WI: Carthage Never Rises

Abhakhazia

Banned
Carthage, as a city, was founded by Tyrian traders sometime around 800 BC, as both a colony and an important stop along the Tyrrhenian and the Hispano-Levatine trade route. The later trade route, primarily based on silver from Tartessus and other parts of Iberia being shipped back to Phoenicia to satisfy the tribute of the militaristic Assyrians later collapsed as silver became cheaper, and the outside hostile forces proceeded to invade and destroy the Phoenician cities sometime during the 7th century BC. This breakdown of trade damaged many Phoenician colonies in Africa, Spain and the Mediterranean Islands, but Carthage survives due to it's investment in the Tyrrhenian trade with Gaul and Italy.

What if, however, Carthage was more distant from this Tyrrhenian trade and collapsed with the trade from Iberia to Phoenicia, due to more powerful trade rivals in the region, preventing it from becoming a Mediterranean superpower in the centuries to come?
 

Redhand

Banned
I would assume that if they never rise, the Greeks would simply take their place in the Western Mediterranean and that they would be a rather insignificant city that would have to pay tribute to the Greeks, likely the Tyrant of Syracuse, or en up being absorbed or even destroyed. In fact, without their trade wealth, they cant pay for mercenaries or very much tribute and they might even get destroyed by the Numidians or some other African group.

The Romans might rise a bit faster as they wouldn't have to worry about the Cold War they had with Carthage OTL and they could simply pick the decaying corpses of the Greek colonies, who would decline as the Macedonians rise just a in OTL. They might however keep their small landowning class around for longer as they wouldn't all be decimated on wars with Carthage but rather become wealthier through successful wars with the Greeks. This could have any number of consequences.
 
I would assume that if they never rise, the Greeks would simply take their place in the Western Mediterranean and that they would be a rather insignificant city that would have to pay tribute to the Greeks, likely the Tyrant of Syracuse, or en up being absorbed or even destroyed. In fact, without their trade wealth, they cant pay for mercenaries or very much tribute and they might even get destroyed by the Numidians or some other African group.

The Romans might rise a bit faster as they wouldn't have to worry about the Cold War they had with Carthage OTL and they could simply pick the decaying corpses of the Greek colonies, who would decline as the Macedonians rise just a in OTL. They might however keep their small landowning class around for longer as they wouldn't all be decimated on wars with Carthage but rather become wealthier through successful wars with the Greeks. This could have any number of consequences.

I think with regards to the Greeks in Western med, this would depend on their relationships with the Hellenic Superpowers. If one of them were allied with Seluecids or Ptolemies that would have made the Romans engaged those Hellenic Kingdoms much earlier which may resulted to a Roman defeat.

Just think if Pyrrhus had the resources of Egypt or Asia, he could easily replaced his resources better than the Romans in OTL. That would have been disastrous for the Romans.
 

Redhand

Banned
I think with regards to the Greeks in Western med, this would depend on their relationships with the Hellenic Superpowers. If one of them were allied with Seluecids or Ptolemies that would have made the Romans engaged those Hellenic Kingdoms much earlier which may resulted to a Roman defeat.

Just think if Pyrrhus had the resources of Egypt or Asia, he could easily replaced his resources better than the Romans in OTL. That would have been disastrous for the Romans.

I think that the Greeks would continue to fight each other long before they gang up on the Romans. Pyrrhus wouldn't have been given the resources of Asia even if he was loosely associated with the Seleucids. The Ptolemies and Seleucids would be too busy beating each other up over the Levant and Asia Minor to care about his trivial struggles.

And don't forget the absolute population bomb that Italy was during this time. It was like 18th century France and modern China compared to their enemies. Even with their ridiculously restrictive class rules for military service, the Romans could form 50,000 man armies out of ONLY landowners.
 

Hecatee

Donor
If the Greeks get free reign in the western Med' from the late 7th BCE onward, you'll see more colonies founded by refugees of the Persian conquest of Asia Minor (as it happens Phoceans were already founding places like Massalia, and when they were conquered at home they fled and founded Alalia in Corsica before a big fight against a combined etruscan and carthaginian fleet that ended in a tactical victory but strategic defeat that lead them to abandon Corsica and found Velia on the italian coast).

So we'll see more places like Empurias spring on southern France's coast as well as on the Spanish eastern coast, probably at least until Gibraltar. They dominate the trade despite attempts by the Etruscan to fight them.

Two main cities arise in this western greek sea, Syracusa and Massalia, who get into commercial fights with the other cities allied to one or the other (less fighting between cities in Italy, Gaul and Spain because of growth space and external threat of Gauls, Celtiberians and Italic tribes).

The Etruscan loose earlier their power in the Naples area, and Rome comes earlier in contact with the Greeks, with maybe a fight between pro-Greek and pro-Etruscan factions in Rome during the 5th BCE.

During the Persian Wars the western Greeks are able to send some forces to help against the Persians while those have less ships in their hands, leading to earlier and more successful campaigns against Rhodes, the islands and the coast of Asia Minor, maybe leading to an overconfident greek army fighting in Asia Minor instead of in Greece like it was for Platea, and being soundly beaten, leading to a status quo. In any case Athens does not rise as high as it did OTL, because the Athenian contribution to the fight is proportionally smaller and they may not be able to overtake the league due to Sicilian interference.

The Peloponesian war equivalent is much larger because this time the Ionians may count on the Massalians to help while Sparta and the Dorians get access to the Sicilian fleet much earlier, leading to a bigger challenge to Athens. Corcyra chooses earlier a side in which to engage its massive fleet (possibly the Athenian, to prevent Sicilian domination in the Adriatic and western greek areas)

Higher and earlier losses at sea for all participants lead to an earlier stalemate and possibly an earlier, more dynamic Sicilian expedition which the Athens-Corcyre-Massalia coalition wins. The larger war might also prevent a Nicias-peace like settlement because more parties have interest (instead of Athens vs Sparta it is Athens+Massalia vs Sparta+Syracusa). Also the higher tempo of naval warfare earlier on in the war might lessen or even butterfly the Athenian plague (less people crowding in the long walls because more people at sea).

In the end economy tilt the balance against Sparta and lead toward a division of the Greek world between Athens and Massalia. Thebe, not being able to develop in security from Athens, does not have its time in the sun. Sparta, due to its citizenship policy, is broken. Corinth is too close to Athens to be able to become a new leader for the Peloponese. Athens dominate through a league that gives a lot of importance to trade and fighting Persia.

The conflict give as many former soldiers ready to bear weapons for money as the OTL one and a 10 000-like expedition against the Persians, and then to the great war against Persia which is much more limited in scope than Alexander's expedition and attempt to give birth to independant countries carved from the Persian Empire, mostly city-states in Asia Minor up to Syria, a syrian polity and an independant Egypt with greek colonies for the trade.

Under the guidance of Athens, colonization in the Black Sea area is also much more dynamic, with more cities surrounding the whole sea and providing a stronger greek influence on the nomadic tribes of the plains of Ukraine and Georgia.

Rome, during this time, battles against the Etruscan and the Italic tribes, which will be weaker due to the stronger greek presence in the south. Greek cities do not fall into the ends of the italic tribes during the 4th and 3rd BCE, and Rome mostly sign alliance and trade pacts with them, wary of Massalia.

The Massalian federation of the western greek world probably founds colonies in Carthage and on the western north-african coast and looks toward the Atlantic trade system of the Celts for new ways to make profits. She relies much more on mercenaries than Athens, and always attempt to get new colonists from the egean world for her cities, with those angry of Athens' dominance taking the offer.

The great gallic migrations of the 4th century cause panic in Massalia and alliance with Rome, leading to a big fight in Cisalpina where the combined greek and roman armies triumph over the Celts who then go to the Balkans.

The much stronger Athenian alliance prevents the rise of Macedonia, which under the rule of its Philip II equivalent will look north toward Thracia and west toward Illyria both as a way to improve its security and to get new lands.

The 3rd BCE sees the big show down between Rome and Massalia. Rome, after the victory against the Gauls, has taken Cisalpin Gaul and looks to expand further but feels blocked by Massalia, which stands in the path of any western expansion and keeps control of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, dominating all trade.

Massalia, while powerful with her many celtic and greek mercenaries, is too close to the roman demographic jungernaut. Two wars will take place, with the first seeing the greek cities of Italy and Massalia itself become roman, the second with the exiled Massalians (reinstalled in Syracusa) loosing Sicily and control of their economic empire to a Roman invasion which culminate with the siege of Syracuse.

During this time, the long standing athenian league has become a more democratic hellenic league. Disputes between cities are settled in Athens' courts by tribunals made by elected representatives from all the cities of the league.

Currently the league is at war with Macedonia who has tried to take control of the Bosphorus after having consolidated its northern and western borders, but the ressources of the united greeks and their capacity to deploy forces on so many parts of the Macedonian kingdom, from the south, east and west, means that Macedonia is defeated and broken up in smaller city states which are included in the league, with league garisons put in place.

The later 3rd and the 2nd BCE see the Hellenic league develop new colonies in the agricultural plains of the Danube and of Ukraine, but also the resurgence of a new threat from the east. The smaller nations born from the break up of the Persian Empire have progressively fallen under the control of a new power, the Parthians. Born on the high plateaux of Iran, they have slowly beaten Mesopotamia to submission before attaking Syria and eastern Asia Minor.

(and that's all for now, folks !)
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Massalia was never really all that powerful of a colony, it had some rather small numbers, I don't think more than 20,000 if that. I can't see it forming some sort of broad Western Hellenic league.

Not to mention, there will still be Punic interests in places like Sardinia, Sicily and Spain, even though the Sicilians are more likely to get trampled by the Syracusans. Agathocles's Kingdom of Sicily (if he comes about, that is), could probably assert control over the whole island rather easily without the Carthaginian war machine.

Also, a pan-Hellenic alliance doesn't strike me as very likely at any point, given how the only point Greece was united in antiquity was under Macedon and Rome, I don't think it would just happen on its own.
 
If Carthage doesn't rise, wouldn't Utica just take its place? It was well located like Carthage, and was the predominant North African colony before Carthage was founded.
 

Redhand

Banned
If Carthage doesn't rise, wouldn't Utica just take its place? It was well located like Carthage, and was the predominant North African colony before Carthage was founded.

There is really no way to know, but Carthage had several advantages such as having more initial Phoenician support and having a really lucky string of great military and political leaders that is difficult to replicate.
 
Without Carthage to hinder it, Syracuse will be the pre-eminent power in the Western Med. Their the largest urban center and now the most established unchallenged military power. The Etruscans might give them some trouble, but without Carthage's help, they will not be able to stop them.

I imagine a war between Syracuse and Taras happening for power in the region. Depending on other circumstances, either could win, but the center of power, in my opinion, will be in Syracuse. We could see a network of allied Greek colonies bumping off the withering Phoenician colonies in North Africa and Spain, while more and more Greeks pour into Magna Graecia and Sicily. The Adriatic will be much more peaceful as well with Illyrian pirates under the watchful eye of Greek hegemony
 

Hecatee

Donor
You should write a timeline that's super awesome. What happens to Gauls and Germans in this tl?

I might, once I'm further in my currently ongoing timelines (Hadrian's slightly more aggressive forward defense strategy and the Nabatean kings intervening earlier in the Hellenistic conflicts). But I make no guarantee !

In such a scenario the Celts would actually be subject to a larger Greek influence, but they would mainly evolve as they did OTL. Rome smaller growth in the south would mean more pressure on Cisalpina and an earlier integration of the area while the war with Massalia, with the city so easily reached from Rome, would mean no Spanish campaign in this punic-wars like conflict (here the first war is almost entirely land bound while the second see the first real maritime operations by the Romans).

Roman conquest of Gaul begins earlier, alongside the Rhone axis, as an attempt to control the trade coming from the North. Thus we have roman colonies in Gaul by the end of the 2nd BCE.

This means that when the late 2nd/early 1st BCE germanic migrations come (Cimbri) the Romans have a stronger appeal for defending the area but also more experience of barbarian forces and are thus probably able to win without suffering an Arausio like defeat.

Gaul is likely fully conquered up to the Rhine before the middle of the 1st BCE, with a much stronger roman presence than OTL due to the amount of colonies founded in the area to help with the demographic pressure in Italy itself.

Spain is, at that point, still free, as is North Africa. Both have Greek colonies on the littoral, through which trade flows, and the Romans are happy to benefit from this trade without a need for direct intervention.

The thing is in this world that there is much less diplomacy so much less unasked for bringing into wars by allies and no role of policeman of the world for Rome who stays a largely agricultural, land based, civilization.

@Abhakhazia : OTL Massalia was indeed second to Syracusae, but here they have blood ties to more cities in the west (through the Phocean exiles colonies) than OTL due to the fact there is no battle to check Greek expansion in the area. As in this alternate Median wars the Syracusan tyrant engages his forces in the East, he is not as strong in Sicily and when comes the time of this alternate Peloponesian war he comes into war earlier and get invaded by the combined forces of Athens and Massalia, with more support than the Athenians had.

As for the Hellenic league, she comes about from a more decisive victory at the end of the Peloponesian conflict, and one where Athens triumph and establish a greater level of stability thanks to the fact Sparta is rendered impotent for a long time by lack of citizens and loss of Messalia and Hilots, while Thebes never reaches a status where she can challenge Athens, thus leaving the city of Attica sole arbiter and using her democratic tradition to bring about a change in the mentality of the cities of Greece.
 
Top