Mediterranean without Rome

Dorozhand

Banned
I'm curious as to how things in the Mediterranean might have turned out without the development of a huge juggernaut empire like Rome devouring everything.

For example:
I could see a new native Egyptian dynasty successfully revolting and driving out the Ptolemies at some point

Same with Persia. The Parthians are still likely to conquer Persia, but they may also be butterflied or fail in this effort.

The Gauls and Britons will be very interesting. Assuming a butterfly net on the great migration, how would they fare against the Germans and Huns come the III century? How would they develop in the meantime without Rome as a major power?

The Macedonian and native Greek city states. I'm not sure what would happen to them, but I think their aging Phalanx doctrines will be bested by somebody. Perhaps a massive Dacian invasion?

What is going to happen in the Mediterranean in the long run with no Rome or equivalent?
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
So, just to be clear, is it Rome is completely absorbed into the Etruscan culture or something, or Rome is just a minor regional power that controls most of the Italian peninsula and maybe Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily?
 

Dorozhand

Banned
So, just to be clear, is it Rome is completely absorbed into the Etruscan culture or something, or Rome is just a minor regional power that controls most of the Italian peninsula and maybe Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily?

The latter. I don't want Rome itself butterflied, just nerfed a little and kept inside Italy. Maybe keep the Samnites intact as a power in the south of Italy too.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
The latter. I don't want Rome itself butterflied, just nerfed a little and kept inside Italy. Maybe keep the Samnites intact as a power in the south of Italy too.

Okay, so since obviously because Carthage can't be a power either, I'm going to assume Rome just decides to end conquests after the Second Punic War, maybe a more brutal Second Punic War could do that so no Third Punic War (not that hard to butterfly, really) or expansion into Hispania.
 
Okay, so since obviously because Carthage can't be a power either, I'm going to assume Rome just decides to end conquests after the Second Punic War, maybe a more brutal Second Punic War could do that so no Third Punic War (not that hard to butterfly, really) or expansion into Hispania.

Why would Rome decide to end conquests? For a generation, maybe, but permanently? That seems odd.
 
If you want to nerf Rome your best bet would be to have more stronger regional powers in the Italian Peninsula, If not conflict with Carthage would be highly likely. You could have Carthage win the First Punic War if you want to take it that late, the Second Punic War and beyond is almost right out.
 
Why would Rome decide to end conquests? For a generation, maybe, but permanently? That seems odd.

Maybe the Gauls take advantage of Rome's weakness or distraction or both and cross the Alps into Italy. By the time the Romans recover from fighting the Carthaginians and the Gauls, they've missed their window for OTL greatness.
 
Maybe Rome and Carthage could split into opposing powers like what happens with China from time to time, with neither able to gain the upper hand. It seems hard to keep it that way though, with both cities on the Mediterranean and therefore susceptible to naval strikes. Maybe a long lasting league of powers arises to keep any one state from getting to much power a la the Concert of Europe, but again, it seems hard to stop any one state from getting too much power, especially with large, relatively unclaimed and defenseless, and rich lands to the north.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Maybe Rome and Carthage could split into opposing powers like what happens with China from time to time, with neither able to gain the upper hand. It seems hard to keep it that way though, with both cities on the Mediterranean and therefore susceptible to naval strikes. Maybe a long lasting league of powers arises to keep any one state from getting to much power a la the Concert of Europe, but again, it seems hard to stop any one state from getting too much power, especially with large, relatively unclaimed and defenseless, and rich lands to the north.

Unclaimed? I hope you aren't referring to Gaul, which is occupied by very ancient and rather advanced peoples more than willing to defend it to the teeth, and who have acquired the moniker "barbarian" simply because Rome vanquished them so utterly that their side of history doesn't survive.
 
He's referring to Spain where both sides had competing regional interests. And anyway the Parthians are not likely to conquer Persia. It was good timing that they were able to get the Parthia in the first palace and it was only after the Seleucids were drastically weakened by the Romans that they gained any headway. No roman superpower can only be a good thing for the Seleucids and a bad thing for the ptolemies.
 
Unclaimed? I hope you aren't referring to Gaul, which is occupied by very ancient and rather advanced peoples more than willing to defend it to the teeth, and who have acquired the moniker "barbarian" simply because Rome vanquished them so utterly that their side of history doesn't survive.

He's referring to Spain where both sides had competing regional interests. And anyway the Parthians are not likely to conquer Persia. It was good timing that they were able to get the Parthia in the first palace and it was only after the Seleucids were drastically weakened by the Romans that they gained any headway. No roman superpower can only be a good thing for the Seleucids and a bad thing for the ptolemies.

Woops, sorry; yeah, I meant Spain, thanks for clearing that up :eek: My knowledge of Gaul isn't the best, but I do know the Gauls scared the living daylights out of the Romans up until Caesar conquered them. Or was it until Marius knocked them around a bit? Anyway, the early development of a centralized Gaulic state - not sure how this could happen - would do a lot to discourage Roman imperialism.
 
Anyway, the early development of a centralized Gaulic state - not sure how this could happen - would do a lot to discourage Roman imperialism.

The main problem is that while Gaul did experienced the growth of political expression since the V century BCE (including the greek Gaul politeis), it looked more to what existed in Greece in the VI/V century BCE up to the conquest with the difference that confederations were more widespread (by exemple, before the conquest : Aedui, Arverni, Veneti, Sequani, Armorica possibly Pictones,...)

It was more or less a mix of clientelism (for most of gallic states before the roman conquest OTL) and tribal assembly. It was maintained since the V century with the support of druidism (that was, not unlike persian mazdeism, a religion and a social philosophy) but it began to decline in Gaul after the III and II centuries BCE, with the weakening and passing of kingships and the establishment of assembly republics.

A common issue is to find equivalences, as they develloped in quite an original way, favouring a rural and (as we could say it nowadays) decentralized organisation (oppida being more like the medieval incastellamento than a greco-roman urbanisation).

A centralism would be really hard to obtain from that, at least not before a long time. As in Greece, where you were Spartan rather than Athenian and before being Greek, in Gaul you were Arverni rathern than Aedui before being Celt.
It did existed a sense of a common identity, but it never became that more (as in everywhere in European Antiquity)

Another problem would be that these tribal states managed to strengthen themselves by the presence of a Mediterranean-North Sea trade, and that without the economical continuum formed by Rome, butterflies may prevent, delay or refrain this evolution.

Without roman imperialism, you may end with less dynamic (would it be only by influence) neighbours.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you could have another power rise in Italy either above or under it? Not one that's too powerful, but just enough to keep it in check until it's too late for it to become a continent spanning empire?
 
He's referring to Spain where both sides had competing regional interests. And anyway the Parthians are not likely to conquer Persia. It was good timing that they were able to get the Parthia in the first palace and it was only after the Seleucids were drastically weakened by the Romans that they gained any headway. No roman superpower can only be a good thing for the Seleucids and a bad thing for the ptolemies.

The Parthians had alrady kicked out the Seleucids out of Greater Iran about 50 years before the Romans showed up. So, the rise of the Parthians is not dependent on the Romans. A Rome-less world would probably see the Parthians taking Syria.
 
Any native Egyptian dynasty that manages to kick out the Ptolemies will probably fall in turn to the Seleukids (unless they end up with a leader who has the tactical mind of Napoleon and a light dusting of luck on top). Greek culture is also going to leave an indelible mark on Egyptian culture no matter what, by that point.
 

katchen

Banned
Kushan Persia?

He's referring to Spain where both sides had competing regional interests. And anyway the Parthians are not likely to conquer Persia. It was good timing that they were able to get the Parthia in the first palace and it was only after the Seleucids were drastically weakened by the Romans that they gained any headway. No roman superpower can only be a good thing for the Seleucids and a bad thing for the ptolemies.[/QUOTE
The Selucids would have withstood the Parthians if not weakened by Rome, but could they have withstood the Yuexi -Kushans?
 
Okay, so since obviously because Carthage can't be a power either...

Wait, let's not rule this out just yet -- remember, "juggernaut" is not just any "power". Specifically here, Carthage's power came from the sea and from trade, in contrast to Rome's army power, so a PoD where Carthage wins the 2PW, for example, could actually be more or less consistent with the OP...
 

Delvestius

Banned
I would be most interested in seeing how the Illyrian and Thracian states do, if the Slavs end up coming down the Balkans can be a real mess. Maybe Hellenic language states on the Italian peninsula. The med could probably turn into a Hellenic lake.The Germanic tribes probably would have conquered the Celtic nations entirely, and there would be an ancient Germanwank from Spain to Poland, as Greek settlements around Masalia and the Eastern Iberian coast wouldn't last. Get a powerful enough Zoroastria going and they might even conquer Greece, going even further into the Balkans. Egypt, if it gets it's shit together, might be able to make Yemen, Ethiopia and the Eastern African tribes tribute states. In the event of a Persian-wank I think they'd be gobbled though.

But of course, it really all depends on when some Altaic nomad tribe decides to just keep going.
 
Top