AHC/WI: Rome doesn't adopt Greek culture

In OTL, Rome largely adopted ancient greek culture with their own culture mixed in. What if Rome had never, excluding military tactics, become a Hellenic nation? How badly would this affect the stability of the kingdom/republic/empire? How, assuming this Rome lasts intact until the migrations, would this affect the renaissance and enlightenment?
 
Last edited:
You're looking at some pretty early PODs, as even early Rome had some Hellenic influence--you said military is fine, but the earliest Roman armies using Greek tactics is still a good benchmark. Best way to do this, I think, would just be to remove the temptation at the source: for whatever reason, Archaic Greece never starts colonizing the western Mediterranean, and thus Greek culture never begins to seep into central Italy (at least not nearly to the extent it does OTL). Alternatively, maybe Rome never throws off her kings and becomes increasingly Etruscan. An Etruscan-Punic dominated Italy could be a fun playground.

That said, these early PODs don't just erase any renaissance or enlightenment as we know them, there's a good chance that they erase the Roman Empire as a whole--the Etruscan one especially as the Republic never forms and Rome remains just one minor city-state of many.
 
Last edited:
Who conquered whom never becomes a question? You can't really avoid the Hellenization of Rome, though, even if it doesn't come from the Greek cities, the Etruscans were heavily Greek influenced and they influenced Rome.
 
It’s impossible for Greece to only partially influence Rome, it’s either as in OTL or not at all. To achieve the latter you’d have to butterfly away Greek colonization and all forms of contact between East and West permanently and I don’t see how that could possibly happen.
 
In OTL, Rome largely adopted ancient greek culture with their own culture mixed in. What if Rome had never, excluding military tactics, become a Hellenic nation? How badly would this affect the stability of the kingdom/republic/empire? How, assuming this Rome lasts intact until the migrations, would this affect the renaissance and enlightenment?
There's maybe two things to distinguish there : you had a greek/hellenistic influence in Rome way before the conquest of Hellenistic world by Romans.
Even in the archaic period, Greek influence (either direct trough the presence and influence of Greek traders and cities in Italy; either undirect trough Etrusceans) was real.
Not only in military approach (Roman archaic army was essentially a variation on hoplitic army adapted to mountainous and local warfare) but on economic (coinage and practices), religious (rites and remythologisation), institutional, etc. These influences were limited, but had an important role into the making of Rome, which only grew with the takeover of southern Italy.

It only grew from there historically (amusingly, Romans did went outside Hellenistic warfare box adopting manipular organisation : military tactics was basically THE branch they weren't adopting a lot of hellenistic features IOTL) but limiting the conquests in Mediterranean Basin, especially when it comes to Greece, might limit this. Limit and not butterfly it, because Hellenistic influence was everywhere in Eastern Med. but also Western Med. including Carthage. Its sheer cultural, political and economical weight would impact Rome, even with such a POD
 
An easy way is to have the Phoenicians penetrate deeper into Italy instead of the Greeks. Rome adopts the cult of Baal, Ashera, Astarte, Tanit and Melkart and the Phoenician abjad instead of the Greek alphabet. Just have Tyrians found Carthage in Sicily or southern Italy instead of Tunisia.

As for the consequences, the Greeks may have gone the way of the Phoenicians, with little of their literature surviving (indeed, no Phoenician literature survived except for a translation of Hanno's geographical work, and the closest to native Phoenician literature that isn't the Bible are the Ugarit tablets preserving the myths of Baal and Anat) and even other famous elements like sculpture and architecture as the Romans would not have preserved those as much as it did originally.

This means the continent of Europe would not be called "Europe" since Phoenicians had others names for it, and "European" intellectuals of later eras would not be looking towards Greece but towards Phoenicia and Italian Carthage. In terms of religion, though, something like Christianity could still become the religion of this alternative Phoenicianised Roman Empire, and something like Islam could still conquer over half of this empire like in the OTL.

If this Phoenician ATL "Europe" also still goes the way of colonialism, then Phoenician culture and civilisation would predominate just like Greco-Roman civilisation does right now.
 
Last edited:
An easy way is to have the Phoenicians penetrate deeper into Italy instead of the Greeks. Rome adopts the cult of Baal, Ashera, Astarte, Tanit and Melkart and the Phoenician abjad instead of the Greek alphabet. Just have Tyrians found Carthage in Sicily or southern Italy instead of Tunisia.

As for the consequences, the Greeks may have gone the way of the Phoenicians, with little of their literature surviving (indeed, no Phoenician literature survived except for a translation of Hanno's geographical work, and the closest to native Phoenician literature that isn't the Bible are the Ugarit tablets preserving the myths of Baal and Anat) and even other famous elements like sculpture and architecture as the Romans would not have preserved those as much as it did originally.

This means the continent of Europe would not be called "Europe" since Phoenicians had others names for it, and "European" intellectuals of later eras would not be looking towards Greece but towards Phoenicia and Italian Carthage. In terms of religion, though, something like Christianity could still become the religion of this alternative Phoenicianised Roman Empire, and something like Islam could still conquer over half of this empire like in the OTL.

If this Phoenician ATL "Europe" also still goes the way of colonialism, then Phoenician culture and civilisation would predominate just like Greco-Roman civilisation does right now.

It’s not about colonization, Phoenicians had contacts with the Etruscans and even established a trade settlement within Tuscany, it’s about the intent behind it. Phoenicia was a thalassocracy, its intent never went any further than founding markets across Europe to speed up trade with foreign powers, it had no intention of imposing a military presence upon the areas where the colonies where settled. Carthage in fact proved an exception, as the colony took a life of its own and began battling, successfully, for control over the western Mediterranean, which it held until the second Punic war, but the exception only confirmed the rule, since Spain never identified itself with Lybian culture, despite the extensive presence of Carthage in the peninsula, and the subjected cities in Africa were quick to abandon her once Rome prevailed, Utica being the finest example of this. If you want Phoenicia to influence Europe more deeply than Greece, you’d have to change the very foundation of its society and the mindset of its inhabitants.
 
Alternatively, maybe Rome never throws off her kings and becomes increasingly Etruscan. An Etruscan-Punic dominated Italy could be a fun playground.

As I recall, the Etruscans were influenced by Greece to about the same degree as archaic Rome was. Plus, the evidence suggests that the Etruscans were only ever a minority in the Roman population, so it's more likely that they'd be assimilated than vice versa. (If indeed that didn't happen already IOTL -- Victorian-era ideas about the overthrow of the Roman monarchy as representing some sort of nationalistic backlash notwithstanding, there's no evidence that Tarquinius Superbus was considered a "foreign king", either by contemporaries or by later Romans.)

If you want Phoenicia to influence Europe more deeply than Greece, you’d have to change the very foundation of its society and the mindset of its inhabitants.

IDK about that -- the Greeks didn't do much military conquest in the Western Mediterranean, and that didn't prevent them from influencing the cultures they came into contact with.
 
As I recall, the Etruscans were influenced by Greece to about the same degree as archaic Rome was. Plus, the evidence suggests that the Etruscans were only ever a minority in the Roman population, so it's more likely that they'd be assimilated than vice versa. (If indeed that didn't happen already IOTL -- Victorian-era ideas about the overthrow of the Roman monarchy as representing some sort of nationalistic backlash notwithstanding, there's no evidence that Tarquinius Superbus was considered a "foreign king", either by contemporaries or by later Romans.)



IDK about that -- the Greeks didn't do much military conquest in the Western Mediterranean, and that didn't prevent them from influencing the cultures they came into contact with.

They didn’t, that’s true, but Greek colonies in Italy were defended by a city militia and had their own fleets, giving them a chance to withstand, or recover from, the assault of native populations, and be able to impose themselves as a solid presence in Italy. The impact Greeks had over Etruscans, Romans etc. didn’t show its results right away, it must have taken years, centuries even. If Greek colonies had been wiped out by the locals, or had merely stayed trade centers, I don’t know if said impact would have been the same.
 
IDK about that -- the Greeks didn't do much military conquest in the Western Mediterranean, and that didn't prevent them from influencing the cultures they came into contact with.
On the other hand, Phoenician and Punic influence outside Africa was fairly limited to a part of Spain and...that's it. Even in regions we know they were present (rest of Spain, Sicily, Gaul, parts of Britain) they never had the same level of influence Greeks had on their neighbours even when in love-hate relationship with them. Even in inner Sicily (not ruled by Greek or hellenized people), phoenician influence is superficial at best.
The big exception is with Libyans and Numids people in Africa, and a certain influence over Iberic people in Europe (especially in Betica and among Iberic peoples, altough never to the point to disoldge Greek influence)

I'm not too sure about how it came to be different for Phoenicians and Greeks, altough I suspect that Greeks neighboring relatively sophisticated (institutionally) societies more often than Phoenicians might have led hellenization to find a more fertile ground than phoenisation. I'm not satisfied with this explanation tough, and I'm interested on other members' opinions about it.
 
Top