Ancient Israel Invicta and other Alternate Timelines

I'm fairly new to AH.com, so I don't know if there's a dedicated thread for ideas of alternate timelines, nor do I know if the following ideas have already been proposed or published. Please let me know if either type of thread (general ideas, or one of these specific timelines) exist.

[Also, I first posted this to the AH Writer's Forum, but realized this forum would probably be a better fit, so I apologize].

As for the ideas themselves:

1) Ancient Israel Invicta.

The two great Kings of Israel, David and Solomon, unified the land of Palestine against Philistine incursions and made Israel into one of the most influential kingdoms in the region. What if the Kingdom was not split after Solomon's death, and continued to increase in power?

Given that the Bible records Solomon as having strong ties to the Phoenicians, allying with them to provide the resources for building the first Temple, it wouldn't be hard to envision that alliance strengthening until it resembles a 'Union' a la Denmark-Norway or Poland-Lithuania. Then Israel would have a base from which to colonize or influence much of the rest of the Mediterranean, including Greece, possibly including Carthage, which means it might later butt heads with Rome.

[Edit: I wonder if King Solomon might be inclined to build up Israeli industry to some degree, which would mean 'King Solomon's Mines' might not be so apocryphal in this TL.]

Short term, Israel would have to face off against incursions from Egypt (a successful campaign there might give Israel control over the Nile delta or even the lower Nile region) and Assyria (among other Mesopotamian empires).

With sufficient expansion, you might see an earlier development of the Hebrew faith from a Temple-centric religion to something approaching modern Judaism, centered around local synagogues. It'd also be interesting to see how the expanding borders and power of a Israel-based empire intersects with the Jewish tradition of a Messiah from the line of David, who will bring forth the kingdom of God. Due to the Babylonian conquest and Exile of the Jewish people, that Messianic promise was largely assumed to refer to temporal (physical, political) power, which meant that Christianity re-interpretation of the Messianic texts as speaking of a spiritual kingdom of God came as quite a surprise. Perhaps this ATL interpretation would more closely resemble the Christian/Catholic idea -- if Israel already has political power, an unrealized future 'kingdom of God/heaven' would have to be something new, something unseen.

2) Earlier Origin of Classical Economics

I've seen a few threads that hypothesize the survival of one of the great commercial empires of the medieval world (such as the Republic of Venice, or the Hanseatic League). While those are admittedly interesting, I'd like to propose a somewhat broader point of divergence.

If you asked them when 'economics' began as a subject, most people would point to the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith. The reality is, Smith really didn't contribute that much -- most of his observations were taken from the French Physiocrats (who are severely misrepresented by most history texts, if they are even mentioned at all), who owed much of their ideas to earlier theorists arising out of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

The problem was that, for much of medieval and modern history, economic policy for virtually every nation was essentially mercantilist in nature --they centered around increasing the coffers of the state (bullionism), increasing land for agricultural use (agrarianism), increasing population (labor theory of value (and increasing national self-sufficiency (favorable balance of trade).

It wasn't until Adam Smith came around that these ideas started taking root in England, which was one of the earliest nations to even consider rejecting mercantilism. It wasn't until even after that, with Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo, that classical economics developed into something we would recognize today, with Say's Law of Markets, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, such concepts as 'entrepreneurship,' etc.

Now, much of this theoretical advancement may be contingent of historical events. The High Middle Ages bore witness to many developing institutions, such as banking in Italy, bond markets in Venice, stock exchanges in Amsterdam, etc. Many times it was personal experience with such institutions that inspired various economists to come up with their theories. But not always, and that's what I'd like to explore.

What if... there was an earlier development of the seminal notions of modern economics? Specifically I'm thinking of two elements: first, the acceptance of industry and commerce as essentially productive elements in society (contra the nearly universal notion that only agriculture is productive), and second, the concept of comparative advantage (Ricardo's theory that if one nation specializes in good A, and another nation specializes in good B, and they trade, they will both be better off than they were before -- i.e., have more of both good A and good B than when they started).

If these theories were discovered earlier (perhaps pushing forward others as well), what effect might that have? Well, the French philosopher Montesquieu argued that nations that trade together extensively tend to trust each other and profit from each other and therefore don't go to war with each other as often (lest they risk that trust and profit). Erasing the social taboo against non-agricultural work would allow for a more rapid growth of the middle class (diverting resources from warfare to commerce and industry, and ensuring that bored nobles have an outlet for their restlessness besides constant warfare).

And, as mentioned above, sophisticated economic theories might enable various commercial republics (e.g., Venice) or leagues (e.g., the Hanseatic one) to optimize their domestic and foreign policies, enabling them to flourish even in the face of increasingly powerful nation-states after the treaty of Westphalia. In other words, who knows, but it'll be a wild ride.

3) ATL Voyage of Saint Brendan

I've read a number of books that indicate that Columbus' single-minded pursuit of lands across the Atlantic may have been inspired by his reading of 'The Voyage of Saint Brendan,' a rather legendary Irish monk who was born c. 500 AD. The 'Voyage' tells of Brendan's adventures at sea with a dozen or so other monks, in which they encounter many lands and fantastical creatures. Some modern readers have argued that the 'Voyage' actually describes a round-trip from Europe to America and back.

Let's concede for the moment that this interpretation is correct, that the Irish monk did discover America, and later inspired Columbus. Here's the divergence point: what if... Brendan never returned, and his 'Voyage' was never written? Brendan was known for having previously circumnavigated Ireland, founding new monasteries and Christian communities wherever he made landfall. What if he took the same approach when he discovered America?

Even if his crew was limited solely to himself and a dozen other monks, Brendan might still have an influence on later history. Imagine an Irish monastery planted on the shores of the Potomac, Brendan and the others hard at work learning the native languages to convert the locals. Imagine him teaching literacy to the locals, transcribing by hand a copy of the Bible... and then perhaps a few works by Plato, Cicero, or other Greek or Latin authors. Imagine if he tried to recall and teach various technologies that he'd witnessed from Europe. And imagine if one of the monks in Brendan's crew carried a dormant form of smallpox or some other horrible disease....

All of these elements would be incredibly disruptive to native American society, but it would given them several hundred years to regroup before European began to colonize the world (perhaps longer if, as we posit, Columbus was no longer inspired by Brendan...)

Another thing to consider is that none of these changes require Brendan or the others to be able to marry and reproduce. I don't know canon law as it applies to monks in sixth century Ireland, but I'm pretty sure all monks took a vow of chastity. But I don't know if that would have applied to priests at the time, and I know it would have applied to lay Christians who decide to join a pilgrimage. What if Brendan had sailed a bigger boat, or sailed several all together, and other Christians came with him? Instead of just founding a monastery, they might found a small town. Would they avoid the fate of Roanoke, and create a quasi-European colony on the shores of North America, five hundred years before the Vikings and a thousand before Europeans expand westward in force?
 
Last edited:
Regarding an earlier origin of economics you might be interested to read about the Salamanca School, a 16th century luso-hispanic theological school considered by Schumpeter to have founded economics. Some conclusions they reached were very very similar to the classical liberalism of a few centuries later.

The Wiki's article on the Salamanca School
 
4) ATL Consequences to the Fourth Crusade

As a Christian, I was appalled when I first read about the Fourth Crusade and how it took such a brutal detour away from its appointed destination, how Venice swayed the leaders to sack Zara and ultimately Constantinople itself.

I've seen a number of timelines that posit a late Byzantine Empire that managed to recover from the depredations inflicted on it by the West.

However, I don't believe I've seen a TL that sets as its PoD a vastly different response from the Pope. If I recall the history correctly, the Pope did excommunicate the Crusaders following their sack of Zara, but soon thereafter revoked the excommunication of most soldiers, choosing instead to blame the Venetians?

What if the excommunications were sustained, especially after the sack of Constantinople. In OTL, Pope Innocent III roundly rebuked the returning crusaders, but I couldn't find any specific penalties he placed on them. Indeed, he accepted the Crusaders' gifts of gold and jewels, and later accepted the presence of Eastern prelates in the Fourth Lateran council; both of which implicitly legitimized the Western conquest of the Byzantines).

What if that wasn't the case? What if Pope Innocent III followed up on his rebuke and actually did something about it -- refuse the gold and jewels, excommunicate the Crusaders en masse (not just the Venetians), deny the legitimacy of Eastern prelates, rally the West to condemn the Crusaders and make restitution to the deposed Byzantines? After all, the earlier excommunication had been excused because it was reported that the Venetians had been blackmailing the soldiers to attack Zara, but that excuse hardly served after Constantinople, especially since it was the common soldier who was responsible for much/all of the pillaging.

The specific image I have in mind, that prompted this ATL, is a picture of Innocent III disembarking on the shores by Constantinople, dressed in sackcloth and ashes.

I have no idea of the political situation in East or West at the time (this period is not one of my specialties), so I don't know how well these responses might have worked, or what their geo-political aftereffects might be. But I do wonder if such an immediate and universal response might have partly healed the breach between East and West, especially if the Pope managed to get the West to help rebuild the Byzantine strength. Likewise, if the Pope rallied enough strength, if he was charismatic enough to rally the Crusaders, perhaps he might have arranged for them to arrest the Venetian leaders of the Crusade, or besiege Venice itself, leading to an early end to the commercial republic.

Others would probably know better than me what other consequences might arise from this ATL.
 
Regarding the Ancient Israel TL, remember how the prophets and chroniclers later opposed any alliance with pagan Phoenicia. When Ahab married Jezebel of Tyre, Elijah viewed her as an implacable enemy, and the scribe who wrote I Kings said "there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up." Even in the days of Solomon himself, there was opposition to his policies, which later underlay Jereboam's revolt.

I'm not saying the TL would be impossible or uninteresting, but it would be even better if it took these factors into account.
 
Regarding an earlier origin of economics you might be interested to read about the Salamanca School, a 16th century luso-hispanic theological school considered by Schumpeter to have founded economics. Some conclusions they reached were very very similar to the classical liberalism of a few centuries later.

The Wiki's article on the Salamanca School

Thanks for the reminder -- I'm more conversant with the early French economists (Renaissance and Enlightenment era), but I know quite a few of them were inspired by writings from the Schoolmen. I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but Acton Institute has done a marvelous job translating a number of Scholastic-era economic texts into modern English. That would make a marvelous point of divergence -- that one person from among the Schoolmen was more gifted at distilling and popularizing economic theories than in developing or contributing to it, and through his efforts early versions of classical economic theories spread through Europe.


Regarding the Ancient Israel TL, remember how the prophets and chroniclers later opposed any alliance with pagan Phoenicia. When Ahab married Jezebel of Tyre, Elijah viewed her as an implacable enemy, and the scribe who wrote I Kings said "there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up." Even in the days of Solomon himself, there was opposition to his policies, which later underlay Jereboam's revolt.

I'm not saying the TL would be impossible or uninteresting, but it would be even better if it took these factors into account.

That... is a very good point. Can't believe I'd forgotten that. Perhaps an alternate point of divergence is called for.

Early Judaism was a very insular faith. Jews regarded themselves as children of a special covenant -- YHWH was described as the "God of Israel," for instance -- and hence rarely made much effort to proselytize among neighboring populations. This insularity was reinforced from the early days before Israel reached Canaan, due to the experience with the golden bull, and later in their frequent conflicts with the Philistines and other northern neighbors, who were quite notorious due to reports of children being sacrificed to the god Moloch.

But this insularity was an artifact of Jewish culture, not the Jewish faith. Many prophets would on occasion direct calls of repentance to non-Jewish people or cities -- most notably Jonah. This was the case even before Israel became a state -- the reason the Jewish people were even tempted to worship a golden bull was because there was a substantial Egyptian population which joined them in their exodus.

So, let's say an early Jonah-like figure was called to preach to the Philistines, or perhaps further north. It wasn't entirely successful, but had two effects: 1) it encouraged a movement in Phoenicia/Tyre away from Moloch-worship, and 2) the story of this prophet's Jonah-like travails -- he fled, belly of a whale, the whole shebang -- encourages a semi-evangelical attitude within Israel.

Over time, both elements developed slowly over the course of several centuries-- sometimes the anti-Moloch Phoenicians were persecuted, sometimes the proselytizing Jews fell prey to scandals of idol-worship. But they grew, until finally both movements became dominant in their respective societies sometime during the reign of King David. He negotiated an alliance with the north to finally defeat the Philistine armies, and this alliance was sealed with a marriage between his son Solomon and the only daughter of the Phoenician royal family (I don't know any details, my apologies).

Solomon's efforts to gather material for the Temple led to a major migration of Jewish skilled labor to the north, and the cultures began to intermingle. Then the Phoenicians lost the bulk of their ruling family during a war with the Hittites or Assyrians -- the battle was won, but the king was lost -- and the remaining royals and nobles negotiated a deal with Solomon: his eldest son with the Phoenician princess would become the ruler of both nations, so long as there was a guarantee that he would not interfere with Phoenician religious practice (sacrifices to Moloch and others obviously exempted). While some Jews object to this latter condition, there is a sufficiently sizable group (the King and his advisors included) who view the arrangement as an ideal way to proselytize among the Phoenicians.

Voila. A personal union between Israel and their seafaring neighbors to the north, without diminishing Jewish religious identity. Perhaps others more conversant with the people and cultures of this time period can tell me how much of this is plausible.
 
Last edited:
So, let's say an early Jonah-like figure was called to preach to the Philistines, or perhaps further north. It wasn't entirely successful, but had two effects: 1) it encouraged a movement in Phoenicia/Tyre away from Moloch-worship, and 2) the story of this prophet's Jonah-like travails -- he fled, belly of a whale, the whole shebang -- encourages a semi-evangelical attitude within Israel.

Over time, both elements developed slowly over the course of several centuries-- sometimes the anti-Moloch Phoenicians were persecuted, sometimes the proselytizing Jews fell prey to scandals of idol-worship. But they grew, until finally both movements became dominant in their respective societies sometime during the reign of King David. He negotiated an alliance with the north to finally defeat the Philistine armies, and this alliance was sealed with a marriage between his son Solomon and the only daughter of the Phoenician royal family (I don't know any details, my apologies).
That is an excellent idea! Might I suggest you perhaps connect your prophet with the northward migration of the tribe of Dan recorded in Judges 18? The book of Judges records they were... um... not too religiously precise OTL, but maybe they're different TTL, or maybe there's one person among them whom God calls to a larger mission...

Regarding Solomon's marriage, remember that it wouldn't necessarily be Solomon himself. He was born rather late in David's reign, and his succession wasn't assured until very close to David's death - remember Adonijah's revolt in 1 Kings 1, which David counters by crowning Solomon immediately.

his eldest son with the Phoenician princess would become the ruler of both nations, so long as there was a guarantee that he would not interfere with Phoenician religious practice (sacrifices to Moloch and others obviously exempted). While some Jews object to this latter condition, there is a sufficiently sizable group (the King and his advisors included) who view the arrangement as an ideal way to proselytize among the Phoenicians.
There would definitely be opposition. But remember that it's easy to say the Law of Moses as such applies only to Israelites and other people within the borders of Israel - not Phoenicia. For example, there's no record that Elisha told Naaman, or Jonah told the Ninevites, or Moses told Jethro, to keep the whole Law. That'd be a very attractive solution TTL, too.
 
That is an excellent idea! Might I suggest you perhaps connect your prophet with the northward migration of the tribe of Dan recorded in Judges 18? The book of Judges records they were... um... not too religiously precise OTL, but maybe they're different TTL, or maybe there's one person among them whom God calls to a larger mission...

"Not too religiously precise" is putting it lightly, :D but I like the idea of using Dan. So let's posit a religious revival among the apostate tribe, perhaps led by the younger son of the ruling family who was appalled by the practices he saw around him growing up (a whole "Samuel called as a youth" deal). He leads by example (the whole "King Josiah" deal) and Dan along with the other northern tribes (which, if I recall, include Naphtali, Asher, and possibly Zebulun) align themselves more firmly within the Jewish faith. But those northern tribes do not lose their connections to the north as they gain connections to Judah and the others to the south.

Certainly this would permit a very different sort of entry in the book of Judges than the OTL version with Samson ("HULK SMASH!")

I was also looking over Genesis 49 (where Jacob blesses his sons, foreshadowing how those tribes are depicted in later books.) Specifically, I noticed two things:

1) Naphtali is described as "a deer let loose; he uses beautiful words." I'm not sure of the religious symbolism of 'a deer,' but this does seem like a fitting description for a tribe of evangelists. Perhaps Dan leads the religious revival of the north (it is described as a "judge of the people of Israel") while Naphtali is where the Jonah-like prophet comes from.

2) the blessing says that Zebulun "shall become a haven for ships." In OTL, this means the tribe lived around the sea of Galilee, but a little rearranging might place them by the Mediterranean and allow them to spearhead the development of a Hebrew navy, initially in competition but perhaps ultimately in conjunction with their Phoenician allies.

Another long-term element for this time-line would be the removal of administrative functions from Jerusalem (which, while eminently defensible, may not be the best or most accessible site for the capital of a growing empire). Perhaps this could occur during the construction of the Temple under King Solomon -- the city is re-organized as a religious center, while the government itself moves elsewhere. I have no ideas where, though. Probably north, to be more central; possibly somewhere on the coast, due to the seagoing nature of this ATL. Perhaps Jaffa? Jericho's another possibility, for its proximity to the river Jordan. No real ideas for this one, though.

Regarding Solomon's marriage, remember that it wouldn't necessarily be Solomon himself. He was born rather late in David's reign, and his succession wasn't assured until very close to David's death - remember Adonijah's revolt in 1 Kings 1, which David counters by crowning Solomon immediately.

Dang. Good point, and this time I have no idea how to work around it. Perhaps the cooperation with Phoenicia led to an earlier assault on the Philistine cities in Gaza, leading to... Bathsheba... leading to an earlier birth of David's heir? Or perhaps the alliance was merely sealed with the promise of such a marriage between Phoenicia's next princess and Israel's next king, leaving the two nations to wait until that time for the alliance to be sealed?


There would definitely be opposition. But remember that it's easy to say the Law of Moses as such applies only to Israelites and other people within the borders of Israel - not Phoenicia. For example, there's no record that Elisha told Naaman, or Jonah told the Ninevites, or Moses told Jethro, to keep the whole Law. That'd be a very attractive solution TTL, too.

Clever, and has the benefit of flowing seamlessly from OTL. Obviously there would be a core of the law that would apply equally to both, but as Israel is 'the chosen people' there'd be more specific laws and provision applied to them.

I wonder if you could get away with making the Ten Commandments the basis for the universal law aspect of such an alliance. The commandment "You shall have no other god before me" isn't as big an obstacle as you'd think -- early Judaism was broadly speaking henotheistic, allowing for the existence of other gods, but recognizing YHWH above all the rest. I could see the alliance working if Phoenicia did lip service to 'YHWH above the others.' The commandment against "making graven images" (idols) is a bit more difficult to fix, but it might work if they borrowed the interpretation of Catholic iconography -- using images to aid worship is fine, so long as the images are not in themselves considered powerful or divine. Still, it'd be troublesome, especially if it wound up diluting Jewish religious/national identity.


One final thought: this would be fairly far down the TL, but Ethiopia was predominantly Jewish by the time you get to the days of Jesus (that's why modern Ethiopia is so strongly Christian OTL). I also seem to recall the Arabian peninsula have a fairly sizable Jewish population around the time of Mohammed (something about him coming into conflict with local Jewish communities, though my memory on that score is pretty hazy).

Regardless, these open up the possibility that a good part of the expansion of ATL Jewish state would be southward, directed along the Red Sea rather than along the coasts of the Mediterranean. This has the possibility of leading to a more central role for Africa in world events, and possibly permitting an early connection by sea between East and West, which would quickly gain importance due to the shifting geopolitical tides in Mesopotamia, with one empire gaining ascendancy over the others and disintegrating in turn.
 
Top