What if sources of the Western Civilization would be blocked ?

As in question.
Is it enough to assumpt a conquest of Greece by some Eastern power (Persia, Assyria, Arabs) in a good time for it ? Or much earlier fall of Rome by Celtic invasion. Then Western European civilization would remain based on Celtic, maybe Etruscan or Carthaginian culture (I see Carthage only as a local cultural pattern for the western Mediterranean). Carthage as a republican, trade-based state will not focus on conquests (unless reformed by an outstanding individual). Perhaps a Samnite state (probably with republican government) would become a local power rivaling Carthage. However, I focus more on Celts. Without Roman conquests, perhaps there will be no Germanization of Celtic tribes from the areas of present-day Germany. In such an arrangement, Eastern European cultures are probably a mix of Turanian civilization with influences from Persia. Perhaps the Germanics will manage to expand to the East, to Poland. There is no free Greece and there is probably no Macedonia, Alexander the Great and Hellenistic era. Persia stays in the southern Balkans. Ruthenia (or another East Slavic state), if it arises, culturally follows Persian state. I assume that Christianity emerges from Judaism and spreads throughout the Persian Empire and further lands under the influence of Persia. There is a struggle between Christianity and the older, elitist Zoroastrian religion. Perhaps there is a synthesis of Christianity with Zoroastrianism (Saoshyantism would arise). We almost certainly have an invasion of the Huns, but I don't know exactly which direction to choose - the Huns can stop their attention in some lands of Persia or hit the West, where they may not encounter stronger resistance. Either way, they cause confusion in Europe - the beginning of the Wandering of Peoples. Germanic and Slavic tribes move west and south. Under such assumptions, Islam would certainly arise. I just don't know if with such Persia it would stand the test of time. Perhaps it would end with the evacuation of early Muslims to Africa, but on condition that Persia proved to be too strong. At that time, Christian countries could develop in Africa - Nubia and Ethiopia. A competitive religious and philosophical current (based on the cult of Ba'al Melkart) may arise in Carthage as a balance for the Persian-dominated zone. Rather, there is no Mithraism in Persia or it doesn't matter much.
We are coming back to the steppes. Avars and Turks appear after the Huns. In Europe, the Avars may encounter the remains of the Huns (as in OTL), most likely in the Balkans, Gaul and Italy (if the Huns choose the way to the West). In further Asia, everything (or almost everything) looks like our version of history. Turks from the Oghuz tribes live in the western part of Central Asia, focusing on Persian affairs. If the Huns (or some of them) conquered Persia by forming their own dynasty and adopting one of the local religions (perhaps Christianity or the aforementioned Saoshyantism or Manicheism), after some time they would be defeated by a new dynasty - either native or Turkic . Some Turks (Kipchaks) choose the direction to the West, settling among others in the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin. Magyars wander with the Turks.

I don't know if Gnostic religions would arise in the forms we know.
I do not know if, in the absence of the Roman Empire, Germans and Celts will develop or adopt more complex civilization-state models. There is no inspiration for the emergence of a Germanic or Celtic super-state in the style of the Carolingian state. These tribes may not create organized resistance against barbaric Eastern tribes. Perhaps we have Slavic settlements in Germany and Gaul. I wonder if then the Slavs will maintain their own language in the Celtic territory (maybe they end up as OTL-ish Romanized Visigoths in Spain).
 
Last edited:
If Greece s conquered by the Achaemenids and suppressed for a time, there is no assurance that Zoroastrianism will exist, that much is a certainty in my view. Without the later Alexandrine conquest of the Achaemenid empire and the later formation of the priest-king tradition within Persia as vassals of the Seleucids and the Arsacids, there will be no pressure for the creation of Zoroastrianism. There are evidences relating to the creation of Zoroastrianism through the mixture of Indo-European deities with the personages of Naboo (Akkadian god of wisdom and literacy), with gods such as Marduk and Nergal (Lugalgirra or the lord of the immortal flame). Even books such as Enuma Elish display this tendency to revise the religious landscape of the ancient polytheistic world fundamentally through propaganda and political power. This is what occurred in Arsacid era Iran.

Religions and thought movements such as Christianity and Gnosticism do not occur in this timeline. Though, some sort of religious movement most certainly will arise that may mimic these if given similar pressures.

Regarding the destruction of the 'Western world's' base areas, such as Greece and Italy, this is a difficult topic. The notion that Greece alone is the provider of Western civilization, is somewhat exclusionary to the other contributors and certainly the contributors to Greece. In my personal view, the west is a wider area than what you are referring, at least classically in history. Thus, my view would be to include much of the Achaemenid empire as 'the west' as a region of civilizational development, for a lack of terms. We know well that Greece and much of Europe was linked to the rest of the Bronze Age Middle East in times of yore, such as through the vaunted trade of amber, sea lanes and the Mediterranean. The similarity between calendars, astrology, measurements, coinage, linguistic placement and notions, place the building of the west in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean, including the Egyptian states, the Phoenicians, the Akkadians/Sumerians, the varied Anatolian peoples, the varied Hellenes and so forth. It also is presuming much to assume that the Gallic element had little to do with the creation of modern Europe, but I would prefer someone of knowledge to take this up.
 
You assume a death of greek culture after an achaemenid conquest. Does this mean an perzanisation of Greece? I think you underestimate the cultural diversity in the achaemenid Empire. The strong point of the greek culture versus the celtic culture is it's literacy. That's why it still will influence the celtic culture and not the reverse. It will not be so dominant as our timeline. There will be much more concurrency like Carthage.
 
Top