What if Rome Never Rose?

[Kerney]

I like that bit of flavor. I don't think you need a Rome for Jesus to exist

It's one of those things that has a bad reputation because of others insisting on a given (usually religious) figure being inevitable. I remember when someone commented how Mohammed would be in a world where Anthony and Cleopatra defeated Octavian. I said he probably wouldn't exist, he said of course he would. I explained the butterfly effect, he used language that resulted in a visit from Calbear...and well, I'm not the only one to have such a happy fun time.

That has nothing directly to do with you but indirectly...I suspect a lot of us start to wonder who we are dealing with.

But basically 1-2 generations after the PoD, you have a 100% different cast.

 

[PeterEzgo]

I don't think Carthage would replace Rome in the Western Med. It was always a much looser and weaker empire.

 

[Henry1066]

Are you thinking Rome never left Italy and Cathage expanded into Spain proper and along the Mediterranean and Egypt

I can just think of Reginal kingdoms and Reoublis around the Mediterranean

 

[morsta99]

Are you thinking Rome never left Italy and Cathage expanded into Spain proper and along the Mediterranean and Egypt

I can just think of Reginal kingdoms and Reoublis around the Mediterranean

Rome basically became a free city after a brutal civil war at the end of the Roman Kingdom unlike our own timeline. Basically a lot of Italy is divided. I’ve come up with Carthage taking a lot of Spain proper like you’ve said but areas in the north and Lusitania have historically been a trouble for Rome so I don’t expect Carthage to do much better really so I’ve decided to be several independent states in the region - with some new cultural advancements.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Rome basically became a free city after a brutal civil war at the end of the Roman Kingdom unlike our own timeline. Basically a lot of Italy is divided. I’ve come up with Carthage taking a lot of Spain proper like you’ve said but areas in the north and Lusitania have historically been a trouble for Rome so I don’t expect Carthage to do much better really so I’ve decided to be several independent states in the region - with some new cultural advancements.

Carthage would probably be dominating the Iberian peninsula, North Africa all the way to the border with Egypt (which could mean a alliance with Persia to see it partitioned between them) as well as Islands in the Mediterranean and control of certain parts of Italy. They wouldn't pack the same punch as Rome did but they would be the main regional player in the region.

 

[Coluber]

If Caesar is to be believed then the Gauls around his time had already more or less capitulated to the Germanics coming over from across the Rhine.

I have a hard time agreeing with this statement, and not just because Caesar isn't the most reliable source. Over fifty years before Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the Arverni had formed a powerful proto-state that was destroyed by the Romans in the battle of the Isère River. Who knows what might have happened without this event. The Arverni could have unified all of Gaul by the time Ariovistus came into the scene.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The resources of central and northern Italy would have been picked up and used by someone. Maybe Etruria unifies and starts empire building? Or maybe Samnium fights a long war to expel the Greeks from the boot and then pushes north.

Rome's greatest advetage was its seemingly unlimited manpower. The battles and armies Rome lost to Hannibal or to Pyrrhus would have crippled any of the hellenistic monarchies and Rome simply shrugged them off and continued fighting. This was in big part a result of roman policy towards citizenship - meaning that when romans sent out settler to found a new colonia the settler did not stop being romans and become citizens of the new settlement. Than there was the tendency later adopted to grant citizenship to allied cities.

Rome's manpower strength was not really related to how it handled citizenship-the time of Rome's greatest manpower advantage came at a time when the socii were not even granted the Latin rights, after all. It's manpower advantage was due to the efficiency and effectiveness of the dilectus (draft), which allowed it to tap into Italy's manpower in a way that no other ancient state was capable of. Something like half of all military aged men in Italy were mobilized for the Punic Wars-this is an insane acheivement. Its effectiveness lied in its simplicity:

Part of that success was that the system was so minimal: it was cheap to run. Unlike more bureaucratically sophisticated states (like those of the Hellenistic East), which extracted vast tax revenues and then used the money to entice soldiers, Rome’s ‘serve for the honor and glory of it’ military system didn’t bankrupt the very modest resources of the Roman state.18 Part of this has to do with the ‘franchised’ nature of the system. Rome runs the largest single dilectus but is essentially also benefiting from dozens of Italian communities running smaller local variations of the system, allowing the Romans to reach deep into these communities.

If Caesar is to be believed then the Gauls around his time had already more or less capitulated to the Germanics coming over from across the Rhine.

There are a lot of reasons to not believe Caesar on this one, the most obvious being it was very much in his immediate military interests to portray Ariovistus as a marauding invader spreading terror into the hearts of the poor Gauls, who now needed to be saved by Caesar. See? That's why Caesar couldn't return back to his province after defeating the Hevetii-there was yet another invader threatening Gaul, and then, obviously, they would threaten the Romans if Caesar didn't proactively do anything about it. How very convenient for Caesar.

And without the Romans you don't even have to wait to 50 BC, 100 BC saw the first great barbarian invasion from far north that needed all of Romes power to stop. Instead of losing just north of the Alps they'd march through and pillage the Latin and Greek city states that would have existed without Rome succeeding, and that would repeat itself periodically until one of those warlords decides he wants to be king instead.

The Cimbri and the Teutones showed a remarkable lack of interest in invading and settling in Italy, to the extent that they tried to go practically anywhere else every time they beat a Roman army, until they'd been hemmed in and more or less funneled into northern Italy. And its not for lack of opportunity-there were plenty of points at which they could have flooded into Italy if they so wished after defeating Roman army after Roman army, but they were pointedly not interested.

 

[Byzantion]

Samnites as an Italic Power ?

 

[Trey_the_Federalist]

greece in OTL had colonies in western italy, before these got taken by rome. assuming the POD is such that rome never existed in the first place, greece likely expands these colonize, and challenges carthage for control of the Med. however, persia does likely remain the dominant power in the region.

 

[Collondi]

greece in OTL had colonies in western italy, before these got taken by rome. assuming the POD is such that rome never existed in the first place, greece likely expands these colonize, and challenges carthage for control of the Med. however, persia does likely remain the dominant power in the region.

I can see Italy growing more relevant as they develop over time, probably at some point the colonies split off and maybe one of them becomes the new dominant city state of their region. Probably the rest of Western Europe grows more important over time even without a Roman Empire to develop them

Also would Pyrrus of Epirus have been more successful? I can see him coming up with a justification for invading Italy even without Rome, maybe he would have carved up part of Italy as a colony of Epirus

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Carthaginian-dominated Western Med, perhaps.

I don't think Carthage would replace Rome in the Western Med. It was always a much looser and weaker empire.

At the very least, events in Italy had no role in Carthage dominating (or looking to dominate) islands like Corsica, Sardinia, or Sicily; then depending on the PoD (if it's after the First Punic War), then Carthaginian dominated Spain at the very least still happens. So I think "Carhage-dominated Western Mediterranean" is a perfectly reasonable assumption here; likewise, though, I think it's unlikely they do much to throw their weight around in the Eastern Mediterranean, which is where a lot of the more interesting shorter term effect of "No Rome" play out.

 

[Arariboia Guamá]

Its worth thinking Carthage has rivals and possible rivals that wouldn't simply let it go and dominate everything. Such as Syracuse, Massalia and Empurion.
Plus there's no garantee that the Celts of Iberia will simply let Carthage take over everything forever.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

At the very least, events in Italy had no role in Carthage dominating (or looking to dominate) islands like Corsica, Sardinia, or Sicily; then depending on the PoD (if it's after the First Punic War), then Carthaginian dominated Spain at the very least still happens. So I think "Carhage-dominated Western Mediterranean" is a perfectly reasonable assumption here; likewise, though, I think it's unlikely they do much to throw their weight around in the Eastern Mediterranean, which is where a lot of the more interesting shorter term effect of "No Rome" play out.

There is not really a reason for Carthage to start conquering Spain, a thing they only attempted to do in direct response to losing their productive/lucrative territories in western Sicily and Corsica. I'm not really sure how capable of conquering Sicily Carthage even is-they repeatedly failed to do so for 200 years, I am skeptical conquering the whole island was even actually a seriously pursued policy goal of there's rather than just brief periods of opportunism. Of course, that status quo still does qualify as Carthaginian dominated western mediterranean, since they have no peer naval power and control all the key ports below Alalia.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

There is not really a reason for Carthage to start conquering Spain, a thing they only attempted to do in direct response to losing their productive/lucrative territories in western Sicily and Corsica.

Hence "if [the PoD] is after the First Punic War". Even then, I suppose it's technically possible that Hamilcar doesn't go off to build his own empire, even with the grueling sense of humiliation and betrayal the war gave him OTL, but I'd say it's probable at that point.

I'm not really sure how capable of conquering Sicily Carthage even is-they repeatedly failed to do so for 200 years, I am skeptical conquering the whole island was even actually a seriously pursued policy goal of there's rather than just brief periods of opportunism.

I guess not so much "conquer" as "dominate"; if the island is free of all influence from the Italian Peninsula, there's really only Syracuse to stand up to them, and by this point in history the city is more inclined to work with the Phoenicians.

Of course, that status quo still does qualify as Carthaginian dominated western mediterranean, since they have no peer naval power and control all the key ports below Alalia.

True enough.

 

[octoberman]

The OTL fall of the Seleucids to the Parthians only occurred after the Seleucids had been crippled in wars with Rome. This stronger ATL Seleucid Empire could last for centuries and be regarded as the one true successor of Alexander's Empire, dominating the Greek world.

Without the Romans the whole ethno-linguistic map of Europe would be radically different.

The Seleucids would still fall to the Parthians regardless as it was caused succession problems and insufficient manpower of Greeks

I'm not really sure how capable of conquering Sicily Carthage even is-they repeatedly failed to do so for 200 years, I am skeptical conquering the whole island was even actually a seriously pursued policy goal of there's rather than just brief periods of opportunism.

No, Carthage was progressively conquering Sicily and only Syracuse was left when they lost the island to Rome

 

[SlyDessertFox]

No, Carthage was progressively conquering Sicily and only Syracuse was left when they lost the island to Rome

Messana was also independent, but regardless, Carthage had been fighting an on-again-off-again war for hegemony with Syracuse for two centuries by the start of the 1st Punic War, and are only a decade or so removed from nearly losing the entire island to Pyrrhus. Carthaginian hegemony over cities on the island was always tenuous,.

 

[Zenevidas]

Samnites as an Italic Power ?

This would be interesting tho they would need some centralization

 

[Arariboia Guamá]

Could Epirus become the big thing in "The Boot"? Epirus goes westwards, takes over Magna Grecia. I don't think they could take over northwards until they figure out something better than the old Hoptile-style tactics, they will lose to the Italian fighting formations, which are better geared for the mountainous geography.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

View attachment 841525

173 CE - I’ve been doing a project for a while now on What if Rome Never Rose? And I’ve kinda developed a scenario out where a Parthian-Ptolemaic rivalry develops. However now I’m at a pivotal point where a foreign conqueror from Arabia known as Idil ‘The Conqueror’ has now rose to change Arabia and the Middle East forever. I will be posting more on this scenario soon but I’m open to feedback and ideas and I’m happy for anyone to help me further develop the scenario.

A world without Rome would have:
A strong Carthage, still independent Syracuse and Greek colonies in South Italy. Carthage might begin conquering Spain under the influence of the Barcas.
Gaulic kingdoms in the 1st/2nd century AD.
Strong Seleucids therefore no Parthians at least for a few centuries, Macedonia conquering many Greek cities especially on the islands of the Aegean.
A small expansion of Christianity, only around Judea.
Ptolemaic Egypt still exists however it has declined a lot and is much weaker but it still exists.
Dacia is an important player in the Balkans.
Why do Arabs suddenly expand in 2nd century AD?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I tried to quickly find a map online showing soil types in Europe and the Middle East and failed. However, if you are willing to take my word for it, continental Europe had much more agricultural potential than either the Middle East or the Mediterranean (Greece/ southern Italy/ Spain/ North Africa). Continental Europe had heavier soils that required some additional tech to exploit. But of the areas in the Mediterranean and Middle East that had developed city based civilizations as of the time of Alexander the Great, only Egypt due to the Nile could match the agricultural potential of continental Europe. And before the industrial revolution, agricultural potential was decisive.

So whoever gets to continental Europe first wins, and that could even be the Po Valley, which the Romans conquered between the first and second Punic Wars. Better agricultural potential means more manpower. That means either some civilization develops in northwestern or central Europe (but remember the heavy soils), or a Med based civilization gets there, probably from Italy though possibly from Spain.

Rome is really well placed for this, but in a situation where Rome doesn't get off the ground, then it will likely be one of the (other) Etruscan cities. As other commentators have pointed out, the only other candidate is Carthage, in a situation where Carthage dominates Italy and Spain. And this could happen. Maybe a situation where Macedonia or Epirus expands into the western Mediterranean for some reason.

But its going to be an empire founded in the west and moving east. It might not get as far east as the Romans got, or it could get further, but that will be the dynamic.