Nation-states

The Roman Empire dramatically transformed Europe. It more or less wiped the slate clean to a Latin identity that was then overtaken by Germanic tribes. If Gaul, Britain and Central Europe had not been conquered by Rome would they develop similarly in the Middle Ages and into nation-states? Would the Celtic and Germanic tribes, or at least their culture, have remained dominant in modern Western and Central Europe? Would the warlike Celtic, Germanic and Thracian tribes have been better able to defend themselves from the invasions of the string of invasions in the wake of the Huns that brought down the Roman Empire?

My question is:

How would Europe have developed has Italian civilisation stopped at the Alps? Using a POD ranging from the foundation of Rome to Caesar's conquest of Gaul at latest, what would be the future of Europe had Latin/Helenistic/Punic civilisation never expanded north of the Alps/Pyrenees/Macedonia?
 
The final zone of Carthaginian culture would presumably been in an arc up the Iberian and Gaulish coasts, and probably over the major islands too.

Dacia presumably would have gone on to consolidate its existence

The Greek successor states would have seen the emergence of powerful second-generation kingdoms, a la Pontus or Egypt, that would have had an effect greater than that in OTL

If we are saying no Caesar, as no Gaul, then we are removing his invasion of Britain and thus probably not paving the way so easily for a Catuvellauni-led confederation to begin to emerge

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The final zone of Carthaginian culture would presumably been in an arc up the Iberian and Gaulish coasts, and probably over the major islands too.

Dacia presumably would have gone on to consolidate its existence

The Greek successor states would have seen the emergence of powerful second-generation kingdoms, a la Pontus or Egypt, that would have had an effect greater than that in OTL

If we are saying no Caesar, as no Gaul, then we are removing his invasion of Britain and thus probably not paving the way so easily for a Catuvellauni-led confederation to begin to emerge

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Based on Carthaginian history (Hadrubal and Hannibal being somewhat unique) the Carthaginian Empire had only loose control, so would have little interest in expanding beyond the areas you've said. A major conquest like Caesar's of Gaul would not be in their interest.

Dacia was more of an anomoly in terms of its centralisation compared to most of Europe. I can see it consolidating too, and being quite powerful. I can also see Hellenistic-Persian cultures dominating the Middle East for longer. But I'm not sure how Europe would develop, the Germanic tribes that displaced Rome were very decentralised and differently organised. They can't be used as a direct example as Roman culture was far more dominant and influential. Would Gaul have been united eventually or conquered? Would British history mirror Irish far more? Or do you think a major external threat on the scale of Rome was needed for any of this? If this was the case then maybe Western and Central Europe would be far less significant, and the Meditteranean continue to be the centre of Western civilisation.

Ah...you are also aiming to retard Carthage?

Never mind then re my answer

Actually neither need be be retarded, you can have the Roman Empire exist as it did before Caesar and not expand north, or you can have the Carthaginians conquer all of Spain and defeat Rome desicively but not expand any further north (both of which could have been possible decisions made on strategic grounds. The point is much of Europe evolves for several hundred years without being overwhelmed by a Meditteranean culture. How would it evolve? And how would it effect future migrations from the East?
 
Europe would have developed very differently. For one thing Greek might be a language far more widespread and "Italy" would have an Italian North and a Greek South, and the further north and east one goes I'm not entirely sure what happens. One thing that's definitely certain is that the history of the Slavs and Balts would be very different, though what form that difference takes is again something I'm not sure of.
 
Europe would have developed very differently. For one thing Greek might be a language far more widespread and "Italy" would have an Italian North and a Greek South, and the further north and east one goes I'm not entirely sure what happens. One thing that's definitely certain is that the history of the Slavs and Balts would be very different, though what form that difference takes is again something I'm not sure of.

Yeah Italy could have developed as two states, and Etruscan state and a Greek state.

Anyone want to speculate on how the history and Celtic Europe and the Germanic tribes, Slavs Balts and others to the east may have developed?

I think Britain and Gaul may have eventually unified to a degree, probably with high kings similar to Ireland, and would remain very decentralised. I think in general the world would be more decentralised. The Carthaginian Empire was very decentralised, and so were the Greeks in the Western Mediterranean, in the traditional city-state format. If these forms of government had persisted for longer and evolved, how do you think this would influence the Middle Ages/modern world? Or do you think that another major power/s would have conquered these regions and achieved what Rome did in the OTL?
 
Yeah Italy could have developed as two states, and Etruscan state and a Greek state.

Anyone want to speculate on how the history and Celtic Europe and the Germanic tribes, Slavs Balts and others to the east may have developed?

I think Britain and Gaul may have eventually unified to a degree, probably with high kings similar to Ireland, and would remain very decentralised. I think in general the world would be more decentralised. The Carthaginian Empire was very decentralised, and so were the Greeks in the Western Mediterranean, in the traditional city-state format. If these forms of government had persisted for longer and evolved, how do you think this would influence the Middle Ages/modern world? Or do you think that another major power/s would have conquered these regions and achieved what Rome did in the OTL?

One thing to consider is that uber-states always arose in the nexus of civilisation, and that with Greece and with Rome that simply shifted West. Without a Roman rise, and without a Greek renaissance (which is always possible if the successor states don't get bashed by Rome) might we be looking at a Persian revival which comes to threaten Europe itself?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It's fair enough to say that it's likely that much of the world would be decentralised, since that seems to have been the trend before they were gobbled up. But I would point out that a lot of states have been decentralised, sometimes even without any visible social hierarchy, and then 'all of a sudden' (asin the archaeological record suddenly changes, this can still reflect something that took 100+ years to achieve) societies can end up centralising or acquiring a social elite. A world without Rome north of the Alps would remain a dynamic one, there would be other forces that cause change and reaction in societies.

You'd end up with a very different Gaul depending on whether the PoD is before 150 BCE (the conquest of Gallia Narbonensis) or after. Beforehand, the Averni were looking to expand their control to most of central Gaul and were by far the strongest power. When the Romans defeated them in battle, their confederacy collapsed.

Also, this thread needs more Noricum. They were Rome's Alpine buffer state, but until Augustus had a relatively friendly co-existence with them. The Romans would stay out of Noricum's gold if Noricum didn't interfere with Northern Italy. The friendship of Rome allowed a centralised Kingdom to emerge. Depending on the PoD, this still happens but they don't get absorbed, or the Romans' influence never extends that far and so no relationship is developed.
 
One thing to consider is that uber-states always arose in the nexus of civilisation, and that with Greece and with Rome that simply shifted West. Without a Roman rise, and without a Greek renaissance (which is always possible if the successor states don't get bashed by Rome) might we be looking at a Persian revival which comes to threaten Europe itself?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The Seleucid Empire invading Europe? That's possible, without Rome who's to stop Antiochus the Great from conquering Greece and Macedonia? A Greco-Persian Empire spanning Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire, and a Barcid Empire ruling the West maybe? I think the Seleucids probably had a couple of hundred years in them if the Romans didn't stop them.

Punic, Greek and Persian culture might replace Roman influence instead.
 
Based on Carthaginian history (Hadrubal and Hannibal being somewhat unique) the Carthaginian Empire had only loose control, so would have little interest in expanding beyond the areas you've said. A major conquest like Caesar's of Gaul would not be in their interest.

Couldn't the same be said about Rome only being interested in a sea-based empire before JC decided he wanted to make a name for himself?
 
The Absence of any Imperial Roman Presence north of Italy would also affect the spread of Christianity to the north. After Christianity became in effect the state church of the Roman Empire the roles of Emperor and Pope in the west were linked. This extended past the final collpase of the western Empire and helped solidify the Carolinginian empire and form the basis for the leigitimacy of what later became the separate Frankish and eastern Germanic kingdoms. Without the ideal model of unity and power provided by the Roman Empire and (after 400) the Roman church structure, would the many different Germanic tribes seek greater political unity at all?
 
As for NW Europe, it gets complicated. I think Gaul will eventually (probably by year 1 AD) unify, likely under Arverni hegemony, but there were other contenders (like the Aedui) who, though less likely, had a chance. History is messy, we should remember.

There will probably be Germanic incursions into Gaul, but I highly doubt a full scale invasion will be possible against a more unified Gaul (remembering that both the Cimbri and Suebi invasions occurred after Rome dismantled Arverni hegemony).

Judging by how the momentum was going OTL before Roman invasion, Illyria was gearing up to unify under a couple of kingdoms, wether it be the Scordici, the Dardanians, or the Liburnians. Pannonia will be completely Celticized, and its possible the rest of Illyria might as well, if not Hellenized. The Dalmatia-based cultures seemed to have been on the decline, while their political unity seemed to be increasing with time.

Dacia is tricky. It had the momentum to unify and centralize, and the military prowess to expand even. But Dacia is prime location for invaders. The Goths, the Sarmatians, the Greeks, the Alans, and the Huns all passed through what was once Dacia and settled there. It really is hard to say how the Dacians would hold up against these threats. Will they integrate some of them (perhaps the Goths and Sarmatian tribes?) or will they defeat/ be defeated by them (the Huns and the Greeks?).

Germanic tribes are also tricky. They were migrating out of what is now the Netherlands and Denmark due to climate change and flooding en masse. OTL, they moved in just about every direction. The Gothic peoples ended up along the Black Sea, the Marcomanni ended up along the Danube, and the Suebi landed themselves along the Rhine. It really depends on if the people there before them can hold them back, or not.

The Slavs will likely settle wherever the Germanic tribes are displaced. This could be central Germany, the Balkans, or Pannonia. The Balts might expand eastward.
 
As for NW Europe, it gets complicated. I think Gaul will eventually (probably by year 1 AD) unify, likely under Arverni hegemony, but there were other contenders (like the Aedui) who, though less likely, had a chance. History is messy, we should remember...

And history gets messier the more we look into tribal history. I'm not sure that a tribal hegemony could be so strong as to unify Gaul. Perhaps control a large portion of Gaul, but I don't think that they could accomplish holding all of Gaul.
 
One wonder if Greek could ironically and paradoxaly fade and disapears into Hellenistic languages family, like how Latin faded into Romance languages?
 
Couldn't the same be said about Rome only being interested in a sea-based empire before JC decided he wanted to make a name for himself?

Not exactly as Rome had been expanding overland for a few centuries prior to that, and there's also the cultural myth left over from the *first* sacking of Rome by the Gauls for any Roman that'd want to go to the trouble of conquering Gaul.
 
Couldn't the same be said about Rome only being interested in a sea-based empire before JC decided he wanted to make a name for himself?

Well, before the First Punic War yes. Rome built a navy based on the Carthaginian one to fight them at sea. The Arabs coming from the desert also had one of the most feared navies in history (just think of the Barbary Pirates). So its very possible that any change could be adopted over time, but I'm not sure what trigger or motives would be needed to create these. If Carthage won the Second Punic War it makes sense that Hannibal might adopt some of the Roman measures to assimulate and strengthen control. Similarly a Gallic king might carry out reforms to model Gaul after the Macedonian Kingdom to centralise his power.

As for NW Europe, it gets complicated. I think Gaul will eventually (probably by year 1 AD) unify, likely under Arverni hegemony, but there were other contenders (like the Aedui) who, though less likely, had a chance. History is messy, we should remember.

I agree with your analysis

And history gets messier the more we look into tribal history. I'm not sure that a tribal hegemony could be so strong as to unify Gaul. Perhaps control a large portion of Gaul, but I don't think that they could accomplish holding all of Gaul.

It might have evolved as I stated above, but what do you think the chances are that Gaul could unite and reform enough to persist as a proper nation before a serious invasion threat arrives? Would Gaul unite enough to continue existing even with foreign rulers? Or would someone like the Franks go and found France in its place even without all the events of the Roman conquest assimulation?

One wonder if Greek could ironically and paradoxaly fade and disapears into Hellenistic languages family, like how Latin faded into Romance languages?

Its quite possible that Celtic or Punic languages could become dominant instead. Or if the Seleucid Empire remains the main power, then maybe Persian would eventually takeover from Greek?
 
But if Greeks cover more area, evolve without Rome, less united... Would there be Neogreeks languages, derivated from it like Romance ancestors of French, SPnaish, etc?
 
Could the Carthaginian culture have survived until modern times?

Admittedly, I know almost nothing about ancient history, so this stuff is all very interesting.
 
Top