Lets say Rome was never able to expand all that much and was ransacked by another city-state soon after it was founded. What would that mean for the world?
it could mean that we study the rise and fall of the Etruscan or the Samnite or the Siracusan (Sicilian) or the Pontic Empire in school.Lets say Rome was never able to expand all that much and was ransacked by another city-state soon after it was founded. What would that mean for the world?
Mediterranean sea will be a relatively peaceful place until the arrival of barbarians, then these peaceful Carthaginians merchants and Greeks scientists will want a military power to defend them... maybe the Mouseion of Alexandria will be destroyed during some barbarian assault.
Would Carthage be a dominant power or even a substitute for Rome? They already had Spain and North Africa and without a powerful Rome could go further North and East, right?
Yes, and unlike the Romans, the Carthaginians trade routes extended all the way to West Africa---probably as far as Mt. Cameroun. When the Carthaginians were conquered by the Romans, they shut up about those trade routes and they lapsed.There is no incentive for the Carthaginians to create a powerful land empire. They were concerned with money and controlling sea routes. They had no interest in inland land. They only took an interest in conquering more of Spain because they lost Sicily and needed to repay the Romans--plus Hamilcar needed to get away from Carthage...
I imagine the meditterranean coast then to consist of citystates while the barbarian tribes in the vicinity like the gauls would be slightly more civilized than "further away" neighbours.
Perhaps one of the Hellenic Kingdoms might have attempted to form an empire or even a revival of the persian empire could have stretched westwards. That would force the Carthaginians to fight back more cohesively maybe even forming a kingdom. Meanwhile the etruscans might push north across the alps.
But would they form a state like the early roman republic?