What if Hannibal Barca won the Punic War?

What would Europe have been like? My guess is that Italy would stay as a collections of principalities that are vassals to Hannibal. Also, Romance Europe would probably be limited to just Italy. Modern France would be today Gallo-Celtic, Romania would be Dacian, Spain and Portugal would be Celtic and Iberian.
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ΙcΑΡΝΟΝΑΡΙΟΙ-the-lords-of-iron.448379/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/carthage-and-the-lost-libyan-war.400933/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hannibals-wake.373059/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...and-treachery-in-the-post-roman-world.440054/

Here's a couple TLs if you want some reading.

My two cents? It depends on the peace terms. I'd hate to say that Rome's dominance was inevitable by this point, because I don't think anything is inevitable, Rome won't take the loss lying down. At best the defeat will become a rallying cry for future generations, and at worst, some other Italian city will pick up the slack that Rome left. Now, if there had been enough crushing defeats and the manpower of Rome was completely drained, then we might see the fragmentation of Italy along tribal lines, or perhaps regional powers might emerge.
 
What would Europe have been like? My guess is that Italy would stay as a collections of principalities that are vassals to Hannibal. Also, Romance Europe would probably be limited to just Italy. Modern France would be today Gallo-Celtic, Romania would be Dacian, Spain and Portugal would be Celtic and Iberian.

Germanic Migrations say hello. While they may run out of steam before breaking into Iberia, I would still bet money on the assorted Goths on pushing into Gaul if I was forced to pick a side, and the factors driving the Germans weren't heavily impacted by Rome.

As for Hannibal winning... yah, he can't keep projecting sufficent power into Italy to keep the penninsula clientized for very long. Pretty early on in the campaign he was already leaning heavily on Cisalpine Gaulic allies to fill out his ranks, who owed loyalty to their own leaders first and just wanted to establish a home in the Po River valley. Perhaps operating together in the army they establish a Confederation to the north of Roman territory that will slowly develop into a kingdom allied to Rome, while the City-States of southern Italy are fully independent with Cathaginian trade concessions. Sardinia, Corsica, and Roman Sicily are likely retaken by Carthage proper, while the Barcids have their hegemony and quasi-independence in Iberia fully aknowledged by the Punic Senate as a special region of the state. Perhaps even a Dehlian League style commercial alliance,at best.
 
My guess would be what Atamolos said, it depends on the peace treaty. That being said, I can see this resulting in a few things; Carthage would gain dominance over the Mediterranean in terms of trade and possibly naval superiority depending on if Hannibal decided to knock the size of the Roman Army and Navy down a peg. As for land grabs, Hannibal would have easily went for retaking Sicily (it was only lost some 30 years earlier in a war that Hannibal's father fought in), the occupation of islands between Sicily and Italy such as the Aeolian Islands and Ustica, and maybe retaking of Corsica, Sardinia, or both (they were originally owned by Carthage; no idea how Carthage lost it).

In terms of long-term consequences, this could lead to the Romans attempting to initiate some reforms of their military, which could range from limited to complete overhaul, and limited expansion of Carthage, possibly across the Mediterranean Coast of Africa, deeper into Africa itself, or into the Iberian Peninsula. One thing this would definitely lead to would be a few extra Punic Wars. How long they would last in this TL, I'm not sure, but the possibilities are endless. Imagine Marc Antony allying with Cleopatra to invade Carthage, or Julius Caesar turning it into an alternate invasion of Gaul (although admittedly either Carthage or Rome won't last that long).
 
What would Europe have been like?
It's unlikely that Italy would be shattered among city-states at this point. Rome still had a large influence over its dominion even at the worst of the war and only some challenger cities saw the opportunity to raise as a regional power. Let's say Hannibal offer some agreeable terms to the Senate (which is only how they could be met, giving the Puno-Gallic army lacked means to besiege and takeover Rome) and make it a central italian power once more.

The planned league of southern Italian cities would probably come into fruition, it would be a whole mess : these cities couldn't yet begin to agree on anything, already began to fight each other, neighboured a lot of Roman colonies or pro-roman peoples, and Hannibal simply couldn't garrison his armies there or ask his Italian allies to supply them freely.
Contrary to Sicily that was a main strategic point for them, Carthaginians didn't really cared for Southern Italy safe in this case as a buffer against Rome. Which, due to its aformentioned structural and "original" dysfunction wouldn't serve this purpose much.
It doesn't mean that Rome would entierely recover and quickly so, and probably prevented to rise as a sole superpower, but as a regional power it will taking the form of a Tusco-Roman state IMO rather than Campano-Roman (even if I think that you'd have three parts eventually) possily more focused on taking back Cisalpina and Adriatic basin at first giving most of the outer threats (real or pretexted) would come for this.

Carthage on the other hand, would have to face two things : first a growing dichotomy between his usual hegemonic model (ties and treaties from cities to cities, rather than political or clientele) and a bloc tied to Carthage but essentially a familial heirloom of the Barcids in Spain and in negighbouring areas (notably thanks to mercenariship and personal relations). I think a mix between a Social War and a Civil War (roughly Barcids and their spanish autocracy against opponants in 'M, Carthage and allies) could quite possibly happen (with Romans intervening in sort of Punic War 2.5 to make their retun in southern Italy acknowledged)

Gaul, would probably remains roughly the same at first, but the renewed connection with Spain and continuity of exchanges with Italy might bolster just enough local archêi (Arvernoi notably, possibly Salues and Arecomicoi) trough trade and mercenariate (in Spain, or in northern Italy as IOTL) reinforcing their mediterranean tropes and stratification in the way, possibly erupting into quasi high-kingships defined by Gallic regions (themselves defined by assemblies and coalitions, as IOTL). At least, it's why I plan for my own TL, but I don't think being very far from plausibility there.
Rome might intervene in southern Gaul, would it be only to save Massallia's ass, but I would see this kind of intervention rather limited, possibly up to the Rhone river. I wouldn't see Punic influence being this much present in Celtica, except regarding trade goods.
On the other hand, you might see some Puno-Iberic or Puno-Celtic formations in Spain, depending how good Barcids or their successor do there.

Germanic Migrations say hello. While they may run out of steam before breaking into Iberia, I would still bet money on the assorted Goths on pushing into Gaul if I was forced to pick a side, and the factors driving the Germans weren't heavily impacted by Rome.
The main problem with your argument there is that Barbarian migrations were essentially tied not only to climatic changes, but as well to the existance of a sole political/cultural/economic superpower sitting in the Mediterranean basin. Goths as a people simply idn't emerged before mix of Dacians, Sarmatians, Romans, Celts and of course Germans mixed up in modern Romania as a coalition both targeted and subsided by the empire.
ITTL, the migrations of the IInd BCE century (Cimbri and Teutoni) might be a lot less unidirectional than IOTL, and more in dispersed order (some in Gaul, some in Italy, some in Balkans, why not some in Britain).
And giving that the clear differenciation between Germanic and Celtic people in Germania, and the final overcome of these, is directly attributable to Rome's presence (which did a lot to destructure Celto-Germanic peoples, even if mostly but not only undirectly).

You'd have migrations from time to time, but probably not in the same extent, not in the same ways, not in the same political frame which stabilized Migrating peoples (and eventually mixed them and accultured them even before their entered Romania).
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Unless Rome is destroyed, they will return for Round 3 within one or two generations. A confederation of allied states, doubtfully possible, may delay this another generation.

More interesting is the development of the Gallic powers in Italy and France. Also the Dacian kingship may develop differently. And of course the Germans will be trying to expand in time. What happens with Macedonia without Roman intervention?
 
I'm not sure to understand why Germanic peoples would be bound to expand ITTL as the slowest Blitzkrieg ever. IOTL, they remained fairly stuck on Scandinavia and northern Germania for a long time, mixing up with Celts to the point it's not really clear if we can entierly label them as Celtic or Germanic in the middle tier of Germania. It's not really clear how and when Germania's populations were predominantly Germanized, but it's hard to remove Rome out of the equation and the consequences on Celto-German peoples of their intervention and conquest of territories up to Rhine and Danube.

Most notably, the migration of peoples such as Cimbrii and Teutonii (along others that are hard to clearly define as Celt or Germans) might be less unidirectional and ravaging ITTL than IOTL, where it was mostly about going to the local superpower. The war mostly destructurated further Danubian and Gallic ensembles, and this could have been adverted with more scattered and pluridirectional migrations : not that the Germanization of a good chucnk of Central Europe isn't likely, but possibly (likely IMO) not as bluntly it happened or was retroactively made later. Maybe a more wide area of Celto-Germanic culture as in Ist century BC/CE Rhineland.
Maybe a more Germanic-looking Vistula and Lower Danubian too, that said.
 
Last edited:
Top