WORLDBUILDING THREAD: A world with a neutered Rome and Punic Victory

[Fidel Llorente]

First we shall look at how exactly to neuter Rome. For this scenario, I will go with a Punic victory in the 2nd Punic War. What is the best way to have Carthage win in a way that neuters Rome, limiting them to the Italian Peninsula indefinitely? What does a post-defeat Rome look like? How might its politics change and which figures would be prominent in the post-war republic. Would Capua's Italian 'league/alliance' succeed in the south or could it tear itself apart? Could Carthage realistically maintain control in the peninsula. Personally, I feel the Italian League would be rife with internal tensions forcing the Carthaginians to increase their intervention within the peninsula via proxies. Looking at Italy on a more long-term scale. Could a weaker Rome see an alternate Cimbri War see Rome defeated and conquered by the Cimbri and Teutones. Perhaps Rome is sacked but the republic survives as a city-state while the Cimbri and Teutones set themselves up in Tuscany and the Po Valley. There are also the Samnites who could exploit the division between Rome and Capua to take control of their own destiny and ultimately rise to surpass both Rome and Capua when both powers have worn themselves out through war. By 1 AD, might Italy be divided between a Celto-German? north, a Samnite centre and Italic and Greek south?

Let's go further west and look at Iberia. I feel that with Carthage victorious, the Barcids will be able to continue their hold on the Iberian territories and expand their own powerbase through the exploitation of the peninsula. How much of it could they realistically control and which tribes in Hispania are likely to ally with the Carthaginians or remain firm enemies. This then begs the question of the Barcids' relationship with the government of Carthage. What is Hannibal's career after the war? I suspect a successful political career that is not cut short in our timeline. Is the cliche of a civil war likely? How could such a civil war emerge? Perhaps as a reaction against fears of Hannibal proclaiming himself king or a reaction against a successor by anti-Barcids who hope to weaken his power? If such a civil war emerges, who is likely to win. Barcids or the anti-Barcids? Might Rome get involved in such a civil war, perhaps being the reason for a third Punic War. While still looking at North Africa, what of Masinissa, Syphax and the Berbers? Could a Carthage worn out over time, fighting to secure their commercial empire ultimately be overcome by the Berbers who assert themselves as the new powers of the Western Mediterranean?

Elsewhere in the western Mediterranean are the Gauls. With no Rome to expand into Gaul, what of the region's development? What does a timeline of development look like? I doubt a Gallic Kingdom by 1 AD but when can such a state emerge? I doubt Carthaginian conquest of Gaul but they surely will have cultural and economic influence within Gaul. Could this mean that Gaul, in its initial manifestation as a state at least, is a Mediterranean-centered state. Which tribe or coalition of tribes is likely to unite the Gauls? How does the development of Gaul affect the rest of Europe. Do the Gauls act as founders of a new Celtic civilization which absorbs the German world into its sphere of influence. Oh, the Germans. With no rise of Rome, I imagine the Celto-Germans of southern Germany would survive and that German culture ITTL would be much more Celtic influenced than OTL. Might we see an alternate German migration ITTL focused moreso on the Pontic Steppe and Balkans? A Vandal kingdom of Anatolia perhaps?

Heading east, we have the Greeks. I feel that without the Romans, Antiochus III and the Seleucids remain powerful due to a lack of defeat at Magnesia. Surely this means a Seleucid conquest of Egypt. When can we expect such a thing and how does Macedon react. Divide Egypt with the Seleucids? I'm not too sure what a post-Second Punic War Macedon looks like but perhaps they become embroiled in conflict with Carthage over influence in southern Italy and Cyrenaica. Who would win such a conflict? What about the other Hellenistic states like Pergamon and Pontus? If the Seleucids are able to conquer Egypt, surely they would be able to deal with the Arsacid threat and keep the east stable until the arrival of the Yuezhi. How might the Seleucids face the Yuezhi? If victorious, do the Yuezhi continue into India or do they conquer the Seleucid Empire, becoming the new heirs of Alexander? If the Seleucids are able to defeat the Yuezhi, do they turn their attention west and try and conquer Macedon. Or would they try and conquer Macedon long before the Yuezhi arrive? Who would win such a war? Going back east, with Seleucid power in the east more firm due to a defeated Arsacids, will the Bactrian kings be forced into a satrapal status and what does this mean for Seleucid control in India. Could the Seleucids push the border back to the Indus river. This would radically change the history of the Indo-Greeks and perhaps allow for a more stable period of Greek rule in India. Might a satrap of India eventually secede and pull a Menander, sacking Pataliputra and going one step further by actually creating an Indo-Greek dynasty over the ashes of the Shunga Dynasty.


I would like the input of other people very much. I hope this post serves as an inspiration for potentialities in such a world.

 

[Collondi]

How might its politics change and which figures would be prominent in the post-war republic.

Maybe the severe economic strain from the defeat would strain the democracy, especially when the economy is reliant on conquest. Dictators might be allowed more power to better deal with the problems

Would Capua's Italian 'league/alliance' succeed in the south or could it tear itself apart?

That might depend on how much they see Rome or Carthage as a common threat. If Rome starts launching “preemptive strikes” again, then probably. I could easily see Capua itself overtaking Rome as the largest city in Italy, and that economic power alone might be enough to hold a confederation together

Could a weaker Rome see an alternate Cimbri War see Rome defeated and conquered by the Cimbri and Teutones. Perhaps Rome is sacked but the republic survives as a city-state while the Cimbri and Teutones set themselves up in Tuscany and the Po Valley

IOTL the Cimbri and Teutons had no interest in conquering Rome itself, they really wanted a place to settle, but they might pillage or tributize Rome. A lot could happen before they arrive though. One century would probably be long enough for Rome to have recovered and began exerting control and declaring wars, in which case the Cimbri and Teutons would undo all the progress of that century. Would be interesting to see what a Cimbrian state would look like

There are so many possibilities for how Italy could turn out. With Spain and the rest of the western Mediterranean also on the rise I imagine Italy would become important economically, and so the Hellenic states might fight Carthage for control. Hell, maybe the Illyrians also get involved.

How much of it could they realistically control and which tribes in Hispania are likely to ally with the Carthaginians or remain firm enemies

Historically Spain is a very difficult region to conquer because of its geography. I think the Carthaginian approach would be to control the coastline while tributizing and receiving mercenaries from the interior.

This then begs the question of the Barcids' relationship with the government of Carthage. What is Hannibal's career after the war? I suspect a successful political career that is not cut short in our timeline. Is the cliche of a civil war likely? How could such a civil war emerge? Perhaps as a reaction against fears of Hannibal proclaiming himself king or a reaction against a successor by anti-Barcids who hope to weaken his power? If such a civil war emerges, who is likely to win. Barcids or the anti-Barcids? Might Rome get involved in such a civil war, perhaps being the reason for a third Punic War

I wrote in a different thread that I don’t think civil war is likely in the short term, but probably in the long term

I think you guys are overestimating how strong Hannibal is. If we’re talking not long after the war, he definitely doesn’t have the navy to launch a naval invasion of Carthage, and he has a smaller army. Remember that Carthage had an army that could rival Rome twice. He really only controlled the coastline of Spain and the rest was spheres of influence, and the entire justification of the war was liberating Italy, so at most the newfound Italian states would be tributaries at best
View attachment 887635
It might be doable, this is Hannibal we’re talking about, but it’s extremely risky and not worth it IMO. I think he’s better off consolidating in Spain, securing alliances in Italy, building his economy, and redirecting trade so New Carthage becomes the new center of commerce in the western Mediterranean. Maybe his son or grandson could start making moves. That is if they even want to in the first place

I definitely think the Barcids would drift apart from mainland Carthage and might even become an independent state, or they take over Carthage. Regardless, Spain would be a powerful region, but with the interior being a constant issue

Elsewhere in the western Mediterranean are the Gauls. With no Rome to expand into Gaul, what of the region's development? What does a timeline of development look like? I doubt a Gallic Kingdom by 1 AD but when can such a state emerge? I doubt Carthaginian conquest of Gaul but they surely will have cultural and economic influence within Gaul. Could this mean that Gaul, in its initial manifestation as a state at least, is a Mediterranean-centered state. Which tribe or coalition of tribes is likely to unite the Gauls? How does the development of Gaul affect the rest of Europe. Do the Gauls act as founders of a new Celtic civilization which absorbs the German world into its sphere of influence.

Ooh, this topic is so interesting to me but I just don’t know enough about the Gauls to speculate on what a unified or bigger Gallic state would look like. I do think one could emerge by 1 AD. Arguably Julius Caesar’s conquests were a reaction to the potential unification of Gaul, and they did unify to a degree against Caesar. With the post 2nd Punic war period being one in which the western Mediterranean’s economy develops rapidly, that development and technology would spread to Gaul as well, and 2 centuries is a reasonable estimate for how long it could take for them to adopt and adapt. The emergence of a large Gallic state in a fertile and resource rich area that had previously been seen as barbarian territory would likely be a massive status quo breaker. My question is what would their army look like? I assume they’d get rid of the Gallic horde. Would they fight with a Phalynx system?

Might we see an alternate German migration ITTL focused moreso on the Pontic Steppe and Balkans? A Vandal kingdom of Anatolia perhaps?

Are you referring to the 5th century migrations? Because without a unified state on the Rhine, there would never be an all-at-once migration/conquest south, it’d probably be more like the Cimbri and Teutons, with the migration spread out over centuries and a more gradual spreading of northern culture that’s less devastating to the native states. I say northern because I honestly don’t know if the region would even still be germanicized. What is for sure is that the Vandals, Goths, Franks or any Germanic tribes we know would not exist. The development of a unified cultural identity beyond the Rhine and Danube at all was a direct result of the Roman Empire

 

[Fidel Llorente]

Maybe the severe economic strain from the defeat would strain the democracy, especially when the economy is reliant on conquest. Dictators might be allowed more power to better deal with the problems

That might depend on how much they see Rome or Carthage as a common threat. If Rome starts launching “preemptive strikes” again, then probably. I could easily see Capua itself overtaking Rome as the largest city in Italy, and that economic power alone might be enough to hold a confederation together

IOTL the Cimbri and Teutons had no interest in conquering Rome itself, they really wanted a place to settle, but they might pillage or tributize Rome. A lot could happen before they arrive though. One century would probably be long enough for Rome to have recovered and began exerting control and declaring wars, in which case the Cimbri and Teutons would undo all the progress of that century. Would be interesting to see what a Cimbrian state would look like

There are so many possibilities for how Italy could turn out. With Spain and the rest of the western Mediterranean also on the rise I imagine Italy would become important economically, and so the Hellenic states might fight Carthage for control. Hell, maybe the Illyrians also get involved.

Historically Spain is a very difficult region to conquer because of its geography. I think the Carthaginian approach would be to control the coastline while tributizing and receiving mercenaries from the interior.

I wrote in a different thread that I don’t think civil war is likely in the short term, but probably in the long term

I definitely think the Barcids would drift apart from mainland Carthage and might even become an independent state, or they take over Carthage. Regardless, Spain would be a powerful region, but with the interior being a constant issue

Ooh, this topic is so interesting to me but I just don’t know enough about the Gauls to speculate on what a unified or bigger Gallic state would look like. I do think one could emerge by 1 AD. Arguably Julius Caesar’s conquests were a reaction to the potential unification of Gaul, and they did unify to a degree against Caesar. With the post 2nd Punic war period being one in which the western Mediterranean’s economy develops rapidly, that development and technology would spread to Gaul as well, and 2 centuries is a reasonable estimate for how long it could take for them to adopt and adapt. The emergence of a large Gallic state in a fertile and resource rich area that had previously been seen as barbarian territory would likely be a massive status quo breaker. My question is what would their army look like? I assume they’d get rid of the Gallic horde. Would they fight with a Phalynx system?

Are you referring to the 5th century migrations? Because without a unified state on the Rhine, there would never be an all-at-once migration/conquest south, it’d probably be more like the Cimbri and Teutons, with the migration spread out over centuries and a more gradual spreading of northern culture that’s less devastating to the native states. I say northern because I honestly don’t know if the region would even still be germanicized. What is for sure is that the Vandals, Goths, Franks or any Germanic tribes we know would not exist. The development of a unified cultural identity beyond the Rhine and Danube at all was a direct result of the Roman Empire

1. I'm not too knowledgeable of Roman politics in this period. Might the social allies be given greater powers which would prevent the outbreak of a Social War ITTL?
2. That is a very valid point. I can see the league initially being quite disunited with anti-Capuan factions in favour of Roman intervention. However, after a Third Punic War (presumably a Roman defeat for the sake of neutering Rome), we could see Capua emerge as head of a much more united league.
3. I agree with you regarding the Cimbri and Italy. I can especially see southern Italy as a place of proxy conflicts between the Phoenicians and Greeks. Perhaps if Massalia is overcome, the Mediterranean becomes split being a Phoenician west and a Greek east. I can see Illyrian intervention in Italy, beginning as mercenaries in the Puno-Greek conflicts within Italy.
4. That sounds reasonable regarding Hispania. I could see the Carthaginians' rule over the interior of the peninsula being based upon an integration of Punic control into native structures of power and control.
5. Could you link this thread about a Carthaginian civil war and could you explain how you imagine things could play out and a possible timeframe of events?
6. I like the idea of a Barcid kingdom within Iberia that secedes from Carthage. The interior will prove to be a major issues for the Barcids for sure. Perhaps a hybrid Phoenician-Iberian culture emerges out of the rule of the Barcids before a Punicized or Punic influenced Iberian group or groups take power with the eventual Barcid collapse whenever that happens.
7. I imagine the Gallic state would not use the phalanx system but rather thureos-equipped soldiers and perhaps even develop an army system not unlike that used by the Romans. It is interesting to see how the Gallic state would actually be founded and its interactions with the status quo of Phoenician dominance of the western Mediterranean, even if only through commercial control and not territorial control.
8. I agree. The circumstances of the Age of Migration during OTL is not going to occur ITTL obviously. The closest equivalent to Rome in the west would be this Gallic Empire but I doubt they would see the circumstances that Rome saw. Rather I am tempted to imagine that northern migrations would be more interested in the eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps a successful alt-Gothic empire on the Pontic Steppe that resists alt-Huns or whichever eastern steppe group arrives.

 

[Yeiro]

What does a post-defeat Rome look like?

they probably would be limited to latium and those tribes in central italy that remained loyal to them during the war so they would lose much of their original territory but for the other side their most important lands wich are also the most populated would remain in their hands wich could allow a roman resurgence if odds are in their favor

Would Capua's Italian 'league/alliance' succeed in the south or could it tear itself apart?

Carthage would need to keep suporting capua if it want it to last theres not only the fact that the cities rebelled to not be under Rome and now Carthage wich isn't even in italy force them to obey capua but also that capua isn't a greek city while most of the italian league cities are an that would cause some tensions as well and if Carthage have internal problems the league could very well collapse

Could a weaker Rome see an alternate Cimbri War see Rome defeated and conquered by the Cimbri and Teutones.

I dont think the Cimbri and Teutones would be interest in going to latium to take Rome the most probable is that they would simply conquer the etruscan cities and establish their kingdoms there after all there isn't any advantage in latium apart of its location wich would convince them of of continue migrating and not simply establish there

There are also the Samnites who could exploit the division between Rome and Capua to take control of their own destiny and ultimately rise to surpass both Rome and Capua when both powers have worn themselves out through war. By 1 AD, might Italy be divided between a Celto-German? north, a Samnite centre and Italic and Greek south?

If the Samnites are able to unite I may see them doing it but for the other side they very well can remain divided as they use to be and rome has alredy defeated them three times before conquering italy so they could defeated them again if they are able to recover and decided to restore their position as major power of Italy wich I can see happening if their enemies are disunited like when they conquered it first time

Let's go further west and look at Iberia. I feel that with Carthage victorious, the Barcids will be able to continue their hold on the Iberian territories and expand their own powerbase through the exploitation of the peninsula.

they probably would make with the east, west and south coast as well as various cities in the interior in regions they deemed important enough to colonize the northern coast would probably remain unconquered the roman took to Augustus to finally conquer the whole peninsula and I don't think the barcids would care to do it when what they alredy control would be enough to making them the richest family in the mediterranean

This then begs the question of the Barcids' relationship with the government of Carthage. What is Hannibal's career after the war? I suspect a successful political career that is not cut short in our timeline. Is the cliche of a civil war likely? How could such a civil war emerge? Perhaps as a reaction against fears of Hannibal proclaiming himself king or a reaction against a successor by anti-Barcids who hope to weaken his power?

Hannibal could end like Marius or Sulla althoug with the advantages of not having a rival to worry about, also he would have the loyalty of the army and it's wealth means the senate would have problems to muster a mercenary army, his succesor probably wouldn't have problems becoming the not-king of carthage but I can see oposition becoming more vocal aginst him until they obtain enough support to try a coup aginst the barcids wich in case of succes would confine the barcids to Iberia and if they lost their head of family in the coup I can see a civil war between various branches to become the new leader of the Barcid family

Elsewhere in the western Mediterranean are the Gauls. With no Rome to expand into Gaul, what of the region's development? What does a timeline of development look like? I doubt a Gallic Kingdom by 1 AD but when can such a state emerge?

One of the ways Ceasar justify it's conquest of Gaul was that the gauls were becoming civilized and that would make them an unaceptable menace to Rome so I can see their developmnet following the OTL timeline or a little late because of not Rome in Southern Gaul with that I can see petty kingdoms apering in gaul by 1 AD I think the unification of Gaul would be similar to the way india has been unified a kingdom becomes more powerful than the others and use that to conquer neighboring kingdoms slowly expanding until it becomes powerful enpough to rule Gaul directly or indirectly

How does the development of Gaul affect the rest of Europe.

They probably would become a power in the western med and a unified Gaul would be an absolute powerhouse but I dont think such a state would appear for a long time but once it happen I can see Gaul developing a dynastic cycle like China, India and Persia,

Do the Gauls act as founders of a new Celtic civilization which absorbs the German world into its sphere of influence.

the Gaulish advancements probably would expand to their neigbours so we could see some things like writing arriving at the Britannia and Germania during the first century wich would with the time lead to them becoming "civilized" as the Gauls did

Oh, the Germans. With no rise of Rome, I imagine the Celto-Germans of southern Germany would survive and that German culture ITTL would be much more Celtic influenced than OTL.

German originally was just the name of those who lived east of the Rhine so many celts were germans but I can see what we call germans evolving to be more influenced by the Gaulish culture

Might we see an alternate German migration ITTL focused moreso on the Pontic Steppe and Balkans? A Vandal kingdom of Anatolia perhaps?

A gaulish kingdom would be a hard objective to atack but for the other side it also would be a very rich objective so I can see attempts by germans to invade Gaul but I also can see some moving south Italy may be an objective for migartion but the balkans would probably be were most people would go maybe we would see the germans taking the place of the slavs in the region

Heading east, we have the Greeks. I feel that without the Romans, Antiochus III and the Seleucids remain powerful due to a lack of defeat at Magnesia. Surely this means a Seleucid conquest of Egypt. When can we expect such a thing and how does Macedon react.

Antiochus probably would go for Egypt instead of Rome and given that his previous victory I can see him conquring Egypt wich would be alarming for macedon after all the diadochi states were reduced to just two and they would try its best to avoid antiochus from gaining power in europe

I'm not too sure what a post-Second Punic War Macedon looks like but perhaps they become embroiled in conflict with Carthage over influence in southern Italy and Cyrenaica. Who would win such a conflict?

The macedonian kings would be to worrried about antiochus attempting to reunify the empire of alexander to interfere in italy so the italian cities would be left alone

What about the other Hellenistic states like Pergamon and Pontus? If the Seleucids are able to conquer Egypt, surely they would be able to deal with the Arsacid threat and keep the east stable until the arrival of the Yuezhi.

Antiochus alredy left them in peace in exchange from recongnizing him as their overlord and he also do that with Parthia and Bactria so they probably would just mean their own bussines until the seleucids start to decline again which they could try to benefit

How might the Seleucids face the Yuezhi? If victorious, do the Yuezhi continue into India or do they conquer the Seleucid Empire, becoming the new heirs of Alexander?

Thath is hard to guess and it would depend in the state of the empire if they are weel they could force them to go to india but if they are in decline they could lost thir territories in the east and maybe also mesopotamia to the Yuezhi if that happen Egypt is going to rebel that is a fact, then Anatolian vassals would stop recognizing them as well as Armenia, an alt-macabees would happen and now the seleucids have been reduced to Syria like OTL, as for heirs of Alexander I'm not sure the Yuezhi aren't from the region and dont have any reason to know about alexander so they wouldn't see any reason to proclaim temselves heir of this king that have been long dead by the time they conquered Persia

If the Seleucids are able to defeat the Yuezhi, do they turn their attention west and try and conquer Macedon. Or would they try and conquer Macedon long before the Yuezhi arrive? Who would win such a war?

It's hard to guess it would depend in many factors and I think it would make more sense to just write a TL if one is going to think on them but if they win I suppose that in the previous scenario the Seleucids would escape to Macedon leaving Syria to whoever is able to make with the control of the region

Going back east, with Seleucid power in the east more firm due to a defeated Arsacids, will the Bactrian kings be forced into a satrapal status and what does this mean for Seleucid control in India. Could the Seleucids push the border back to the Indus river. This would radically change the history of the Indo-Greeks and perhaps allow for a more stable period of Greek rule in India. Might a satrap of India eventually secede and pull a Menander, sacking Pataliputra and going one step further by actually creating an Indo-Greek dynasty over the ashes of the Shunga Dynasty.

I alredy respond about Bactria before as for India I can See an ambitious king tryn that epecially if they conquer macedonia as an attempt to revive alexanders empire but I can see that attempt ending causing problems in the long term like killing many men or leaving the borders vulnerable wich can be work in favor of lets say some central asian nomads serching for a new home, as for the indo-greeks if they suceed well that surely would be intersting to read

 

[Fidel Llorente]

they probably would be limited to latium and those tribes in central italy that remained loyal to them during the war so they would lose much of their original territory but for the other side their most important lands wich are also the most populated would remain in their hands wich could allow a roman resurgence if odds are in their favor

Carthage would need to keep suporting capua if it want it to last theres not only the fact that the cities rebelled to not be under Rome and now Carthage wich isn't even in italy force them to obey capua but also that capua isn't a greek city while most of the italian league cities are an that would cause some tensions as well and if Carthage have internal problems the league could very well collapse

I dont think the Cimbri and Teutones would be interest in going to latium to take Rome the most probable is that they would simply conquer the etruscan cities and establish their kingdoms there after all there isn't any advantage in latium apart of its location wich would convince them of of continue migrating and not simply establish there

If the Samnites are able to unite I may see them doing it but for the other side they very well can remain divided as they use to be and rome has alredy defeated them three times before conquering italy so they could defeated them again if they are able to recover and decided to restore their position as major power of Italy wich I can see happening if their enemies are disunited like when they conquered it first time

they probably would make with the east, west and south coast as well as various cities in the interior in regions they deemed important enough to colonize the northern coast would probably remain unconquered the roman took to Augustus to finally conquer the whole peninsula and I don't think the barcids would care to do it when what they alredy control would be enough to making them the richest family in the mediterranean

Hannibal could end like Marius or Sulla althoug with the advantages of not having a rival to worry about, also he would have the loyalty of the army and it's wealth means the senate would have problems to muster a mercenary army, his succesor probably wouldn't have problems becoming the not-king of carthage but I can see oposition becoming more vocal aginst him until they obtain enough support to try a coup aginst the barcids wich in case of succes would confine the barcids to Iberia and if they lost their head of family in the coup I can see a civil war between various branches to become the new leader of the Barcid family

One of the ways Ceasar justify it's conquest of Gaul was that the gauls were becoming civilized and that would make them an unaceptable menace to Rome so I can see their developmnet following the OTL timeline or a little late because of not Rome in Southern Gaul with that I can see petty kingdoms apering in gaul by 1 AD I think the unification of Gaul would be similar to the way india has been unified a kingdom becomes more powerful than the others and use that to conquer neighboring kingdoms slowly expanding until it becomes powerful enpough to rule Gaul directly or indirectly

They probably would become a power in the western med and a unified Gaul would be an absolute powerhouse but I dont think such a state would appear for a long time but once it happen I can see Gaul developing a dynastic cycle like China, India and Persia,

the Gaulish advancements probably would expand to their neigbours so we could see some things like writing arriving at the Britannia and Germania during the first century wich would with the time lead to them becoming "civilized" as the Gauls did

German originally was just the name of those who lived east of the Rhine so many celts were germans but I can see what we call germans evolving to be more influenced by the Gaulish culture

A gaulish kingdom would be a hard objective to atack but for the other side it also would be a very rich objective so I can see attempts by germans to invade Gaul but I also can see some moving south Italy may be an objective for migartion but the balkans would probably be were most people would go maybe we would see the germans taking the place of the slavs in the region

Antiochus probably would go for Egypt instead of Rome and given that his previous victory I can see him conquring Egypt wich would be alarming for macedon after all the diadochi states were reduced to just two and they would try its best to avoid antiochus from gaining power in europe

The macedonian kings would be to worrried about antiochus attempting to reunify the empire of alexander to interfere in italy so the italian cities would be left alone

Antiochus alredy left them in peace in exchange from recongnizing him as their overlord and he also do that with Parthia and Bactria so they probably would just mean their own bussines until the seleucids start to decline again which they could try to benefit

Thath is hard to guess and it would depend in the state of the empire if they are weel they could force them to go to india but if they are in decline they could lost thir territories in the east and maybe also mesopotamia to the Yuezhi if that happen Egypt is going to rebel that is a fact, then Anatolian vassals would stop recognizing them as well as Armenia, an alt-macabees would happen and now the seleucids have been reduced to Syria like OTL, as for heirs of Alexander I'm not sure the Yuezhi aren't from the region and dont have any reason to know about alexander so they wouldn't see any reason to proclaim temselves heir of this king that have been long dead by the time they conquered Persia

It's hard to guess it would depend in many factors and I think it would make more sense to just write a TL if one is going to think on them but if they win I suppose that in the previous scenario the Seleucids would escape to Macedon leaving Syria to whoever is able to make with the control of the region

I alredy respond about Bactria before as for India I can See an ambitious king tryn that epecially if they conquer macedonia as an attempt to revive alexanders empire but I can see that attempt ending causing problems in the long term like killing many men or leaving the borders vulnerable wich can be work in favor of lets say some central asian nomads serching for a new home, as for the indo-greeks if they suceed well that surely would be intersting to read

1. Surely the Romans would not be limited to only Latium, I imagine they would maintain control over Etruria. However, they would be limited in the Po Valley possibly. Or alternatively, the Romans might seek to expand into the Po Valley as a counter to the lands they lost in the souths.
2. I agree, I doubt the Cimbri or Teutons would settle in Latium but I can still imagine them sacking the city of Rome before settling a bit further north. You make valid points regarding the Samnites.
3. I like that possible future for the Barcids. Surely, however, if the Barcids are so powerful, they would win the civil war and assert their control over the whole of Carthage rather than ruling a secessionist kingdom.
4. I like the idea of a dynastic cycle in Gaul. Makes for an interesting dynamic in Europe different to ours.
5. German migration focused on the Balkans with Italy as a secondary site of migration makes sense.
6. If the Seleucids conquer Egypt, I can see Macedon seeking to limit their power. But surely they would see interference in Asia as unlikely to succeed while the Seleucids are strong. They may then seek to strengthen their power in southern Italy, especially if they take Cyrene from Egypt as per Philip V's agreement with Antiochus III.
7. How do you think a Yuezhi-Iran would impact the migrations into India. Considering their OTL influence from Greek culture (until Kanishka at least) then surely they would harken back to Alexander if their empire is even more influenced by the Hellenistic world. Perhaps they aim for a stronger equality of the Iranian and Greek worlds within their empire. OTL Parthia tried to conquer Syria but were stopped by eastern threats. The Yuezhi themselves being the eastern threat might mean they continue to conquer Syria if they do go ahead and carve out an Iranian empire.
8. I am very much considering writing a TL. I have been worldbuilding such a world for a few years now but looking back at it, I have a few things I think can be reworked.
9. Hmm... perhaps a Seleucid king conquers Macedon and pushes the border to India and is proclaimed a 'Neos Alexandros' but in doing so, he massively overstretches the empire and it is this which allows the Yuezhi to come crashing through.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

I would appreciate if people tag forum members who they feel would have good contributions to the discussion!

 

[NedStark]

Admittedly a Barcid breakaway state in Iberia is a very unique but far from implausible idea - Hannibal might have a stronger army but the Senate still had stronger navy to prevent a landing on Africa.

Most of the time it’s either Hannibal or Senate total victory.

Or, the most anti-climatic scenario: Hannibal gets elected as suffete as IOTL and proceeds to reform the republic - but this time he would be in a much stronger position and there would be no Roman pressure to force him into exile.

 

[CastilloVerde]

Heading east, we have the Greeks. I feel that without the Romans, Antiochus III and the Seleucids remain powerful due to a lack of defeat at Magnesia. Surely this means a Seleucid conquest of Egypt. When can we expect such a thing and how does Macedon react. Divide Egypt with the Seleucids? I'm not too sure what a post-Second Punic War Macedon looks like but perhaps they become embroiled in conflict with Carthage over influence in southern Italy and Cyrenaica. Who would win such a conflict? What about the other Hellenistic states like Pergamon and Pontus?

I wouldn't discount Macedonia in this scenario. Your scenario greatly benefits the Antigonids because a neutered Rome removes a major power from their western front.

Prior to Macedonian defeat in the Second Macedonian War (which doesn't happen in the ATL), the Antigonids were in the process of slowly consolidating their control over Greece and the Aegean. (The Macedonians conquered parts of Illyria and settled a favourable peace with the Aitolian League by 205 BC, for example. ) A process that was ended with Roman involvement in OTL and the decisive Macedonian defeat at the hands of the Romans at Kynoskephalai in 197 BC. Remove the Romans, and the situation would be more favourable to the Antigonids. There wouldn't be the power vacuum in OTL that Megas Antiokhos exploited with his OTL conquest of Thrace. In this ATL, the Antigonid position would be stronger due to the lack of the Romans to greatly influence events in Greece. The Antigonids would continue the trend of consolidating the Aegean under their influence.

When the OTL Second Macedonian War started, the Antigonids abandoned the war against the Ptolemies to face the Roman threat, so in your scenario, the Ptolemies would remain under pressure from both the Antigonids (who conquered Ptolemaic possessions in the Aegean) and the Seleukids.

In OTL 199 BC, with the Macedonians fighting the Romans and Roman demands to leave Egypt alone, the Seleukids cancel an invasion of Egypt and instead turned to attack Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor. Perhaps, in this ATL, the Seleukids, with Antigonid support, would proceed to invade Egypt instead. Perhaps Egypt would be conquered and added to the mighty Seleukid realm, (which may be difficult to achieve considering the native Egyptian revolt of Horwennefer is also happening). Or maybe the Antigonids, wanting to preserve the independence of Ptolemaic Egypt, abandons the war anyway (and the Seleukids, not wanting to invade Egypt alone, chooses to attack Ptolemaic Asia Minor as in OTL). That could certainly be interesting for future Antigonid-Seleukid relations in the coming decades. The Seleukids may turn against their former Antigonid ally if the Ptolemies are sufficiently weakened. Or perhaps the Antigonids and Ptolemies ally in the face of a common Seleukid threat. (This could happen if the Ptolemies are removed from Asia Minor and the Aegean permanently, which would allow the two powers room to focus on their Seleukid neighbour.)

However, a neutered Rome scenario does not really change the situation in the far east of Seleukid territory. The Parthians (and perhaps the Bactrians) would still present a major threat for the Seleukids as the 2nd C. BC proceeds. The likely course of events in this ATL would still have the Seleukids preoccupied in the west. It would just be the Antigonids rather than the Romans who would be the main western threat to the Seleukids.

In this case, the Parthians (or maybe the Bactrians if you want to be creative in a TL) would exploit the Seleukid wars in the west to expand like in OTL. There is also the Mithridatic kingdom of Pontos which could be interesting to consider. Considering the Pontic position, it would seem wise for a Pontic king to play both the Antigonids and the Seleukids against the other while expanding his own influence and power in Anatolia. As the Antigonids and Seleukids fight a series of wars with each other, Pontos would be there waiting for the best time to breakout. Once the Parthians likely conquer the eastern Seleukid lands, (because as mentioned, a neutered Rome doesn't really change the situation east of Iran) the Pontic kingdom could use the opportunity to conquer what is left of the Seleukid kingdom. (Think OTL Tigranes the Great's Armenia but it's Pontos!)

Now that would be interesting to see, particularly if, the Antigonids and the Parthians decide to make the Euphrates their border (like OTL Rome-Parthia) and ally together against Pontos.

So, in a neutered Rome scenario, the Antigonids get the breathing space they need to continue consolidating their position in Greece and the Aegean, while at the same time ensuring that the Seleukids still have a major rival to their west. A scenario that has interesting developments for the eastern Mediterranean.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

Admittedly a Barcid breakaway state in Iberia is a very unique but far from implausible idea - Hannibal might have a stronger army but the Senate still had stronger navy to prevent a landing on Africa.

Most of the time it’s either Hannibal or Senate total victory.

Or, the most anti-climatic scenario: Hannibal gets elected as suffete as IOTL and proceeds to reform the republic - but this time he would be in a much stronger position and there would be no Roman pressure to force him into exile.

I imagine Hannibal himself would be elected as shophet and not be the one who rebels against the government. Rather, I agree that perhaps it is under his son that a coup is attempted. Perhaps the Barcids prove capable on land but unable to win at sea. This might prompt pro-Barcids to move to Iberia where Barcid rule remains. I imagine that the senatorial faction would seek Numidian support to counter Hannibal's land power. This could begin a process of increasing Numidian power until they eclipse the Carthaginians.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

I wouldn't discount Macedonia in this scenario. Your scenario greatly benefits the Antigonids because a neutered Rome removes a major power from their western front.

Prior to Macedonian defeat in the Second Macedonian War (which doesn't happen in the ATL), the Antigonids were in the process of slowly consolidating their control over Greece and the Aegean. (The Macedonians conquered parts of Illyria and settled a favourable peace with the Aitolian League by 205 BC, for example. ) A process that was ended with Roman involvement in OTL and the decisive Macedonian defeat at the hands of the Romans at Kynoskephalai in 197 BC. Remove the Romans, and the situation would be more favourable to the Antigonids. There wouldn't be the power vacuum in OTL that Megas Antiokhos exploited with his OTL conquest of Thrace. In this ATL, the Antigonid position would be stronger due to the lack of the Romans to greatly influence events in Greece. The Antigonids would continue the trend of consolidating the Aegean under their influence.

When the OTL Second Macedonian War started, the Antigonids abandoned the war against the Ptolemies to face the Roman threat, so in your scenario, the Ptolemies would remain under pressure from both the Antigonids (who conquered Ptolemaic possessions in the Aegean) and the Seleukids.

In OTL 199 BC, with the Macedonians fighting the Romans and Roman demands to leave Egypt alone, the Seleukids cancel an invasion of Egypt and instead turned to attack Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor. Perhaps, in this ATL, the Seleukids, with Antigonid support, would proceed to invade Egypt instead. Perhaps Egypt would be conquered and added to the mighty Seleukid realm, (which may be difficult to achieve considering the native Egyptian revolt of Horwennefer is also happening). Or maybe the Antigonids, wanting to preserve the independence of Ptolemaic Egypt, abandons the war anyway (and the Seleukids, not wanting to invade Egypt alone, chooses to attack Ptolemaic Asia Minor as in OTL). That could certainly be interesting for future Antigonid-Seleukid relations in the coming decades. The Seleukids may turn against their former Antigonid ally if the Ptolemies are sufficiently weakened. Or perhaps the Antigonids and Ptolemies ally in the face of a common Seleukid threat. (This could happen if the Ptolemies are removed from Asia Minor and the Aegean permanently, which would allow the two powers room to focus on their Seleukid neighbour.)

However, a neutered Rome scenario does not really change the situation in the far east of Seleukid territory. The Parthians (and perhaps the Bactrians) would still present a major threat for the Seleukids as the 2nd C. BC proceeds. The likely course of events in this ATL would still have the Seleukids preoccupied in the west. It would just be the Antigonids rather than the Romans who would be the main western threat to the Seleukids.

In this case, the Parthians (or maybe the Bactrians if you want to be creative in a TL) would exploit the Seleukid wars in the west to expand like in OTL. There is also the Mithridatic kingdom of Pontos which could be interesting to consider. Considering the Pontic position, it would seem wise for a Pontic king to play both the Antigonids and the Seleukids against the other while expanding his own influence and power in Anatolia. As the Antigonids and Seleukids fight a series of wars with each other, Pontos would be there waiting for the best time to breakout. Once the Parthians likely conquer the eastern Seleukid lands, (because as mentioned, a neutered Rome doesn't really change the situation east of Iran) the Pontic kingdom could use the opportunity to conquer what is left of the Seleukid kingdom. (Think OTL Tigranes the Great's Armenia but it's Pontos!)

Now that would be interesting to see, particularly if, the Antigonids and the Parthians decide to make the Euphrates their border (like OTL Rome-Parthia) and ally together against Pontos.

So, in a neutered Rome scenario, the Antigonids get the breathing space they need to continue consolidating their position in Greece and the Aegean, while at the same time ensuring that the Seleukids still have a major rival to their west. A scenario that has interesting developments for the eastern Mediterranean.

1. I have read that Antiochus III did not want to invade Egypt anyways and that Roman demands to halt the invasion simply coincided with Antiochus III's plans. However, Antiochus III and Philip V apparently agreed to divide up the Ptolemies so I don't know what to make of that.
2. With Rome neutered, Antiochus III would not have been defeated at Magnesia. This means the Seleucids would firstly remain stronger militarily and also prestige-wise. In addition, he wouldn't have to deal with indemnities paid to the Romans. Surely, the Seleucids not being weakened in the west by the Romans means that they would be better prepared to deal with the Parthians. Even IOTL, Parthian victory wasn't assured so I feel that without Rome in the west, the Seleucids' chance at victory against the Parthians is stronger. Macedon would be a potential threat in the west (especially if the Seleucids conquer Egypt) but I doubt they would be able to pull upon the same resources as the Romans did to deal a significant blow to Seleucid power.
3. Pontus exploiting the decline of the Seleucids is an interesting idea I had considered. The first iteration of my world infact had a Pontic empire across the Middle East. I can see a Pontus which at the very least conquers Asia Minor at the expense of the Seleucids. If the Yuezhi conquer the Iranian Plateau then we might see Pontus take control over Syria which they would feud over with the Yuezhi.

 

[CastilloVerde]

2. With Rome neutered, Antiochus III would not have been defeated at Magnesia. This means the Seleucids would firstly remain stronger militarily and also prestige-wise. In addition, he wouldn't have to deal with indemnities paid to the Romans. Surely, the Seleucids not being weakened in the west by the Romans means that they would be better prepared to deal with the Parthians. Even IOTL, Parthian victory wasn't assured so I feel that without Rome in the west, the Seleucids' chance at victory against the Parthians is stronger. Macedon would be a potential threat in the west (especially if the Seleucids conquer Egypt) but I doubt they would be able to pull upon the same resources as the Romans did to deal a significant blow to Seleucid power.

The same argument can be made for Macedonia, however.

Remove Rome, and the Second Macedonian War and Philippos V's defeat at Kynoskephalai (197 BC) do not happen. Macedonia would remain a major power. It was the collapse of Macedonian power in the west that allowed Megas Antiokhos the opportunity to expand in the west which he exploited in OTL rather well. And then the Romans got involved and Antiokhos was defeated at Magnesia (190 BC) in the Syrian War. But, it was due to the Antigonid defeat in the Second Macedonian War that allowed the conditions for Seleukid expansion in the west to occur.

A neutered Rome means that Macedonian power remains strong which would present a challenge for Seleukid ambitions in the west. Now it's debatable who between the Antigonids and the Seleukids would emerge the victor in a conflict, but I would not discount Macedonia just yet.

3. Pontus exploiting the decline of the Seleucids is an interesting idea I had considered. The first iteration of my world infact had a Pontic empire across the Middle East. I can see a Pontus which at the very least conquers Asia Minor at the expense of the Seleucids. If the Yuezhi conquer the Iranian Plateau then we might see Pontus take control over Syria which they would feud over with the Yuezhi.

It's certainly a nice idea. A resurgent Mithridatic Pontos that becomes a syncretic Hellenistic-Iranian-Anatolian empire would be interesting to see. Conflicts over eastern nomadic powers with the Pontic kingdom would be interesting to consider too. I'd imagine lots of cataphracts and horse archers.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I'm wondering what Messalia manages to do. Does it survive as a city state, or form its own broader state(-ish) or league?

I assume that Syracuse will still remain independent, if under heavy Carthaginian influence

 

[Fidel Llorente]

The same argument can be made for Macedonia, however.

Remove Rome, and the Second Macedonian War and Philippos V's defeat at Kynoskephalai (197 BC) do not happen. Macedonia would remain a major power. It was the collapse of Macedonian power in the west that allowed Megas Antiokhos the opportunity to expand in the west which he exploited in OTL rather well. And then the Romans got involved and Antiokhos was defeated at Magnesia (190 BC) in the Syrian War. But, it was due to the Antigonid defeat in the Second Macedonian War that allowed the conditions for Seleukid expansion in the west to occur.

A neutered Rome means that Macedonian power remains strong which would present a challenge for Seleukid ambitions in the west. Now it's debatable who between the Antigonids and the Seleukids would emerge the victor in a conflict, but I would not discount Macedonia just yet.

It's certainly a nice idea. A resurgent Mithridatic Pontos that becomes a syncretic Hellenistic-Iranian-Anatolian empire would be interesting to see. Conflicts over eastern nomadic powers with the Pontic kingdom would be interesting to consider too. I'd imagine lots of cataphracts and horse archers.

You make a valid point regarding Macedon. I suppose that what we would initially expect is a division of Ptolemaic territories as defined in the pact between Antiochus III and Philip V which interestingly gives Cyrenaica to Macedon. I imagine that with the Ptolemies dealt with, the Macedonians and Seleucids would quickly turn against one another. Macedon probably would want Anatolia to exist as a buffer state and thus end up forming alliances with the Anatolian states. Are you aware of how strong the Macedonians were in comparison to the Seleucids?


Another thing I have considered regarding this TL is that if the Seleucids aren't weakened by the Romans (let's presume the Macedonians don't cause the same issues for the Seleucids that Rome did), then the Parthians likely don't end up taking over the Iranian Plateau. However, when the Saka arrive (before the Yuezhi), the Saka might continue on from Bactria into Iran instead of India. Perhaps this is because the Seleucids are increasingly looking westwards (a phenomenon made stronger by the fact they control Egypt). We might then see a Saka/Scythian empire in the Iranian Plateau and perhaps even Mesopotamia. When the Yuezhi rock up, they may conquer Bactria (let's presume the Scythians don't hold them back) and then this Scythian Empire. An interesting implication of this is that the Indo-Greeks would be under a lot less pressure from the steppe so we may see surviving Indo-Greek kings, even if only as client kings of the Scythians/Yuezhi.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

I'm wondering what Messalia manages to do. Does it survive as a city state, or form its own broader state(-ish) or league?

I assume that Syracuse will still remain independent, if under heavy Carthaginian influence

I assume Massalia would largely survive as a city-state increasingly under Punic influence and it is eventually sacked or conquered by Gauls.
I also assume Syracuse would remain independent and potentially can conquer Sicily once Carthage collapses.

 

[CastilloVerde]

You make a valid point regarding Macedon. I suppose that what we would initially expect is a division of Ptolemaic territories as defined in the pact between Antiochus III and Philip V which interestingly gives Cyrenaica to Macedon. I imagine that with the Ptolemies dealt with, the Macedonians and Seleucids would quickly turn against one another. Macedon probably would want Anatolia to exist as a buffer state and thus end up forming alliances with the Anatolian states. Are you aware of how strong the Macedonians were in comparison to the Seleucids?

I do expect the Ptolemaic territories to be divided between the two in this scenario. After that the Seleukids and Antigonid Macedonia would most likely turn on each other. Here, some of the minor players in the region, namely Rhodos and Attalid Pergamon would try to balance between the two. Rhodos and Pergamon in OTL turned to Rome for help against Macedonia, which helped to bring Rome to conflict with Macedonia. These two small powers in this scenario would likely do something similar, that is to balance Macedonia with the Seleukids to ensure that one does not get too powerful at the expense of the other.

In this case, I assume that the Seleukids would be the preferred power initially, because Pergamon was already a Seleukid vassal. And also because both Rhodos and Pergamon contended against Macedonia over control of the Aegean.

Another thing I have considered regarding this TL is that if the Seleucids aren't weakened by the Romans (let's presume the Macedonians don't cause the same issues for the Seleucids that Rome did), then the Parthians likely don't end up taking over the Iranian Plateau. However, when the Saka arrive (before the Yuezhi), the Saka might continue on from Bactria into Iran instead of India. Perhaps this is because the Seleucids are increasingly looking westwards (a phenomenon made stronger by the fact they control Egypt). We might then see a Saka/Scythian empire in the Iranian Plateau and perhaps even Mesopotamia. When the Yuezhi rock up, they may conquer Bactria (let's presume the Scythians don't hold them back) and then this Scythian Empire. An interesting implication of this is that the Indo-Greeks would be under a lot less pressure from the steppe so we may see surviving Indo-Greek kings, even if only as client kings of the Scythians/Yuezhi.

This is very interesting. I'd love to see a TL on this.

Let's assume that the Antigonids and the Seleukids maintain their alliance (with some marriages to sweeten the deal) and allow each other to focus on their own separate areas. The Antigonids focus on Greece and the Aegean, while the Seleukids concentrate on Egypt and the East. Naturally, the two states would strengthen their position and the peace would allow for population growth which could expand their armies if needed. This state of affairs could last for some time as Philippos and Antiokhos were relatively young. The Seleukids, because they avoid the OTL european involvement following the Second Macedonian War, could work instead to prevent the Parthian invasion. Eventually, once Philippos and Antiokhos have died and are succeeded by their heirs, the old peace between the two could fall apart and lead to wars between them. Most likely this starts in Asia Minor. Pergamon may well be a catalyst for such a war. These would probably last some time, considering the two realms would have had decades to build up their position.

In OTL, Titus Livius states that the Macedonians raised around 43 thousand men for their army by the start of the Third Macedonian War in 171 BC. "...except for the army which Alexander the Great took over to Asia, never had the forces of any Macedonian king been so great." Livius might be exaggerating at that last statement, but given that this Macedonia had been defeated by the Romans and reduced in territory, the fact is that this Macedonia was able to recover from the past losses in a period of peace.

Returning to your scenario, as the two realms fight a series of wars with each other, the Saka could use the opportunity to establish themselves in Iran.

 

[Stark]

Regarding Seleucid, Rome did much to sap their power, either by destroying their army (which was always a bit brittle - see Soldiers and Silver by Michael Taylor), by forcing devastating peace terms (huge indemnities, destruction of Seleucid fleet, abandoning their elephant corps), by pure diplomacy (forbidding Antiochus IV from conquering immense wealth of Egypt), or by forcing the Seleucid succession in a way to create conditions for civil war/succession by Roman proxy.

Rome was devastating for Seleucids. Macedonia will be another western rival to replace Rome, but Macedonian phalanx is completely different threat than Roman legions. And Macedonia was fiscally and manpower wise least powerful of successor kingdoms (again according to Soldiers and Silver by Michael Taylor) - they cannot compare to post Punic wars Rome.

So just saying neutering of Rome does not change the situation in the East is wrong - it changes it immensely. Just one example, Antiochus the Great would not be killed pillaging some random temple because he needed to pay indemnities. Seleucid Empire that did not tangle with Rome will have much greater resources and stability to deal with Parthians and other eastern threats. Holding such vast realm is of course probably unlikely, but it will be much easier than OTL.

 

[Stark]

Pergamon and Pontus would be very interesting in this scenario. Seleucids would be stronger but distracted with their eastern holding. Shear distance would give breathing room to Anatolian states - if Seleucid king is on campaign in the east it falls to local satraps to deal with Macedonian and Anatolian meddling.

It might be interesting (though probably not the most likely outcome) for Seleucids to focus on integrating Anatolia and Egypt but due to western focus lose eastern territories to some of the many contenders there - forming some sort of proto-byzantine empire in the process (Anatolia, Syria, Mesopotania, Anatolia). Sea lanes of communication would make that realm much easier to control than their OTL land one.

 

[CastilloVerde]

Regarding Seleucid, Rome did much to sap their power, either by destroying their army (which was always a bit brittle - see Soldiers and Silver by Michael Taylor), by forcing devastating peace terms (huge indemnities, destruction of Seleucid fleet, abandoning their elephant corps), by pure diplomacy (forbidding Antiochus IV from conquering immense wealth of Egypt), or by forcing the Seleucid succession in a way to create conditions for civil war/succession by Roman proxy.

Rome was devastating for Seleucids. Macedonia will be another western rival to replace Rome, but Macedonian phalanx is completely different threat than Roman legions.

Yes. However, my point is that Rome devastated both the Seleukids and the Macedonians. The Romans took both out of the contention for being the dominant power in the Hellenistic world and in the process, Rome became the hegemon.

What the Romans did to the Seleukids, the Romans did first to the Macedonians. Remove the Romans, and both the Seleukids and Antigonids continue to exist as sovereign kingdoms with the same Hellenistic style of warfare. No doubt the Seleukids would remain strong without Roman involvement, but so would Macedonia.

So just saying "neutering of Rome" does not change the situation in the East is wrong - it changes it immensely. Just one example, Antiochus the Great would not be killed pillaging some random temple because he needed to pay indemnities. Seleucid Empire that did not tangle with Rome will have much greater resources and stability to deal with Parthians and other eastern threats. Holding such vast realm is of course probably unlikely, but it will be much easier than OTL.

To clarify, the scenario is a Carthaginian victory in the Second Punic War that leads to a neutered Rome. This PoD does not change the fundamental dynamics that drove the Parthian expansion to the west and later expansion of steppe peoples. The "situation in the far east of Seleukid territory" does not change because the Seleukids would still be confronting these peoples as the 2nd century proceeds regardless of who is the Seleukid king.

 

[Stark]

To clarify, the scenario is a Carthaginian victory in the Second Punic War that leads to a neutered Rome. This PoD does not change the fundamental dynamics that drove the Parthian expansion to the west and later expansion of steppe peoples. The "situation in the far east of Seleukid territory" does not change because the Seleukids would still be confronting these peoples as the 2nd century proceeds regardless of who is the Seleukid king.

But it does change, hugely. How can it not? Seleucids lost those territories after being drastically weakened by Rome, not before that.

STEP 1 Seleucid East before war with Rome - Antiochus completes his Anabasis, triumphant tour of the East where he restores Seleucid power there.

STEP 2 Rome thrashes Seleucids in war, f...s them over after war in every way they can. Financially, territorially and militarily Seleucid realm is vastly smaller/weaker.

STEP 3 Seleucid fight for their eastern territories.

Removing STEP 2 drastically changes Seleucid resources for STEP 3.

It's like saying since I've lost boxing match without one leg and one arm I would definitely lose it with all my limbs.

 

[AlfLandonFan]

What is the best way to have Carthage win in a way that neuters Rome, limiting them to the Italian Peninsula indefinitely?

Have Phillip V repel the Roman invasion of Apollonia. Phillip lost that battle OTL, and his fleet was burned down. Have him win, then have him perform his planned naval invasion of Italy. Southern Italy, already siding with Carthage, would be completely lost. Also the Aetolian League would not join in the war, OTL they were convinced because Rome assured them victory was near.
I'd like to focus on Macedon and Southern Italy. With Roman defeat, Illyria and Albania would fall under control of Phillip (If Demetrius of Pharos dies like he did OTL, the throne of Illyria would be vacant. I can see Phillip crowning himself King of Illyria). From there, I can see a Second Social War beginning, with Macedon becoming the defacto ruler of all of Greece. Macedon and the Seleucid's would become fierce rivals from then. I can see the two empires messing around for control over Egypt and the not-yet-conquered Anatolian states. If an all out war breaks out, expect it to be long and bloody. Take your pick for who wins.

As for Southern Italy, I agree with what Yeiro said.

The macedonian kings would be to worrried about antiochus attempting to reunify the empire of alexander to interfere in italy so the italian cities would be left alone

Rome would NOT back down. They would try their damnedest to regain their power, and Southern Italy would be their first target. Expect a Third Punic War to break out. If Rome wins, the uneasy balance of power in the western Mediterranean would return. If Carthage wins, Rome would probably never rise again. Rome would become a nation mentioned in one chapter of the textbooks Carthaginian children bring to school.