World Without West

Western culture, if we define Greek culture as it's progenitor, was initially of far greater significance in the East then the West. That won't be the case in this scenario, even if there's a trickle of Greek influence into Persia. The Phoenicians seem like a fitting comparison to me- even if Carthage hadn't been sacked, their culture wasn't likely to hold great sway withing the Roman empire. In the same way, the Greeks may retain their position as an important maritime/merchant culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be of great importance culturally.

The Italian peninsula will still be influenced by Greeks(and have a larger Greek population, given the refugees). OTOH Greek culture will be far less prestigious without a record of glorious military victories, this being an era where people respected strength above all else.

Assuming that we don't see some other Italian city state rising in a fashion analogous to Rome, this probably means Europe North-of-the-Alps remains far less influenced by Mediterranean culture. Their will of course be trade with Carthaginian and other merchants, but I find it unlikely that Carthage would make a bid to conquer Gaul. Carthage may well have a reputation among North Alpine Europeans as a rich and prosperous city, but merchants have rarely been a respected class especially among agrarian or nomadic cultures. Without Roman settler colonialism, the forced imposition of institutions and it's prestigious reputation as a conquerer, and without Carthage or another Western European state fulfilling an analogous role, that leaves one avenue for Mediterranean influence on Europe- religion.

Bearing in mind that Christianity was able to establish a monopoly in Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia without Roman coercion, it's entirely possible that whatever alt-Mediterranean cults exist would achieve the same North of the Alps. If they don't though we might be looking at a far more "parochial" European culture with no sentimental connection to the Mediterranean world. And probably a delayed spread of literacy and various facets of intellectual/high culture. The Persian empire(and successors) is likely too distant to be to the people of Gaul and Northern Europe what China was to Japan.

There's some pretty huge ramifications for Egyptian culture as well, given that there not being captured by a Hellenic elite. Possibly means the native Egyptian tongue preserved as the elite language?
 
Last edited:
Another thought- after the Roman Empire collapsed, you had European tribes moving South, even conquering the African province. So, possibly Carthage could be similarly beset? If they succeed, then we're possibly looking at a Celtic culture wank replacing the Helleno-Latin of OTL. Rather then being displaced by the Romans(prior to which Celts held Gaul, Britain, Ireland and much of Germany, Italy and the Balkans), they're instead spreading further into Iberia, Southern Italy and Northern Africa. And from their, possibly even into the Eastern Mediterranean.

The OP mentioned China, but I think we're mostly limited to the butterfly effect their. Aside from the impact on Silk Road trade, did Western goings-on have any significance at all to China?
 
Last edited:
There's some pretty huge ramifications for Egyptian culture as well, given that there not being captured by a Hellenic elite. Possibly means the native Egyptian tongue preserved as the elite language?

A surviving Egyptian culture would be interesting, especially if its gain independence again. Under Darius, a primitive Suez Canal was dug: maybe Egypt could profit from trade, especially as the kingdoms of Axum and Sabaea develop in the southern Red Sea. Maybe it could expand once again into an empire, conquering Meroe.
Speaking of that, what are the chances of the Persian Empire surviving intact, say, a couple centuries after the PoD? To be honest, at this point it looks already ludicrously huge.

Another thought- after the Roman Empire collapsed, you had European tribes moving South, even conquering the African province. So, possibly Carthage could be similarly beset? If they succeed, then we're possibly looking at a Celtic culture wank replacing the Helleno-Latin of OTL. Rather then being displaced by the Romans(prior to which Celts held Gaul, Britain, Ireland and much of Germany, Italy and the Balkans), they're instead spreading further into Iberia, Southern Italy and Northern Africa. And from their, possibly even into the Eastern Mediterranean.

Oh, that's possible. I was thinking that, without an established state covering the Iberian peninsula as the Roman provinces did, there could be more space for the settlement of migrating peoples. When the great westward migration come, the Celts might not be pushed northwest into Ireland, but southwest into Portugal. I have this vision of a mostly Celtic naval power centered on a port city at the mouth of the Tagus, speaking a Punic-derived language and worshipping West African deities. (And of course if the pressure continues, they could end up attacking Carthaginian land, establishing a pseudo-Vandal kingdom in North Africa, or something like that.)

The OP mentioned China, but I think we're mostly limited to the butterfly effect their. Aside from the impact on Silk Road trade, did Western goings-on have any significance at all to China?

Eh, I tried to concoct a justification involving Miltiades' plague and an interaction between Pythagoreans and Mohists, but I don't think it holds up too much. I liked having every event being a logical consequence of the PoD, but I guess in this case 2+ centuries worth of butterflies will be enough.
 
A surviving Egyptian culture would be interesting, especially if its gain independence again. Under Darius, a primitive Suez Canal was dug: maybe Egypt could profit from trade, especially as the kingdoms of Axum and Sabaea develop in the southern Red Sea. Maybe it could expand once again into an empire, conquering Meroe.
Speaking of that, what are the chances of the Persian Empire surviving intact, say, a couple centuries after the PoD? To be honest, at this point it looks already ludicrously huge.
I would argue that anything which replaces it is likely to be ludicrously huge as well. For starters Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau are likely to stay under the same government(if with brief interruptions) judging from the fact that OTL most separations of the two territories were extremely brief, until the Ottomans conquered Mes. So depending on how seriously you take geographic determinism, you might say that there's as good a case for it here as anywhere.

Any government control both the IP and Mes is likely to be a regional hegemon unless there's a empire uniting the East Mediterranean and counterbalancing it. The whole premise of this thread is the Greeks not ascending, so they're out. Which leaves the Egyptians as a stopper against the new regime's Western expansion.

Oh, that's possible. I was thinking that, without an established state covering the Iberian peninsula as the Roman provinces did, there could be more space for the settlement of migrating peoples. When the great westward migration come, the Celts might not be pushed northwest into Ireland, but southwest into Portugal. I have this vision of a mostly Celtic naval power centered on a port city at the mouth of the Tagus, speaking a Punic-derived language and worshipping West African deities. (And of course if the pressure continues, they could end up attacking Carthaginian land, establishing a pseudo-Vandal kingdom in North Africa, or something like that.)
Continuing with the "Celts conquering Carthage" scenario... I wonder what that would mean for the culture of the conquering/settling Celts? OTL the conquering tribes tended to be somewhat assimilated into Roman culture- but that was with the influence of Christianity, a geographically widespread population of people who self-identified as Roman and Rome itself having a rather impressive legacy. I expect the Celtic conquerors to be much less impressed by Carthage's legacy as a maritime/merchant power and I've seen accounts that Carthaginians had a deliberately sub-replacement birthrate(so as to concentrate rather then disperse wealth) so they're not likely to be too widespread.

A few possibilities. One, the Carthaginians/Punics occupy a role similar to Christians and Jews in Muslim empires, as a culturally distinct market-dominating but politically weak minority. While the Celts monopolize the military and bureacracy. But that separation was based on the absolutist attitudes of three Abrahammic faiths- unless there are similarly uncompromising faiths in place, such a separation will have to be maintained by ethnic identity and bigotry against "effeminate, mercantile" Phoenician culture.

Even if that's the initial attitude it wont necessarily hold. "Barbarian" conquerors have a long track record of being seduced by the temptations of the upper class lifestyle, even when they initially make an effort to prevent such "corruption"(as the Manchus did). So to our Celtic conquerors of Carthage may find themselves seduced and assimilated by the temptations of the Carthaginian lifestyle.
 
I would argue that anything which replaces it is likely to be ludicrously huge as well. For starters Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau are likely to stay under the same government(if with brief interruptions) judging from the fact that OTL most separations of the two territories were extremely brief, until the Ottomans conquered Mes. So depending on how seriously you take geographic determinism, you might say that there's as good a case for it here as anywhere.

Any government control both the IP and Mes is likely to be a regional hegemon unless there's a empire uniting the East Mediterranean and counterbalancing it. The whole premise of this thread is the Greeks not ascending, so they're out. Which leaves the Egyptians as a stopper against the new regime's Western expansion.

So, let's say the Achaemenid Empire collapses - local rebellions, political infighting, nomad raids, random famine/disease... maybe around 250 BCE or so the empire remains without a legitimate authority. Generals and major satraps fight each other for power like the Diadochi after Alexander, while minor satrapies try to get independence. Eventually an agreement is reached and the empire is split among the most powerful figures. What countries would arise?
  • Egypt, of, course, is one. If it avoids too much damage and gets rich from the canal, it could even expand to Kush and Canaan, as it was during the New Kingdom. If so, this would be a powerful force for restoring the traditional egyptian culture (what is another millennium for a civilization that was already ancient when Rome was founded?) On the other hand, Jews are back into the new Promised Land, and they might not appreciate being once again on egyptian soil. Could we see a rebellion in Maccabee style?
  • You make a pretty good case for Mesopotamia and Iran remaining united. The most direct descendant of Persian culture, I imagine. I can see it waging several wars against Egypt for the control of the canal, of Canaan, of Cyprus and so on.
  • Greece could be free once again - maybe as a "Greater Ionia" including western Anatolia - but it would be thoroughly persianized, united under a single king, and possibly under the influence of the more powerful neighbours in the east.
  • Would some kind of Anatolia/Armenia form in the north? It would have access to the Black Sea, maybe contact with the Graeco-Scythian state I mentioned in the OP.
  • The far east (Turan? Khwarezm?) could be ruled by a dynasty of nomadic origin, such as the Saka people. They might expand east, absorbing the western Mahajanapadas, maybe adopting an indian religion.
PS: I realize my posts are a little chaotic. When I'll have enough material, I'll try to make a summary or timeline of the first couple centuries after the PoD.
 
Speaking of India, I imagine it would be likely enough for the Indo-Gangetic Plain to be unified most of the time. Many empires - Maurya, Kushan, Gupta, Mughal, Maratha... - controlled at least most of it, and even if each of them was built on the remains of the previous, I assume such a flat expanse of land would be relatively easy to keep together, with the two main rivers being exploited for transport as well as irrigation. If Mesopotamia and Iran are likely to be united, it stands to reason that the same would be true for the Indo-Gangetic Plain.
On the contrary, the rest of India is mountainous, full of plateaus and crisscrossed by mountain ranges. This would certainly be much harder to unify. I can see the Chola Empire arising in the southeast, as in OTL, and becoming a thalassocracy controlling islands and harbors in the region of Malacca and Sunda, while never expanding inland; the southwest and the center would remain broken into a number of local kingdoms. India could still retain a unified hindu-buddhist culture... unless an empire forms in the north under a strong foreign influence (a new expansion of Turan/Khwarezm?) and proves itself hostile to the south. In that case all the hindu kingdoms would be cut off from land trade routes and would have to turn to the sea. If a Chola-like empire appears in the southwest, could buddhism spread to Arabia and East Africa?
 
Why would the fall of the Greeks change the way China was unified? I can see changes in the Mediterranean and India, but China sees too far away.
Also Rome is already a growing nation in Italy by this time I disagree with those who seem to butterfly it away. Rome would be basically the same except the pyrric wars and the contact with Carthage probably ITTL will also end up. In war.
 
Speaking of India, I imagine it would be likely enough for the Indo-Gangetic Plain to be unified most of the time. Many empires - Maurya, Kushan, Gupta, Mughal, Maratha... - controlled at least most of it, and even if each of them was built on the remains of the previous, I assume such a flat expanse of land would be relatively easy to keep together, with the two main rivers being exploited for transport as well as irrigation. If Mesopotamia and Iran are likely to be united, it stands to reason that the same would be true for the Indo-Gangetic Plain.
On the contrary, the rest of India is mountainous, full of plateaus and crisscrossed by mountain ranges. This would certainly be much harder to unify. I can see the Chola Empire arising in the southeast, as in OTL, and becoming a thalassocracy controlling islands and harbors in the region of Malacca and Sunda, while never expanding inland; the southwest and the center would remain broken into a number of local kingdoms. India could still retain a unified hindu-buddhist culture... unless an empire forms in the north under a strong foreign influence (a new expansion of Turan/Khwarezm?) and proves itself hostile to the south. In that case all the hindu kingdoms would be cut off from land trade routes and would have to turn to the sea. If a Chola-like empire appears in the southwest, could buddhism spread to Arabia and East Africa?

I think that the role of Hinduism is underplayed here. And you should know that the Cholas were staunch Hindus of Shaivaite sect. So if when the Indian kingdoms lose control of land trade routes and turn to the sea they will mainly spread Hinduism and less of Buddhism as mind you that if the Mauryas are butterflied, there will be no Samrat Ashoka to patronize Buddhism ;which by extension means that Buddhism will never get enough traction to be a major Indian religion.

Remember that Buddhism is just a dissident form of Hinduism which, basically opposed the supremacy of the Brahmins class in the society and the ills associated with their overwhelming dominance in the daily life of the common people. Though initially popular at first it gradually lost its influence as a major religion as it lacked a strong central doctrine except the teachings of the Great Buddha. And allure of a stable society complete with strong enough religious doctrine can't be resisted for long.

Well I am not criticizing any religion here, just emphasizing on the fact that the basically the influence of Buddhism (when it lacks a strong patron) is being overemphasized in the face of Hinduism (which I think Westerners tend to downplay everytime I have seen, I wonder why). Even OTL the major cultural influence on South East Asia was a hybrid Hindu-Buddhist one with Hinduism having a significant upper hand always.

Well don't mistake me for a religious fanatic or something, but I am just bringing light to the fact the way that Buddhism basically spread as a major religion in India and formed a crucial influencing factor for South East Asian culture in OTL. And I felt that the vibrance of Hinduism as a religion and culture was being a bit (or much) neglected here.
 
Well I am unaware of the political scenario in the Western Mediterranean around this time or rather almost every period but I don't understand why Carthage would suddenly be interested in the Latins around this time. After all the Latins weren't much of a power around this time.
 
Also Rome is already a growing nation in Italy by this time I disagree with those who seem to butterfly it away.
I don't understand why Carthage would suddenly be interested in the Latins around this time. After all the Latins weren't much of a power around this time.
Well, if Rome is growing stronger in Italy, Carthage could start seeing it as a threat (and rightly so, if OTL is of any indication). ITTL Carthage has a stronger position by conquering the western Greek colonies (an almost monopoly in trade resulting in more money to hire mercenary troops, and more farmland to feed them), and they don't have to destroy Rome, just threaten it into paying tributes. Just enough tributes to prevent it from raising an army of its own.

I think that the role of Hinduism is underplayed here. And you should know that the Cholas were staunch Hindus of Shaivaite sect. So if when the Indian kingdoms lose control of land trade routes and turn to the sea they will mainly spread Hinduism and less of Buddhism as mind you that if the Mauryas are butterflied, there will be no Samrat Ashoka to patronize Buddhism ;which by extension means that Buddhism will never get enough traction to be a major Indian religion.
Remember that Buddhism is just a dissident form of Hinduism which, basically opposed the supremacy of the Brahmins class in the society and the ills associated with their overwhelming dominance in the daily life of the common people. Though initially popular at first it gradually lost its influence as a major religion as it lacked a strong central doctrine except the teachings of the Great Buddha. And allure of a stable society complete with strong enough religious doctrine can't be resisted for long.
That seems reasonable. Let's say, then, that Turan - the Saka offshoot of the fallen Achaemenid Empire - unable to extend west due to the strength and wealth of New Persia (Mesopotamia + Iran) instead moves east and conquests most of the still disunited Gangetic plain. The ruling class remains mostly Zoroastrian. No Ashoka, and in fact no native emperor, leaves Buddhism a minor religion. IOTL, Buddhism reached China only in the 2nd century CE, which I suppose is very unlikely if it never becomes widespread in India in the first place.
In the south, Hinduism remains the dominant religion, and if anything it becomes more vehement as a reaction to its subjugation in the north. Coastal thalassocracies eventually develop in the southeast (Chola) and in the southwest (Mysuru?), and their expansion overseas is associated to a strong missionary activity. Hinduism eventually spread from Chola into Burma, Malacca and Sumatra, and then to all Indochina and Indonesia, and from Mysuru into the Arabian peninsula and Eastern Africa. Is this better?
 
Last edited:
Carthage was indeed stronger in OTL than Rome at the time of the first punic war. Yet the Romans managed to beat them and win Sicily. Perhaps we would see a more Etruscan Rome, that expands in the west rather than to the east (at least if Persia it's strong, which is in no way sure, a dynastic coup. Or the partian invasion cannot be rule out)
 
A brief account of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire:

« At the beginning of the 3rd century BCE, the Empire's fragility was obvious to everyone. Every year saw a rebellion somewhere, most often in Egypt, where the sense of national pride was very strong. In 264 BCE, a Pharaoh, Psammuthes, was proclaimed by the rebels, only to be executed less than two years later.
In spite of his illustrious name, Darius IV was commonly considered a weak ruler, who allowed the Scythian barbarians to pillage the eastern reaches of the Empire and had failed to produce a son. Even the success against Psammuthes' rebels were mostly credited to the Median general Cyaxares, who had defeated them in a strenuous battle on the Pelusium Channel. Darius' eldest daughter, Parmys, had been married to the Satrap of Parthia Artabazus, and if Darius' wishes were to be respected, Persia would have to prepare itself for its first empress.
This was not accepted by everyone - much less by Hydarnes, Darius' younger brother, who had many supporters in the nobility. However, he was only a few years younger than Darius, and after his death his son would have a weak claim against Parmys' faction. A bitter dispute arose in the court over whether to send Cyaxares to fight in the east (as Hydarnes preferred) or having him keep Egypt subdued (as ordered by Darius). When the Saka Scythians sacked Bactra in 259 BCE, Hydarnes felt vindicated, and openly attacked his decision to be succeeded by Parmys.
In 257 BCE, Darius IV died. A persistent rumor held that Hydarnes had him poisoned to claim the throne before the court could be persuaded in Parmys' favor. Of course, Artabazus supported this rumor and held that his wife should be proclaimed empress. The court split in two, fighting with words and with weapons for almost a year.
The administration of the Empire suffered greatly. Both Hydarnes and Parmys considered themselves the legitimate ruler, and issued contradictory orders; each general and civil servant had to choose whom to obey. The political chaos only made the threat of rebellions and incursions worse, and the army called for the restoration of order. General Cyaxares marched with his men on Persepolis and was declared acting emperor.
At this point, the Empire was in full civil war. Great cities such as Susa and Babylon were devastated, many outer satrapies grew more autonomous and there was a sgnificant emigration from the cities. Meanwhile, the Saka nomads could now afford to control whole cities, as the persian armies were turned on each other. When Parmys' army pushed his forces west of the Eufrates, Hydarnes retreated into Armenia, where his enemies were not able to pursue him. As Persepolis was taken back, Cyaxares fled to Thebes, the capital of Greater Ionia, which was by now so heavily persianized that it cheered a general famed for suppressing rebellions.
Another Pharaoh arose in Memphis, and by taking the name Psammuthes II he acknowledged the executed rebel as legitimate. His victory in a naval battle near Tyre forced Hydarnes to accept it, as he couldn't afford to lose anymore soldiers while he was still fighting Parmys. Cyaxares attempted to send another fleet after him, but by sheer bad luck the fleet was heavily damaged by a storm. The war continued fruitlessly for many years, as the various leaders were reduced to defend their portions of Empire.
Only in 239 BCE the exhausted leaders met to sign the Peace of Ecbatana, in which they acknowledged each other as rulers of successor states. The Achaemenid Empire was over. Parmys kept the largest and richest state, comprising the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia as far west as the upper Euphrates, but she had to renounce the title of empress: instead she would be queen of Parthia. To Hydarnes went the west, with Armenia and most of Anatolia, as well as the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
The young Psammuthes III was of course accepted as ruler of Egypt, sharing with Hydarnes the control of Pelusium Channel; he would fight several borders wars for the full control of the channel, and then to expand into Canaan. The Saka leader Khotan would seat in Bactra as the king of Turan, and would became the founder of the Gorbat dynasty. Cyaxares was allowed to keep Greater Ionia, which meant both Greece and the Aegean coast of Anatolia.
The Successor Kingdoms would keep their central role in history. The foundation of the New Egyptian Empire, the exchanges of Ionia and Armenia with the Tauris Confederation, the Turanian expansion into India to create what would become the Gorbat Empire would define the history of Africa, Europe and Asia in the centuries to come. »
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
A brief account of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire:

« At the beginning of the 3rd century BCE, the Empire's fragility was obvious to everyone. Every year saw a rebellion somewhere, most often in Egypt, where the sense of national pride was very strong. In 264 BCE, a Pharaoh, Psammuthes, was proclaimed by the rebels, only to be executed less than two years later.
In spite of his illustrious name, Darius IV was commonly considered a weak ruler, who allowed the Scythian barbarians to pillage the eastern reaches of the Empire and had failed to produce a son. Even the success against Psammuthes' rebels were mostly credited to the Median general Cyaxares, who had defeated them in a strenuous battle on the Pelusium Channel. Darius' eldest daughter, Parmys, had been married to the Satrap of Parthia Artabazus, and if Darius' wishes were to be respected, Persia would have to prepare itself for its first empress.
This was not accepted by everyone - much less by Hydarnes, Darius' younger brother, who had many supporters in the nobility. However, he was only a few years younger than Darius, and after his death his son would have a weak claim against Parmys' faction. A bitter dispute arose in the court over whether to send Cyaxares to fight in the east (as Hydarnes preferred) or having him keep Egypt subdued (as ordered by Darius). When the Saka Scythians sacked Bactra in 259 BCE, Hydarnes felt vindicated, and openly attacked his decision to be succeeded by Parmys.
In 257 BCE, Darius IV died. A persistent rumor held that Hydarnes had him poisoned to claim the throne before the court could be persuaded in Parmys' favor. Of course, Artabazus supported this rumor and held that his wife should be proclaimed empress. The court split in two, fighting with words and with weapons for almost a year.
The administration of the Empire suffered greatly. Both Hydarnes and Parmys considered themselves the legitimate ruler, and issued contradictory orders; each general and civil servant had to choose whom to obey. The political chaos only made the threat of rebellions and incursions worse, and the army called for the restoration of order. General Cyaxares marched with his men on Persepolis and was declared acting emperor.
At this point, the Empire was in full civil war. Great cities such as Susa and Babylon were devastated, many outer satrapies grew more autonomous and there was a sgnificant emigration from the cities. Meanwhile, the Saka nomads could now afford to control whole cities, as the persian armies were turned on each other. When Parmys' army pushed his forces west of the Eufrates, Hydarnes retreated into Armenia, where his enemies were not able to pursue him. As Persepolis was taken back, Cyaxares fled to Thebes, the capital of Greater Ionia, which was by now so heavily persianized that it cheered a general famed for suppressing rebellions.
Another Pharaoh arose in Memphis, and by taking the name Psammuthes II he acknowledged the executed rebel as legitimate. His victory in a naval battle near Tyre forced Hydarnes to accept it, as he couldn't afford to lose anymore soldiers while he was still fighting Parmys. Cyaxares attempted to send another fleet after him, but by sheer bad luck the fleet was heavily damaged by a storm. The war continued fruitlessly for many years, as the various leaders were reduced to defend their portions of Empire.
Only in 239 BCE the exhausted leaders met to sign the Peace of Ecbatana, in which they acknowledged each other as rulers of successor states. The Achaemenid Empire was over. Parmys kept the largest and richest state, comprising the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia as far west as the upper Euphrates, but she had to renounce the title of empress: instead she would be queen of Parthia. To Hydarnes went the west, with Armenia and most of Anatolia, as well as the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
The young Psammuthes III was of course accepted as ruler of Egypt, sharing with Hydarnes the control of Pelusium Channel; he would fight several borders wars for the full control of the channel, and then to expand into Canaan. The Saka leader Khotan would seat in Bactra as the king of Turan, and would became the founder of the Gorbat dynasty. Cyaxares was allowed to keep Greater Ionia, which meant both Greece and the Aegean coast of Anatolia.
The Successor Kingdoms would keep their central role in history. The foundation of the New Egyptian Empire, the exchanges of Ionia and Armenia with the Tauris Confederation, the Turanian expansion into India to create what would become the Gorbat Empire would define the history of Africa, Europe and Asia in the centuries to come. »
I would imagine an independent Egypt instead of successor dynasty in any case world is unrecognizable.
 

fi11222

Banned
If the goal is really to have no West at all, I think it would be safer to have no Indo-European cultures at all.

Even if the Persians entirely wipe out the Greeks, you still have the Italic Peoples, the Celts, the Germans and so on. If you allow these to remain in Europe and be exposed to the waves of civilized influence coming out of the Middle East, it seems to me that the result will always be something like what we call "the West" (in its pre-Christian "pagan" form at least). The Indo-European culture, although entirely oral before it borrowed writing from the Middle-East, had such an extraordinarily resilient core that we can still trace its outline today from Bengal to Ireland even though the tradition of each Indo-European sub-branch had lost the memory of its common origins for thousands of years. The results of mixing such a powerful set of memes with the equally powerful structures of pre-Persian middle-eastern cultures (Sumero-Akkadian + Egyptian) seem to me to be very strongly pre-determined.

If you truly want none of that, I believe that the safest bet is to have Western Europe permanently occupied by Finno-Ugric hunter-gatherers and to limit civilization west of the Himalayas to the Semitic and Egyptian elements already present in the Middle East.

This means that "Iranian" civilizations will remain only Elamite in origin and that "Indian" culture will be entirely derived from Harappan roots. China, for its part, remains as we know it (before Buddhism).
 
Even if the Persians entirely wipe out the Greeks, you still have the Italic Peoples, the Celts, the Germans and so on. If you allow these to remain in Europe and be exposed to the waves of civilized influence coming out of the Middle East, it seems to me that the result will always be something like what we call "the West" (in its pre-Christian "pagan" form at least). The Indo-European culture, although entirely oral before it borrowed writing from the Middle-East, had such an extraordinarily resilient core that we can still trace its outline today from Bengal to Ireland even though the tradition of each Indo-European sub-branch had lost the memory of its common origins for thousands of years. The results of mixing such a powerful set of memes with the equally powerful structures of pre-Persian middle-eastern cultures (Sumero-Akkadian + Egyptian) seem to me to be very strongly pre-determined.

Eh, I don't know. Persia is still Indo-European + Middle-Eastern, but it's not generally considered "western". Whatever "west" comes out of my scenario will have different languages, different art, different religions, different philosophy, different institutions.
I guess it depends from how you define west, which I would restrict to the Graeco-Roman culture and its derivates.
That said...

If you truly want none of that, I believe that the safest bet is to have Western Europe permanently occupied by Finno-Ugric hunter-gatherers and to limit civilization west of the Himalayas to the Semitic and Egyptian elements already present in the Middle East.

This means that "Iranian" civilizations will remain only Elamite in origin and that "Indian" culture will be entirely derived from Harappan roots. China, for its part, remains as we know it (before Buddhism).

... this sounds like a really great idea, and I'd love to see a TL based on this. I just think that wiping out entirely the Indo-European peoples is a bit of an overkill for my purposes.
 
OK, let's try this again. This time I'll go in chronological order, so I'll start again from the PoD. In this first installment, there's little new material: the second chapter is largely a rewriting of what I already posted, in a style closer to the rest. I'm writing this as excerpts from a TTL world history textbook; the chapters before the PoD, as well as those about pre-contact American civilizations, have been cut.
Dates are given as BS/AS (it'll be explained at its own time) and converted in BC/AD. Most regions of Earth have different names; I'll give the OTL name between square brackets unless I think it's clear from the context or I want to leave it for later.


1. The Time of Free Ionia (414 – 360 BS)

Among the matters of greatest interest in the study of history is that of “aborted civilizations” - that is, civilizations, cultures and polities that ceased to be, after a time of promising progress and flourishing, before they could reach the peak of their capabilities. History is tragically replete with them, from the hundred native cultures of Tohoroku lost to eastern settlement and colonization to the mercantile khaganates in the heart of Asia that lost their sustenance as trade shifted to ocean routes. Climate change brought down the great Mayan civilization, growing empires destroyed the early states of the Bronze Age and the fledgling Mandé states of the Kwara. In all this cases, one can but speculate what the fate of these peoples could have been in another history – an ultimately fruitless, yet oddly compelling endeavor.

Among the most famous cases of this is the ancient culture of Ionia (Yunan), or, at it was known by its ancient natives, Hellas. This uneven land, almost a cluster of mountain ranges rising from the Mediterranean, was occupied by dozens of city states competing for territory and influence. Despite their political division, they were bound by a unified culture that was surprisingly sophisticate, including a single language, a single religion, common laws and customs. We already described their predecessors in a former chapter as Myceneans.

After the collapse of the Mycenean civilization, the Hellenic peoples migrated away from their homeland, eventually creating colonies all around the shores of the Mediterranean, from the coasts of Keltistan in the west to the Tauris peninsula in the east. They became dominant on the Aegean coast of Anatolia, as Aeolia and Ionia proper (Inner Ionia). This included Hellenic cities such as Smyrna, Sardis, Ephesus, Miletus and Halikarnassos, as well as islands such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Rhodes.

First unified under the king Croesus of Lydia in the 5th century BS, the Ionian Hellenes were eventually conquered by Cyrus the Great in 414 BS [547 BC]. While they still enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy under Persian rule, they were too fragmented to be controlled through their old elite, and thus they found themselves subject to tyrants appointed by the satrap in Sardis.

Among them was Histiaeus, tyrant of Miletus, who had followed the Emperor Darius in war against the Scythians. He was reportedly an ambitious man, so that Darius, to better control him, would rather keep him as advisor in Susa. To return to his powerful position in Ionia, Histiaeus found no better way than to organize a rebellion.

Through his son-in-law Aristagoras, to whom Miletus was entrusted at that time (and who had already endangered his own position by organizing a failed conquest campaign in the Aegean), he contacted the inhabitants the cities in Hellas for help. Athens and Eretria agreed to send warriors, while Sparta refused. With their help, Histiaeus and Aristagoras conquered Sardis and burned it in 365 BS [498 BC]. Most historians agree that this was a foolish act for the free Hellenes, a fight against Persia being one they were ultimately doomed to lose. In fact, Athens broke its alliance with the Ionians, but they continued to fight even as they were badly defeated at Ephesus.

The fall of Miletus to Persian forces was an omen of the fate of Hellenic cities, with its walls torn down, its population killed or enslaved, its homes repopulated by Persians. The Ionian revolt would continue for many years, but the result was already clear. It wouldn't be enough to punish the (Inner) Ionians. Their brothers beyond the Aegean had to be prevented from interfering in such a destructive way with Persia ever again.

335px-Archers_frieze_Darius_palace_Louvre_AOD487.jpg


2. The End of Hellas (359 – ca. 350 BS)

After crushing the rebels in Inner Ionia, the Persians tried to reestablish order in what was once again their land. General Mardonius, Darius's son-in-law, deposed the local tyrants and replaced them with democratic governments, of course still submitted to Persian rule. Five years after the burning of Sardis, the only thing that remained undone was the punishment for the Hellenes who had supported the rebels. So, in 359 BS [492 BC], the Persian invasion of Hellas began.

The first campaign, under Mardonius, followed both a land route through the Hellespont and a sea route through the Aegean. This campaign fully subjugated Thrace and Macedonia, paving the road for the submission of the Hellenic peninsula. However, a violent storm badly damaged the Persian fleet. Darius turned to diplomacy, sending ambassadors to the major Hellenic cities to ask the recognition of Persian supremacy. The ambassadors were executed in Athens, and thrown down a well in Sparta. It seemed rival city states were ready to cooperate against a common enemy; however, their mistrust of each other would be the seed of their downfall, both between cities and within.

Persians had on their side an exiled king of Sparta, Demaratus. With political chaos keeping Sparta busy, in 357 BS [490 BC] Darius launched an expedition towards Athens under Datis. The siege of Eretria was relatively quick, with the Persian troops marching unopposed to the walls of the city, and the doors opened by traitors after two months. The city was looted and burned, its temples destroyed and its inhabitants enslaved.

The Persian fleet landed near Athens. Messengers were sent to Sparta to call for help, but the holy period of the Carneias committed Sparta to peace until the next full moon, thus for the next ten days. It's possible that Sparta deliberately withheld help from Athens hoping in the destruction of their rivals. The Athenian army, with reinforcements from Plataea, finally marched into the plain of Marathon [1]. As they attacked, they were repeatedly hit by the arrows of Saka mounted archers. In the flat, open landscape of Marathon, the Athenian hoplites were outflanked by Persian cavalry [2] and unceremoniously slaughtered.

At this point, Athens was completely defenseless. Most, while disheartened, hoped to preserve their culture under Persian rule, as the Inner Ionian had done. But a radical faction appeared as panic grew; terrifying each other and themselves with stories of Asian cruelty that became more horrific at each retelling, they decided to deny any resource to the invaders. City states blamed each other for the failure, or simply used it as an excuse to attack their rivals. As the Persian army marched through Thessalia and Peloponnesis, rooting out the smaller armies one by one, they found farmers burning their crops and slaughtering their livestock. At Sparta, they found the women and children lying in their beds wit their throat cut, and the men impaled on their own swords.

General Mardonius sat as first satrap of Outer Ionia in Thebes, which had quickly pledged allegiance to the King of Kings. Darius chose to give the survivors a place in Persian society; those responsible for the revolt had been punished, and no more bloodshed was necessary. Still, famine swept the land, and so did disease, as refugees ran like ants from city to city – or simply out of Hellas, into their colonies in the Mediterranean, still outside the Persian grasp.

And like that, Hellas was over. Ravaged and depopulated, more by its own hand than by the invaders, it was slowly refilled by Persian immigrants. Many thousands of surviving Hellenes tried their fortunes deep in the Empire and scattered, learning Aramaic and mixing with Medes, Scythians and Bactrians. As a group, history has nothing more to say about them.

Hellenic historians have at long bemoaned the defeat at Marathon, blaming it first of all on the betrayal of Sparta, then to the premature death of general Miltiades just a few days before the battle, and then to a disease that weakened the vigor of their soldiers. The thesis of the disease may be not entirely without merit: an infection reminiscent of the black plague, which probably had reached the peninsula after the siege of Eretria, is recorded in the years of the Persian conquest of Ionia. It would have been in the interest of Athens to delay the battle until reinforcements from Sparta could arrive; the disease might have forced them to attack before the soldiers were weakened even more.

However, these factors might be ultimately without importance. The truth of the matter is that the Hellenic states had taken on an enemy that was simply too powerful to be defeated. If Darius's campaign had been turned back, another would come. However interesting it might be to speculate on a history in which Hellas remained free, such history is to be considered inherently unrealistic.


[1] Everything before now, as far as I understand, is a description of OTL history (except obviously the very first paragraph).
[2] It's not certain whether Persian cavalry was actually present at Marathon. If it wasn't, I guess the actual PoD is this.


In the next installment: in the west, Carthage profits from the situation...
 
So no famous stand at Thermopylae this time around. But would the Spartans be this foolish in not sending reinforcements thus ensuring their own downfall? But Leonidas could always have decided otherwise.

But I don't think that the Hellenes as a culture would just sputter out without a bang. There still were numerous Hellenic colonies in the Western Mediterranean which would happily accommodate their fellow Hellenes from the motherland. Thus eventually leading to an increase in manpower (however impoverished it maybe) available to them with which to form armies and carry out trade and farming as well as other necessary tasks.

Though the major cities of mainland Hellas get destroyed in the war there still would be a large number of cities which had submitted to the Persians beforehand and I doubt the Persians would try to mess with the affairs of those surrendered cities as in the 5th century BC you cannot establish direct control over territories at least 3000 km away from your heartlands . Rushing in with an army every time the Greeks rebel will be highly difficult considering the logistics of the time.

The crux of me saying this is that as a large number of Greek cities will remain de-facto independent (of course those who surrendered to the Persians earlier) I doubt that the Greek culture would just wither away without any consequences. Though it will not be as widespread as it once was I don't think it would just vanish. And mind you the colonies are still there.
 
But would the Spartans be this foolish in not sending reinforcements thus ensuring their own downfall?

OTL, they were. Whether it was really because of their holiday or because they wanted Athens to be weakened before they intervened, they did answer the Athenian messenger that they wouldn't send help for at least ten days. Even OTL, only Athenians and Plataeans fought at Marathon.

Though the major cities of mainland Hellas get destroyed in the war there still would be a large number of cities which had submitted to the Persians beforehand and I doubt the Persians would try to mess with the affairs of those surrendered cities as in the 5th century BC you cannot establish direct control over territories at least 3000 km away from your heartlands . Rushing in with an army every time the Greeks rebel will be highly difficult considering the logistics of the time.

True. However, most large cities in Greece had lost a large fraction of their population - either dead, or fled to the colonies - which has been mostly replaced by Persian (and other) migrants. The overall Greek population, a generation or two after the war, would be much less independent-minded, and more likely to identify with the empire. There could be local rebellions, but they wouldn't have a wide popular support.

Of course, you're right about the colonies. ITTL, most of them did survive the Persian conquest of Greece. We'll see later how they fare, some surviving, some falling to other enemies. I don't agree, however, that thry'd be strengthened - the number of refugees could strain the administration and resources of the colonies, and then there's always the matter of the plague. (When in doubt, just throw a plague somewhere!)
 
3. The Partition of the West (357 – 342 BS)

After the fall of Hellas, the western half of the Mediterranean was plunged into chaos. Refugees of the mainland overwhelmed the colonies in Enotria and Keltistan, and more often than not “Miltiades's plague” followed them. Trade among the colonies, and particularly food supply, became erratic and unreliable. There are many reports of outright famine in cities such as Kroton, Katane and Neapolis. Again, contemporary historians mostly blame the lack of centralized coordination characteristic of Hellenic culture.

The largest power in that part of the world was doubtlessly Qart-Hadasht [Carthage]. This city was itself founded as a Phoenician colony, and it had essentially become the new Phoenician capital after the Babylonian conquest of Tyre in the 5th century BS. It controlled large traits of Libyan and Asian coast[1], including Keltistan and parts of the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, which they shared with Hellenic colonies. Qart-Hadasht was ruled by a king whose power was limited by a Council of Elders (adirim) based on wealthy land-owning families. This council increased in power over time, to the point that by 1st century BS the king was little more than a ceremonial figurehead.

Qart-Hadasht prospered on maritime trade. Its army was largely composed of mercenaries, payed with the tributes exacted from its subjects and allies; submitted rebellious cities were often forced to provide offerings (namely, able-bodied males) for human sacrifices in the Tophet, as part of the cult of Baal Hammon and his consort Tanit. This custom all but replaced the child sacrifice that occurred in previous centuries. Images of Baal and Tanit were usually brought into the local temples.

The coalition of Phoenician cities was allied to the Etruscans of central Enotria [Italy] against the Hellenic colonies in the south. After Marathon, Qart-Hadasht was quick to seize the opportunity: Sicily was attacked by a powerful fleet that had occupied all the main ports of the island by 355 BS [488 BC]. Syracuse fell surprisingly quickly to an attack from the sea. Massilia, on the coast of eastern Keltistan, fell two years later. The Carthaginian chronicler Baraq the Younger describes the Hellenic armies as little more than mobs, but this is generally considered an exaggeration. The impact of Miltiades's plague, nevertheless, was certainly a factor.

The formerly Hellenic colonies were not easily integrated in Carthaginian society. The Phoenician language and the worship of Baal spread slowly, and rebellions were common (the inhabitants of Massilia famously slaughtered the priests of Baal in the Tophet after a ceremony that was perceived as insulting towards the Hellenic customs). The retaliation was quick and ruthless: all able-bodied males in revolting cities would be killed or deliberately crippled, and everyone else would be sold into slavery in all the harbors of the Mediterranean. Some would end up in their ancient homeland, now inhabited by Persians. In any of these cases, the mission would be entrusted to a “general” especially appointed by the Council.

Qart-Hadasht came out strengthened by the campaign. It had gained highly productive farmland in Sicily, and the loot could be used to fund the mercenary army. It had destroyed competition in sea trade in the western Mediterranean, and had contacts with Persia.

Once the Hellenic colonies had effectively been absorbed, Qart-Hadasht looked to its second-most dangerous rival: the latin states in Enotria. The anti-Hellenic alliance with Rasna, the Etruscan confederation, could be easily repurposed against the Latin League. The strongest city in the Latin League was Rome, which had recently expelled its (Etruscan-descended) kings and established a republic headed by a Senate not unlike the Carthaginian Council. The same type of government was found in most of the cities that made up Rasna.

Being land-based and politically disunited, Rasna was not considered a threat to Carthaginian interests. In fact, Qart-Hadasht had replaced the Hellenic colonists as their major trade partners in Enotria, and regarded them as an important link with the Celts at the north. Rome, on the other hand, was expanding southward, growing dangerously near to the new Carthaginian subjects.

With the support of the Latin League, Rome was fighting the Volsci south of the border as reprisal for an invasion a few years before. In the decade following the fall of Hellas, they managed to conquer Volscian cities such as Velitrae and Corioli. The war went on with alternating fortunes for well over a decade, but overall Rome was gaining strength and territory until at least 348 BS [481 BC]. Baraq the Younger reports that the Roman soldiers found exiled Hellenes living in the Volscian cities, who begged them to liberate the former Hellenic colonies from their Carthaginian masters.

As soon as word of this reached Qart-Hadasht, the king Hanno convinced the Etruscan leaders to attack the League from the north while they were engaged in another campaign against the Volsci. Carthaginian mercenaries would intervene from the south. Rasna would be allowed to keep the Latin cities, while ceding a certain amount of the loot to Qart-Hadasht; the Volsci and the Aequi, considered less threatening, would be allowed to survive as buffer between Etruscan and Carthaginian territories.

Volscian warriors funded by Qart-Hadasht attacked Circeii in the April of 344 BS [477 BC]. The Roman army was deployed in defense of the city; the Volsci quickly retreated, and the Romans found themselves fighting in the marshy ground of southern Latium. A few days later, an Etruscan army moving out of Veii crossed the Tiberis. Rome, located on the opposite bank of the river, was largely underdefended. The Carthaginian navy appeared to block the Roman harbor of Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiberis.

The Roman troops were recalled north to defend the capital, abandoning Circeii to the Volsci. After this, support for Rome within the Latin League fell quickly, and a few cities could be persuaded to support the invading force. The war lasted about two years.

When Rome finally fell, the Etruscan army allowed the Volsci to pillage the city for nine days. After that, they moved in to restore order, executing many of the most infamous pillagers to the relief of the population. A relative of the former king Tarquin the Proud was brought there as new king of Rome, and new member of Rasna. Carthaginian overseers ensured that it couldn't raise an army again by demanding a number of fighting-age men as sacrifices for Baal, resettling most of the remainder to other cities in Sicily, Keltistan and Libya, and replacing them with Etruscan and Carthaginian settlers. The joint rule of Rasna and Qart-Hadasht – on land the former, on the sea the latter – was unquestioned.


[1] ITTL, Europe is considered part of Asia. Any reference to "Western Asia" means Europe west of the Aegean. The name "Libya" refers to all Africa.

reconstruction_of_Carthage_1.jpg

In the next installment: the last free Greeks find a new home.
 
Last edited:
I like it, a few thoughts.

Europe outside the Mediterranean coast and a few places in the Baltic doesn't lend itself to city states. So we will likely see a move toward tribal confederations among the Germanics and Celts, while the Balkans become dominated by tribal kingdoms early one. We will likely see the Celts keeping control over southern Germany, while the Germanics tribes likely spread their dominance over the south Baltic coast and later follow the Gothic migration into the Pannovian plain, the Carpatians and Ukraine.
 
Top