Plausible Carthage Wank?
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
Um, it was a joke?
Did I catch you at a bad time or something?
No, I like to help out. I just thought you understood from earlier, the nature of the joint Macedonian-Seleucid strategy to remove the Ptolemies from the picture.
The Macedonians aren't quite the same power as they were since the lifetime of Alexander. In the Third Century BCE, tens of thousands of Greeks and Macedonians immigrated to the new polis' in Asia and Egypt. This weakened the demographics of the Greek city-states and the Kingdom of Macedonia. The latter was compelled to invite Thracians and Illyrians to settle within their borders, so they could recruit them for military service. And even that was often enough to maintain Macedonia's military supremacy over the Greeks in the south.
The Greek city-states, resentful of the northern Macedonians, would form leagues from time to time, and alliances were favoured with Ptolemaic Egypt, which had a powerful navy, imported tonnes of grain abroad, and so was wealthy enough to attract into their armies different nationalities as diverse as other Hellenes, Thracians, Celtic Galatians, Nubians and Hebrews.
The Seleucids for their part controlled the largest of the Diadochi states, and a greater number of different ethnic groups. Hellenization was sometimes implemented to enhance the long-term cohesiveness of the empire. And while the Seleucids were embroiled in wars with Egypt in the west, the Bactrians claimed their independence, and the Pahlava stormed into Parthia, and in time would gradually snatch away the rest of Iran and Mesopotamia. Just as Antiochus III had a chance to end the Ptolemies for good, you had Manius Acilius Glabrio at Thermopylae in 191 BCE, and the Scipio brothers at Magnesia the following year helping Eumenes II put the boots on Antiochus' plans. After that, Rome became the new major western force that affected developments in the eastern Med.
Yes, Macedon was kind of past its best-before date, in OTL wasn't it? But with Rome gone, could we not see another Alexander(or at least another Philip II) leading a resurgent Macedon? Hell, maybe Perseus could do it but I don't know much about him.
But the Leagues were only ever unified for mutual defence, correct? If so, I'm fairly certain that Macedon would be able to conquer them, although it would certainly take time.
I'm definitily going to have fun with the Eastern Mediterranean in this timeline.
So without Rome to put the boot on Antiochus' plans, he would conquer Egypt and most likely be able to put down the eastern rebellions/uprisings. Do you think this would cause the Seleucid Empire to consider waging war against the Mauryan Dynasty in India? Or were they on somewhat friendly terms at that point?
The La Tene era of Celtic civilization. Cities and settlements that have their roots in that time include:
Nemausos (Nimes)
Tolosa (Toulouse)
Mediolanum, (Milan)
Singidunum (Belgrade)
Autricum (Chartres)
Bibracte (outside of modern French Autun)
Gergovia (now the village of Gergovie in Auvergne)
The Vindelici capital (Manching in Germany)
Cenabum (Orleans)
Avaricum (Bourges)
Bononia (Bologna, first Etruscan, then Celtic, then Roman)
Tylis (short-lived Celtic state in Bulgaria, now the village of Tolova in Stara Zagora province)
Vindobona (Vienna)
Bratislava (originally a settlement of the Boii tribe)
Arverni: Located in modern Auvergne, the Arverni were cited as the most powerful of the Gallic nations from the Third to Second centuries BCE, until their defeat by the Romans in 123 BCE, when their King Bituitus was captured in battle by the Consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus. The victory secured the province of Gallia Narbonensis (Provence) in southern Gaul. Vercingetorix, would later in the mid-First Century BCE, would lead the nation in a coalition of tribes that gave Caesar a tough fight until their ultimate defeat at Alesia. The Arverni were a monarchistic tribe, which controlled a number of mines and major trade routes.
Aedui: Their core territories were located in Saone-et-Loire, Cote d'Or, and Nievre. Their capital was Bibracte, now a major archeological site in France. The Aedui are said to have been governed by a republican form of government, where the head official was a "Vergobret", senior magistrates were known as "Gobre", and lesser magistrates were "Bretamu", related to Irish "Breitheamh". After Caesar's subjugation of Gaul, the township of Bibracte was moved to the new town of Augustodunum (now Autun). In the century leading up to the Roman conquest, the Aedui were "friends and allies" of Rome, the pretext for some of Caesars campaigns seemed to involve "protecting" Rome's Gaulish allies. Livy is perhaps the earliest source for the Aedui's history, which claims that they succeeded the Bituriges as the dominant tribal confederation in Gaul. Tribal clients and allies of the Aedui included the Carnutes, whose territory was centred around the cities of Orleans and Chartres, and there was hosted an annual gathering place for all of Gaul's Druids. The Insubres, who founded the city of Milan in the Sixth Century BCE. And the Bituriges, based at Bourges, who were the former overlords of the Aedui.
Allobroges: They were located in the modern regions of Vivarais, Savoy, and Dauphine. The Allobroges were the tribe whom attacked Hannibal's army prior to his crossing of the Alps into Italy. During the 60's BCE, a delegation of Allobroges had apparently alerted Marcus Tullius Cicero to the Catiline Conspiracy.
Scordisci: At their height of power, their territory extended to parts of Serbia, Hungary, Bosnia, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, and Slovakia. Thought to be the most cosmopolitan of the the Celtic nations, its possible that the ruling caste were Celtic, and ruled over a mixed population of Thracians, Illyrians, and Pannonians. They also founded Singidunum (now Belgrade). These Celts may have played a part in the Delphic Expeditions from 281-79 BCE in Greece.
Boii: The two well known branches of that tribe were based in Czech-Slovakia (and may have given their name to Bohemia), and the Boii in northern Italy (where the city of Bologna may have acquired its name).
Volcae: Many branches of this tribe exist as the Aegosages of Thrace, whom founded Tylis and were originally part of the Delphic Expedition. The Arecomici, who were based in southern Gaul around their capital of Nemausus (Nimes). And the Tectosages, originally from around Toulouse, but were also part of the Delphic Expedition of 281-79 BCE, and later formed a third of the Galatians along with the Tolistobogii and the Trocmi in central Anatolia.
The Belgae: An ethnic group composed of tribes such as the Treveri, the Remi, the Nervii, the Eburones, the Condrusi, the Paemani, the Bellovaci, the Menapi, the Morini, the Suessiones, the Viromandui, the Atrebates, the Atuatuci, the Ambiani, the Caleti, the Caerosi, and the Veliocasses, are believed by some to have been originally Proto Germanic before adopting Celtic culture, or were a mixed Celto-Germanic identity.
Veneti: They were the renowned shipwrights and sailors of Brittany until their defeat by Caesar's forces in 56 BCE.
The Aquitani: They were actually an Iberian ethnic group in south-western Gaul related to modern Basques, but had absorbed some Celtic cultural influences.
Lexovii: Their territories extended to modern Normandy.
Vindelici: Based in Bavaria, their capital is assumed to have been the excavated Celtic site at the modern city of Manching.
I hope some of this has been helpful.
Last edited:
Extraordinarily so. I'm also using some of my free time to research Scandinavia during this period and Britannia, but so far not much has come from that. The various Celtic tribes are very useful for the timeline since they're going to be friends of the Carthaginians and dominating much of Europe and whatnot.
P.S. Was it the Arverni that also used the Greek alphabet or am I thinking of another Celtic Tribe that did that?
Another important player in the game at that time was the greek Achaean League. It was the first successful representative republican democracy, and was rising and growing because, as today, democracy gives better leadership, economies, and innovation than the unchecked monarchies that dominated Al the Great's ex-conquests. Google throws up a ton of stuff, or you could read Polybius' history - Polybius was a League politician taken hostage by Rome - his history's also a good Punic War source.
Yes, and there was the Aetolian League as well that was giving Macedon problems for a while. Ultimately though, I see them being conquered or at least marginalized under Macedon's boot.
I think the most of the Celts of Gaul used the Greek Alphabet, notably on coins they manufactured. They are also thought to have variously used the Greek and Latin Alphabets when compiling trading records, and according to Caesar, the Helveti tribe from Switzerland had a census written up in their camp where Greek letters were employed. The Celts used the oral tradition for recording their history and religious traditions, so they may have adopted foreign alphabets for economic reasons, giving the widespread dimensions of Hellenic culture, and Latin might probably have become popular with the rise of the Roman Republic.
Perhaps the most notable Germanic tribal confederation before the Common Era, were the Suebi. In the early 50's BCE, Caesar went to war with them, as they had previously invaded and occupied Aedui territory. Caesar records the warriors of the Suebi fighting in disciplined phalanx-like formation.
Last edited:
Okay, so now I have a general idea about how I want the timeline to progress...
Upon his return to Carthage, Hannibal is appointed Shofet and attempts to enact many reforms in his tenure. They are opposed by Hanno II the Great. After several incidents, this turns into a shortlived Carthaginian Civil War with the Celtiberians, Lucanians and Tarentines supporting Hannibal and the Numidians supporting Hanno II and the Carthaginian cities. Due to Hannibal's cunning tactics and widespread support in Carthage, the war is over in a matter of months and Hannibal marches on Carthage where he crowns himself King. Hannibal and the Carthaginians continue to expand their holdings in Iberia and Numidia. Meanwhile, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire and Philip V of Macedon settle on terms of splitting up Ptolemaic Egypt...
Upon his return to Carthage, Hannibal is appointed Shofet and attempts to enact many reforms in his tenure. They are opposed by Hanno II the Great. After several incidents, this turns into a shortlived Carthaginian Civil War with the Celtiberians, Lucanians and Tarentines supporting Hannibal and the Numidians supporting Hanno II and the Carthaginian cities. Due to Hannibal's cunning tactics and widespread support in Carthage, the war is over in a matter of months and Hannibal marches on Carthage where he crowns himself King. Hannibal and the Carthaginians continue to expand their holdings in Iberia and Numidia. Meanwhile, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire and Philip V of Macedon settle on terms of splitting up Ptolemaic Egypt...
Okay, so I have rejigged the imeline so that now Carthage is in on the deal between Macedon and the Seleucids by getting their consent on the acquiring of Cyrene.
Someone mentioned it in another thread, but I'm curious what others think of this as well...
What is the likelyhood of a surviving Carthaginian Empire fighting the Mongols or even the Huns?
What is the likelyhood of a surviving Carthaginian Empire fighting the Mongols or even the Huns?
Pretty good, as their main base of power is in North Africa. The Hunnic armies in the reign of Attila were mostly composed of Germanics and Sarmatians. The original Turkic-Hun element was pretty minute compared to the majority of their subjects. The Hunnic Empire was really a confederation of multi-ethnic tribes, and were only a serious threat to the Roman Empire during the 400's CE when they were led by Oktar, Rugila, Bleda and Attila. After that, they began fighting amongst themselves once more, and their Germanic subjects turned on them. Plus the Roman Empire was pretty weak during that period. And giving tribute to Attila was only making it worse.
Much of the Mongol's success was owed to the fact that they recruited local talent to help run their empire. There's winning battles, and retaining your conquests.
Didn't the Huns also have native Alans amongst them as well? Or were the Alans one of the many tribes that were displaced and forced to flee through Roman lands?
Either way, I will enjoy seeing a Hellenized Mediterranean with their war elephants and Cavalry and backed up by Celts and Gauls fighting back Hunnic and Mongol Hordes.
Didn't the Huns also have native Alans amongst them as well? Or were the Alans one of the many tribes that were displaced and forced to flee through Roman lands?
Either way, I will enjoy seeing a Hellenized Mediterranean with their war elephants and Cavalry and backed up by Celts and Gauls fighting back Hunnic and Mongol Hordes.
The Alans were a branch of the Sarmatians. A large of them would band together with the Vandals and Suebi when they migrated to Spain in the early 400's CE.
Plus, neither the Huns or the Mongols advanced far beyond Poland or Hungary. The Mongols were already well spread across Asia and there wasn't much that they needed in the west. And the Huns were more interested extorting money from the Roman Empire than conquering it in totality. Their empire extended as far east as the northern Caspian Sea shoreline. Whats more, as a great land empire, the Huns were not reported to have any aptitude for sea travel. Unless Carthage changes so much as to eventually possess substantial territory in northern Europe, I don't think they would really get in each others way.
Ah, I did not know that about the Alans. Thanks for the clarification.
As for the Huns, without a Roman Empire wouldn't they want to threaten the next best thing which would be either Persia or in this TL, Carthage? Or perhaps even the Celts having developed Kingdoms and Empires of their own by this point. As for Carthage holding territory, I intend to keep them mostly in Northern Africa, spreading around to the western and eastern edges.
Presuming that one of the major Gaulish tribal groups gains total dominance over others between the 3rd Century BCE-1st Century CE, basically ruling the area of modern France, Belgium, Holland, northern Spain, Switzerland, Austria, and the Rhineland. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri, Teuton, Suebi, Cherusci, Chatti, and the Marcomanni, being on the fringes, would be reduced to client states. As well, possibly, as the Boii tribes in both Italy and the Danube region.
Within Gallic society, the Druidic class, being united with a strong secular force, becomes a more hierarchal and regulated clerical order, whom the Gallic high-kings come to rely on to confirm their divinely-chosen status. This kind of development rubs off on the Germanics further east, the Celtiberians in Spain, and the British tribes.
There may be civil strife in the Gallic empire, or among the other nations, but they will come to share in an ideology. Some militant Germanic groups would come to embrace aspects of Celtic culture as they did Roman culture OTL. And with the closer proximity to the Germanics than the Roman centre of power, trends in urbanization and developing trade in eastern Europe could be more closely observed. The Kingdom of Dacia, located in modern Romania, was highly urban, and seemed to have a unified religion which could also influence the Germanic tribes like the Bastarnae up north, or could itself become expansionistic.
So, if the general area between Germany and the Ukraine bore witness to united Gallic military expansion in the west and Dacian expansion from the south, the Germanics might be forced to take sides in this.
The Huns, whom may have been a multi-ethnic group from the very beginning, first appeared to the Romans as mercenaries, and were to divided to pose a true threat in the beginning, unlike they would become later under the leadership of Attila. The Huns rose to power by conquering and consolidating their authority over weaker tribes from the Russian Steppe toward the Gothic lands in central Europe, thus enhancing their own strengh. They arrived on the Eurasian Steppe as nomads, but came to possess a considerable number of infantry by Attila's reign, most of them were probably of Germanic or Thracian origins. The Indo-Irannic Sarmatians would probably only enhance the number of horsemen and archer in the Hunnic armies.
In a world where the Gauls and Dacians thrive, the Huns may have some initial success beyond the Carpathians, but would be hard-pressed to attack two empires that possess less territory than OTL Rome, but have the manpower to spare from not being as tied up defending provnces in North Africa and western Asia. And the Huns won't have access to conscript from larger agrarian-based populations.
In that case, Europe beyond the Pyrenees, the Alps and Macedonia may be contested by three major polities.
I hadn't taken into account that the Huns might not have attacked due to Rome being stretched thin. Do you think they might have just avoided Europe all together and head towards Persia and Asia instead?
The Huns did wage war on Sassanid Persia IOTL, but the political/religious division, and the economic stagnation of the Late Roman Empire made it a favourite area for the Huns to manipulate and seek riches. Rome was at its weakest during the Hunnic heydey. The emperors were constantly forced to buy them off, over and over, making them bankrupt. This was a major drawback for the upkeep of the Roman armies as well as civic infrastructure.
Okay, so then I'll try and make it so that the Huns go after whoever is the weakest at the time. Perhaps what could also happen is that the Huns succeed in swaying several Germanic and Gaulic tribes over to their side, causing a schizm in mainland Europe.
Last edited: