Great update!
Either this is another person, or it seems like Ariobarzanes is in the path of being Messianized.
Either this is another person, or it seems like Ariobarzanes is in the path of being Messianized.
Dream of the Poison King: A History of the Pontic Empire
- Thread starter Nassirisimo
- Start date
I say holy cow.
Nabatea too OP. Please do not nerf.
Seriously, I've never even heard of this nation before this TL, and now, they're just utterly wrecking house. I need to learn more about this Kingdom.
Nabatea too OP. Please do not nerf.
Seriously, I've never even heard of this nation before this TL, and now, they're just utterly wrecking house. I need to learn more about this Kingdom.
Nabatea is cool. Pseudo-hellenized Arabian desert kingdom. Possibly not too OP, in the right circumstances.
Caesar just did Ariobarzanes a big favor, but the Pontic empire is greatly weakened, and I doubt that one victory will be enough to salve Roman pride. It looks like Pontus will have to contend with Rome as a long-term enemy even while it puts itself back together.
Egypt is a wild card, though - Rome already considered it a critically important food source, and a Nabatean conquest might draw the Romans away from Pontus toward the Nile. If that happens, Rome and Pontus may even find themselves temporarily on the same side - stranger things have happened.
Egypt is a wild card, though - Rome already considered it a critically important food source, and a Nabatean conquest might draw the Romans away from Pontus toward the Nile. If that happens, Rome and Pontus may even find themselves temporarily on the same side - stranger things have happened.
It isn't a good time to be Greek. The Romans aren't exactly feeling generous after the hard time they had retaking Greece, so it is likely that Roman governors will be as rapacious and intentionally ignorant as they were in OTL.
As for Petra, they're considering gold-plating all those wonderful buildings you can see there today. With sudden wealth, Arabs tend to spend it on gold plating things rather than investing it. I myself gold plated my suitcase...
You'll be seeing a lot of Sarmatia in the future, as they change in a lot of strange and unexpected ways.
Well, a lot of this has to do with how religion in the Pontic Empire pans out later. Due to various reasons, Ariobarzanes is remembered well, perhaps out of proportion to his achievements and successors. As with OTL's history, some rulers are remembered rather more kindly than they deserve with others being relatively ignored.
Well, due to my unabashed Arab nationalism, I shall simply say now that the whole Pontic Empire thing has simply been a smokescreen for advancing an early Arab expansion TL. They'll be camping in Rome within two updates.
Nabataea proved itself to be considerably stronger than Judea in this timeframe in OTL, and considering the weakness of Ptolemaic Egypt in the period due to the many civil wars that afflicted it, I don't think it's too much of a jump in plausibility for the Nabataeans to try and secure control there, even if it will end as ignominiously as Esarhaddon's attempt seven hundred years prior.
Certainly Pontus appears far weaker than before, though it is worthwhile remembering that the most important parts of the Empire, namely Pontus and the Black Sea Basin are mostly untouched. Ariobarzanes still has a number of key areas to draw taxes and manpower from, whereas the Roman Republic is almost running on fumes. However, neither Rome nor Pontus has the strength to extinguish the other, which means that for all intents and purposes, the Mediterranean will be divided between two large powers. This may come with a great deal more conflict than OTL did, or it might not. A lot of this is dependent on what happens to the Roman Empire in the coming decades.
Egypt is a bit of a wild card but in the end, it's too rich of an area to be left out of a powerful Empire. Considering it's location, it's more likely to fall under Pontic domination than Roman, though this isn't guaranteed.
guinazacity
Banned
Arab nationalism?
They somehow got Nasser a laptop with an internet connection. mashallah!
They somehow got Nasser a laptop with an internet connection. mashallah!
Well, that is my name, don't wear it out. Though in actual fact, rather than the Egyptian leader resurrected, I'm just an angry Khaleeji Arab willing to waste time writing rather than marking.
Vuradech Talorc; "Examining the Pontic Resurgence"; Journal of Historical Studies 102
The “Pontic Resurgence” under Ariobarzanes has become a more contentious subject of debate in recent years. Much of this started with the publication of “Patterns of History” by Pertiwi Perkasa, which attempted to apply a “broad stroke” theory to human history. While an admirable effort, and a compelling theory, Perkasa has oversimplified in many areas and in Ariobarzanes’ rule this is particularly obvious. However, it is worthwhile considering the ideological background with which Pertiwi writes. For a long time, the argument that the changes in the Fifth Century were largely caused by the machinations of a handful of important men has been a popular one, and this tradition stretches back to the venerable work “The Crisis of the Fifth Century”.
The argument has been an exciting one, favoured by schools across the world. This is namely for the many interesting characters who lived in the fifth century, including Mithradates VI, Julius Caesar and Vercingetorix. However, the theory has been challenged by a number of schools of thought, who have ascribed material, social, ideological and even religious causes to the phenomenon, though outside a few areas of the world, the latter is not taken seriously in academia [1]. At the moment, the material explanation for the upheaval of the Fifth Century is once again in vogue, though suffers the limitations of any narrative over reliant on one aspect of history. In this paper I intend to argue that the events of the reign of Ariobarzanes were not caused primarily by any of these factors, but instead was the result of a “perfect storm” of all of these.
With the defeat of Pontus in Greece and the capture of the King Pharnakes, the Pontic Empire fell into disarray. As he was concerned as much with intrigue as much as statecraft, Pharnakes had largely neglected the opportunities presented to him to reform the Pontic state. As a result, the Pontic government remained more suited to the governance of a well-organized petty Kingdom, rather than one of the largest Empires in the world. It was Ariobarzanes who inherited this, rather than the other members of the Mithradatid clan that staked their claim to territories. In this sense, Ariobarzanes had around the same amount of material resources that were available to his grandfather Mithradates, but was taking on far weaker opponents. In this sense, even a man of mediocre ability would not have to push himself too hard to unify the Pontic Empire.
However, Ariobarzanes did not just unify the Pontic Empire, but instead set it on a course that would see it become the great power of the Middle World for a number of centuries. Combined with King Arkathias, he would transform the Pontic Empire into one just as sophisticated as Han China. This more than anything would seem to prove the “Great Man” theory of history. But of course, nothing is ever that simple. Miyamoto Ryu in his grand work “A History of the World Through People” pointed out that the population of the Mediterranean basin was increasing greatly from the Second Century onward. His wife and colleague, Oda Mariko argued that the development of sophisticated states in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries such as Pontus, Rome and Gaul were due to this population growth as much as anything. In this context, Ariobarzanes has been seen as riding the wave of population growth to establish a more complex state.
This of course ignores examples from history in which a growing population has led to problems or in some cases, collapse. It doesn’t ask the question of why the Mediterranean basin was able to organize itself into at least semi-centralized states, some of which would develop sophisticated bureaucracies. This of course brings the “Social” historians into play. They argue that it wasn’t simply an increase in the population that led to the creation of larger and more sophisticated states, but societies themselves. They argue that for a few centuries prior, the Western and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the more habitable parts of Northern Europe, were headed toward these larger states due to social change. They point out that as some societies moved toward a more martial structure such as Rome, able to raise huge amounts of troops, other societies such as Carthage were almost destined to be swept aside. Again, this argument seems to suggest that Ariobarzanes did well purely because of the factors around him.
Again, this is unsatisfactory. Many counterfactuals have posited that societies such as Carthage’s may have beaten Rome had events gone differently, pointing out to Hannibal’s great victories. Somewhat questionably, the case has even been made that Rome could have expanded to encompass the Eastern Mediterranean too, though most historians dismiss this possibility, arguing that Rome’s logistical system was too stretched, and that eventually one power would have emerged to stop Rome’s march eastward, rolling the Romans back as Mithradates had done [2]. Pontus had relatively quickly turned itself into a state capable of taking on Rome, and this could have been done by many other states. And indeed, Ariobarzanes’ rule is example of a seeming trend (the disintegration of Pontus) being headed off.
So what is it that made states like Rome and Pontus different to Carthage and Nabataea? Ultimately, I think it was only the combination of factors. Rome’s society proved more adept at producing able military leaders, as well as an effective army when compared to Carthage. While Hannibal is more or less agreed to be Carthage’s greatest general, Rome produced Scipio, Pompey and more. In Pontus, there was a string of able kings from Mithradates to Kambyses, Pharnakes excepted, compared to the one particularly able Nabataean king, Aretas. So in this respect, states such as Rome and Pontus really did have better leaders than their rivals for hegemony. And of course, Ariobarzanes, the man who turned a crumbing empire into one that was stronger than his grandfather envisioned is one of the best examples of this. However, this was not the only advantage.
Materially, the two states were better off than their rivals as well. Rome had a seemingly inexhaustible well of manpower to draw troops from, due to Italy’s large population. Pontus’ material advantages came in wealth, and even before the reign of Mithradates, Pontus was becoming the dominant petty kingdom in Anatolia, due to the wealth of its own lands and the trade that came with it. Mithradates’ early strategy of building up the Pontic Sea as a trade area only added to Pontus’ coffers, ensuring that she could field a well-paid and motivated army and navy, both of which enabled her conquests in the Fifth Century. In both of these respects, the states outmatched their immediate neighbours, and were only countered by states with similar advantages. And it was this that enabled Ariobarzanes to unify the Pontic Empire so quickly. As the Empire shattered following the capture of Pharnakes, it would have been reasonable to suppose that what would have followed would be something resembling the Wars of the Diadochi.
While Ariobarzanes’ ability and his resources made this unlikely, so would the reign of Pharnakes. The Pontic Empire had been a unified entity for twenty two years under his reign, and this begun to implant the idea of the Pontic entity as a natural one upon the minds of its subjects. Trade increased and ties were strengthened, making it hard to stomach going back to the more dis-unified political system of old. This was one of the reasons why Ariobarzanes was able to ensure that people accepted his rule quickly. When unifying the Empire, the only thing he had to do was prove he was stronger than his rivals.
However, one must not discount the many achievements of Ariobarzanes after unification. Despite having a reign only half as long as Pharnakes, he was able to enact reforms on the Pontic state far deeper than Pharnakes appeared to have conceived. Was this due to the superior resource base that he acquired with his conquest of Nabataea and Egypt? While we cannot dismiss this possibility, it is worth keeping in mind that nearly all surviving ancient sources, including Roman ones, stress that the Ptolemaic Empire was weak, and probably within Pharnakes’ power to conquer while Rome was distracted in Gaul. Once again, the evidence seems to support that Ariobarzanes was able to do more than Pharnakes even with a similar resource base.
While there was not a lot that Rome could do to protect Egypt, she could certainly retaliate. The war between Rome and Pontus had never formally ended, though following the Roman conquest of Greece, it had entered something of a lull. With Roman raids on the Aegean Coast of Asia Minor, this ended and Ariobarzanes was forced to act. The still-weakened Roman navy was no match for the Pontic navy, though if Ariobarzanes was to gain glory as the restorer of the Empire, he would have to defeat the Romans in Greece. To do this, he chose a safe strategy of crossing at the Hellespont, where he could be certain the Romans would not interfere with the landing of his troops in Greece itself.
Julius Caesar had evidently not expected a Pontic movement into Greece, and now rushed to join his forces in Macedonia to oppose a Pontic offensive into mainland Greece. Met with the superior Pontic force near Pella, he engaged it in a characteristically bold fashion, though was forced to retreat. The other actions of the Greek campaign have been covered well elsewhere, though it is important to note that for every one of Caesar’s brilliant manoeuvres and gambits, Ariobarzanes was able to counter them. Would another have been able to do the same in his place? Considering the genius behind some of Caesar’s stratagems, this was unlikely. Ariobarzanes had pushed Caesar into Epirus, and perhaps more importantly, into a position to compromise. The political climate back in Rome was now more accepting of the idea of peace, following another bloody war in which Roman armies had been defeated by their Eastern foe.
So both Ariobarzanes and Julius Caesar worked on the first real peace between Rome and Pontus, one that would allow them to realise their respective ambitions at home. Ariobarzanes likely would not have been able to achieve this had any man other than Caesar been dominant in Rome, and this is one area at least in which he was lucky to be in the circumstances he was. The political changes enacted by Caesar in Rome would be every bit as important as Ariobarzanes’ changes in Pontus, though this paper concerns the Pontic resurgence. The two men agreed on spheres of influence, with Rome occupying the Western Mediterranean, Pontus the Eastern. Even trade rights were agreed upon, meaning that for the first time in many decades, Roman citizens could find themselves legally in the East.
This peace enabled Ariobarzanes to enact his internal reforms. First of all, came an expansion of the bureaucracy. With the tax revenue gained with the conquest of Egypt, Ariobarzanes was able to create a civil service of tens of thousands of men, which included a sophisticated system of law enforcement, an advanced bureaucracy which focused on tax collection, and even a system of dedicated labourers who were available for public works projects. While not as bureaucratised a society as Han China, Pontus may have represented the highest level of government involvement in society up to that point in history in the Middle World, and this was largely due to the efforts of Ariobarzanes.
Although his reign only lasted for eleven years, he presided over a far bigger change in Pontus and its fortunes than the longer-reigning Pharnakes had. He had established a genuine peace with Rome, expanded Pontus’ borders and had established the bureaucracy that would provide the backbone of the Pontic Empire for centuries. Pontus was well set up for the golden age that would commence with the reign of Arkathias. Could the Pontic resurgence have been undertaken by any of the other claimants found in the Pontic Empire at the beginning of Ariobarzanes’ reign? While he was certainly helped by fortunate circumstances, it took a specific vision to craft the state that Ariobarzanes did, and a great energy to enact all the changes that he did in such a short time. Although the implementation of his vision would carry on into the reigns of his heirs, it does not seem like too controversial a statement that Ariobarzanes was personally responsible for the success of the Pontic Resurgence.
*****
[1] - In the present day in OTL, religion is a very serious business in some place.
[2] - Oh, the certainty of historians when dismissing the possibility of counterfactuals stretches across universes...
YAY NEW UDATE!
I sense that keeping the pontics out of the Adriatic (and the west Mediterranean) will be of the utmost importance. How do the Romans plan to do that?
Is a map in the works?
!I sense that keeping the pontics out of the Adriatic (and the west Mediterranean) will be of the utmost importance. How do the Romans plan to do that?
Is a map in the works?
What about Cyrenaica? The last map showed it as Roman territory.
Is accepting it as Roman the price for Caesar's retreat from Greece?
So we'll be looking at a Rome focused on Western Europe then? Oh this should be most fun
Great update! It is great to see big developments (the conquest of Nabatea and Egypt, for example) being said as common knowledge historical facts. I find it to be more surprising than a update veiled in mystery and dramatic writing.
It is also good to see that Gaul will survive. This will bring some interesting geopolitical mechanics in Northern and Southern Europe.
It is also good to see that Gaul will survive. This will bring some interesting geopolitical mechanics in Northern and Southern Europe.
I attempted a response to the prior update, but I think I was too frightened at the possibilities either that Rome would manage to retain its hold over Greece, or that Rome and Pontus would spend centuries fighting over Hellas back and forth to the utter ruin of it. The latter possibility is not yet fully excluded; the tone as well as content of the latest essay (which I think advances the general outline of the story of the Pontic Empire by leaps and bounds compared to other essays we've seen here) gives me hope that on the whole the idea is settled--the Roman sphere is west of the Adriatic, the Pontic sphere east of it.
I'd guess that the actual boundaries in place put the Romans pretty far into the northwest base of the Balkan peninsula, holding a lot of the Adriatic eastern shore. But their hold on the hinterland away from the shores would be very weak--as would the influence of Pontus be. I've never seen a study focused on OTL Roman Illyricum or Dalmatia--but the Wikipedia article I just skimmed on the latter has some scholars backing me up on this--
From Dalmatia (Roman province)
Considering the much deeper impact the Romans had on their northern neighbors, the Gauls, and that Dalmatia was as it were between two fires, with Italy right across a narrow sea and Greece just beyond its southern tip, this is a telling set of facts to point out! Especially with OTL both these cultural/social power centers being under one regime, one deemed regionally to be the very epitome of civilization. And yet the Romans failed to put down as deep roots there as they managed to in distant Dacia or Britain.
So--with the border between Rome and Pontus running somewhere through those lands, it seems to me it would generally be dubious and doubtful, a sort of neutral zone where neither hegemon really holds sway, with the locals creatively playing them off against each other to neutralize them both.
The Romans will have a strong hold on the northern coast, and the post mentions Caesar being able to stand his ground in Epirus, which suggests the Romans pretty much have the shores down to Greece proper. At that point, the two empires come face to face. But I can see the Pontic padishahs being able to stare down Romans who might grow extra-aggressive from time to time there, and neither side would be deeply invested in maneuvering the peoples to the north--or if they try to, find their efforts founded on sand.
So I'm hoping the boundaries pretty much solidify like that. And Greece stays Pontic!
Because my notion of the special ATL destiny of Pontus hinges largely on it being a melange of Greek and Persian influences, and I did not want to see the Greek element pulled out; certainly not so soon!
Regarding Gaul--the author may well surprise me, but I've already said in other posts that I get the impression Rome is a very big deal to the uptimer academics and presumably general culture. So is Pontus of course. I think the latest essay, despite mentioning Gaul as a contending power in the same breath with Rome, on the whole establishes by implication what I suppose, that in its western sphere, Rome will prevail, possibly conquering as far as OTL or perhaps in some directions even farther. Gaul, I believe, is doomed to ultimately be absorbed into the Roman domain. But I do think it will take longer than OTL, and the fight will be epic, and perhaps the manner in which Rome comes to dominate might involve compromise and special rights for the Gaulic people. (Say for instance, that Rome can only prevail by winning numerous Gaul notables to its side, and this faction demands and gets concessions which the Romans find it impolitic to renege on).
The replication of OTL western Imperial borders is not strictly necessary to Rome holding a very prominent place in uptime history of course. But if Gaul should fall, I don't see what else (in this era) could then stop the Roman advance into rustic western Europe.
I'd guess that the actual boundaries in place put the Romans pretty far into the northwest base of the Balkan peninsula, holding a lot of the Adriatic eastern shore. But their hold on the hinterland away from the shores would be very weak--as would the influence of Pontus be. I've never seen a study focused on OTL Roman Illyricum or Dalmatia--but the Wikipedia article I just skimmed on the latter has some scholars backing me up on this--
From Dalmatia (Roman province)
Considering the much deeper impact the Romans had on their northern neighbors, the Gauls, and that Dalmatia was as it were between two fires, with Italy right across a narrow sea and Greece just beyond its southern tip, this is a telling set of facts to point out! Especially with OTL both these cultural/social power centers being under one regime, one deemed regionally to be the very epitome of civilization. And yet the Romans failed to put down as deep roots there as they managed to in distant Dacia or Britain.
So--with the border between Rome and Pontus running somewhere through those lands, it seems to me it would generally be dubious and doubtful, a sort of neutral zone where neither hegemon really holds sway, with the locals creatively playing them off against each other to neutralize them both.
The Romans will have a strong hold on the northern coast, and the post mentions Caesar being able to stand his ground in Epirus, which suggests the Romans pretty much have the shores down to Greece proper. At that point, the two empires come face to face. But I can see the Pontic padishahs being able to stare down Romans who might grow extra-aggressive from time to time there, and neither side would be deeply invested in maneuvering the peoples to the north--or if they try to, find their efforts founded on sand.
So I'm hoping the boundaries pretty much solidify like that. And Greece stays Pontic!
Because my notion of the special ATL destiny of Pontus hinges largely on it being a melange of Greek and Persian influences, and I did not want to see the Greek element pulled out; certainly not so soon!
Regarding Gaul--the author may well surprise me, but I've already said in other posts that I get the impression Rome is a very big deal to the uptimer academics and presumably general culture. So is Pontus of course. I think the latest essay, despite mentioning Gaul as a contending power in the same breath with Rome, on the whole establishes by implication what I suppose, that in its western sphere, Rome will prevail, possibly conquering as far as OTL or perhaps in some directions even farther. Gaul, I believe, is doomed to ultimately be absorbed into the Roman domain. But I do think it will take longer than OTL, and the fight will be epic, and perhaps the manner in which Rome comes to dominate might involve compromise and special rights for the Gaulic people. (Say for instance, that Rome can only prevail by winning numerous Gaul notables to its side, and this faction demands and gets concessions which the Romans find it impolitic to renege on).
The replication of OTL western Imperial borders is not strictly necessary to Rome holding a very prominent place in uptime history of course. But if Gaul should fall, I don't see what else (in this era) could then stop the Roman advance into rustic western Europe.
Donald Reaver
Donor
From the lasts posts it seems that Gaul will survive as an independent entity for a long period of time. Seems to force Rome into perhaps the southern coast of Gaul which was pretty much in their control before Caesars campaigns otl. Also the Spanish peninsula and a portion of North Africa. The population of Italy after these destructive wars will rebound in a generation or two. A more concentrated Republic/Empire may lead to a longer life span.
So Dalmatia and otl Albania up to and including a bit of Eprius will be roman, and the rest will be Greek? Seems fair enough. At the least I think the Romans would get both sides of the straight of Orantro to prevent the Pontics from sailing up the Adriatic. But we have yet to have a map
.But Dalmatia will probably be significantly more Romanized ttl due to being so close to Italy and having a lot of mineral resources I think. Salona could have a population of 100,000 in 100-200 years. (The lack of roman colonists in the east helps immensely, though I'm going to use that with North Africa.)
North Africa was pretty heavily Romanized otl, but ttl it might be as roman as Italy itself due to it being so rich and important, there will be A LOT more colonists ttl at the LEAST. (the last of Egypt, Syria, Gaul for now, and Anatolia means that the Romans will be a lot more compacted, North Africa should be the prime settling region due to the sheer richness of the place. I can see Carthage being rebuild sooner, and settlement occurring beyond Volubillis eventually (the farthest town otl). The Berbers will be a lot more Romanized too, which will keep the rejoin roman even if Italy is destroyed (which I doubt).) Point is, the Maghreb will probably in the future be a twin heart along with Italy.
If Narissimo says Pontus gets a china-like structure, then I believe Rome is likely not to truly fall either (but civil wars and successor states will occur eventually, its inevitable even for Pontus). Being eternal rivals over the Mediterranean is more than enough to supply the societal motivation to keep existing. But it's his TL, what am I to say
. The biggest question is Egypt, which due to its growing capabilities is a MASSIVE wild card.
Last edited:
Well, I'll get this out of the way first. I can't quite remember if I mentioned it before, but the pace of the TL will be quickening from now on. There's thousands of years of history to cover, and I want to get into the really interesting social/cultural/economic developments that occur in the TL rather than focusing on constant war. Although war is one of the big deciding factors in history's course, the course itself are other factors such as technology, religion and so on. The world of OTL is most definitely butterflied and as a result, I want to show how much of a fluke OTL, or indeed any other timeline really is. Things that we take for granted such as the dominance of Indo-European languages, or indeed that a small part of the world can be truly dominant thousands of kilometers from its territory. At the same time, I think that many concepts and ideas in history are innate to human civilization itself, and were always going to happen with a POD as far back as the end of the Ice Age. All of this will become clear in time of course, so for now I'll cut the ramble short.
And yes, I have been hard at work learning how to use Inkscape.
The survival of Gaul in itself would produce enormous butterflies. As it is, despite the fact that there will be much in the way of trade links and all that go with them, the lack of Roman rule in Northern Europe will butterfly the concept of Europe as we know it.
The interior of the Balkans is something of a backwater, and with the formation of a high-end Dacian state will be subject as much to Dacian influence as Pontic and Roman. Realistically, Rome in OTL was a coastally centered civilization, and this will be true of both Rome and Pontus to a great extent in this TL as well. Although roads can open up the interior somewhat, the Balkans are difficult to traverse even today (at least compared to Western Europe), so the Balkans aren't becoming Romanized, and considering the lack of a set Pontic identity it will be nigh-impossible for them to become Ponticised.
As for Gaul, it isn't out of the woods yet. What happens there depends on what happens in Rome, whether it's a reversion back to the kind of government that was seen prior to the Punic Wars, or more likely, some kind of settlement either resembling the principate or something else. The ultimate fate of Gaul is likely to be revealed before too long, but for now I think I'll keep everyone guessing.
Nothing in history is ever eternal. Pontus will eventually fall one day, but that doesn't mean to say that Rome will. The only cryptic answer that I will give is that the name of the book "The Last Gasp of the Ancients" says a lot about the role Pontus has in world history, and where it comes.
Rome will have to build up its own navy once again, as well as keep a force permanently in Dalmatia. As Dacia becomes a high-level state, it may see attempts by both Pontus and Rome to win it over to their sides.YAY NEW UDATE
I sense that keeping the pontics out of the Adriatic (and the west Mediterranean) will be of the utmost importance. How do the Romans plan to do that?
Is a map in the works?
And yes, I have been hard at work learning how to use Inkscape.
Cyrenaica remains Roman, at least for the time being. A large desert separates it and Egypt, which makes it brilliant for avoiding conflict. As things stand now, both Pontus and Rome prefer this set up.
I should very much hope so. Romans will be found in the East, but mostly as traders.So we'll be looking at a Rome focused on Western Europe then? Oh this should be most fun
Well, the focus of world history is quite different in this world. To give a potentially enormous spoiler (you have been warned) No area of the world ever becomes as dominant as Europe was in our world.
The survival of Gaul in itself would produce enormous butterflies. As it is, despite the fact that there will be much in the way of trade links and all that go with them, the lack of Roman rule in Northern Europe will butterfly the concept of Europe as we know it.
This would be really, really appreciated. My own artistic skills are rather lacking, and I think that pictures really go a long way to improve a TL. Writing is all good and well but I think that visual images always go a long way toward giving people an impression of what a foreign world is actually like.
This was the idea with the latest update, to try and give as much information about the future as possible while still not giving everything away. Hellas is quite firmly in the grip of the Pontic king, and that's the way that many people like it. Under the Pontic kings, most of Greece has a high measure of self-rule, as well as access to an enormous trading network. Eventually the rules of Rome and of Pontus will realise that peace suits them better than war, though this doesn't mean that the two states will not go to war in the future.
The interior of the Balkans is something of a backwater, and with the formation of a high-end Dacian state will be subject as much to Dacian influence as Pontic and Roman. Realistically, Rome in OTL was a coastally centered civilization, and this will be true of both Rome and Pontus to a great extent in this TL as well. Although roads can open up the interior somewhat, the Balkans are difficult to traverse even today (at least compared to Western Europe), so the Balkans aren't becoming Romanized, and considering the lack of a set Pontic identity it will be nigh-impossible for them to become Ponticised.
As for Gaul, it isn't out of the woods yet. What happens there depends on what happens in Rome, whether it's a reversion back to the kind of government that was seen prior to the Punic Wars, or more likely, some kind of settlement either resembling the principate or something else. The ultimate fate of Gaul is likely to be revealed before too long, but for now I think I'll keep everyone guessing.
Certainly, if other civilized states bordered it, it would have a cushion against the migrations if they still come. Holding rich areas such as Spain and Africa mean that it won't be a pauper state, so it will still be able to afford a fairly substantial army, though it is likely that the Roman army sees great changes to bring it in line with Pontus' army. If the wars are truly over, than the population of the Mediterranean as a whole will rise, as it did over OTL. I've seen figures that suggest Roman Africa nearly doubled in population over a hundred and fifty years, and this might be possible in more areas in TTL.
The Maghreb is certainly going to be a lot more Romanized in OTL. We won't have any of this people still speaking Punic business. As you point out, there's far less choice for Roman colonists, so Spain and Africa will receive a lot more attention. This really accentuates TTL's Roman Empire as a maritime one, as the three big parts of the Empire all specialise in a certain area of the economy.So Dalmatia and otl Albania up to and including a bit of Eprius will be roman, and the rest will be Greek? Seems fair enough. At the least I think the Romans would get both sides of the straight of Orantro to prevent the Pontics from sailing up the Adriatic. But we have yet to have a map
But Dalmatia will probably be significantly more Romanized ttl due to being so close to Italy and having a lot of mineral resources I think. Salona could have a population of 100,000 in 100-200 years. (The lack of roman colonists in the east helps immensely, though I'm going to use that with North Africa.)
North Africa was pretty heavily Romanized otl, but ttl it might be as roman as Italy itself due to it being so rich and important, there will be A LOT more colonists ttl at the LEAST. (the last of Egypt, Syria, Gaul for now, and Anatolia means that the Romans will be a lot more compacted, North Africa should be the prime settling region due to the sheer richness of the place. I can see Carthage being rebuild sooner, and settlement occurring beyond Volubillis eventually (the farthest town otl). The Berbers will be a lot more Romanized too, which will keep the rejoin roman even if Italy is destroyed (which I doubt).) Point is, the Maghreb will probably in the future be a twin heart along with Italy.
If Narissimo says Pontus gets a china-like structure, then I believe Rome is likely not to truly fall either (but civil wars and successor states will occur eventually, its inevitable even for Pontus). Being eternal rivals over the Mediterranean is more than enough to supply the societal motivation to keep existing. But it's his TL, what am I to say
Nothing in history is ever eternal. Pontus will eventually fall one day, but that doesn't mean to say that Rome will. The only cryptic answer that I will give is that the name of the book "The Last Gasp of the Ancients" says a lot about the role Pontus has in world history, and where it comes.
The Royal Pontic Chronicle (Written around 750)
Arkathias was a worthy successor to his father and to the Mithradatid line. Though becoming the ruler at a tender age, he proved his worth to the great god and his people by liberating the lands of the Achaemenids from their barbarian occupiers. He brought forth prosperity to the land through his wise rule and honesty. Although rich in wealth, he devoted himself to his people and his god before all others, and did not partake in the decadent rituals of later kings. He was truly an example of a good and just king, and those who read of his rule would be wise to follow his example if they wish to please the great god and serve their people well.
******
Hafsa Bint Salman; Last Gasp of the Ancients: The Rise and Fall of the Pontic Empire (Aden Publishing Corporation, 2541)
The Reign of Arkathias
Hafsa Bint Salman; Last Gasp of the Ancients: The Rise and Fall of the Pontic Empire (Aden Publishing Corporation, 2541)
The Reign of Arkathias
Arkathias is very much known as one of the “Exceptional Monarchs” of history. Unable to be called great due to the relatively easy circumstances which he began his reign in, Arkathias nevertheless went on to make an enormous mark on the Pontic Empire and indeed, areas beyond it. The impact of his rule was arguably as deep as his fathers, and many of the administrative reforms he pioneered would stay with the Pontic Empire for the rest of its Golden Age. His reign lasted forty five years, unheard of since the reign of his great-grandfather, Mithradates VI. In this time, he continued his father’s transformation of the Pontic Empire, leaving it as arguably the strongest state on Earth.
Unlike his father’s, Arkathias’ accession was unquestioned by the vast majority of the Pontic nobility and bureaucracy. There were no significant pretenders to the throne, and Pontus was at peace on every one of her borders. A young king, Arkathias decided that in order to keep the nobility on side, he needed a great achievement under his belt. Pontus and Rome were at peace, and for the time being that was the way the two powers preferred it. There was nothing much of worth to conquer on the Pontic Steppe, inhabited as it was by troublesome Sarmatian clans. The only logical avenue for expansion was east into Iran, dominated by the Parthians that even the great Mithradates VI had failed to bring under his boot. If Arkathias could conquer Iran, than his legacy would be assured.
However, he was well aware than an invasion of Iran would not be an easy undertaking. Iran would take decades to fully pacify, and it would stretch the administrative capacities of his empire to the limit. Still, with a large army and peace assured elsewhere, now seemed to be as good a time as ever to gain revenge for Pontus’ earlier defeat. Only two years after Arkathias came to the throne, he led his armies into Southern Iran, to capture the sites of the old Achaemenid capitals, Persepolis and Pasargadae. This move was a propaganda move more than a military necessity, proving to the inhabitants of Iran that the Parthian clans were unworthy of allegiance.
This campaign went fairly well. Scattering a Parthian force at the Persian gates, the Pontic army swept toward Persia in a matter of months, declaring that the true sons of the Achaemenids had liberated Persia [1]. It was likely that most peasants in Persia cared little for this great legacy, though it played well to the Persian nobility in the rest of the Middle World. Upon the capture of Persepolis and Pasargadae, Arkathias left the army in charge of his able generals Machares and Pharnapates. He had no intention of spending the whole of his reign personally trying to bring the unruly Parthian lords to heel, as like his father, he had a new vision for the administration of the Pontic Empire.
This would not involve an enormous expansion of the bureaucracy. This had already been done in the reign of his father, but nevertheless it would be changed greatly during Arkathias’ rule. Although command of the army was still tied to the Pontic King, the bureaucracy was now answerable to the provincial satraps. The satrapies of the Empire were formally organized, with the Empire being organized into twenty two different satrapies. Each were headed by a satrap answerable to the king himself. Their families were coerced into staying at the new Pontic court in Arkathiakerta, the new capital which was built on the Northern Coast of Syria [2].
The new capital was to be the showpiece of the Pontic Empire, and one of five “royal cities” in the Empire, ruled by the king rather than a satrap or a Polis government. This means that tax income was lavished on them, funding the brilliant temples, palaces and public works projects which are still visible today. The population of Arkathiakerta itself went from practically nothing to around a hundred thousand within the rule of Arkathias. Like Alexandria, the streets were wide and well planned, and the city had easy access to the trade routes which were once again coming through Syria. Although it was never the primate city of the empire in the way that Rome was in the West, Arkathiakerta nevertheless proved itself to be a lasting legacy of king Arkathias.
With the shifting of trade routes as peace became the norm in the Middle World, the old Pontic core lands seemed to be left behind, at least for a little while. However, the growth of the amber trade from the Baltic was the saving grace for Pontus and Taurica, and trade in the Pontic Sea now became as valuable as ever. This reflected the growing prosperity in many other parts of the Empire, as irrigation, trade and manufacturing all saw increases. Combined with the growth of similar enterprises in Rome, it’s estimated that there was an actual notable increase in economic growth, which is unusual for pre-modern times. Although the majority of people across the Mediterranean remained frightfully poor by modern standards, there is evidence that even the peasantry in Pontic society enjoyed some measure of improvement in their lives.
One of the crowning achievements of Arkathias’ reign was when his armies had finally stubbed out the last resistance of Iran. It had not been an easy task, and had taken twenty years of sacrifice, but Pontic authority had been established in much of the Iranian plateau. Now Pontus bordered the Kushan Empire in India, and both were quick to send emissaries to each other to express their peaceful intentions. Trade between Pontus and India would not pick up until later, though the first beginnings of this new relationship were established during the reign of Arkathias. It was around this time that the first visitors from China arrived in the Pontic Empire too. Following merchant contacts, Arkathias formally invited a delegation from the Han Empire for a tour around the Pontic Empire. The Chinese Emissaries were reportedly impressed to find an Empire similar to their own in scope, though noted that no city in the Empire was quite as massive as Chang’an.
As well as increasing the prestige of his Empire, Arkathias worked tirelessly to streamline the administration and root out corruption. In the later years of his reign, the bureaucracy began to take on a more cosmopolitan structure. Although still heavily reliant on Greeks and Persians, increasingly the educated from other areas of the Empire made their way into the ranks of the bureaucracy, leading to the formalization of the languages of administration. According to royal edict, the three languages that were required for bureaucrats were Persian, Greek and Aramaic. It was this action that solidified Pontus as a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society. So it would remain for the rest of its best years, with its biggest cities becoming melting pots for many different cultures. Arkathias had revived the dream of Alexander it had seemed.
In the later years of his reign, he managed to keep the peace with Rome, though the northern shore of the Pontic Sea was now beset with Sarmatian raiders. As a result, he established a chain of fortifications and garrisoned a quarter of the Pontic army on the northern border. However, nomads could not present anything more than an annoyance to the Empire at this point in its life, and Arkathias was not forced to increase the size of the armed forces, keeping them relatively small and professional. Despite ruling over a population of around thirty seven million, the Pontic army remained as large as it had done during Mithradates VI’s rule. This resulted in more money being available for public works.
The cause of death of Arkathias is unknown. Being around 63 when he died, natural causes cannot be ruled out though disease is likely as well. He left an Empire that was more prosperous than it had ever been, and there appeared to be few clouds on the horizon of the Pontic Empire. He had completed his father’s work of turning it from a patchwork of different principalities and rules into a coherent Empire. His reign was widely considered by many subsequent historians to be the start of the Pontic golden age.
******
[1] - Although considering it had been centuries since the fall of the Achaemenids, I doubt few people in Persia really cared.
[2] - The location is somewhere near modern Latakia in Syria. It's close to the traditional core of Pontus, but also has a central location in the Empire.
Last edited:
The Pontic empire it seems is the rebirth of the Alexandrian empire whilst being both more stable and being more Persian flavored than Greek it seems.
The Sassanids of otl would be very envious of this empire.
By the way what are the major religions in the Pontic empire ITTL? Because I understand that Zoroastrianism was the primary religion of Iran since the time before the Achaemenid Empire but I don't really know how it was organised before the Sassanids came to power but I understand the Sassanids did at lest some new retooling of the religion when they came to power but I don't quite understand what they did. So could you answer how religion is like in the Pontic empire and also how Zoroastrianism is presently organised ITTL?
The Sassanids of otl would be very envious of this empire.
By the way what are the major religions in the Pontic empire ITTL? Because I understand that Zoroastrianism was the primary religion of Iran since the time before the Achaemenid Empire but I don't really know how it was organised before the Sassanids came to power but I understand the Sassanids did at lest some new retooling of the religion when they came to power but I don't quite understand what they did. So could you answer how religion is like in the Pontic empire and also how Zoroastrianism is presently organised ITTL?
Last edited: