Macedon without the Greeks

Firstly, the premise is a hard one to make happen, I'd like to point that out, but I'm going to just go with it for now:

Without the Greeks to influence and colonize Macedonia (there were Greek colonies in the area which proved a great way for Koine to spread into Macedonia and become the common language of Macedonians by Alexander's day), what will be left is a culture that is living on borrowed time. With whatever pressures are present to their south seeping northward, certainly influencing them in a similar way as the Greeks did just by geographic locality. Then there are the Illyrians and Thracians to the North. And THEN, if butterflies don't go too crazy, there are still Persians (or another group from that area that will fill a similar niche) that moved in and took over Macedonia. Without the Greek city-states, the Persians will likely keep a firm grip on their European holdings, including Macedonia.

Now, as for the greater world at large, without Greeks to colonize the Mediterranean, you see vast changes throughout history. The Phoenicians will gain a virtual monopoly on western trade, and will control the coasts of Sicily, Cyprus, North Africa, and Spain without contestation. This, I think, will play to the benefit of the Etruscans, who I believe, without the Greeks would have remained the dominant group in Italy. Without the devastating defeats the Greeks inflicted upon them in the early 5th century BC, the Etruscans would have continued to have hegemony over Latium and Campania. How they fair against the Celts when they migrate in is up for debate, but I think we can assume that Rome will simply remain an Etruscan satellite. I actually think we could see Etruscans colonizing the areas in Gaul that the Greeks colonized given enough time.

And I remember seeing someone mention something about coins, so let me just set this straight: Coinage was invented by the Lydians, an Anatolian people who came to power around the same time as the Neo-Assyrians and the Medians. Coinage will spread probably in the same way as OTL.
 
Firstly, the premise is a hard one to make happen, I'd like to point that out, but I'm going to just go with it for now:

Without the Greeks to influence and colonize Macedonia (there were Greek colonies in the area which proved a great way for Koine to spread into Macedonia and become the common language of Macedonians by Alexander's day), what will be left is a culture that is living on borrowed time. With whatever pressures are present to their south seeping northward, certainly influencing them in a similar way as the Greeks did just by geographic locality. Then there are the Illyrians and Thracians to the North. And THEN, if butterflies don't go too crazy, there are still Persians (or another group from that area that will fill a similar niche) that moved in and took over Macedonia. Without the Greek city-states, the Persians will likely keep a firm grip on their European holdings, including Macedonia.

Now, as for the greater world at large, without Greeks to colonize the Mediterranean, you see vast changes throughout history. The Phoenicians will gain a virtual monopoly on western trade, and will control the coasts of Sicily, Cyprus, North Africa, and Spain without contestation. This, I think, will play to the benefit of the Etruscans, who I believe, without the Greeks would have remained the dominant group in Italy. Without the devastating defeats the Greeks inflicted upon them in the early 5th century BC, the Etruscans would have continued to have hegemony over Latium and Campania. How they fair against the Celts when they migrate in is up for debate, but I think we can assume that Rome will simply remain an Etruscan satellite. I actually think we could see Etruscans colonizing the areas in Gaul that the Greeks colonized given enough time.

And I remember seeing someone mention something about coins, so let me just set this straight: Coinage was invented by the Lydians, an Anatolian people who came to power around the same time as the Neo-Assyrians and the Medians. Coinage will spread probably in the same way as OTL.

I'm not to sure about some of this. If the POD is based in the "dark ages" 1200-750 BC, then the butterflies will eliminate the Persians, medians and other cultures that historically appeared post POD.Indeed, if we're talking about a middle eastern power like the Assyrians, than the Lydians will not develop at all, and the Phoenicians will be conquered or never gain prominence. Most of these cultures all developed because of the collapse of the traditional empires and major powers-hence the expression "chaos breeds creation." As to the Ransa/Etruscans, i think their lack of unity will eventually lead to them weakening each other to such an extent that they'll be vulnerable to expansionist neighbors like the Senoes,ventii or the Samnites.
 
Without Greek competition, the Phoenicians are going to have a virtual monopoly on Mediterranean trade. For example, Sicily will have much more Phoenician colonines, colonies like Massalia will be Phoenician, thus spreading Phoenician influence into southern Gaul. The Etruscans, whose culture was heavily influenced by a conglomeration of Greek, Phoenician, and Egyptian culture, will have much more Phoenician influence, and areas like Naples would probably end up Phoenician colonies.


That alone has huge repercussions across the Mediterranean. The big winners here I think will be the Phoenicians.

edit: Damn,didn't see Errnge's post. Failed to realize there were two pages...
 
Might be worth discussing the timeline this germ comes from.

I've been working on an "ancient Egyptian survival" timeline, something I've come to realize is far from unique on these forums (I think I've found four so far). The original idea was to have a less Aten obsessed Pharaoh come along instead of Akhenaten who could make better decisions regarding foreign policy and preserve the Egyptian Empire at the height of her power and allow some expansion farther south. The original timeline is filled with ATBs and needs some serious overhaul, but the crux of the idea is that Egypt remains prosperous and well fed into the next century, allowing them to repel the sea peoples with even greater success than in our history and thus take advantage of being one of the few (maybe the only) power left in the world.

The original intent was to make Egypt, rather than Greece, the "root" of Western civilization. But like I said, timeline needs serious work before I can unveil it. Research, though, made me realize that there were several very powerful empires active at various points in this history that might have faired far better given a few twists of fate. Also, the fall of Greece and the elimination of Alexander are a huge can of worms (or caterpillars soon to become butterflies) I wanted to get some other thoughts on before exploring. So I figured I'd make a "general purpose" forum to discuss some rival ancient power stifling Hellenic culture before it gets started. So far I'm enjoying what I'm seeing, so let's keep going!
 
I'm not to sure about some of this. If the POD is based in the "dark ages" 1200-750 BC, then the butterflies will eliminate the Persians, medians and other cultures that historically appeared post POD.Indeed, if we're talking about a middle eastern power like the Assyrians, than the Lydians will not develop at all, and the Phoenicians will be conquered or never gain prominence. Most of these cultures all developed because of the collapse of the traditional empires and major powers-hence the expression "chaos breeds creation." As to the Ransa/Etruscans, i think their lack of unity will eventually lead to them weakening each other to such an extent that they'll be vulnerable to expansionist neighbors like the Senoes,ventii or the Samnites.

But it won't butterfly the Iranians dominating Iran, and the pressures they will put upon the Assyrians or whatever power is there later on. And I don't know what you mean with the Assyrians. Was that part of the OP? I took to the more likely route in the OP and moved on the "so much chaos Greece doesn't recover" idea instead of that they are conquered by someone during this period. If they are conquered and assimilated by another group, it is going to happen later, once stable states can once again flourish in the area.

And the Etruscans were quite the expansionists themselves before the Greeks checked them at Cumae.
 
Might be worth discussing the timeline this germ comes from.

I've been working on an "ancient Egyptian survival" timeline, something I've come to realize is far from unique on these forums (I think I've found four so far). The original idea was to have a less Aten obsessed Pharaoh come along instead of Akhenaten who could make better decisions regarding foreign policy and preserve the Egyptian Empire at the height of her power and allow some expansion farther south. The original timeline is filled with ATBs and needs some serious overhaul, but the crux of the idea is that Egypt remains prosperous and well fed into the next century, allowing them to repel the sea peoples with even greater success than in our history and thus take advantage of being one of the few (maybe the only) power left in the world.

The original intent was to make Egypt, rather than Greece, the "root" of Western civilization. But like I said, timeline needs serious work before I can unveil it. Research, though, made me realize that there were several very powerful empires active at various points in this history that might have faired far better given a few twists of fate. Also, the fall of Greece and the elimination of Alexander are a huge can of worms (or caterpillars soon to become butterflies) I wanted to get some other thoughts on before exploring. So I figured I'd make a "general purpose" forum to discuss some rival ancient power stifling Hellenic culture before it gets started. So far I'm enjoying what I'm seeing, so let's keep going!
I prefer to put the root at Western Civilization at the feet of the Phoenicians than the Greeks. After all, it was the Phoenicians that helped bring the Greeks out of their Dark Ages, and the Phoenician alphabet that the Greeks adopted and modified.

But with a continually powerful Egypt, presumably they will have much power in the Levant, so maybe you can wed the Phoenician culture to the Egyptian state? I'm not too familiar with Egypt at this period, so I may be way off.
 
I prefer to put the root at Western Civilization at the feet of the Phoenicians than the Greeks. After all, it was the Phoenicians that helped bring the Greeks out of their Dark Ages, and the Phoenician alphabet that the Greeks adopted and modified.

But with a continually powerful Egypt, presumably they will have much power in the Levant, so maybe you can wed the Phoenician culture to the Egyptian state? I'm not too familiar with Egypt at this period, so I may be way off.

Let's just say my own knowledge of Phoenicians would not exactly impress a history professor. I do know their culture was drawn from bits of other cultures, as befitted a wide spread group based around mercantilism. It did occur to me that if one culture comes to overwhelmingly eclipse all other their legacy might reasonably come to predominate aspects of Phoenician culture as well. Then again, Phoenicia could just as easily serve as an outlier of cultures otherwise lost to the timeline. Including the Greeks.
 
But it won't butterfly the Iranians dominating Iran, and the pressures they will put upon the Assyrians or whatever power is there later on. And I don't know what you mean with the Assyrians. Was that part of the OP? I took to the more likely route in the OP and moved on the "so much chaos Greece doesn't recover" idea instead of that they are conquered by someone during this period. If they are conquered and assimilated by another group, it is going to happen later, once stable states can once again flourish in the area.

And the Etruscans were quite the expansionists themselves before the Greeks checked them at Cumae.

Indeed, it will be the Iranians just not necessarily the Achaemenids or for that matter not the Cyrus or Cambyses we know of our TL.

I feel that the Celts will manage to gain a level of cultural hegemony over much of the Balkans, especially without an organized state like Macedon was to keep them out.
 
Indeed, it will be the Iranians just not necessarily the Achaemenids or for that matter not the Cyrus or Cambyses we know of our TL.

I feel that the Celts will manage to gain a level of cultural hegemony over much of the Balkans, especially without an organized state like Macedon was to keep them out.


Or the Medes for that matter, or even a resurgent Babylonia or a longer lived Assyrian Empire. The middle east is really a wildcard.
 
Indeed, it will be the Iranians just not necessarily the Achaemenids or for that matter not the Cyrus or Cambyses we know of our TL.

I feel that the Celts will manage to gain a level of cultural hegemony over much of the Balkans, especially without an organized state like Macedon was
to keep them out.

An "organized" Macedon was shattered by the OTL Celtic invasion. Somehow that didn't lead to Celtic dominance.
 
An "organized" Macedon was shattered by the OTL Celtic invasion. Somehow that didn't lead to Celtic dominance.

There are a few reasons for that:

Firstly, there were other Macedonian successor-states that pitched in to either quell or take advantage of the Celtic Invasion. Recall that an EXTREMELY small branch of their invasion led to the Galatians, who dominated central Anatolia for centuries.

Secondly, there is archaeological evidence that suggests heavy Celtic settlement in Thrace, Illyria, and Dacia at the time. Celtic material culture and Celtic names start popping up like wildfire during the 3rd century BC in the Balkans. I think it is pretty safe to assume the reason why Macedonia wasn't completely shattered was because the Celts, rather than invading, were more raiding, and many turned back north to the aforementioned lands with the plunder they took.

Thirdly, there was a lack of unity. If Brennus had perhaps had more success on his Delphi Campaign, we might see something very different in the Balkans.
 
There are a few reasons for that:

Firstly, there were other Macedonian successor-states that pitched in to either quell or take advantage of the Celtic Invasion. Recall that an EXTREMELY small branch of their invasion led to the Galatians, who dominated central Anatolia for centuries.

Take advantage more than quell, I would say.

Secondly, there is archaeological evidence that suggests heavy Celtic settlement in Thrace, Illyria, and Dacia at the time. Celtic material culture and Celtic names start popping up like wildfire during the 3rd century BC in the Balkans. I think it is pretty safe to assume the reason why Macedonia wasn't completely shattered was because the Celts, rather than invading, were more raiding, and many turned back north to the aforementioned lands with the plunder they took.

Thirdly, there was a lack of unity. If Brennus had perhaps had more success on his Delphi Campaign, we might see something very different in the Balkans.

#2 is sounding like "why the Celts didn't bother" more than "Why the Celts failed".

#3 would be interesting to see, if independent from the failure of Macedon vs. a failure for there to be a Macedon.
 
Top