Roman-esque Empire originating from North Africa

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.

Really? Hmm, I can see the rationale, but I think it might be just as possible that the Exarchate keeps the Empire stable. Being Roman, and obsensibly part of the Empire, gives them some legitimacy to say - "no Anatolia, stay with the Emperor, good boy", and essentially support good sitting Emperors, whilst being able to effectively force a peaceful transition of power. Basically they could be an Emperor-Maker, which if they choose to go for it themselves, like Heraclius, could well win at the right time. So it could provide a measure of political stability as well as an economic and military partner.

The latter is where I think it provides longevity. The Exarchate has a pretty solid motivation for a strong, but not too-strong Empire. If the Empire in the East falls, its best ally falls, as does its trade partner. However it doesn't want an Empire with both the Levant and Egypt, otherwise it gets sidelined. When there are fractures in Muslim unity, I honestly think the Exarchate might ally with the Empire to set up Exarchs in the Levant and Egypt - not direct rule, I don't think it would support that.

Just taking advantage of a weakened Egyptian power, as the first crusade showed, but with a fleet from Roman Africa rather than the madness of the First Crusade, seems to be a sensible geo-political move. Setting up an Exarch in Egypt helps strengthen the Roman World, without directly strengthening Constantinople, and ensures that Africa is safe in the East, as now that Exarch is going to be trying to ensure an Exarch in the Levant, or to be the Levantine Exarch - freeing Africa to do its own thing.

At some point I might have to draft a 'Roman Commonwealth' TL based on this premise. I keep coming back to the idea.
 

Deleted member 97083

Really? Hmm, I can see the rationale, but I think it might be just as possible that the Exarchate keeps the Empire stable. Being Roman, and obsensibly part of the Empire, gives them some legitimacy to say - "no Anatolia, stay with the Emperor, good boy", and essentially support good sitting Emperors, whilst being able to effectively force a peaceful transition of power. Basically they could be an Emperor-Maker, which if they choose to go for it themselves, like Heraclius, could well win at the right time. So it could provide a measure of political stability as well as an economic and military partner.

The latter is where I think it provides longevity. The Exarchate has a pretty solid motivation for a strong, but not too-strong Empire. If the Empire in the East falls, its best ally falls, as does its trade partner. However it doesn't want an Empire with both the Levant and Egypt, otherwise it gets sidelined. When there are fractures in Muslim unity, I honestly think the Exarchate might ally with the Empire to set up Exarchs in the Levant and Egypt - not direct rule, I don't think it would support that.

Just taking advantage of a weakened Egyptian power, as the first crusade showed, but with a fleet from Roman Africa rather than the madness of the First Crusade, seems to be a sensible geo-political move. Setting up an Exarch in Egypt helps strengthen the Roman World, without directly strengthening Constantinople, and ensures that Africa is safe in the East, as now that Exarch is going to be trying to ensure an Exarch in the Levant, or to be the Levantine Exarch - freeing Africa to do its own thing.

At some point I might have to draft a 'Roman Commonwealth' TL based on this premise. I keep coming back to the idea.
I concede, that makes more sense especially since Africa could be shipping grain to Constantinople,

Also the Roman Commonwealth idea does sound cool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 Islamic Golden Age was largely based on older Graeco-Roman scholarship. The Byzantines would be just fine culturally speaking without the Muslim conquests.

Plus, at least some historians have argued that the Muslim conquests actually led to the Dark Ages, by disrupting Mediterranean trade and hence cutting off northern and western Europe from the Roman east. So the Dark Ages might actually be lightened.
 

Deleted member 97083

The Islamic Golden Age was largely based on older Graeco-Roman scholarship. The Byzantines would be just fine culturally speaking without the Muslim conquests.

Plus, at least some historians have argued that the Muslim conquests actually led to the Dark Ages, by disrupting Mediterranean trade and hence cutting off northern and western Europe from the Roman east. So the Dark Ages might actually be lightened.
Few serious historians still say that the Dark Ages were a thing though, other than as a flashy term for book titles.
 
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.

Carthage itself didn't really have the outlook or military/social structures to expand like Rome, but an alt-empire in the same area could well do so. North Africa was probably the single richest and most fertile part of the Western Mediterranean, after all, so it would be a good base to expand from.
 
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.

Why Kairouan? It didn't even exist in the Roman period and was an Arab foundation. Is the site even that great compared to other inland Roman cities in North Africa like Cirta, Lambaesis, or Volubilis (well, that one would need to be reconquered), etc.

Militarily, this could easily be the Southern Roman Empire if it ever wanted to split from the ERE. I'd say control over Sicily is probably a given, considering it's right next door to Carthage and such a state would do well to emulate all of the best aspects of Carthage. I think a conquest of Mauretania Tingitana as well as even conquering south into the Atlas is a good idea as well for extra land and to stop Berber raids. With boundaries at the ocean, the Sahara, and Sinai, there's no real ability for major threats to occur except by sea (hence a strong navy) and along the coast by Sinai. Oh, and I suppose maybe up the Nile through Nubia, but the Nubians would make good vassals and can be controlled. Pacifying Mauretania could be a long term investment, but probably a good one in the end since it keeps a potential threat to the west checked. It's also good for trade once the camel is introduced in larger numbers and the trans-Saharan trade begins for real, leading to hopefully friendly relations with the sub-Saharan African kingdoms like Ghana (maybe eventual conversion). So that leaves the main role of the Exarchate/Southern Roman Empire to project power outward, hopefully against Italy and Spain, but also perhaps the Levant. Could be an interesting situation--you'd have the ERE, SRE, Persians, and perhaps Arabs competing over the area.

Speaking of Greeks, you could really revive the Cyrenaican Pentapolis, including Cyrene itself. Even in Late Antiquity it probably had a very large population of Greeks.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
what is 'roman-esque' ?

is it just Med Empire, then it its possible. many had already mentioned Carthage-victory scenario.

or is it Roman 'replica' in Africa ? with legion, road, expanding citizenship, etc. then we have more problem.

location influence state structure. Carthage choose lots of mercenaries, more navy and merchant heavy politics is because its trading city located in area with rather small population. Rome is infantry heavy and expansive citisenship is because it located in central Italy, heavily populated area surrounded by Latin and socii allies.

so Carthage empire that conquer Med is possible. 'Roman' Empire in Africa is very difficult.
 

Deleted member 97083

Why Kairouan? It didn't even exist in the Roman period and was an Arab foundation. Is the site even that great compared to other inland Roman cities in North Africa like Cirta, Lambaesis, or Volubilis (well, that one would need to be reconquered), etc.
The Greeks could build Kairouan (called something else) as a new city in Byzantine style.
 
The Greeks could build Kairouan (called something else) as a new city in Byzantine style.

But then I have to repeat what exactly makes Kairouan a good site compared to other inland cities, and why not just keep the area rural farmland. There's of course many other inland Roman sites in nowadays Tunisia and Algeria too. And I thought that Greeks usually settled in cities which already existed? Hence why Cyrenaica and in general the coastal region more attractive than what was a rural interior area. As well as the Romans have a different style of agriculture than the Arabs, as well as different goals than the Arabs.
 
The Islamic Golden Age was largely based on older Graeco-Roman scholarship.

It was largely based on the fusion of Greco-Roman scholarship with Persian scholarship (and even some Indian scholarship), which is something only Islam could have done. Perhaps a Zoroastrian Persia could have done that, but not to the same extent.

Plus, at least some historians have argued that the Muslim conquests actually led to the Dark Ages, by disrupting Mediterranean trade and hence cutting off northern and western Europe from the Roman

The Dark Ages are a myth.
 
The Dark Ages are a myth.

The idea of the Dark Ages as a hellish period of violence and poverty has been overdone, but we shouldn't fall into the opposite error. The period after the fall of Rome did undoubtedly see a decline in urbanisation, education levels, long-distance trade, and societal complexity.
 
The idea of the Dark Ages as a hellish period of violence and poverty has been overdone, but we shouldn't fall into the opposite error. The period after the fall of Rome did undoubtedly see a decline in urbanisation, education levels, long-distance trade, and societal complexity.

I might be misremembering, but doesn't that include North Africa, because in the 7th century, North Africa had several major droughts and in general the climate was harsher than during the Roman era that gave the area the reputation of the breadbasket of Rome? I know I've seen different interpretations of the Arab impact on North Africa because of as I mentioned, different agricultural practices of the Arabs compared to the peoples of North Africa.

It's worth noting that at least during the Little Ice Age, North Africa (or at least Morocco/Mauretania) was better than ever for agriculture because of the increased number of wet years and reduced number of drought years.
 
I might be misremembering, but doesn't that include North Africa, because in the 7th century, North Africa had several major droughts and in general the climate was harsher than during the Roman era that gave the area the reputation of the breadbasket of Rome? I know I've seen different interpretations of the Arab impact on North Africa because of as I mentioned, different agricultural practices of the Arabs compared to the peoples of North Africa.

It's worth noting that at least during the Little Ice Age, North Africa (or at least Morocco/Mauretania) was better than ever for agriculture because of the increased number of wet years and reduced number of drought years.

I was thinking mostly of Italy, Spain, Gaul and Britain. I don't know enough about North African history post-6th century to comment.
 
I might be misremembering, but doesn't that include North Africa, because in the 7th century, North Africa had several major droughts and in general the climate was harsher than during the Roman era that gave the area the reputation of the breadbasket of Rome? I know I've seen different interpretations of the Arab impact on North Africa because of as I mentioned, different agricultural practices of the Arabs compared to the peoples of North Africa.

It's worth noting that at least during the Little Ice Age, North Africa (or at least Morocco/Mauretania) was better than ever for agriculture because of the increased number of wet years and reduced number of drought years.

I wonder if we could see another PoD involving native North African (pre-Carthage) peoples developing improved water management systems (like the Mar'ib Dam) to improve their agricultural yields historically. Apart from the whole "more water means more rain" bit of the water cycle, the increased agricultural yields from retaining the water can lead to a larger population and more cities. I do like the idea of a purely Berber north Africa, could be an interesting rival to Rome.
 
I wonder if we could see another PoD involving native North African (pre-Carthage) peoples developing improved water management systems (like the Mar'ib Dam) to improve their agricultural yields historically. Apart from the whole "more water means more rain" bit of the water cycle, the increased agricultural yields from retaining the water can lead to a larger population and more cities. I do like the idea of a purely Berber north Africa, could be an interesting rival to Rome.

I'm not aware of any North African equivalent to the Mar'ib Dam. From what I get at, it was a region which was pushed to it's uttermost limits to become Rome's breadbaskets. It seems like the Roman era was generally an age of good rains and smaller amounts of drought. Arab agricultural practices (their goats), helped tear this up, especially the Banu Hilal (in the 11th century--they arrived during a drought making their effects even worse)--overall the Arabs led to desertification.

But by Late Antiquity, Berber North Africa is very unlikely (outside of perhaps Mauretania with its minimal amount of Roman influence), you'd either see Punic North Africa (with strong African Romance--whatever the language might be natively called--influence in the major cities and coast), or just an outright African Romance-speaking area with the Berbers pushed toward the margins like the Basques in Spain. The Vandal invasion seems to be the limit for this, from what I understand. Even then, OTL Tunisia and Libya is very likely to remain Romance (or Punic) speaking above Berber (Cyrenaica is probably gonna be Greek).

But yeah, North Africa has a ton of potential. I believe they did have water management systems like you see in the Middle East (Iraq and Syria), and the oasis from west of the Nile to Morocco (Siwa being the most famous) have an interesting relation with the climate and agriculture and the people nominally in charge.
 
Top