World w/ Carthage Win

Rome might be able to expand to her north and west into Gaul itself...eventually. For the next century or two, Carthage rules the Western Mediterranean. Spain will become a Carthaginian area of influence/accomodation, its influence will spread to encompass everything from Cyrenaica to Mauritania and perhaps southern France to possibly even colonies in Ireland or the Isle of Man as a trading post for Cornwall. Gaul will evolve into its own civilization but only with time, much of modern South-Central Europe and the Balkans is still prime for Roman settlement and eventually another war with Carthage. Ptolemaic Egypt will likely compete for Cyrenaica and move gradually south and perhaps along the Red Sea just as Greece will still colonize a few areas and Seleucid influence will be felt over vast distances with greater Hellenization of southern Central Asia. While not immediately notable, greater competition might inspire greater innovation and Carthage was already exploring well into the Atlantic, so when they are able to explore further beyond Hanno's voyages any number of additional butterflies are possible.
 
First of all I would like to address the Seleucids because they seem to be a favorite in this thread. I believe that some people are overestimating the Seleucids ability in this scenario. Unless the Seleucids adopt Persian culture and language, almost immediately they will be hard pressed to keep hold of Iran, which once rebelled the Parthians will swoop in like otl and take it all. Without the vast territory of Iran, they are put on a even playing field with the Ptolemics and Armenia and are at a huge disadvantage against Pontus. Once lossed, I feel like the Seleucids will be unable to retake the east. They will then be put in a war zone between Pontus,Armenia,Ptolemics and Parthia, which I doubt they survive.

I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of Roman meddling in Seleucid affairs and the damage it done. Here's my posts from another forum regarding that subject:

"Interesting Stark, but didn't they lose Babylon and Mesopotamia to the Parthians pretty soon after that?
So do you think that the real reason that the Seleucids lost Iran and Mesopotamia to the Parthians was because they had already been weakened by Rome's meddling?

Depends what's soon for you. Seleucid mint in Ekbatana was still functioning during rule of Demetrius I, and text from Susa were dated by Seleucid era until 142 BC. So it seems they held on to atleast western Iran by that time, some 40-50 years after Peace of Apameia.

About Roman meddling, I think if they remain completely out of the picture, yes, seleucids have a better chance than Parthians to remain an eastern rival to Rome.

Look at the situation before Peace of Apameia - Antiochus III humbled Parthians and Baktria during his eastern campaign (of course this was just a temporary state, dependant on future strenght of Seleucid state), neutered Ptolemaic kingdom at Panion (their phalanx corps was destroyed there and never rebuilt), after which he took control of entire Levantine coast, and eliminated most of their holdings in Asia Minor. Pretty good situation for Seleucids.

After that he gets crushed by Romans, losing all territory beyond Taurus, and has to pay large indemnities (collecting which gets him killed). So, without Romans we have stable (for now), rich and powerfull kingdom without any major rivals.

But, even if we remove Romans after they defeated Antiochus, it's still pretty helpfull. After death of son of Antiochus III, Seleucus IV, Romans back Antiochus IV (younger son of Antiochus III and their captive) as ruler instead of legal heir, Seleucus son Demetrius, who instead goes to Rome as hostage. Antiochus IV was, even after losses dealt by Romans, on the verge of conquering Egypt when he was threated by war by Roman emissary if he doesn't retreat, which he did. And it's important that this happened just after Battle of Pydna - if Romans we're still engaged in Macedonia they might not feel strong enough to threaten Antiochus, or he might ignore them. Egypt, insanely rich province, would do much to strengten hellenistic power in the east, but that was not to be.

After his death, Romans witheld their captive, 22 year old Demetrius, from attaining the throne, so a 9 year old son of Antiochus IV ascends to the throne. During his reign, Romans use his weak rule to impose demilitarising terms of Treaty of Apameia, sending consul Gnaeus Octavius to "burn the decked ships and hamstring the elephants". This was so unpopular to the public that consul was latter killed in Laodicea.

After that Demetrius finally escapes Roman captivity and takes the throne, but is later defeated by Roman backed pretender Alexander Balas, reportedly useless and decadent ruler dependent on Ptolemaic support.

Also, in "From Samarkand to Sardis", author Susan M. Sherwin claims Romans backed Maccabean revolt, though she gives not sources on this so I'm not sure if it's true.

My final opinion is, Romans inflicted enogh material losses and damaged dynastic stability and prestige to critically weaken Seleucid state in it's attempts to retain their eastern territories, a task hard enough even without outside interference."
 
What about Sicilian manpower? If Carthage is able to totally control Sicily and incorporate their population, how would that increase the available amount of warriors?

And if Carthage is forced out of most of Iberia and Gaul, could they look outside of the Mediterranean, to Britain and western Africa?

But is Sicily enough? Especially counting the fact that not many people in Sicily were loyal to Carthage, and only a few spoke Punic. For one thing without the crushing defeat in the 1st Punic war we butterfly away Hannibal and his expansionist policies. Thus further decreasing chances of a full conquest of Iberia which really doesn't line up with Carthages personality anyways, they were sort of like an ancient Venice interested in trade and mercantile adventures before millitary conquest.

I do believe however Carthages best shot, is to expand into Africa finding someway to dominate then assimilate the Numidians before they get to powerful. Once assimilated they could become a source of manpower for the city and now could possibly defeat Rome in a land war in North Africa.
 
I think you're seriously underestimating the effects of Roman meddling in Seleucid affairs and the damage it done. Here's my posts from another forum regarding that subject:

"Interesting Stark, but didn't they lose Babylon and Mesopotamia to the Parthians pretty soon after that?
So do you think that the real reason that the Seleucids lost Iran and Mesopotamia to the Parthians was because they had already been weakened by Rome's meddling?

Depends what's soon for you. Seleucid mint in Ekbatana was still functioning during rule of Demetrius I, and text from Susa were dated by Seleucid era until 142 BC. So it seems they held on to atleast western Iran by that time, some 40-50 years after Peace of Apameia.

About Roman meddling, I think if they remain completely out of the picture, yes, seleucids have a better chance than Parthians to remain an eastern rival to Rome.

Look at the situation before Peace of Apameia - Antiochus III humbled Parthians and Baktria during his eastern campaign (of course this was just a temporary state, dependant on future strenght of Seleucid state), neutered Ptolemaic kingdom at Panion (their phalanx corps was destroyed there and never rebuilt), after which he took control of entire Levantine coast, and eliminated most of their holdings in Asia Minor. Pretty good situation for Seleucids.

After that he gets crushed by Romans, losing all territory beyond Taurus, and has to pay large indemnities (collecting which gets him killed). So, without Romans we have stable (for now), rich and powerfull kingdom without any major rivals.

But, even if we remove Romans after they defeated Antiochus, it's still pretty helpfull. After death of son of Antiochus III, Seleucus IV, Romans back Antiochus IV (younger son of Antiochus III and their captive) as ruler instead of legal heir, Seleucus son Demetrius, who instead goes to Rome as hostage. Antiochus IV was, even after losses dealt by Romans, on the verge of conquering Egypt when he was threated by war by Roman emissary if he doesn't retreat, which he did. And it's important that this happened just after Battle of Pydna - if Romans we're still engaged in Macedonia they might not feel strong enough to threaten Antiochus, or he might ignore them. Egypt, insanely rich province, would do much to strengten hellenistic power in the east, but that was not to be.

After his death, Romans witheld their captive, 22 year old Demetrius, from attaining the throne, so a 9 year old son of Antiochus IV ascends to the throne. During his reign, Romans use his weak rule to impose demilitarising terms of Treaty of Apameia, sending consul Gnaeus Octavius to "burn the decked ships and hamstring the elephants". This was so unpopular to the public that consul was latter killed in Laodicea.

After that Demetrius finally escapes Roman captivity and takes the throne, but is later defeated by Roman backed pretender Alexander Balas, reportedly useless and decadent ruler dependent on Ptolemaic support.

Also, in "From Samarkand to Sardis", author Susan M. Sherwin claims Romans backed Maccabean revolt, though she gives not sources on this so I'm not sure if it's true.

My final opinion is, Romans inflicted enogh material losses and damaged dynastic stability and prestige to critically weaken Seleucid state in it's attempts to retain their eastern territories, a task hard enough even without outside interference."

I don't disagree, it is true that Rome truly ruined the Seleucid state. But the timeline for the fall of the Seleucid empire does not have to be like otl and can happen later as the Seleucids loose the east but retain Syria.

You are right though, and I concede that the Seleucids are truly a giant and if stabile can defeat almost any immediate threat. However as time goes, so does their hold on Persia which like almost all non Iranian empires and soon either Parthia will rise or a native Iranian dynasty. Once the east is gone, their will be no reconqeust and the east will remain. Even assuming we keep Seluecids United and powerful, they are unliked and overextended and have little to no friends. Also during this timeframe many new empires were rising and would have continued if not for Romes dominance (Pontus,Parthia and Armenia). This is a huge problem because unlike Rome which after beating Carthage had almost no true political enemy and could develope while only fighting Barbarians to its north.

So explain to me how the Seluecids can deal with a rising Pontus and Armenia (allied) which will have support among the Hellenic world because of the alienation the Seluecids caused, and the rise of Parthia who is bent on conquest of Iran and will not stop unless met with a fortress (lol) (which as far as I know the Eastern frontiers of Syria were not as fortified as during the Roman-Parthian wars).

We also did discredit the effect a surviving Carthage would have on the Seluecids and the Ptolemics. Probably not much outside of naval engagements and trade, but it would be cool to see a Carthaginian Levant containing some of the old Phoenician cities (rebuilt Tyre?).
 
Pontus and Armenia aren't going to get anywhere in this timeline. Antiochus III was very clearly interested in security his hold on Asia Minor. That meant bringing the Attalids down and putting Pontus, Armenia, and cappadocia back in their place. There's also another factor life not considering and that is egypt. Antiochus III or his successors will almost certainly take advantage of their political instability and if they don't annex it outright they will make sure they are the kingmakers in the Ptolemaic kingdom. That means they have access to the wealth of the ptolemies and, more importantly, a lot of freed up forces that would normally go to Palestine for other adventures. The reason the minor Anatolian powers thrived was because of the focus of the bbig fish on each other and Seleucid decline in the 60 years between Seleucids and Antiochus III. In many aye roman intervention, at least for the first century of it, was the best thin that could hav happened to them.
 
Top