Stillborn Rome: Who dominates the Mediterranean

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Frankly, the moment that Ptolemaic Egypt accepts that it is Greek and Egyptian by this point (i.e. creates that syncretic culture and joint gods, etc) then I think it is the best option for dominating the Mediterranean. If the Romans hadn't come along, I fully expect Ptolemaic Egypt finally conquers Syria and becomes the hegemon of the Greek-speaking world, and be able to reunite it.

At which point, with the exception of the possible Samnite/Etruscans in Italy, the Ptolemaic Kingdom can just bring the Greeks into their sphere piece by piece. With control over Antioch and Alexandria, they can station a number of forces in Antioch, and when times are quiet, bring the Anatolian coast into play, from which later on Alexandria can continue to fund expansion.

I'll assume that they'll adapt their administration (otherwise it could be any of their successors that unites the Med), but I don't see it implausible for the Med to be dominated via Alexandria, Antioch, Byzantion/Chalcedon, Syracuse, Tarentum (and maybe Athens).

As to Carthage? Without a major change to their character (not impossible, if you have an alt-Barcid dynasty) to change them from Merchant Republic to something more militant - I think they'd be eclipsed by the Ptolemaic Kingdom as they'd be dependent on the Kingdom economically as a customer, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom WILL be sponsoring further colonisation in the western Mediterranean (and 'inviting' existing colonies into the Kingdom), leading to the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Carthage actually butting heads, making invasion of Carthage worthwhile.

 

[Maoistic]

Also, why is it that no one mentions Numidia and Mauritania? These kingdoms were so powerful and persistent that even when "conquered" they still were under the control of native rulers. One can make the argument they even checked the advancement of the Romans and Phoenicians beyond the coast of North Africa.

 

[Falecius]

I mean, the Greeks and Romans certainly portrayed the Celts as barbaric savages. But the modern idea of them as popularised by a variety of individuals and groups, mainly the heterodox eccentrics that later evolved into the current Wiccans and Neo-Druids, is of nature loving nudists and philosophers.

Fair enough, but that is not the historical mainstream. (and it is quite incorrect anyway).

 

[Falecius]

Also, why is it that no one mentions Numidia and Mauritania? These kingdoms were so powerful and persistent that even when "conquered" they still were under the control of native rulers. One can make the argument they even checked the advancement of the Romans and Phoenicians beyond the coast of North Africa.

Neither of these realms was "conquered" IOTL before Roman (Late Republic/Empire) times because they weren't there until the presence of Carthage and Rome created them. The Berber peoples of the Maghrib clearly had little need or desire for large state structures before Carthaginian imperialism, though they are clearly reasonable (though not the most likely) contenders for a place in the sun if Rome does not appear as a major force in the area (depending on the exact siuiation of course).

 

[Faeelin]

Not historically AFAIK, but it has a signficant chance to be more important in a TL without Rome.

Why?

 

[Miranda Brawner]

Pontus maybe? They've definitely got a good location for capitalizing on trade routes.

Here's a map I found on Wikipedia:

 

[the_Atom]

I mean, the Greeks and Romans certainly portrayed the Celts as barbaric savages. But the modern idea of them as popularised by a variety of individuals and groups, mainly the heterodox eccentrics that later evolved into the current Wiccans and Neo-Druids, is of nature loving nudists and philosophers.

Pretty sure most people's impression of the barbarians of that area comes from the opening sequence of Gladiator.

 

[agisXIV]

I say the Celts overrun all of Western Europe (including Rome), unify and become the Greeks and Phoenicians' main rivals. I hate how people forget that the Celts were among the most powerful nations of Western Europe, who conquered as far as freaking Turkey. The idea of the nature loving peaceful Celts of modern neopagans has to die.

The Celts weren't as much a unified people as much as a spread of culture and language not necessarily by conquest. As a group of warring tribes unified only by trade, language and skilled metalwork, I see European domination, while likely weak to foreign invasion such as that of Rome (OTL), the Ptolemaics, and the Selucids.

 

[Falecius]

Why?

Dominating trade with Gaul along the Rhone corridor.

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't think this is quite right. The Greek states needed Roman help to defeat the Seleucids, so clearly they can't do it on their own, right? And sure, the Seleucids will face threats to the East. But the Romans were a very real threat to their west.

The various Hellenistic states were threatened from both west and east. This allowed them to be played by both sides, with some allying with Rome and others opting for the Seleucids. If there is no Rome, and assuming for the moment that no other power that fills the vacuum in the Western Med can threaten the Eastern Med to the same extent, then the Seleucids are literally the major threat for all other Hellenistic polities. In that scenario, they'll have a far harder time beating the inevitable undivided alliance arrayed against them. There are ways they can do it, of course. Namely by being very crafty and playing various Hellenistic states against each other until they're all tired and then pouncing when they're all bloodied and weakened. But that is the long game, and as I pointed out earlier... the Seleucids are likely to face major threats in the east later on (just as in OTL). Which will limit their ability to act in the west-- and may very well destroy them as in OTL.

 

[Seraphiel]

The problem is that is is very difficult to pinpoint what exactly made the Romans capable of extending across the Mediterranean. I'd say its aggressive political system, central geographical location remarkable assimilation abilities are at the least the most important, with perhaps simple geography needing to be on top but is nothing without the others.

For example Carthage had good central location but lacked the ability or desire to project itself in a substantial permanent way, preferring to dominate commercially and limiting its on the ground presence. It was a mercantile empire plain and simple that can be highlighted by them relying on mercs where Rome had a citizen soldiery.

Egypt? Location not altogether a bad one but traditionally had never expanded beyond its Nile heartland in any meaningful way and still never has, not to mention its declining dynasty at this point. I'd say the Seleucids or Carthage or even a Greek state had a higher chance.

The Gauls? Give me a break, they had by most accounts no centralized state structure beyond many feuding tribes, a backwards development in comparison to Rome or the Greeks, a stunning inability to contend with Roman arms and did I mention not the least bit organized over the massive area Celtic culture dominated? Maybe in time with a century or two of civilizational development, maybe? But thats so many butterflies ahead anything could happen then.

The Seleucids? I think they're severely limited by geography, not impossible (we only have to look at the Arabs) but it would be a different uphill battle then what the Romans had. Perhaps if they entrenched themselves in the Syrian region and expanded westwards from there it would be possible but as someone mentioned I fail to see the Seleucids making significant inroads beyond the Greek states or heck even past Anatolia. They're record just wouldn't support that.

 

[Maoistic]

Pretty sure most people's impression of the barbarians of that area comes from the opening sequence of Gladiator.

None of them are identified as Celts as far as I remember, and Gladiator is a very recent movie that can hardly be said to be the source of any stereotypes.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I mean, the Greeks and Romans certainly portrayed the Celts as barbaric savages.

Both Greeks and Romans portrayed everyone else as barbaric savages. Not because they were less advanced, but purely because they were different.

 

[Lascaris]

I don't think this is quite right. The Greek states needed Roman help to defeat the Seleucids, so clearly they can't do it on their own, right? And sure, the Seleucids will face threats to the East. But the Romans were a very real threat to their west.

No Romans, hence no 1st and 2nd Macedonian wars. By the time Antiochus III shows up Philip V is dominating the Aegean basin and expanding into Asia Minor against Pergamum. Does this lead into a clash between the two? Perhaps then perhaps not given their alliance.

 

[Skallagrim]

No Romans, hence no 1st and 2nd Macedonian wars. By the time Antiochus III shows up Philip V is dominating the Aegean basin and expanding into Asia Minor against Pergamum. Does this lead into a clash between the two? Perhaps then perhaps not given their alliance.

Philip V would indeed be very likely to be the leading man of an anti-Seleucid alliance, although it's also possible for him to ally with them first in 'dividing the spoils'-- leaving an Antigonid-controlled "Greater Greece" to compete with the Seleucids in the long(er) term.

--

Regarding the discussion on the potential of the Celts, I agree with those who argue that some kind of unified 'Celtic empire' isn't just going to materialise. That would need either an ATL 'Great Man' (the Celtic Alexander!) or some sort of external force that pressures them into unification for the sake of survival/victory. But then again... it is rather likely that there will be a lot of Celts migrating south, as per OTL. What do they encounter? No Rome. Instead, Carthage will be strong in Iberia, facing no major competitor. The likely route for Celtic migrations is thus into Italy and onto the Balkans. Especially in Italy, I expect these Celts to adopt a lot of cultural tenets from the Italian urban polities, leading to cultural sycretism and - conceivably - to a highly urbanised and developed Italo-Celtic culture. This may even become a unified kingdom (if not at once, under a supreme war-leader during the conquest, then over time).

Such an Italo-Celtic power would need time to get its act together, so it wouldn't be around to threaten Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms the way Rome did when Rome did. But it could still be a quite serious regional power right away.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Isn't it more accurate to say that Antiochus III craftily exploited the Roman threat in OTL to declare himself the protector of Greek liberty? The Seleucid influence over Greece before that should not be overstated, I think. They paid lip service because Rome was seen as a more foreign and/or direct threat. Then he actually fought Rome, and lost. Now suppose there is no Rome. This pretty much means he is the threat. As soon as he moves, all the other Hellenistic kingdoms will be allied against him. I'm not so sure he's going to win that. I'm not sure he's going to try. Eventually, Seleucid attentions will likely be drawn to eastern threats in any case (as per OTL), and other Hellenistic states may seek to exploit that. In that way, the Seleucid Empire may end in a fashion not dissimilar to OTL...

At the same time, I don't see Ptolemaic Egypt just bouncing back. If we assume relatively minor butterflies from whatever caused Rome's doom, and Ptolemaic history goes basically as per OTL, the decline will not be hastened by the OTL Seleucid invasion of 170 BC, but nonetheless, the Ptolemaic decline was underway in the days of Antiochus III himself. There's a reason he beat them.

The Ptolemaics and the Seleucids are often suggested as would-be top dogs in the Eastern Med if Rome wasn't around, but I'm not so sure of that. Butterflies are everything, of course. If the Seleucids get an incompetent fool instead of Antiocus III by sheer chance, that blasts them anyway (serious weakness there will at once be exploited, as OTL shows). And is Egypt gets a very gifted ATL Ptolemy, a resurgence is not impossible. Yet all in all, assuming no such major swerves, I see both the Ptolemaics and the Seleucids going along largely the same path as they did in OTL.

It is in Greece, and Macedon, Pergamon and ascendant Pontus -- in short, there where Rome made all the difference -- that the great potential for ATL greatness lies. When the aforementioned big players begin to fade, these other stars have a chance to rise. They will each take their share, and then no doubt turn on each other. As for which one wins in the end (if any)... I truly could not say.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time, I think this severely underestimates how big the role Rome played in bringing down the Seleucids. Without the Romans (and assuming Antiochus III still comes on the scene), the Seleucids are more than capable of handling the threats in the east on their own. Of course without the Romans Macedon is also in a stronger position.

However, I also don't think Pontus and Pergamon would have the opportunity to be as strong without Roman intervention. The Seleucids will have a far tighter grip on Anatolia, and in particular, I think the Pergamese are screwed without Roman assistance. I imagine Macedon and Egypt could work to try and undermine that, but Ptolemaic Egypt is seriously weakening by the year and Macedon has its own share of problems.

If the Romans hadn't come along, I fully expect Ptolemaic Egypt finally conquers Syria and becomes the hegemon of the Greek-speaking world, and be able to reunite it.

The Romans are the only reason Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't conquered by the Seleucids. Even before they arrived on the scene, Ptolemaic Egypt was listing heavily.

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time, I think this severely underestimates how big the role Rome played in bringing down the Seleucids. Without the Romans (and assuming Antiochus III still comes on the scene), the Seleucids are more than capable of handling the threats in the east on their own. Of course without the Romans Macedon is also in a stronger position.

However, I also don't think Pontus and Pergamon would have the opportunity to be as strong without Roman intervention. The Seleucids will have a far tighter grip on Anatolia, and in particular, I think the Pergamese are screwed without Roman assistance. I imagine Macedon and Egypt could work to try and undermine that, but Ptolemaic Egypt is seriously weakening by the year and Macedon has its own share of problems.

It's not exactly that I'm underestimating the Seleucids, but more that I may be overestimating the strength of a potential (Philip V-led?) anti-Seleucid coalition. Without Rome bursting onto the scene, I truly think their position would be much improved. This varies, of course: you are quite right that Pontus and Pergamon would never be able to gain the prominence they got in OTL-- although this goes mostly for Pergamon, and only to a lesser degree for Pontus. (By that I mean: the Seleucids can outright overrun Pergamon, whereas it's more likely that they'll push Pontus around a bit without actually conquering the place.) The weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt is also underway, and chances are that affairs in Syria are simply going to turn out the way they did in OTL.

But this leaves Macedon, which will be doing better in this scenario. No Rome, a clear threat from the east... Philip V is simply going to be the big Greek hegemon, who can command loyalty because only he can keep the Seleucids out. Since he was widely loved, even those unhappy to become Macedonian subjects will still choose him as the lesser of two evils. And even though Egypt is flagging, there's no doubt that the Ptolemies are going for an alliance with Antigonid 'Macedon-Hellas' against the Seleucids. Together we stand and all that. So we have Philip V, who gets to do what Rome spoiled for him in OTL: be the self-proclaimed king of the true Hellenes, defender of ancient freedoms, and generally best-loved fellow around. Can he make true on the promises? That's the question! I'm fairly sure he can keep the Seleucids from crossing into Europe, which is good enough. I also think that if this Antigonid kingdom keeps together and keeps going strong, it can basically replace Rome in the regard you pointed out:

The Romans are the only reason Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't conquered by the Seleucids. Even before they arrived on the scene, Ptolemaic Egypt was listing heavily.

That is, when Ptolemaic Egypt ultimately goes to its knees, the Antigonid Kingdom can swoop in and take over-- which will succeed on the sheer merit of the fact that their yoke is preferred over that of the Seleucids.

Regardless of all that, however, the key question that remains open is: can the Antigonid Kingdom threaten the Seleucid Empire? I tend to imagine that it could. If not to the extent that Rome did in OTL, then at least to an extent that will still leave the Seleucids unable to solve their issues in the west and the east simultaneously. So if the Seleucids focus on fighting the Antigonids, they can definitely win that, but then they get the Parthians coming in from the east. If they focus on the east, the Antigonids have a very good shot at wresting away the Levantine coast. (I'd say the Seleucids can survive the latter option, at which point they'll lose the levant but just go 'full Persian'.)

Depending on the skills, or lackthereof, exhibited by various rulers, all this could of course change dramatically. I'm just describing what I see as the most likely course of events, based on my own reading of the various players' strengths and resources.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

But this leaves Macedon, which will be doing better in this scenario. No Rome, a clear threat from the east... Philip V is simply going to be the big Greek hegemon, who can command loyalty because only he can keep the Seleucids out. Since he was widely loved, even those unhappy to become Macedonian subjects will still choose him as the lesser of two evils. And even though Egypt is flagging, there's no doubt that the Ptolemies are going for an alliance with Antigonid 'Macedon-Hellas' against the Seleucids. Together we stand and all that. So we have Philip V, who gets to do what Rome spoiled for him in OTL: be the self-proclaimed king of the true Hellenes, defender of ancient freedoms, and generally best-loved fellow around. Can he make true on the promises? That's the question! I'm fairly sure he can keep the Seleucids from crossing into Europe, which is good enough. I also think that if this Antigonid kingdom keeps together and keeps going strong, it can basically replace Rome in the regard you pointed out:

.

I'm not at all certain the Greek states would be that one sidedly pro-Phillip. Certainly they're not going to be welcoming a Seleucid yoke but neither are they going to be welcoming a Macedonian yoke. Why side with Phillip against Antiochus when Phillip is the more immediate presence, and at least initially the Seleucids will downplay any desires for conquest. They can always turn on the Seleucids later-like they did the Romans after their usefulness ran out, and like they almost certainly would have attempted with Antiochus had he triumphed. Perhaps conquest is off the table, but Antigonid Macedon is always going to be tied down in intra Greek affairs

There's also another route this could take of course. IOTL there was that agreement between Phillip V and Antiochus to partition the Ptolemaic Empire after the death of Ptolemy IV. Now while I doubt that agreement will hold long term, it doesn't necessarily need to for it to be put into practice. Certainly a free hand in gaining hegemony in the Aegean is too attractive for Phillip to pass up (and, as seen IOTL, he didn't pass it up) and for Antiochus it neatly wraps up his issues in the west in the short term. Without Roman interference, Antionchus's plans won't be interrupted. He can continue seizing Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor before moving back on to Egypt after Panium, while Philip is embroiled in the Cretan War. I'm not sure how successful any invasion of Egypt would be but certainly the Ptolemies are in a precarious position dealing with the Egyptian Revolt. The opportunity is there.

 

[Carp]

Could a westward-looking Epirus become a state of consequence? I know Pyrrhus' conquests were prompted by Roman aggression, but Magna Graecia could still be threatened by other Italic peoples, and Sicily has a Carthaginian problem that the Romans aren't around to fix. A kingdom comprising Epirus-South Italy-Sicily would make an interesting counterbalance to Carthage and seems like it would be in a good position to be a strong naval power, but I don't know if those territories could have really held together as a polity.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The Romans are the only reason Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't conquered by the Seleucids. Even before they arrived on the scene, Ptolemaic Egypt was listing heavily.

That does assume no other changes as a result of no unified Italy, and the reliable export market of grain for Egypt - which would likely force reform as they can't rely on those revenues.

I actually think in a stronger Macedon situation, Egypt is a better ally for Phillip than the Seleucids. Macedon dominates Greece and Anatolia, Egypt dominates Syria and Egypt proper - much more pleasant borders for both powers than having the Seleucids on their doorsteps.

Even if we apply butterflies, who is to say a stronger Macedon doesn't partner with Egypt during Antiochus the Greats 10 year journey, and invade whilst he is out east? After all, this is just after the Fourth Syrian war which was won by Egypt. Heck, the presence of a strong Macedon that takes advantage of earlier weakness to snatch Pergamum and western satrapys might mean that he never goes out east, and the eastern satrapys stay independent, and become an even larger problem.

If anything, the weaker Greece made it so that Antiochus the Great COULD go east and get his elephants and reunite the Seleucid realm. I'd wager without that effort, that Parthia may have become a major threat much earlier, and potentially led to a complete Seleucid collapse, or at least a withdrawal. The idea of a Macedon+Anatolia, Seleucid Mesopotamia++, Egypt and Parthia is an interesting political situation out east.

I do like the idea of Egypt agreeing to split the "Greek World", ceding all of Anatolia (with a border using the Taurus Mountains and the Saleph river), which includes a huge gift of land (if that isn't butterflied), and Egypt gaining the Levant. Leaving a well defined, defensible border for both powers, and functionally Macedonia given a free hand in Anatolia.