompey conquer Carthage and Numidia.
IMO, this scenario will led to earlier Roman incursion into Germania, Britannia, Mesopotamia, and Nubia, and then (of course) to a larger and longer-lasting Roman Empire.
Plausible? Implausible? Someone have another idea?
 
Okay, I have thinking about this for a while and this is what I get:
The Roman-Carthiginian alliance (which have been formed against Pyrrhus) is renewed, then the western Mediteranean is flourished by trade between both sides.
The Senate choose to directing Roman army to Gaul, and in around 200 BC the entire Gaul is conquered by Roman generals Gaius Claudius Nero, Marcus Livius Salinator, and Cornelius Scipio "Gallicus" (the generals that fighting Carthage in OTL).
Meanwhile, Seleucids has formed an alliance with Ptolemies against Macedon, which forced Macedon to requesting help from Rome. The Roman army (with help from Macedon, Pergamum, and Rhodes) under general Quintus Caecilius Metellus and Lucius Mummius "Aegypticus" (generals who fought Macedon in OTL) has succesfully conquer Egypt and Syria around 150 BC.
A hundred years later, Julius Caesar conquer Macedon and Greece, while Pompey conquer Carthage and Numidia.
IMO, this scenario will led to earlier Roman incursion into Germania, Britannia, Mesopotamia, and Nubia, and then (of course) to a larger and longer-lasting Roman Empire.
Plausible? Implausible? Someone have another idea?

It is not only unpleasing to the eye on a map, but seems very fragmentented. I doubt that an expansion into the Levante is viable without either conquering Carthage or Greece.

Also you need Carthage as well as Macedonia to act friendly until it is their day to be gobbled up. I doubt it would work that way.

It should also be debatable whether conquering Gaul could work just as well as the struggle against Carthage in terms of spoils of war, political will to fight all the way to the North Sea, gaining of military (and naval!) experience and consolidating the hold on Italia. Also there is the question of Hispania. Would it fall to Carthage uncontested? Be left alone?

IMHO, this thread shouldn't try to put the whole Roman expansion upside down. Smaller changes would have great effects just as well.

What about Caesar assuming command anywhere else but in the Narbonensis and working his way from there? Conquering Dacia, or fighting in the East like Crassus.

What about Claudius instad of invading Britannia renewing the advance into Germania, making a step by step approach continued by his successors until Hadrian erects the Limes between Danube and Moldau.
 
It is not only unpleasing to the eye on a map, but seems very fragmentented. I doubt that an expansion into the Levante is viable without either conquering Carthage or Greece.

Also you need Carthage as well as Macedonia to act friendly until it is their day to be gobbled up. I doubt it would work that way.

It should also be debatable whether conquering Gaul could work just as well as the struggle against Carthage in terms of spoils of war, political will to fight all the way to the North Sea, gaining of military (and naval!) experience and consolidating the hold on Italia. Also there is the question of Hispania. Would it fall to Carthage uncontested? Be left alone?

IMHO, this thread shouldn't try to put the whole Roman expansion upside down. Smaller changes would have great effects just as well.

What about Caesar assuming command anywhere else but in the Narbonensis and working his way from there? Conquering Dacia, or fighting in the East like Crassus.

What about Claudius instad of invading Britannia renewing the advance into Germania, making a step by step approach continued by his successors until Hadrian erects the Limes between Danube and Moldau.

If Carthage and Macedon are friendly enough to Rome (by making them a client states maybe?) and if there are an increased threats from Gauls, Ptolemies, and Seleucids, I think it's not impossible for the Senate to turning their eyes on them rather than taking care friendly states nearby.
And I have some problem for your scenarios:
1.Dacia is rich, of course, but if Caesar conquered it instead of Gaul, it will be hard for the Romans to find a good natural borders. There is a good Vistula-Dniester line, but to get there the Romans will be forced to conquer Germania, and without conquering Gaul beforehand it will looks fragmented and unpleasant like you said.
2.If Caesar attacking the East, wouldn't he be slaughtered by Parthian horse archers like Crassus OTL?
3.After the disaster at Teutoburg Forest, I doubt that any Emperor (including Claudius) have the will to conquer Germania beyond the Rhine.

(Anyway, thanks for posting your idea, Hornlia. I'm glad that there is someone else who interested to Roman history.)
 
Now first of all, of course it is nice to turn the developments upside down, but we should keep the scale of changes down. What I wanted to point out is that we are more prone to get plausible developments (which would still be rich of butterflies) if we go for less spectacular PODs.

If Carthage and Macedon are friendly enough to Rome (by making them a client states maybe?)

Now I am a true admirer of all things Roman, but....being friendly enough to the Imperium Romanum to be left alone means giving up ones independance and in the long run voluntary incorporation (à la Pergamon). I cannot imagine powers on the scale of Macedonia or Carthage to do so, not after at least one sound defeat.

and if there are an increased threats from Gauls

Now an increased Gaul thread is imaginable. If you have a POD with that, you could work with the rise of a Celtic Empire. And the Romans have their Celtic trauma....Brennus. Vae victis! Make a timeline of that kind, it might become extremely interesting.

But a threat from Seleucids or Egypt? The enemy of my neighbour is my friend! And most of all, for what reasons should these powers try to threaten Rome?

1.Dacia is rich, of course, but if Caesar conquered it instead of Gaul, it will be hard for the Romans to find a good natural borders.

Undeniable. But what if there is an intrigue which denys Caesar the right to choose his Proconsulate? What if he gets sent to Macedonia instead of the Provincia Narbonensis? He will have to work with what he has.

2.If Caesar attacking the East, wouldn't he be slaughtered by Parthian horse archers like Crassus OTL?

Well, wouldn't that be tragic?:eek: On the other hand, Crassus never much proved himself to be a military genius.


3.After the disaster at Teutoburg Forest, I doubt that any Emperor (including Claudius) have the will to conquer Germania beyond the Rhine.


  • Well, there were the campaigns of Germanicus under Tiberius, which were apparently coming to early or ended too early.
  • Domitian conquered the Ager Decumatus which is a rather large region in Germania.
  • Marcus Aurelius went on the offensive against the Germanic Marcomanniae in nowadays Czech Republic
  • Recent evidence shows that the Romans still campaigned in Northern Germany during the first half of the 3rd century
We should also bear in mind that the conquest of e.g. Britain was not undertaken in a few years, but it was a protracted campaign taking several decades, and not without setbacks.

(Anyway, thanks for posting your idea, Hornlia. I'm glad that there is someone else who interested to Roman history.)

You are welcome.
 
This is unrelated, perhaps off-topic, but when the Roman Empire was at its height, did most Romans in the West speak Latin, and most Romans in the East speak Greek, and they were wiped out by the barbarians et cetera? Or were the Latin speakers mostly in Iberia and Italy, and Greek speakers in Greece and Anatolia, people spoke other languages elsewhere, and the barbarians didn't really change anything? Or am I just completely wrong?

NOW ON-TOPIC:

Because clash between Carthage and Rome seems to be pretty much inevitable in the given time frame.

Greece on the other hand, was territory the Romans took rather reluctantly. And was basically conquered because it was better than the alternatives, it required repeated and avoidable escalations in Roman involvement to get to that point. If you have a more cautious series of Macedonian kings who avoided siding with Hannibal and reigning in the Illyrian pirates, then Greece and Macedon remains independent for a lot longer.
He never said what the POD had to be.

If, around the time the first Punic War occurred OTL, the Greek states in Ital were united, or at least in some sort of League, then perhaps Rome and Carthage could be allies against that League. After that, Rome could focus on Gaul and Hispania. I'm not sure how to fit Egypt into this though.
 
This is unrelated, perhaps off-topic, but when the Roman Empire was at its height, did most Romans in the West speak Latin, and most Romans in the East speak Greek, and they were wiped out by the barbarians et cetera? Or were the Latin speakers mostly in Iberia and Italy, and Greek speakers in Greece and Anatolia, people spoke other languages elsewhere, and the barbarians didn't really change anything? Or am I just completely wrong?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Latin serves as the lingua franca both in the West and the East. However, many Greeks work as tutors and teachers so that Greek becomes some sort of "educational" language in the Roman Empire.
The barbarians have their own language (Germanic), and when they come...well, just look to present day European language.
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French all are heavily influenced by Latin, while English and German are more Germanic-oriented.
(although they have borrowed many words from Latin too).
 
If, around the time the first Punic War occurred OTL, the Greek states in Ital were united, or at least in some sort of League, then perhaps Rome and Carthage could be allies against that League. After that, Rome could focus on Gaul and Hispania. I'm not sure how to fit Egypt into this though.

That's an interesting idea, it can be served as catalyst for a prolonged Roman-Carthaginian alliance.
About Egypt...does my idea about Romans-Macedonians VS Seleucids-Ptolemies
sound implausible...?
 

Typo

Banned
Ummm, well, Rome and Carthage actually -did- ally against the Greek cities, but the result of that was the Pyrrhic war which broke the power of the Greeks in southern Italy.
 
Ummm, well, Rome and Carthage actually -did- ally against the Greek cities, but the result of that was the Pyrrhic war which broke the power of the Greeks in southern Italy.
I meant if the Greek cities were all united as an actual empire, republic, or League. Then the war happens in the 260s like the first Punic war.
 

Typo

Banned
Pretty much what happened OTL.

The Greeks are crushed, Rome and Carthage turn on each other afterward.
 
This is unrelated, perhaps off-topic, but when the Roman Empire was at its height, did most Romans in the West speak Latin, and most Romans in the East speak Greek, and they were wiped out by the barbarians et cetera?

That comes close. Of course, there were regional languages galore, but the general tendency was that those would lose importance not only during the height of the Imperium, but for as long as it lasted.

It very much depended on the degree of Romanization resp. Hellenization. And, on the other hand, it surely depended on the degree to which civilization had been smashed to pieces during the decline of the empire(s).

Basically the complete Western Roman Empire still speaks languages which are directly derived from spoken Latin ("Vulgar Latin"): Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, French, the small Alpine languages - and the odditiy - Romanian (despite the province of Dacia only existing for about 160 years!). It is safe to assume, that there were regional dialects as it is usual in languages which stretch over such an empire. Just have a look at the many variations of the English language. Without the context of the empire, these dialects began to develop further apart. It is said that e.g. in France, the transformation into French had reached the point where colloquial Latin was not understood any more had been reached at some point during the 8th century.

Few languages reflect the languages of those people the Romans conquered: Basque, Cymraeg (in Wales).

Despite the extent of the Germanic kingdoms from the 5th century onwards, Germanic languages could only become important at the periphery of the Western Roman Empire, in Germany and Britannia.

The situation with the Arab language is different (likewise Turkish)- these conquerors were able to introduce their own language on the population of the Orient, Northern Africa and, for a time, Spain. I speculate that the sacral status of the Arab language helped this development.

On the other hand, also the Slav invaders on the Balkans were able to make their languages dominant in the former provinces of Moesia, Dalmatia and Illyria.
 
Top