The Massaliot league. A Hellenistic period Massalia Timeline
- Thread starter Sersor
- Start date
The problem is that as soon as Massalia does that, the Romans WILL get involved. Either to get as much territory as possible, and potentially take advantage of Massalian naivety/misfortune, or to ally with the Cisalpine Gauls against Massalia, only to then turn on the Gauls and conquer.
The best approach that Massalia really has is to invite the various Gallic cities to join the League, to maintain their 'independence' from the Romans. Even then, if Greek settlement becomes too high in Cisalpine Gaul, they may face revolt anyway - the Gauls joined to maintain their way of life and a modicum of independence, not to submit to colonisation and hellenisation.
I don't think the Cisalpine Gauls would want either option. Really, they need to unite, organise, and then overwhelm Rome (Personally the image of Hellenised Gauls in Gaul, and Gallified Latins in Italia is an amusing twist), or Illyria to flourish, although if they enter into along protracted series of wars with the Romans where neither side really gains much, that would work to Massalias interest.
The best move IMO for Massalia and the Cisalpine Gauls is a mutual containment alliance against the Romans, and a pact of non-aggression with each other, combine that with trade between Massalia and Liguria, and that would be a healthy, friendly relationship.
Either way,Cisalpine Gaul must not be allowed to fall into Roman hands.It's the red line.I suspect strongly suspect the Massaliots would guarantee the Gauls of Cisalpine Gaul as well.I too think that the Cisalpine Gauls will think more highly of the Massaliots than the Romans since the Massaliots are just Hellenised Gauls.
By the way Sensor,what happens to the chiefs and kings etc of the territory that voluntarily joins the Massaliot League?Are they somehow still involved in the governance of their territory?
Its more of a new Greco-Gaul fushion/race. But still what you are saying its valid.
The Aedui and Sequani have client kings that are semi independent.The Aquitani tribe of the Ausci, when their vassal king died, they officially become part of the League.
234 BC
234 BC
A small rebellion in Averni Nomos/lands is crashed easily by the local tagma stationed in Nemossos
A small rebellion in Averni Nomos/lands is crashed easily by the local tagma stationed in Nemossos
- Archimedes constructs his first planetarium/orrery.
- Hibernian(Irish) pirates start to be a major problem for the colony of Agrinio.
- The Greco-Bactrian king Diodotus II of Bactria with a impressive army of twenty five thousands(twelve thousands horsemans!) undertakes an expedition into Iran to try to regain Parthia from Arsaces. In a major battle Arsaces is killed and Parthia falls again in Diodotus II hands.
- Despite the opposition of the Roman Senate and of his own father, the Roman political leader Gaius Flaminius Nepos wins the passage of a measure to distribute land among the plebeians. The Romans decide to parcel out land north of Rome into small holdings for its poorer citizens whose farms/fortunes have fallen into ruin during the Triandria war(263-257BC).
- Hero II,king of Syracuse, is assassinated by the democratic party of Syracuse thus leading Megale Hellas to a more close to Massaliot League model of government.
Last edited:
I hope that we will reach to more inventions of Archimedes.
Hmm ... Or Seleucids will survive longer, or we get another empire (which may be for India to become an analogue of the Timurid).
Did the King have any heirs or did the league just annexed the land?Also,did the people there have any special rights so to speak?
When the Ausci king died without a heir he bequeathed the whole of Ausci lands to Massalia in order to prevent a civil war.
Just like Pergamon in OTL:
When Attalus III (138–133 BC) died without an heir in 133 BC, he bequeathed the whole of Pergamon to Rome in order to prevent a civil war.
The elite of Ausci had citizenship.After the open call to army=citizenship from Massaliot League, more Ausci/Aquitani people took the opportunity and gain citizenship.
233 BC. Compass!
233 BC
Archimedes while he was working with a lodestone(a form of the mineral magnetite that is a naturally-occurring magnet and aligns itself with the Earth’s magnetic field) for his planetarium, came up with a new device, the compass. To retain the compass magnetism for long Archimedes used steel “needles”.
By place
Barcid Kingdom
Archimedes while he was working with a lodestone(a form of the mineral magnetite that is a naturally-occurring magnet and aligns itself with the Earth’s magnetic field) for his planetarium, came up with a new device, the compass. To retain the compass magnetism for long Archimedes used steel “needles”.
By place
Barcid Kingdom
- While Hamilcar besieged an Iberian town, Orissus, chieftain of the Oretani tribe, came to the assistance of the besieged town. Hamilcar died in the resulting melee. In several years, Hamilcar had secured an extensive territory in Hispania by force of arms and diplomacy, but his premature death in battle (233 BC) denied Barcid kingdom a complete conquest.
- A new museum(university) is build in the Bosporan Kingdom capital Pantikapeon.
Oh, very nice - Archimedes is certainly out-doing himself ITTL. I wonder, is has he/is he going to start an academy in Massalia? I can't recall if he has, but if he can create a formal curriculum - ideally of polymaths, then that can only lead to wondrous inventions! Although, that has me thinking that the League having enough Polymaths or specialists to have a legitimate Nobel Prize-esque system would be ++good. I doubt the culture is quite there yet, it may take a generation or two or Archimedes to get there!
This bodes to be interesting - A Bosporan Kingdom that survives based in its current location could well be the heart of a Greco-Scythian steppe culture - which could be a boon for the Greco-Bactrians.
He is the head of the museum(university) of Massalia so he have some students allready.
nice ideaI could see a Massalian invention competition, since there are more than one academy and since the Greeks were so competitive... It could even lead to some kind of international invention olympic, and help difuse knowledge around the Greek world
I could see a Massalian invention competition, since there are more than one academy and since the Greeks were so competitive... It could even lead to some kind of international invention olympic, and help difuse knowledge around the Greek world
To be honest, I think you're right on the point, especially if it isn't just personal competition, but sponsored is available as well. I think this more widespread hellenisation of the world could lead to a number of Hellenic competitions where different countries take part. Obviously the Horse Racing would belong to the Bosporans, but who knows who'll take Javelin, or Archery
Maybe in this more hellenised world there is no rise of gladiator games?To be honest, I think you're right on the point, especially if it isn't just personal competition, but sponsored is available as well. I think this more widespread hellenisation of the world could lead to a number of Hellenic competitions where different countries take part. Obviously the Horse Racing would belong to the Bosporans, but who knows who'll take Javelin, or Archery
Museyon in Panticapaeum !!!! Wow! Was-would be interesting to look at the ruins of his (I go there every year).
232 BC
232 BC
In the trip back up North, Argiros faced serious troubles with the currents and winds of Atlantic/Westen Africa. After reaching Neagathe he decided to take a different route deeper in the ocean were he found better sailing conditions. On the way back he made a new trade colony Akrai, in modern day Santa cruze Tenerife.
By place
Athens
In the trip back up North, Argiros faced serious troubles with the currents and winds of Atlantic/Westen Africa. After reaching Neagathe he decided to take a different route deeper in the ocean were he found better sailing conditions. On the way back he made a new trade colony Akrai, in modern day Santa cruze Tenerife.
By place
Athens
- Following the death of his mentor, Cleanthes of Assos, Chrysippus of Soli succeeds him as the third head of the Stoic school. The many writings of Chrysippus, about the Stoic doctrines, will later earn him the title of Second Founder of Stoicism.
- Ashoka, Indian emperor, who has ruled the Maurya Empire across the Indian subcontinent from 273 BC died. This lead to a major succession war.
Last edited:
I considered that, but OTL Rome grew by confronting people who threatened them on an immediate front, beating them, incorporating their territory and either gaining revenue or potential recruits for their armies (in the form of colonizing reliable Latin former legionaries, these colonies could provide more recruits). OTL Rome did not enter into the lists of the eastern Hellenistic warring states until after settling with Carthage in the west and securing control of the whole Med coast west of the Adriatic.
For Rome to head east from central Italy alone, or even after consolidating both Cisalpine Gaul to the north and Magna Graecia/Samnia to the south to round out control of the whole peninsula first, would be to enter the ring as a lightweight instead of a heavyweight. Even if they could be 100 percent certain the League would not stab them in the back, they would not have the deep reserves they could draw on OTL.
Expanding via Illyria seemed dubious to me since the region has not apparently been highly valued by anyone in a couple thousand years--to be sure very important wars have been fought over it, but the issues have been grand strategies getting tangled up with virulent local antagonisms. Owning Illyria is more about denying it to an enemy than gaining it as a valuable asset in itself. It certainly is no replacement for beating up the Carthaginians and taking their trade and their Iberian, island and north African territories!
Pyrrhus as the Alexander or Napoleon of his day appears to have been a one-shot wonder and Epirus's importance is the legacy of his conquests; his son Alexander appears to have established a pattern of Pyrrhus's descendants blowing it. I wondered how that was going to work out; had Alexander been more successful I would have attributed it to his having overlapped his father's lifetime and learning something, and then looked to the third generation for things to start falling apart. Had we gotten to a third generation with Epiros still riding high, I'd have to ask the author to explain what the Epirotes have in their culture to give such special results. But it is not happening; Epiros's glory is really Pyrrhus's alone, and so conquering Epiros may not be such a hard thing for the Romans to do. But what then? If Epiros is losing control, that doesn't say the rest of Hellas is easy prey! Mind, of all the Hellenistic kingdoms, the ones in Greece itself would be the easiest to beat. But again, the Romans would be gaining territory less valuable and facing foes still more formidable.
On the other hand, if Roman force is not yet outclassed by the League's, a Roman strike from north Italy directly at Massalia might seem to them to be the opportunity to seize everything the League has gained at one stroke. That would be mistaken of course; as a "League" clearly the removal of one city, even the one that names it and has always served as the capital as well as being the greatest city within it is not the end of things; governance and business would migrate to another center. Seizing or destroying Massalia gives the Romans nothing that the Massaliotes have been working to build up all these centuries, but the site of a fairly good port with river access. Following through by conquest of the land around does give the Romans something they know how to make use of and a basis of expansion of their power, including the means of gradually taking more and more from the League that may remain. Epiros in her current decline does not seem likely to avenge the League; Egypt has not demonstrated a willingness or even ability to project power so far west (I bet they can do it, but will they?) so striking west seems like a relatively safe course for Rome. Although the League could survive the fall of Massalia itself, losing the founding city would surely be a painful and disorienting blow that would put the military organization on the ropes; Roman advances might be rapid and the balance of power may tip rapidly as they ravage the original heartland of the League.
Again this is one of those cases where the social nature of League society makes a difference. If the League is seen as a positive thing that belongs as much to Celts and other native "barbarian" peoples absorbed into it as the Hellenes who move in with its expansion, then the collapse even of its ancient center is not necessarily the end of the League's power. If it is composed of voluntary members who benefit from it, the Romans must deal with counterblows rained down on them pouring in from the provinces. If however if were an exercise in Hellenic imperialism and chauvinism that gave regional peoples cause to resent it, breaking the center might unleash rebellion that causes the organization to crumble rapidly once enough key territory in the southeast of Gaul is lost, leaving the Romans to pick it all up again at their own pace.
Of course the League's major operations are out of Roman easy reach. But the steps by which they evolved lure the Romans on in the former steps, but probably much more rapidly. A drive west across the southern Gaul coast to come at Tolosa and its nearby mines, a strike straight at the Iberian mining region and then expansion to the more rural holdings to provide colonies for settlement and expansion of the Legions, while occupying the trade center strongholds and attempting to divert the old trade into their channels--or let it fail; the Romans are ahead either way though civilization may be slipping backwards.
Since Rome would not automatically inherit every asset the League has built up simply by taking Massalia, but must gut out the entire territory of the League over time, but even only partial conquest of League territory can disrupt the beneficial trade flows, the Baracid kingdom is poised to benefit from such Roman aggression; Massaliote trade colonies far to the north may prefer to route their goods down past Iberia to the Pillars of Hercules and thence east rather than see them pass through Roman hands. At any rate such a route is safer for the goods. So a canny move on Rome's part would be to make a quiet agreement with the Baracids, to partition both territory and trading rights between them and close in opportunistically on the League from both directions. Rome mainly benefits by seizing good territory for demographic expansion, the Baracids picking up the most lucrative aspects of trade.
I think the attraction of striking what would look like a mortal blow at the heart of the league and then feasting on the corpse near at hand, with large prospects to incorporate large swathes of valuable land for settlement followed by picking up the benefits of trade routes at their leisure (basically leaving the Hellenic traders in place but subjecting them to Roman taxes) would be far greater than dubious enterprises in Illyria, which may or may not put them in a position to contest with the Epiriotes for the dubious prize of their country and the honor of fighting stronger Hellenic states that all despise them as barbarians, and if winning these fights bring the relative bantam-weight of an unwilling Greek population against much vaster Hellenistic states such as Selucia and the Ptolemaic empire. At any rate, it is what the Romans did OTL, more or less.
I should do more justice than I have so far to the lure of conquests in the east to be sure. The Romans knew the importance of controlling mercantile flows of wealth, but they were a very militaristic people (assuming their character has not been butterflied yet by their ATL reversals of fortune--and unless they were more humbled than they have been yet, it probably would not be, yet) and glory was a major motive for them. The prestige as well as wealth of conquering Hellas itself would be a lure to them, certainly. I strongly question though that they could contemplate doing that with just the resources of Italy alone. OTL they didn't get into the snake pit of Greek politics until they had the Western Med well in hand. If they did manage to break Massalia in its southeastern Gaulish homeland first, and take the easy concentrated treasures of its mining regions in the coastal west and Iberia, they might well then be diverted from consolidating the whole western Med coast and then turn on the Balkans--probably scorning Illyria except for securing the Dalmatian coast, and turn on Epirios first, then present themselves as OTL as kingmakers in Greece, thence on to Anatolia and the Levantine coast as OTL, delaying the confrontation with Ptolemaic power until they had really large holdings in hand. At that point, the glory and wealth of the east might preoccupy them, and they might leave the remnants of the League to consolidate with the Punic Baracids as they see fit, to be dealt with later.
But if we bring in these considerations of Roman concepts of glory and honor, consider that they have a score to settle with Massalia, allies of Pyrrhus during the war that nearly killed them. Epiros has imploded on its own, and if the Romans can gobble up a good chunk of Massaliote territory first, the Epiroties are next. Then, someday--the Ptolemies will suffer Roman wrath, so it all works out.
But Massalia will probably come first of all.
Given Massalia's essentially mercantile motives--no they don't. But they are political animals too. As traders, their trade is essentially with Ptolemaic Egypt, and Egypt was their ally in the recent war with Rome. Although the Romans in your scenario would not be moving directly against Egypt yet, it would be plain in Alexandria that eastern wealth and the domination of Hellenic eastern territories is clearly Rome's long-term aim. They'd call on their old ally the League to do something to check the Romans and keep them out of Hellas, and other aspects of Hellenistic chauvinism the author has already invoked as a motive would come into play.
For instance, can the Romans do any of this stuff beyond seizing the Po valley without securing south Italy, that is to say Magna Graecia, first? I suspect that Roman attempts to secure their south might be where the League comes to blows against Rome again, if the Greeks there appeal to the League for help, perhaps even before the Romans try to secure the north. Mind, I can see the League perhaps shortsightedly trying to limit their commitment to that fight, but they are richer and stronger now than in the last fight, and might judge they can afford now to bring Italian Greeks under their protection.
And while I did suggest the Po Valley might seem more important to Romans than Massaliotes, and that the League might dither a bit, I think the Massaliotes can read a map pretty well, and recognize that a vengeful and now (because of the Po Valley's wealth) stronger and much closer to their queen city Rome is not really in their interest, even if hitherto the Po has been a secondary concern. Secondary does not mean zero! The reason the Po Valley is marginal to the League is the mountain ridge between Massalia's gulf and the valley; it is relatively expensive to trade goods over that ridge whereas shipping from the mouth of the river to Massalia is a very long haul. All the valley has is a fairly dense settlement of moderately developed villagers; it is potentially very productive but inconvenient to trade except to partners on the Adriatic--that's Rome or Epiros, not Massalia. Nevertheless, there is is, geographically close for quick communications, and full of Gauls related to the ones in the League. There must be second-rate aspiring traders, people lacking capital and connections to be prominent in the two rival dominant companies that divide the more lucrative up-river Gaullish trade and the ambitious schemes for Atlantic trade and overland expansion north and into Iberia with related precious metal mining. Assuming the good markets are largely sewn up by the big players, little players have to scrounge around for opportunities, and there sits the Po Valley. They would trade in small volumes in goods that aren't the most lucrative, but it is a living after all.
So I daresay that the situation of the Po Valley is different than OTL, with a fair number of Massiliotes looking for trade relationships with various villages. This may also be an opportunity for Gauls from the League who might not be Hellenized enough for plum positions to use their cultural capital to advantage, perhaps exploiting old clan ties to particular Po valley settlements for an inside track.
Now would the Romans have long ago started moving in in their turn, perhaps finding special opportunity in villages opposed to the trading partners of the Massaliotes, offering them goods competitive with the League trade and thus securing pro-Roman allies in the region? Or have the Romans been too un-mercantile, and too distracted by their glorious wars of conquest and hegemony southward to cross the cultural as well as geographic divide? If that was true OTL, would it remain true with the Greeks from the northeast moving in on them?
Note that even if Romans are a little dull about how to do trade for themselves (as opposed to conquering trade hubs and then taxing the indigenous merchants already in place) they have the advantage that they have ports on the Adriatic, and can ship stuff more cheaply by sea and then up the river, if the river mouth is not already closed to them. Possibly League and Roman patronized trade systems have in fact been cooperating to a great degree, a Massliote-dominated Po river port being happy to take shipment of Italian goods and export Po valley products such as they are to Italy.
But if the Romans decide to move on it and take it all for themselves, there will not be lacking loud protests in the agoras of Massalia! The cries may be coming from citizens who had little priority, but at that point if not long before, the strategists will take out their maps and recall their knowledge of the valley and the mountain passes opening right onto their heartland, and reflect they'd rather not have Romans owning those.
Whether Roman moves on the valley emerge from long-standing rivalries coming to a boil or from a swift Roman coup attempt, I don't think the League will just shrug off the conflict and concede the valley. They will move. Perhaps much too late, but move they will, at least to try to get control of the best passes in or out, and get control of the ridgeline in general.
It seems likely to me that any League traders operating there will have sought to get control of a string of posts along the river, the better to communicate with each other, and if they manage to do this before the crisis, then rather than the Romans getting control of the whole valley they might be held along a line running just south of the river--as far south as the locals on the south bank can hold, with help. In some places the people on the south bank might have been neutral or outright unfriendly, then the League-local alliance has to struggle to deny the Romans any bases there; in other places a whole people might be allied and strong and hold a deep pocket south of the river.
Wherever the line is established, the Roman surge northward would be the League's notice that Rome has no peaceful intentions toward them.
If Rome has the east, they would have taken over control of the eastern trade from the Ptolemies the League has good relations with. For that reason also, Egypt seems less likely to ally with Rome; the Ptolemies can see where eastward Roman movement would be headed. Only they can be the ultimate target (unless the Seleucids or some other eastern based successor state busts through and cuts Egypt off, or anyway undermine their monopoly profits. (This is presumably why the Seleucids are so desperate to hold that one corner of the Levant where they have broken through; Eastern trade goods aren't much good unless there are other goods to trade them for).
One wonders if Massalia will ever be in Rome's OTL position upon the final defeat of Carthage, and and hold all the shores of the Med west of the Adriatic, and gain the ambition to move in on the eastern sources of wealth. Even then, perhaps the difference in characters between OTL Rome and the mercantile/farming League peoples will make a crucial difference and they will be content to enjoy the lesser half of the trade equation, and focused on expanding into formerly "barbarian" lands to raise the volume of trade. Perhaps it will matter who holds the East--as long as the Ptolemies dominate they will keep their word and stay west, but if some other power breaks their hold it will be become fair game? Will the League become ambitious and contemptuously attack anyway? Might they attack in the east because of reverses elsewhere? Say the northern outposts drift away, finding themselves on the wrong side of policy made in Massalia. The central League might have advocates of making up the losses by striking east at the greater profits of the eastern trade goods. Even thinking that with those in hand, the League might turn north again and rectify matters among their wayward secessionists.
Anyway although they already have a lot in hand compared to Rome at this date (though much of it is pretty far-flung, not conveniently stationed all around the Med) I don't think Massalia has yet come to a pass where they want to turn eastward. And even if they got ahold of the Po Valley and crossed over to Istria, they might be diverted north by the relatively underdeveloped Celtic lands there leading to the Danube valley, which can eventually take them to the Black Sea by a relatively uncontested route--albeit one exposed on the northern flank to the wandering peoples of central Europe and the steppes, and on the south to possible resurgent regimes in Hellas itself. At that point, the notion of moving in on the eastern sources of wealth might be as compelling on them as on the Romans. But it would take some time, and I think they'd go for lower hanging fruit first--including possibly incorporating Italy if the Romans challenge them and lose, and possibly getting hegemony over Carthage and north African shorelands west of Ptolemaic holdings and alternate trans-Saharan routes to west Africa which they now know is worth developing. (Camels would be very handy, but I think the era when domesticated dromedaries spread out of Somalia has not quite dawned; perhaps if relations with the Ptolemies are not soured by any moves they make on northwest Africa they might get some as royal gifts maybe). And of course rounding out domination of Iberia and the sea route to the Atlantic--it is not clear to me whether the superior economics of seaborne operations outweighs the long route around Iberia to get up to the latitude of Naucratia/Burdigala; switching to the latter port would help a lot in keeping the largely riverine but somewhat overland route across southwest Gaul viable. If they can really master the coastwise sea voyage down the west African coast for routine voyages both ways, the Saharan trade might never be competitive with it--that is a tough challenge though and I suspect any seamen who can face it without fear would have ships and skills and knowledge sufficient to stumble upon South American and the eastern Antilles and thus open up a whole new Pandora's box of trade routes.
To keep it in focus and not too wankish the author must take care to check plausibility on not only technology but population levels, mechanisms of communication, systems of government that can somehow secure loyalty among very far-flung people.
Diverting Rome east while Massalia stays focused on the west might be one way to keep in bounds, but I don't think real Romans would leave the League in peace, not with their rising riches at their doorstep and with the grudge they bear against the League in the recent war. The longer term questions of just where the League reaches a check depends on how they deal with the Roman hurdle, which must be pretty imminent since the only thing I think will divert Rome from turning north would be if they wanted to finish business in the south first. And if they think the League will come to the aid of Magna Graecia again, they may reason that they have to deal with Massalia first of all.
I think it might be a whole lot like the British expansionism of the 17th and most of the 18th century--except that, if you read my way upthread analogy to 17th-18th century French and British colonies in North America, the League people are readier to intermarry with and adopt suitably Hellenized natives as partners, more like the French voyageurs in that respect than the snobbish and ethnocentric English settlers. Anyway, French or British, in North America or in the Antilles or India or east Asia, they were mainly focussed on personal opportunity, but on the whole loyal to the crown and royal armies and navies they knew they needed at their backs. Insofar as they make inroads in various outpost localities by peaceful and positive means, the local outposters will be picking up various divergent native cultural traits. The leaders will be mobile, spending time in distant lands but eventually planning on returning home with greater fortunes in hand, to be replaced in their posts by younger and more ambitious people--some of whom will not do so well and might never return, instead finding lives out in the wider world still seeking that turn of fortune to let them return home in style. Or others might abandon thoughts of home in the Mediterranean, finding greater satisfaction "going native" more or less. Some might wind up petty kings, or the advisors and right-hand men to not so petty regional kings. Some going "renegade," aiding factions that stand in the way of major League ambitions. But by and large, I expect that as long as we have relatively small outposts in largely alien territory, the tendency will be for there to be enough League people born in the central lands to keep the outpost colonies oriented toward the larger League.
But other things can happen and as time passes it is increasingly likely they will. It seems unlikely to me that the League explorers will find lands they can densely settle the way the English settled New England or Virginia, essentially brushing the Native peoples aside--certainly not in Europe or West Africa, where the locals stand on roughly the same level of disease resistance the intruders do and are pre-adapted to the climate and local disease environment. The denser the trade and transport network the League develops, the faster and farther its ships can go, the more they become a channel for transmitting epidemic plagues. But unless some kind of ASB economic miracle happens, this can only be a shadow of what happened in early modern times. To an extent the peoples of the Baltic will indeed be mown down by nasty diseases the League brings north--but only after the League core itself suffers from these plagues which will be as new to them as to the distant colonies--the center just gets the privilege of being second in line, after whichever trade outlet of theirs first caught it--probably, almost certainly, their contacts with the Eastern world--plague will be perceived as coming mainly out of Alexandria. From there to Massalia, all through the developed southern tier and the immediate frontier zone, then sporadically north among the people not yet in the League, in a pincers movement largely coming out of Gaul but also radiating from the trade colonies. However the more distant trade colonies are partially insulated by the tendency of ships bearing disease to either be lost at sea or have the infection burn out before reaching another port.
Anyway the Baltic natives might be vulnerable but not a lot less so than the League vectors, never enough to create the sort of burnt-out "virgin soil" the New England colonists found in plague-wracked Massachusetts. If the League people are going to diverge, it will be largely through "going native," to developing ties to local peoples that sooner or later put them in conflict with general League policy. This I suppose will take some generations to happen, though there are cases of individuals that might happen pretty much instantly and constantly.
The mid-Atlantic islands are possible virgin fields where colonies that develop deeply divergent interests on their own might be founded. But they are small and marginal--Iceland is large but has a pretty severe climate and is very very far away and not likely to be found for quite some time. When it is found, it won't have any people living on it. Again as with the West African trade, we might then be getting close to finding routes to the new world, where New England style plague-opened colony sites might exist. But only if European ships can cross as easily as 16th and 17th century ships could--how likely is that, a couple thousand years earlier? Otherwise the pace of travel must be so slow that Native peoples are largely still protected by distance. I doubt the author intends on an end game involving exploitation of the Americas, and if that does happen the tropical Antilles and range between Mexico and Amazonia would be likeliest. Any settler colonies there would be very far in the future indeed, if conditions allow them to happen at all.
Skallagrim
Banned
I love how this timeline really leads to such in-depth analysis. Your arguments are very compelling, @Shevek23! I think you are right, although I must caution against a sort of 'determinism'. What Rome was like in OTL is not by definition what it is like in TTL. What really matters is how strong they are at the moment. What will a war with Massalia do to them? At this moment, I don't see them winning. I don't see them going south (to Megale Hellas) first, either. They will want Cisalpine Gaul, because if Massalia grabs it first, that's even more of a threat to Rome than Rome having it would be to Massalia. My initial thinking was that Massalia can fortify the mountain range and thus be pretty safe from overland attack, even if Roman territory is nearby. (But it seems I was wrong to brush off such corncerns so quickly.)
It remains my thinking that a war with Massalia is not really in Rome's interest. Nor in Massalia's! Say... would it be an option for both Rome and Massalia to guarantee the independence of the Cisalpine Gauls? To turn the area into a neutral buffer state they can both trade with, but which both solemnly vow not to occupy? It would be tricky to arrange, but it would avoid a very costly war that neither side can afford. And its exactly what the local Gaulish population want, of course.
In such a case, I still think the rest of my scenario is plausible. We must not underestimate the value of the east. Rome could gain a lot there, and even if they headed west first in OTL, I again urge against determinism. If there's something to gain in the east, they might just take that opportunity. It's a cost-benefit thing. Sure, they'd gain a lot if they could subdue Massalia and capture its riches. If. It's a huge rist, they might not want to take.
Regarding the Ptolemaic Empire being set against the Romans adventuring in the east: initially, they'd be able to gain from allying with Rome and dismantling Epirus, Sparta, Rhodes, Megale Hellas etc. In the long term, they might become a target themselves, but it would hardly be unusual for a ruler to accept such a distant future risk in exchange for vast benefits in the immediate future.
Final note: messing with Megale Hellas might indeed incur the wrath of Massalia. If I were Roman, that would be a prime reason to secure the cooperation of Ptolemaic Egypt (also vaguely allied to Massalia) to make League neutrality more likely. Also... I'd wait until the inevitable moment when massalia gets into a war with the Barcids (because both are making inroads in Iberia, they'll soon come to a clash). They'd be distracted. Perfect moment to scoop up Megale Hellas.
All my thinking here goes towards the idea that a Roman-Massalian war would be extremely costly at best, and devestating at worst. I really think both sides would know that, and try to avoid that war. At least for the moment.
It remains my thinking that a war with Massalia is not really in Rome's interest. Nor in Massalia's! Say... would it be an option for both Rome and Massalia to guarantee the independence of the Cisalpine Gauls? To turn the area into a neutral buffer state they can both trade with, but which both solemnly vow not to occupy? It would be tricky to arrange, but it would avoid a very costly war that neither side can afford. And its exactly what the local Gaulish population want, of course.
In such a case, I still think the rest of my scenario is plausible. We must not underestimate the value of the east. Rome could gain a lot there, and even if they headed west first in OTL, I again urge against determinism. If there's something to gain in the east, they might just take that opportunity. It's a cost-benefit thing. Sure, they'd gain a lot if they could subdue Massalia and capture its riches. If. It's a huge rist, they might not want to take.
Regarding the Ptolemaic Empire being set against the Romans adventuring in the east: initially, they'd be able to gain from allying with Rome and dismantling Epirus, Sparta, Rhodes, Megale Hellas etc. In the long term, they might become a target themselves, but it would hardly be unusual for a ruler to accept such a distant future risk in exchange for vast benefits in the immediate future.
Final note: messing with Megale Hellas might indeed incur the wrath of Massalia. If I were Roman, that would be a prime reason to secure the cooperation of Ptolemaic Egypt (also vaguely allied to Massalia) to make League neutrality more likely. Also... I'd wait until the inevitable moment when massalia gets into a war with the Barcids (because both are making inroads in Iberia, they'll soon come to a clash). They'd be distracted. Perfect moment to scoop up Megale Hellas.
All my thinking here goes towards the idea that a Roman-Massalian war would be extremely costly at best, and devestating at worst. I really think both sides would know that, and try to avoid that war. At least for the moment.