WI: No Punic Wars

The lazy answer is the status quo is maintained until something else happened. With that sort of really broad POD, you can pretty much write whatever scenario you want.
 
There is surely some conflict or war between Carthage and Rome or some else Mediterranean great power. You need very early POD that you could avoid that. Carthage should rise quickly as only or strongest mediterranean power.
 
Well, you can butterfly away the second and third easily. Just have Rome lose really badly in the first. This may discourage them from trying any other overseas expedition for the foreseeable future, since this first one would put a really bad taste in their mouth for expanding beyond the peninsula.
 
Well, you can butterfly away the second and third easily. Just have Rome lose really badly in the first. This may discourage them from trying any other overseas expedition for the foreseeable future, since this first one would put a really bad taste in their mouth for expanding beyond the peninsula.

If the Carthaginials maintain their naval lead in the future, this is very easy to visualise. The real question is - what happens to the Successor kingdoms in Greece, Egypt and Asia? Carthage did not have the manpower, or even the interest to go to war with them. They were on very good terms with both the Seleucids, and Ptolemies, and even with the Macedonians, it was a reasonably acceptable relationship.

Rome may still conquer all of Italy, but with Carthage having Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearics, the Roman conquest of Spain, or even Gaul is much harder. What direction will the Roman empire expand in?
 
Rome might intervene in Greek affairs, but there will probably be a long delay. I believe they did first intervene in Illyria to stop Illyrian piracy, so they do have some interest in the region to look out for if Macedon gets uppity.
 
If the Carthaginials maintain their naval lead in the future, this is very easy to visualise. The real question is - what happens to the Successor kingdoms in Greece, Egypt and Asia? Carthage did not have the manpower, or even the interest to go to war with them. They were on very good terms with both the Seleucids, and Ptolemies, and even with the Macedonians, it was a reasonably acceptable relationship.

Rome may still conquer all of Italy, but with Carthage having Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearics, the Roman conquest of Spain, or even Gaul is much harder. What direction will the Roman empire expand in?

The Ptolemies will probably be overthrown by the Seleucids without Roman assistance, and the Seleucids themselves have to worry about the Parthians and Armenians further down the line.

One can imagine Anatolia being unified by either Pergamon or Pontus, or maybe even reconquered by Macedonia. Macedonia remains to be the most powerful state in the Balkans until the Dacians unify, which could lead to a very interesting conflict.

Rome probably won't expand anymore in the foreseeable future. This was their big break into Empire (as in a land ruling other lands, not as in they had an Emperor), and maybe Rome collapses in Italy after a Social War analogue. Gauls may continue to invade later on, and the Illyrians will continue to pirate the Adriatic until someone (possibly Macedonia?) pacifies them.

The big question is, with Carthage continuing to control Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, will they have the incentive to conquer Spain like OTL? The main reason they did this was to exploit the silver there to pay back the Roman indemnities and to compensate for the loss of Sicily. They could, over time, absorb Numidia, but I'm inclined to say it is more likely that the Numidians invade Carthage, and take control of the area themselves by the 1st century AD (for the record Christianity would probably be butterflied away), similarly to how Germanic tribes would later invade Rome.
 
Rome and Carthage are in a cold war until one 'launches the nukes'. I think Carthage has a better future.
 
The Ptolemies will probably be overthrown by the Seleucids without Roman assistance
This is very likely. Even the famed victory at Raphia was just sufficient to keep the Seleucids from invading Egypt. But Ptolemy could do nothing at all, even when Antiochus went east to gather allies and treasure. In fact, the Parthians and the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom acknowledged Seleucid supremacy when Antiochus came calling.

and the Seleucids themselves have to worry about the Parthians and Armenians further down the line.

Possibly. It depends on how the Graeco Bactrian kingdom fares. IOTL, it fell to the Parthians, who then gathered enough power to successfully go to war with a Seleucid kingdom weakened by the conflict with Rome. But if the Seleucids are strong, neither Parthia, nor Pergamum may become as powerful as IOTL.

One can imagine Anatolia being unified by either Pergamon or Pontus, or maybe even reconquered by Macedonia. Macedonia remains to be the most powerful state in the Balkans until the Dacians unify, which could lead to a very interesting conflict.

Under Antiochus III, Anatolia had been almost unified by the Seleucids. Pergamum, Pontus and Armenia were all mostly subservient to the Seleucids. It depends on how the Seleucids manage their myriad conflicts. But remember - they have two major advantages ITTL, that they did not have IOTL.

a) The Egyptians are toast. So - they have the resources of Egypt (but Egypt is as much an asset as a liability, given its propensity for rebellions) for any conflict in Anatolia. Also, with Egypt and the Levant in their hands, they have a first class navy, which is vital for conflicts in Anatolia.

b) The Parthians and the Armenians (and later, Jews) were all successful in conflicts with the Seleucids after the battle of Magnesia, where the Seleucid kingdom was irrevocably ruined. But ITTL, there is no Magnesia. The Seleucid kingdom has its full strength for any conflicts. In fact, they could become a very powerful kingdom that rules all of Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and Anatolia, if they play their cards right. Sure, the Parthians, Armenians, Pontics, and even the Pergamese are pains, but they may not have the strength to inflicts a fatal blow to the Seleucids as IOTL. In fact, the Jewish revolt is going to butterflied away. The revolt began because the Seleucids taxed the region excessively to pay the reparations imposed on them by Rome.

Rome probably won't expand anymore in the foreseeable future. This was their big break into Empire (as in a land ruling other lands, not as in they had an Emperor), and maybe Rome collapses in Italy after a Social War analogue. Gauls may continue to invade later on, and the Illyrians will continue to pirate the Adriatic until someone (possibly Macedonia?) pacifies them.

The thing is - Rome has a need to import grain from Egypt. As long as the Carthaginians don't seal off the straits of Messina, and the Roman grain trade continues uninterrupted, they may be content to leave Sicily in the hands of Carthage. If Rome loses in the first Punic war, and even the kingdom of Hiero is taken by Carthage, the island will be fully in the hands of Carthage, with no real source of resistance to them. However, Rome will still control the Italian peninsula, probably right up to the Alps, particularly if the Gauls invade unsuccessfully (and I really cannot see the Romans losing at this point to a Gaulish invasion).

If the Romans play their cards right, they can pacify their south Italian allies with lands taken from the Gauls, and there may be no Social War. The problem IOTL was how much Rome had levied from them, in comparison to what they had got from the conquests. But ITTL, Rome has taken far less from them, is far less powerful, and will, consequently, have to be much more diplomatic, and more cognisant of the interests of its Italian allies.

The big question is, with Carthage continuing to control Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, will they have the incentive to conquer Spain like OTL? The main reason they did this was to exploit the silver there to pay back the Roman indemnities and to compensate for the loss of Sicily. They could, over time, absorb Numidia, but I'm inclined to say it is more likely that the Numidians invade Carthage, and take control of the area themselves by the 1st century AD (for the record Christianity would probably be butterflied away), similarly to how Germanic tribes would later invade Rome.

While I can easily see Carthage having no interest in conquering all of Spain, I can see them taking control of the Greek trading cities of the Hispanian and Gaullish coast. Which means that Emporia, Narbo, and Massilia could all become Carthaginian. Even if Spain is not conquered, it would end up becoming a Carthage influenced region. Maybe even Gaul and Britain will have a lot more Carthaginian influence ITTL.

As for Christianity, an analogue could easily arise. Christianity was the religion of the poor in the early Roman empire (which is why Celsus contemptuously calls it the `the belief of the whores, slaves, beggars and thieves'). I am not sure if the Greek propensity for slavery was any less than the Roman one. Greek slavery will likely provoke a Christian analogue, where the poor look for a saviour.
 
The thing is - Rome has a need to import grain from Egypt. As long as the Carthaginians don't seal off the straits of Messina, and the Roman grain trade continues uninterrupted, they may be content to leave Sicily in the hands of Carthage. If Rome loses in the first Punic war, and even the kingdom of Hiero is taken by Carthage, the island will be fully in the hands of Carthage, with no real source of resistance to them. However, Rome will still control the Italian peninsula, probably right up to the Alps, particularly if the Gauls invade unsuccessfully (and I really cannot see the Romans losing at this point to a Gaulish invasion).

If the Romans play their cards right, they can pacify their south Italian allies with lands taken from the Gauls, and there may be no Social War. The problem IOTL was how much Rome had levied from them, in comparison to what they had got from the conquests. But ITTL, Rome has taken far less from them, is far less powerful, and will, consequently, have to be much more diplomatic, and more cognisant of the interests of its Italian allies.

Which could be used, later on in a stronger Carthage (which, in my opinion, will only exist if they can pacify the Numidians completely) as a weapon to starve Rome and incite rebellion.

And while the Cisalpine Gauls may be doomed, I would not underestimate the armies of Gaul, especially if enough time is given that the Arverni (the hegemonic tribe of Southern Gaul) can consolidate their power. If Rome never takes Narbonensis, that might buy Gaul enough time to centralize around the leadership of the Arverni. If Rome maintains its alliance with Massalia, there will probably be a war when the Gauls inevitably try to take the city. Without the extra men from Spain, Macedonia, Illyria, and Africa, and especially if the Carthaginians get involved, I don't see the Romans defeating the Gauls.

While I can easily see Carthage having no interest in conquering all of Spain, I can see them taking control of the Greek trading cities of the Hispanian and Gaullish coast. Which means that Emporia, Narbo, and Massilia could all become Carthaginian. Even if Spain is not conquered, it would end up becoming a Carthage influenced region. Maybe even Gaul and Britain will have a lot more Carthaginian influence ITTL.

I suppose one could argue that in the long term there would be war between Carthage and the Iberian/ Celtiberian tribes. If their presence in the area continues, it seems very likely that conflict would break out between Carthage and the tribes. The Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Astures, and Cantabri would be the toughest nuts to crack, and if these conflicts arise after the Barcids, there is no guarantee of absolute victory. Depending on who leads the Carthaginians in these wars, they might end up losing ground. But they could also gain considerable territory.

I'm unsure if they could get Massalia. As I mentioned before, it seems almost certain that Massalia,as well as her peripheral colonies, will be overrun by Gauls by the end of the 100s BC.

As for Christianity, an analogue could easily arise. Christianity was the religion of the poor in the early Roman empire (which is why Celsus contemptuously calls it the `the belief of the whores, slaves, beggars and thieves'). I am not sure if the Greek propensity for slavery was any less than the Roman one. Greek slavery will likely provoke a Christian analogue, where the poor look for a saviour.

Greeks slavery was not nearly as extensive as Roman slave trade. It is estimated that a third of the peoples living in Italy around the year 100 B.C. were slaves. As far as I am aware, outside Sparta, such high proportions never existed in Hellenistic Greece. The Roman slaving of the Aegean and Anatolia was one of the reasons Greece and Anatolia flocked to Mithradates the Great during the wars Rome had with him.
 
Top