WI: Rome Never Existed

Like it says. What if Rome the city never existed, or was otherwise destroyed before it could make a difference? The Gauls are not conquered, Jesus is not born in the Roman Empire if He is ever born at all, and Carthage has no rival. How might we see the world develop from these MASSIVE changes?
 
Well I cant answer that question no one can the butter flies could be so massive that the world we may not even recognise. Who know there might never have been any dark ages we could have contact with aliens. Heck you answered your own question
 
Correct and MUH GAEL EMPIRE

The Gauls were already getting invaded by the Germanic tribes when ceaser arrived on scene. Losing ground to them in Flanders and the Rhienland. And considering how disunited the Gauls were. That process will in all likelihood speed up not slow down.
 
I've actually thought of posting something like this, but the problem is the city of Rome never existing. Rome, like most cities, is on a good site for a city and its hard to conceive of no settlement there. And if Rome never gets off the ground, there are several alternative "Romes" at nearby sites that could have done the same deal. Obviously the details would have different.

There is an important point here. The earliest urban settlements developed in places that were agriculturally productive, but the area suitable for agriculture was limited, pretty much rivers in deserts and mountainous peninsulas and plateaus. Once civilization spreads to the vast area of arable land in continental Europe the first place that gets urbanized has a huge advantage in empire building. And this was always going to be someplace in central Italy.
 
The Gauls were already getting invaded by the Germanic tribes when ceaser arrived on scene. Losing ground to them in Flanders and the Rhienland. And considering how disunited the Gauls were. That process will in all likelihood speed up not slow down.
Southern France, Loire and Seine Valley, Northern Italy and northwest Iberia are pretty good and heavily populated land already even if southern Germany and the Rhineland are Germanized long term.

I've actually thought of posting something like this, but the problem is the city of Rome never existing. Rome, like most cities, is on a good site for a city and its hard to conceive of no settlement there. And if Rome never gets off the ground, there are several alternative "Romes" at nearby sites that could have done the same deal. Obviously the details would have different.

There is an important point here. The earliest urban settlements developed in places that were agriculturally productive, but the area suitable for agriculture was limited, pretty much rivers in deserts and mountainous peninsulas and plateaus. Once civilization spreads to the vast area of arable land in continental Europe the first place that gets urbanized has a huge advantage in empire building. And this was always going to be someplace in central Italy.
Rome was not the first place to be urbanized and not the only one by the 4th century BCE, their advantages are not simply geographical but also contingent to actual on the ground victories against various foes, without those it's not a given that Italy would be unified under one state.
 
For some reason this discussion always veers off into the future without examining the more immediate consequences, at least every thread I've ever read that posits the idea.

Now, I'm inclined to agree that somebody, somewhere, is going to build a city on the site of Rome, so even if it's not called Rome, you might still get some sort of a local hegemonies on the geographic location of Rome because it's just a good spot. However, I understand that the overall purpose of this discussion is to speculate about what happens if there's no Roman Republic and no Roman Empire that conquers the Mediterranean, and that's a very interesting question, so let's posit some actual PODs so that we can examine what happens in the immediate aftermath.

1. Tarquinius Superbus fails in his attempt to overthrow King Servius Tullius.
2. Lars Porsena successfully sacks Rome, Tarquinius Superbus is reinstalled.

1. Tarquinius Superbus fails in his attempt to overthrow King Servius Tullius. In our first scenario, let's take into account the historical context of the Mediterranean. It's the early 6th century BC. The Neo-Babylonian Empire is in the middle of its tenure in the Fertile Crescent, the Lydian Kingdom is still a big player in Anatolia, and the "Median Empire" still controls the whole of Iran, much of Northern Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia in the wake of the fall of the Kingdom of Urartu. Greece, like Italy, is a patchwork of various city-states, none of which seems poised just yet to burst onto the international stage. Italy and Greece look very similar to each other at this point, actually. They speak different languages of course, and the clothing and architecture exhibit minor differences, but both peninsulas are jutting out into the Mediterranean with coastal city-states and more pastoral, less sedentary tribes further inland. Iberia and North Africa are much the same way, with various Phoenician colonies dotting the coast of both, but there's no reason just yet to assume that Carthage, though the most prominent of these Phoenician cities, is going to rise to become a major contender for supremacy in the Mediterranean just yet.

Servius Tullius is not as much of an expansionist as Tarquinius Superbus, though his rule is unstable as the sons of Ancus Marcius are alive in Suessa Pometia, which is another town in Latium that may at some point decide that it's expedient to throw itself behind them to gain a client. Under Servius Tullius, the Romans win a great victory against the Etruscan city of Veii, so this might be within their interest as Rome might be getting too powerful for their comfort. They might ally with other Latin cities or with the people of Rome herself to do this. After all, Tullius is an Etruscan, and the Marcii brothers might be able to whip up some anti-Etruscan sentiments in Latium to accomplish their goals, although this might be a tough sell to the Romans themselves after Tullius has won his victory against the Etruscan city of Veii. Either way, if the Marcii take the throne or Tullius continues to sit on it and founds an Etrusco-Roman dynasty, then we probably don't get the Republic, and a whole bunch of people that we know OTL are never going to be born. There is no guarantee that Rome continues with its expansionist policy in Latium, and if it doesn't, Latium might get subsumed into some sort of an Etruscan federation centered on Veii or Clusium, or the whole area could be conquered by a federation of allied Samnite tribes down the road. Maybe both, or maybe neither. It's possible that the cities of Latium form a federation of which Rome is only a member that will stand against both the Etruscans and the Samnites, and the domestic policy in Italy continues to resemble Greece, with variously shifting federations of city-states a la the Acarnanian, Aetolian, Epirote, and Achaean leagues. Let's imagine that for just a moment, actually.

Let's imagine that, either with a Marcian victory over Tullius or the establishment of a Tullian dynasty, Rome becomes a city in a Latin League, one that aside from establishing a few maritime colonies here and there (perhaps on Sardinia/Corsica or at the site of Genoa), keeps mostly to itself, fighting the occasional war with its Etruscan and Samnite neighbors over grazing/water rights, but by and large, Italy remains a patchwork, just like Greece. This Latin League might be a natural ally with the expanding Tyranny of Syracuse, and its plight of oppression by an Etruscan League of sorts might act as a good pretext for Syracusan expansion into Central Italy, but this could also work the other way around, and this same league might help an Etruscan League push into Southern Italy and Sicily. If this Latin League is smart, I think it would throw in with Syracuse, as it's possible that we only have one or a couple of the member city states (Rome included if Tullius establishes a dynasty) with ethnically Etruscan elites. Maybe the cities with an Etruscan elite side with their Etruscan kin and the cities that are entirely Latin side with Syracuse and Syracuse invades Latium to secure the rights of the Latin cities to liberty, and maybe Rome is burned to the ground in the process.

Then where does that leave us? Well, that would all probably take nearly a century to unfold. Servius Tullius is supposed to have ruled from 575-535, so we might be talking about the 450s, perhaps the latest 460s? So, by the time the Peloponnesian War roles around, the Athenians might not even try to invade Syracuse in such a scenario. And if they don't, do they have a shot at winning the Peloponnesian War? That would be very interesting, wouldn't it? I mean, I guess that would depend on how bad the defeat is for Sparta, but if they're able to score a crushing defeat then the Delian League might be able to force other Greek city states, particularly in Anatolia and even the Black Sea to join up. Will the Delian League challenge Syracuse for hegemony in Magna Graecia? I imagine it would try, and who wins depends entirely on who can play the various Italic peoples off the best. The Delian League might woo the Samnites and the embittered Etruscans, and if they win then Italy might remain divided between Etruscan and Greek spheres for quite awhile. The Greeks might continue their colonization process of the Western Mediterranean, setting up new colonies in Iberia, but I'm skeptical as to the Delian League ever being as stable as the Roman Empire, and it might fall apart just as quickly as it expanded. If they lose to Syracuse, I can see Syracuse expanding to encompass all of Italy and Sicily, and eventually crushing Carthage and sending colonies off to Iberia as well.

Where things really start to get butterflied though, is when we consider whether or not there are going to be any wars of vengeance against Persia. Is there going to be anyone who tries to invade and take down the Achaemenids in Greece, or does the Achaemenid dynasty collapse of its own accord later down the road? If Hellenization never occurs in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, then a lot of things seriously change. The Hellenistic Period was a very formative period for the Middle East and India philosophically, artistically, architecturally... the Middle East looks really different without it.

2. Lars Porsena successfully sacks Rome, Tarquinius Superbus is reinstalled. Tarquinius is going to be in Porsena's debt here, and Rome will probably act as a client state, although he may turn on Porsena, and Porsena might crush him, and he will have to install someone, perhaps a Roman, more amicable to Clusium. Either way, if Clusium can win a relatively easy victory at Rome, maybe they can win at Aricia, that puts the city in a good position to emerge as the resident hegemon in Northern Italy. If this happens, then the Latin League might gradually Etruscanize as the Etruscan and Latin city states are either brought together under a league of sorts (maybe somewhat analogous to the League of Corinth under Philip), or conquered one by one. The Etruscans become a serious contender for power with the Greeks of Magna Graecia, seeing it in their advantage to ally with the Carthaginians to squash Syracuse. Syracuse might actually be begging the Athenians to save them from Carthage and Etruria before the Peloponnesian War even breaks out, but the Athenians might overplay their hand and lose horribly, thus putting them in a terrible position once the inevitable conflict with the Peloponnesian League breaks out.

Personally, I think that the Delian League would lose if it got involved in Italy against a combined alliance of Carthaginians, Etruscans, and their Italian allies. They might also try to keep their involvement to a minimum in the interest of saving face while helping their fellow Greeks but not investing too much into a war they can't win. If they go all in, hoping to come out with at least a portion of Magna Graecia as members of their league, then once they are squashed, the Peloponnesian League might have an easier time defeating them in Greece. An easier time defeating the Delian League means that the Peloponnesian League might be a little more stable, but I doubt it. Not being so spent on their victory against the Delian League, the Peloponnesians might have an easier time winning the Corinthian War, but I think little is changed here. If affairs in Italy continue without Greek intervention, then Sicily gets dotted with little Carthaginian colonies over the remainder of the 5th century BC while Campania and Latium are increasingly Etruscanized. The Etruscans will have to contend with the Samnites however, as the Romans did IOTL, and there is no guarantee that they will win. The Samnites could win and break Etruscan hegemony and flood into Latium and Campania. It would probably be awhile before they're able to contend with Carthage for Sicily, however, and Sparta might get tied up in a campaign in a campaign of liberation at the end of the 5th century or the early 4th century of liberation in Magna Graecia, which could either break or solidify the Samnites. If the Etruscans win against the Samnites, then the Samnites will make for handy allies against the Spartans, but if they lost and a chaotic period of Samnite migration ensues, then the Samnites could lose against the Spartans, and the Spartans might gain control of Magna Graecia, which would put them in a better position to threaten Persian sovereignty in Asia. The Persians will be dumping money into Greece to tear the Peloponnesian League apart, and from the ashes of the chaos Thebes, or perhaps Argos or Corinth could rise as the hegemon of some new league in Greece. Either way, I don't see the Peloponnesian League lasting very long - the Spartans had a ridiculous and horrible social structure that would have eventually proved untenable.

This situation would theoretically allow for the birth of at least Philip of Macedon, but there's no guarantee that he's able to save Macedon from the Dardanians or the Paeonians, and if he can't, well... there's still no Alexander the Great, and I doubt anyone else would be even remotely as successful against the Achaemenids. Long term

But maybe the Athenians are more prudent, and it falls to the Peloponnesians to get involved, only to similarly be defeated and humiliated, making them easy pickings for the Delian League. The Delian League would then find itself in a similar situation to the last scenario, although it might now be more cautious about trying to accomplish anything in Italy whatsoever after the Peloponnesians have had their asses handed to them there. I imagine they will still try to get involved in Sicily, however, particularly in the interest of Syracuse against Carthage, and whatever alliance Carthage had with the Etruscans might have expired by the end of the 4th century BC. If it has, then the Delian League has a chance against Carthage, but if it hasn't, they will probably lose, as the Persians are probably trying to subvert the league in the motherland anyways. If they win against Carthage, I imagine that the victory will only secure part of Sicily for the time being while the league focuses on consolidating itself in Greece and putting down Persian subterfuge. Greek colonization of the Western Mediterranean will continue, although I think the focus of the Delian League at this point will be neutralizing, not necessarily dethroning, Achaemenid Persia. They will probably fight a protracted war with the Persians in Anatolia to make sure once and for all that the Persians no longer have a hand in Greek politics, and Southern Italy and Sicily might continue to be Hellenized in this scenario, but whether or not the Greeks will show much interest in Northern Italy, I can't really say. Northern Italy could remain very Etruscan, and maybe the Etruscans and the Greeks fight each other to a draw, with the Etruscans taking Italy and the Greeks taking Sicily. If the Delian League loses against Carthage, which is entirely possible, then it runs home with its tail between its legs and tries to hold on for dear life in Greece while the Persians fund the Peloponnesians in what will make for a protracted revolt that might break the league.

Again, either way, the Middle East remains in the sphere of Persian influence long term, and so develops into a very, very, different place. The Western Mediterranean might be Hellenized, but it also might not. Carthage was never going to be an empire in the same sense that Rome was, but the Etruscans might have it in them, or maybe the Samnites, after they've calmed down a little. Either way, I really don't think that without Rome, any Mediterranean power is going to go about asserting itself in Gaul, Germania, or Britain centuries down the line. This means that Europe remains divided into two primary spheres - the Mediterranean, and the north. Everything north of the Alps and the Pyrenees is a different cultural sphere from the Mediterranean, with some penetration of Mediterranean culture in Gaul, but if nobody ever gets a handle on Gaul besides the Gauls, this is minimal. Illyria, Cisalpine Gaul, and Dacia are areas of strong intercultural exchange between the Mediterranean south and the north of Europe, and either of these places could develop a strong, expansionist state that conquers the others, being a sort of Rome in terms of cultural, philosophical, religious and political influence for the northern portion of Europe.

In terms of the developments of Abrahmic religions, since that always comes to mind immediately when this topic comes up, Judaism is probably just going to be one of a number of different Levantine religions centered on a single temple that will be forgotten in history. Many specific developments within Jewish monotheism (and Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism are arguably not entirely monotheistic) and Jewish history at large are not going to happen in any of these scenarios. The Persians let the Jews return to Judaea, but archaeological evidence has revealed that the bulk of Jewry remained in Babylon. Obviously, with no Alexander the Great, no Greek conquest of the Middle East, there is no Maccabbean Revolt and thus no Hasmonean dynasty. And, given that the Middle East isn't conquered by the Greeks and at least the Levant brought into the sphere of Hellenic culture, with the Eastern and Western Mediterranean remaining distinct areas of cultural diffusion, I don't see anything that says that a religion from the Middle East has to proliferate through Europe.

In a more Hellenistic Mediterranean, perhaps with a surviving Delian League that is able to incorporate at least Anatolia and Cyprus, some Hellenistic interpretation of an exotic oriental cult might develop, I imagine something centered on either Sabazios, Cybele, or even Isis (that's still on the table, since interactions with Egypt aren't going to stop).
 
Maybe through Hellenism ? Greek colonies in Italy for example.

I suppose it's possible, but... there's so much missing from Jewish history at this point as to render it about as relevant to the wider history of the world as the cult of Ilāh-hag-Gabal. As I stated, archaeological evidence tells us that the return to Judaea after the collapse of the Neo-Babylonian Empire was pretty meager, and Jews probably didn't start returning in greater numbers until after Judaea became the site of a number of Hellenistic colonies following the conquests of Alexander the Great. There is nothing to say that Alexander the Great would be born in a timeline in which Rome is an irrelevant little town in Italy among others, and that means that we probably won't get a Greek conquest of Achaemenid Persia. Before Alexander the Great, Syria and Judaea were generally much more rural, their cities mere towns in the country compared to the cities of Anatolia, Greece, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Byblos and Tyre were the main centers. Likewise, Judaism was heavily reformed in the Second Temple period to contrast itself with polytheistic Hellenic syncretism. If there is no Greek conquest of the Middle East, then the bulk of the Jews stay in Babylon, and Ezra's reforms might continue into something that mirrors Zoroastrianism more closely, or the Jews might get subsumed in Zoroastrianism and syncretize their religion with it. The few Jews that do return to Judaea will probably be an irrelevant little rural cult with different sects with different temples to the same god, all claiming their temple is the right one.

Why wouldn't something arise from the milieu of Greek philosophy? Why not a cult from Egypt? Why not a god or goddess from Anatolia, say Sabazios or Cybele? Abrahmic religions took over Europe and the Middle East only because of a very specific set of circumstances that just aren't going to happen in a timeline like this.
 
Top