Roman-esque Empire originating from North Africa

Would it be possible/plausible for an empire to rise from North Africa, around or in the area Carthage came from? Would the population, geography, or other factors prevent this?

I'm asking because I have a fictional empire that originated from there, similar to Carthage, but conquering and expanding similar to Rome.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Uh, yes? If Carthage had succeeded in crushing Rome, it could have become this. Not a given, since Cathage might be more interested in monopolising the sea-trade all across the Med than in establishing a vast empire. But especially under Barcid direction, I could see a victorious Carthage aim to permanently control (at least parts of) Italy, gradually annex all of Iberia, etc. -- it could easily snowball from there.

If the POD is an ATL empire that arises much in the same area as Carthage did in OTL, I see no reason why it could not do what Carthage did and hypothetically could have done.
 
Last edited:
It's possible, more than possible actually considering the size of the Carthaginian Empire.

As long as they don't overrely in mercenaries like Carthage or if they had a system, like the Roman, in which anyone could become a citizen, thus being eligible to the army (this assumes the first point has true), then there's no reason on why they wouldn't be able to do it.

Look at Rome a backward place that had 9 in 10 chances of being destroyed in the cradle and yet they did it.
 
Uh, yes? If Carthage had succeeded in crushing Rome, it could have become this. Not a given, since Cathage might be more interested in mionopolising the sea-trade all across the Med than in establishing a vast empire. But especially under Barcid direction, I could see a victorious Carthage aim to permantly control (at least parts of) Italy, gradually annex all of Iberia, etc. -- it could easily snowball from there.

If the POD is an ATL empire that arises much in the same area as Carthage did in OTL, I see no reason why it could not do what Carthage did and hypothetically could have done.
Technically, a Barcid Empire would have originated in Spain :p
 
Carthage could not have been that. It took people with extraordinary abilities to conquer Spain, and the Punic army relied on mercenaries quite a bit.

Perhaps you could have more Tyrians move to Carthage as it is being colonized, but that's going to butterfly quite a bit.

But certainly, some sort of Roman-esque empire could have risen from North Africa.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Carthage could not have been that. It took people with extraordinary abilities to conquer Spain, and the Punic army relied on mercenaries quite a bit.

For the best results, I'd certainly say that alt-Carthage (be it an ATL Carthage or a similarly-located other power) would have to stop relying on mercenaries to such an extent as Carthage did in OTL. And conquering Spain is going to be a very difficult thing, just as it was in OTL. Fully agreed, and have in fact often argued the same. But on the other hand, we should also take care not to retro-actively project some kind of "oh, those unmatched brilliant Romans"-image onto all this. Rome was really good at what it did, but I consider it a bit iffy to say that Carthage could not have annexed Spain (albeit with considerable difficulty, and in gradual steps) if it had first defeated Rome.

After all, once that's done, who's going to interrupt while you take your time gradually taking Spain piece by piece? Without Rome, Carthage was the undisputed hegemon in the region. That's why they clashed in the first place: one of them was going to be in charge.
 
Here's a suggestion:

Heraclius retreats to Carthage in the face of the Persian Siege of Constantinople, and stays there, setting up a Roman empire in North africa.

The Persians take Constantinople, but then fail to take north Africa due to a string of defeats against Heraclius

In exchange they get North Africa up to the Nile River.
 

Deleted member 97083

Here's a suggestion:

Heraclius retreats to Carthage in the face of the Persian Siege of Constantinople, and stays there, setting up a Roman empire in North africa.

The Persians take Constantinople, but then fail to take north Africa due to a string of defeats against Heraclius

In exchange they get North Africa up to the Nile River.
With the exception of a few oases, the Nile River is the only habitable part of Egypt. It couldn't form a national border, especially in the ancient era; the disruption to agriculture and trade would be too much.
 
With the exception of a few oases, the Nile River is the only habitable part of Egypt. It couldn't form a national border, especially in the ancient era; the disruption to agriculture and trade would be too much.

I don't know. Any better border options? I just thought it was easier to quickly explain as its obvious where it is.
 
I can see it happening two ways

1) Carthage
2) as I was just beaten to, the Exarchate of Africa.

Carthage, frankly, needed to dominate the Atlas Mountains rather than just the coast, or get a resounding victory in Sicily. If you have a PoD that has Carthage allied with Sicily for the medium term, whilst it dominates Africa and can then draw on it for manpower as well as a trade resource, then I think Carthage would be more prepared for any later war (plus, a reliable ally in Syracuse/Sicily is a boon). The less mercenary army certainly would help them, as they can still back those troops with mercenaries galore from their trade). I won't lie, sometimes I think Carthage was probably the better option to make the Western Med catch up with the East economically.

The Exarchate may be cheating, but if Phocas doesn't usurp the throne, then assuming the Empire is able to survive Khosrau without a Heraclian Usurpation (I say it wouldn't be needed), then I think even if Mohammed rises as per OTL, and invades Africa after pushing the Romans back, I think the Exarchate would be able to hold off any invasion across the desert, as it hasn't used its resources to usurp the Empire. Regardless of what happens in the East, the Exarchate is then in the better position, and can start to build the west on its own merits. If it can bring the Berbers into their armies, then a Romano-Berber Exarchate could probably invade Spain and get the ball rolling out West.
 

Deleted member 97083

I don't know. Any better border options? I just thought it was easier to quickly explain as its obvious where it is.
The Libyan desert seems like a more likely border. The Persians wanted the whole of Egypt.

The Exarchate may be cheating, but if Phocas doesn't usurp the throne, then assuming the Empire is able to survive Khosrau without a Heraclian Usurpation (I say it wouldn't be needed), then I think even if Mohammed rises as per OTL, and invades Africa after pushing the Romans back, I think the Exarchate would be able to hold off any invasion across the desert, as it hasn't used its resources to usurp the Empire. Regardless of what happens in the East, the Exarchate is then in the better position, and can start to build the west on its own merits. If it can bring the Berbers into their armies, then a Romano-Berber Exarchate could probably invade Spain and get the ball rolling out West.
The Romans probably keep Sicilia and Calabria, so they can also make naval raids against centers like Alexandria.

There may be a slow emigration of Greeks from the Eastern Med to Carthage, since IOTL Andalusian Christians emigrated from the Caliphate of Cordoba to the Spanish kingdoms, and Persians settled in the Byzantine Empire after the Arab conquest of Persia.
 
The Libyan desert seems like a more likely border. The Persians wanted the whole of Egypt.


The Romans probably keep Sicilia and Calabria, so they can also make naval raids against centers like Alexandria.

There may be a slow emigration of Greeks from the Eastern Med to Carthage, since IOTL Andalusian Christians emigrated from the Caliphate of Cordoba to the Spanish kingdoms, and Persians settled in the Byzantine Empire after the Arab conquest of Persia.

So we could see a Greek colony in North Africa? Similar to the Carthaginians original idea? That's a pretty interesting idea.
 

Deleted member 97083

No, the Carthaginians originally settled in North Africa. The Greeks could do the same later on in this timeline.
Oh, well they were Phoenicians before they settled in North Africa. Carthage was simply the dominant Phoenician colony and ended up ruling the others.

I thought you meant the OTL Carthaginians had created a Greek colony at some point that I didn't know about. Actually that could be a plausible ATL after the Pyrrhic War or something. Settle displaced Greeks from Italy as a mercenary colony for Ancient Carthage, creating a Hellenistic contingent of the Carthaginian military to evolve and challenge the Romans. Maybe it would work, who knows.

---

In the Heraclian idea in the 7th century AD, the Greeks (who would call themselves Romans) would be settling already established cities in Roman Carthage... although they might claim and colonize some land further inland if the empire is wealthy enough to rebuild the qanats and old aqueducts. That may be the way the Berbers are vassalized to the Empire. Ultimately though, it would mostly be older cities from Antiquity being repopulated, except for Kairouan which could be a new Byzanto-Roman city.
 
Oh, well they were Phoenicians before they settled in North Africa. Carthage was simply the dominant Phoenician colony and ended up ruling the others.

I thought you meant the OTL Carthaginians had created a Greek colony at some point that I didn't know about. Actually that could be a plausible ATL after the Pyrrhic War or something. Settle displaced Greeks from Italy as a mercenary colony for Ancient Carthage, creating a Hellenistic contingent of the Carthaginian military to evolve and challenge the Romans. Maybe it would work, who knows.

---

In the Heraclian idea in the 7th century AD, the Greeks (who would call themselves Romans) would be settling already established cities in Roman Carthage... although they might claim and colonize some land further inland if the empire is wealthy enough to rebuild the qanats and old aqueducts. That may be the way the Berbers are vassalized to the Empire. Ultimately though, it would mostly be older cities from Antiquity being repopulated, except for Kairouan which could be a new Byzanto-Roman city.

This could lead to a darker age in Europe, with the Persians probably being able to face and defeat the Muslims, keeping them in Arabia. So no enlightened Eastern Romans or Arabs.
 

Deleted member 97083

This could lead to a darker age in Europe, with the Persians probably being able to face and defeat the Muslims, keeping them in Arabia. So no enlightened Eastern Romans or Arabs.
The Sassanians weren't backwards, they had thriving art, literature, medicine, and several academies of learning. That said, the Sassanid Empire was a crumbling house of cards by the end of Khosrau II's reign, and though they could use their extra western territory as defense in depth to preserve Iran and northern Mesopotamia, they would certainly lose the Mediterranean coast to either the Arabs or to Christian rebellions. Or both, as the Christian rebels side with the Arabs over the Persians.
 
The Sassanians weren't backwards, they had thriving art, literature, medicine, and several academies of learning. That said, the Sassanid Empire was a crumbling house of cards by the end of Khosrau II's reign, and though they could use their extra western territory as defense in depth to preserve Iran and northern Mesopotamia, they would certainly lose the Mediterranean coast to either the Arabs or to Christian rebellions. Or both, as the Christian rebels side with the Arabs over the Persians.

Yeah, the Persians had over extended themselves by that point, but they still would be able to defeat the Arabs, maybe they could gain access to egypt/Palestine and launch a war against Roman Africa.
 
The Romans probably keep Sicilia and Calabria, so they can also make naval raids against centers like Alexandria.

There may be a slow emigration of Greeks from the Eastern Med to Carthage, since IOTL Andalusian Christians emigrated from the Caliphate of Cordoba to the Spanish kingdoms, and Persians settled in the Byzantine Empire after the Arab conquest of Persia.

AFAIK Exarchates are somewhat independent of Constantinople historically, so whilst I doubt Constantinople will be in a place to demand compliance and actually expect a result, do you think the two will essentially be strong long-term allies - and perhaps form a coherent "Roman World"? Especially with some territories in Sicilia and Calabria to keep the two closer together.
 

Deleted member 97083

AFAIK Exarchates are somewhat independent of Constantinople historically, so whilst I doubt Constantinople will be in a place to demand compliance and actually expect a result, do you think the two will essentially be strong long-term allies - and perhaps form a coherent "Roman World"? Especially with some territories in Sicilia and Calabria to keep the two closer together.
For a few centuries yes, but with a more consolidated Muslim world focusing on the big prizes, Rum and Constantinople, I could see the Byzantine Empire falling earlier.

This earlier decline of the Byzantine Empire, however, will paradoxically be good for the Carthaginian-empire-to-be, as it will increase the number of Byzantine scholars and nobility taking refuge in Carthage, and the Exarchate's navy will become the most important navy in the Mediterranean.
 
Top