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

[Fidel Llorente]

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.

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.

1. Pergamon being initially aligned with the Seleucids is interesting. I had initially imagined the Seleucids might subdue the Attalids but it is true that they sought Roman aid against the Macedonians first. How do you imagine a Seleucid-Antigonid War turning out and when can you imagine it breaking out? I would probably assume such a war would occur under Philip V and Antiochus III's sons. My own money would be on the Seleucids since they could call on Greek city-states opposed to the Antigonids, meanwhile, the Anatolian states almost all have marriage relations with the Seleucids. Perhaps before coming into conflict with the Seleucids, the Antigonids focus their attention upon conquering Thrace up to the Danube.
2. I am very busy atm with university work (currently writing an essay about the Long Walls of Athens) but in a few weeks I should have a bit of free time to perhaps give this TL an actual shot! Albeit, I will have exams a month or so after that free week.
3. Should have continued reading before posting point 1! This does sound reasonable in my opinion. I will think of possible outcomes of a Pergamene War later in this post.
4. Thank you for Titus' numbers.


So possible outcomes for the Pergamene War

1. Pro-Seleucids Pergamon (Seleucid victory): Macedon is conquered by the Seleucids who set up a regent over the territory while the king is now also King of Macedon. Said king is declared 'Neos Alexander' and the empire is proclaimed united at last totally.
2. Pro-Seleucids Pergamon (Antigonid victory): The Antigonids conquer a chunk of Asia Minor and maybe even set up a puppet king in Egypt. Seleucids greatly weakened and suffering revolts in the eastern satrapies. Pergamon is conquered by Macedon.
3. Pro-Antigonid Pergamon (Seleucid victory): Same as above and they conquer Pergamon.
4. Pro-Antigonid Pergamon (Antigonid victory): Pergamon conquers a vast swathe of land in Asia Minor. Turned into a client of the Antigonids who also seize portions of land in Asia Minor. Antigonids set up a client in Egypt or annex it outright?
5. Stalemate: Status quo continues but the Seleucids increasingly lose hold over Asia Minor and the vaccuum begins to be filled by Pontus.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

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.

I agree with you completely. A longer lived Antiochus III does lead to a more stable succession. Perhaps butterflies means Antiochus the Younger doesn't die and he becomes Antiochus IV. Or perhaps Seleucus IV still becomes king. If he is assassinated regardless (not assured since he would ascend to the throne at a later age than he did OTL since Antiochus III lives for longer) then Demetrius I Soter becomes king and OTL Antiochus IV doesn't have a chance to take power, destabilising the empire. Alternatively, if Seleucus IV still dies early then Demetrius I Soter might be an infant when he becomes king making him susceptible to a coup by OTL Antiochus IV.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

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.

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.

I would say that the POD in the western Mediterranean occurs early enough for it to directly allow for a Seleucid conquest of Egypt and a stronger level of power for the Seleucids regardless. If OTL the Parthian conquest was a drawn out decades long back and forth then surely the following can be assumed. Neutered Rome = Stronger Seleucids = Better resistance against the Parthians = Seleucid defeat of the Parthians?

 

[Fidel Llorente]

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.

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.

1. What makes you think that the Antigonids and Seleucids would become fierce rivals soon after the defeat of Rome? Or do you envision this rivalry developing later on?
2. Assuming Rome wins the Third Punic War, do you think they would push for a Mediterranean-wide conquest like they did OTL (even if the eventual dominance of the Mediterranean was not initially planned but organically played out. When I say organically played out, I will use Anatolia as an example. The Romans initially didn't want to rule Asia Minor and gave a good chunk of it to Pergamon. But times change and eventually they took it over).

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

What about China? In 138 BC, the Han dynasty sent out an embassy to find help against the Xioungu. If there is no Roman power to mess up Greco Persia and the Middle East, then I can see one of the Hellenistic states in Central Asia actually kickstart trade with China, and the Silk Road could come into being.

 

[CastilloVerde]

1. Pergamon being initially aligned with the Seleucids is interesting. I had initially imagined the Seleucids might subdue the Attalids but it is true that they sought Roman aid against the Macedonians first. How do you imagine a Seleucid-Antigonid War turning out and when can you imagine it breaking out? I would probably assume such a war would occur under Philip V and Antiochus III's sons. My own money would be on the Seleucids since they could call on Greek city-states opposed to the Antigonids, meanwhile, the Anatolian states almost all have marriage relations with the Seleucids. Perhaps before coming into conflict with the Seleucids, the Antigonids focus their attention upon conquering Thrace up to the Danube.
2. I am very busy atm with university work (currently writing an essay about the Long Walls of Athens) but in a few weeks I should have a bit of free time to perhaps give this TL an actual shot! Albeit, I will have exams a month or so after that free week.
3. Should have continued reading before posting point 1! This does sound reasonable in my opinion. I will think of possible outcomes of a Pergamene War later in this post.
4. Thank you for Titus' numbers.

I do think the Seleukids can call upon some Greek city-states, namely Rhodos and Pergamon as these were among OTL Rome's most loyal anti-Macedonian allies, during the Seleukid-Antigonid war. As for other city-states (Aitolian league, etc.), this is less likely. This is because, if this war occurs under the sons of Philippos and Antiokhos, then both kingdoms would have been consolidating their position for years. The Macedonians would have decades of peace to conquer the smaller Hellenic leagues to the south while the Seleukids remove the Parthian threat and conquer Egypt, likely suppressing native Egyptian usurpers as the Macedonians deal with the shifting alliances of the Greek city-states. Regardless, by the time the major conflict arrives, the two should be secure in their core territory. The upcoming conflict between the last two major successor kingdoms would be a titanic struggle indeed. A fitting end to the wars of the Diadokhoi.

A TL on this would be nice to read!

So possible outcomes for the Pergamene War

1. Pro-Seleucids Pergamon (Seleucid victory): Macedon is conquered by the Seleucids who set up a regent over the territory while the king is now also King of Macedon. Said king is declared 'Neos Alexander' and the empire is proclaimed united at last totally.
2. Pro-Seleucids Pergamon (Antigonid victory): The Antigonids conquer a chunk of Asia Minor and maybe even set up a puppet king in Egypt. Seleucids greatly weakened and suffering revolts in the eastern satrapies. Pergamon is conquered by Macedon.
3. Pro-Antigonid Pergamon (Seleucid victory): Same as above and they conquer Pergamon.
4. Pro-Antigonid Pergamon (Antigonid victory): Pergamon conquers a vast swathe of land in Asia Minor. Turned into a client of the Antigonids who also seize portions of land in Asia Minor. Antigonids set up a client in Egypt or annex it outright?
5. Stalemate: Status quo continues but the Seleucids increasingly lose hold over Asia Minor and the vaccuum begins to be filled by Pontus.

This is good. All of these possibilities seem plausible.

As for a possible Antigonid victory though, I expect a pro-Antigonid client in Egypt rather than outright annexation. Basically, this Antigonid-Egyptian relationship would resemble the OTL Roman-Ptolemaic relationship following the Punic wars. The Macedonians guarantee Egyptian independence while ensuring a steady source of grain shipments arrive in the Macedonian lands. Annexing Egypt would be difficult until the Macedonians in this scenario can conquer and maintain Syria, but that's another discussion.

And regarding a possible Seleukid victory, whichever basileus conquers Macedonia, he would likely proclaim the restoration of Alexander's empire. Such a realm would include most of Alexander's old empire. And now, the Seleukid dynasty has proven that their kings can overcome all enemies (Ptolemaic Egypt, Parthia, Bactria, and now Macedonia) and restore Alexander's empire.

Now for Mithridatic Pontos, watch this kingdom in the future. The kingdom is still there, also consolidating and developing. The Pontic kingdom would become a major rival to whichever Hellenistic successor kingdom is victorious. The Pontic kings may be wary of this. And they may want to ensure the two kingdoms remain independent rivals. So as the Antigonid-Seleukid war is still raging, a shrewd Pontic king may decide to intervene in the conflict to prevent one kingdom from becoming too powerful, while seeking gain for his own kingdom. This sets the stage for (alt)Mithridatic Wars in this future.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

What about China? In 138 BC, the Han dynasty sent out an embassy to find help against the Xioungu. If there is no Roman power to mess up Greco Persia and the Middle East, then I can see one of the Hellenistic states in Central Asia actually kickstart trade with China, and the Silk Road could come into being.

It is my opinion that the Silk Road was kickstarted by the Kushan Empire which connected China, India and the Middle East through establishing a generally peaceful domain in Central Asia. Unfortunately, even if the Seleucids were to be stronger, they would not have stabilized the eastern frontier to the extent that the Kushans did IOTL.

We have to remember that at around 200 BC, Bactria was a client kingdom to the Seleucids since they were defeated in battle but the Seleucids were unable to capture Bactra/Balkh. I presume that with the Seleucids being stronger, the Bactrians would remain client kings for a bit longer but they would wait for the opportunity to assert their own autonomy or independence the moment Seleucid authority in the west has been weakened. What this means for Greek expansion into India I don't know. I can envision the Greco-Bactrians still exploiting the fall of the Maurya and the rise of the Shunga and campaigning into India but I can also see the Seleucids being the ones to initiate the push towards the Indus. If we go with the latter option, the Seleucids might try to further their hold upon Bactria, perhaps even turning the kingdom into a satrapy again. How feasible is this? I'm not sure. I can definetely see a later Bactrian attempt at asserting their autonomy/independence exploiting the incoming waves of Scythians as mercenaries, perhaps on both sides of the conflict.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

I do think the Seleukids can call upon some Greek city-states, namely Rhodos and Pergamon as these were among OTL Rome's most loyal anti-Macedonian allies, during the Seleukid-Antigonid war. As for other city-states (Aitolian league, etc.), this is less likely. This is because, if this war occurs under the sons of Philippos and Antiokhos, then both kingdoms would have been consolidating their position for years. The Macedonians would have decades of peace to conquer the smaller Hellenic leagues to the south while the Seleukids remove the Parthian threat and conquer Egypt, likely suppressing native Egyptian usurpers as the Macedonians deal with the shifting alliances of the Greek city-states. Regardless, by the time the major conflict arrives, the two should be secure in their core territory. The upcoming conflict between the last two major successor kingdoms would be a titanic struggle indeed. A fitting end to the wars of the Diadokhoi.

A TL on this would be nice to read!

This is good. All of these possibilities seem plausible.

As for a possible Antigonid victory though, I expect a pro-Antigonid client in Egypt rather than outright annexation. Basically, this Antigonid-Egyptian relationship would resemble the OTL Roman-Ptolemaic relationship following the Punic wars. The Macedonians guarantee Egyptian independence while ensuring a steady source of grain shipments arrive in the Macedonian lands. Annexing Egypt would be difficult until the Macedonians in this scenario can conquer and maintain Syria, but that's another discussion.

And regarding a possible Seleukid victory, whichever basileus conquers Macedonia, he would likely proclaim the restoration of Alexander's empire. Such a realm would include most of Alexander's old empire. And now, the Seleukid dynasty has proven that their kings can overcome all enemies (Ptolemaic Egypt, Parthia, Bactria, and now Macedonia) and restore Alexander's empire.

Now for Mithridatic Pontos, watch this kingdom in the future. The kingdom is still there, also consolidating and developing. The Pontic kingdom would become a major rival to whichever Hellenistic successor kingdom is victorious. The Pontic kings may be wary of this. And they may want to ensure the two kingdoms remain independent rivals. So as the Antigonid-Seleukid war is still raging, a shrewd Pontic king may decide to intervene in the conflict to prevent one kingdom from becoming too powerful, while seeking gain for his own kingdom. This sets the stage for (alt)Mithridatic Wars in this future.

1. I agree that this Pergamene War would be a titanic struggle.
2. I am torn between what the outcome of the Pergamene War would be. An argument could be made for any of the outcomes based on 'plausibility'. I therefore feel that perhaps a thematic conclusion is best which begs the question, what is this TL's theme (at least regarding the Diadochi?). Do we have the Greek descended monarchies of the Antigonids and Seleucids wear themselves out until Perso-Greek monarchs usurp the legacy of Alexander, portraying themselves as the true heirs of Alexander through being the manifestation of a synthesis of the Greeks and Persians? Or do the Seleucids finally actually achieve in winning the Diadochi Wars, reuniting Alexander's Empire (I feel that the Mithridatics would be unable to conquer the Iranian plateau and thus the Seleucids are the only power with the chance of having borders resembling those of Alexander). I don't see how an Antigonid victory relates to any themes.


One idea I have for the fate of the Seleucids is that wars with Macedon and Scythian encroachments in the mid-century increasing place strain on the Seleucids and that by the end of the century, the Yuezhi arrive completely throwing the eastern frontier into chaos. Seleucid manpower and energy has been heavily spent in the west fighting Macedon (even if victorious in their conquest of Macedon, the Seleucids would lose quite a lot of troops and will have to deal with rebellious Greek clients wanting a new patron) and things suddenly come crashing down (I say suddenly, this would likely be a decades-long process). Of course dynastic stability is not a certain and I imagine this period of crisis could coincide with dynastic civil wars amongst the Seleucids.
Tomislav Addai has an interesting TL in which he applies Spengler's principles to Allohistory and I am fond of the idea so I will be trying to integrate it into this TL if only because it gives a bit of a guideline on planning out winners and losers over the course of the TL's history (ideally it would end in the modern day equivalent). If we look at the Apollonian civilization (Graeco-Romans for those unaware), we see the period of c. 100 BC being when the 'universal empire' coalesces. OTL it was the Romans but ITTL the Romans would be neutered and perhaps not even considered part of Graeco-Roman civilization (Hellenic ITTL). Maybe 'Italic' would be a satellite civilization (using a Toynbeean idea) or just a peripheral part of Hellenic civilization. Regardless, if we imagine the Mithridatics as beneficiaries of the exhaustion of the Antigonids and Seleucids, we might posit them to be the creators of this universal state. They would have a century or so (say we begin around 120 BC when the Yuezhi would be messing around with the Seleucids) to firstly consolidate their hold over Asia Minor and then cross into Europe and assert their power over Macedon, Thrace and Greece.

It is not improbable that they would secure a border at the Danube and somewhere along the Serbia-Bosnia border. They could then easily strike at the heart of the Seleucids (the Levant and Mesopotamia) and take over Syria which then opens the path to Judaea and even Egypt! We may imagine a Scythian or Yuezhi empire ruling over the Iranian Plateau and maybe even Mesopotamia. These two powers may battle one another for a while until a border is established in the Middle East leading to a Byzantium-Sassanids situation centuries earlier than OTL! If we want to be even more favourable towards the Mithridatics, then we can have the Scythians and Yuezhi focus more instead on India with their impact on the Seleucids not being conquest but rather the destruction of several armies allowing for sub-kings on the Iranian plateau to assert their independence meaning that when the Pontics come about, they are met by several different factions that could potentially be defeated one by one until they reach the eastern plateau where their advance would be halted by the Scythians or Yuezhi. If we continue to use Spengler's model of history, we can expect the Pontic empire (in either its 'Byzantine' or 'Alexandrine' manifestations) to survive at least until the 200s/300s at which point its collapse might see large demographic shifts. Germans invading and overrunning the Balkans and Anatolia while a new wave of Eastern Iranians oust the Scythians and Yuezhi (probably themselves tired after centuries of and and off war with the Pontics, once again in either manifestation as an Iranian-focused or Indian-focused empire). There is also the question of Arabs. I imagine that in the Levant we might see the rise of a Aramaized-Hellenized Arab empire which could conquer Egypt and halt the Germans at the Taurus Mountains. This is not infeasible considering the Palmyrenes were an Aramaized-Arab dynasty.

This is long into the TL's future (600 years post-POD) but it allows for an interesting look into what such a world could look like and that's us barely leaving Late Antiquity!

 

[Fidel Llorente]

@John7755 يوحنا

You are very knowledgeable regarding the Kushans and this general period. What do you think of a Seleucid Empire that does not have to deal with the Romans and how they would instead deal with the Ptolemies, Antigonids and eastern threats (Parthians, Graeco-Bactrians, Scythians and Yuezhi) in such a world?

 

[AlfLandonFan]

1. What makes you think that the Antigonids and Seleucids would become fierce rivals soon after the defeat of Rome? Or do you envision this rivalry developing later on?
2. Assuming Rome wins the Third Punic War, do you think they would push for a Mediterranean-wide conquest like they did OTL (even if the eventual dominance of the Mediterranean was not initially planned but organically played out. When I say organically played out, I will use Anatolia as an example. The Romans initially didn't want to rule Asia Minor and gave a good chunk of it to Pergamon. But times change and eventually they took it over)

1. Later on. Once Macedon becomes the hegemony of Greece as I said, my guess is something like a rivalry over who is the true "successor to Alexander"
2. Hundred percent. I feel like it would be organically as you say, since Rome would learn from their wars with Carthage. Ally with Gauls (Or create puppet states), secure their borders (Even the borders they thought were secure, the alps), and crush all dissent swiftly like Southern Italy.

 

[CastilloVerde]

1. I agree that this Pergamene War would be a titanic struggle.
2. I am torn between what the outcome of the Pergamene War would be. An argument could be made for any of the outcomes based on 'plausibility'. I therefore feel that perhaps a thematic conclusion is best which begs the question, what is this TL's theme (at least regarding the Diadochi?). Do we have the Greek descended monarchies of the Antigonids and Seleucids wear themselves out until Perso-Greek monarchs usurp the legacy of Alexander, portraying themselves as the true heirs of Alexander through being the manifestation of a synthesis of the Greeks and Persians? Or do the Seleucids finally actually achieve in winning the Diadochi Wars, reuniting Alexander's Empire (I feel that the Mithridatics would be unable to conquer the Iranian plateau and thus the Seleucids are the only power with the chance of having borders resembling those of Alexander). I don't see how an Antigonid victory relates to any themes.

Very true. It seems you're leaning towards a Seleukid victory in this scenario. So regarding the Diadokhoi, a Seleukid restoration of Alexander's empire is how the "Diadokhoi Wars arc" will proceed. However, the idea that the Seleukids can restore Alexander's empire is not mutually exclusive with also having Perso-Greek monarchs usurp the legacy of Alexander in the TL. Those "Perso-Greek" monarchs in this case would indeed be the Mithradatic kings of Pontos, which you explore later in your post. The idea would be that the Seleukids restore the empire of Alexander. On the surface, all seems well. The empire is restored. The Basileus seems all-powerful and no apparent major threats exist. However, trouble lies below the surface. Rival dynastic claimants lead to civil wars of succession crises. The empire is exhausted after decades of warfare. Eastern nomadic invaders like the Saka and Yuezhi threaten the eastern frontier. And heavy taxation levied throughout the realm to fund the many preceding wars make many citizens bitter at the regime...

It is here that the Perso-Greek kings can seize the opportunity.

Tomislav Addai has an interesting TL in which he applies Spengler's principles to Allohistory and I am fond of the idea so I will be trying to integrate it into this TL if only because it gives a bit of a guideline on planning out winners and losers over the course of the TL's history (ideally it would end in the modern day equivalent). If we look at the Apollonian civilization (Graeco-Romans for those unaware), we see the period of c. 100 BC being when the 'universal empire' coalesces. OTL it was the Romans but ITTL the Romans would be neutered and perhaps not even considered part of Graeco-Roman civilization (Hellenic ITTL). Maybe 'Italic' would be a satellite civilization (using a Toynbeean idea) or just a peripheral part of Hellenic civilization. Regardless, if we imagine the Mithridatics as beneficiaries of the exhaustion of the Antigonids and Seleucids, we might posit them to be the creators of this universal state. They would have a century or so (say we begin around 120 BC when the Yuezhi would be messing around with the Seleucids) to firstly consolidate their hold over Asia Minor and then cross into Europe and assert their power over Macedon, Thrace and Greece.

It is not improbable that they would secure a border at the Danube and somewhere along the Serbia-Bosnia border. They could then easily strike at the heart of the Seleucids (the Levant and Mesopotamia) and take over Syria which then opens the path to Judaea and even Egypt! We may imagine a Scythian or Yuezhi empire ruling over the Iranian Plateau and maybe even Mesopotamia. These two powers may battle one another for a while until a border is established in the Middle East leading to a Byzantium-Sassanids situation centuries earlier than OTL! If we want to be even more favourable towards the Mithridatics, then we can have the Scythians and Yuezhi focus more instead on India with their impact on the Seleucids not being conquest but rather the destruction of several armies allowing for sub-kings on the Iranian plateau to assert their independence meaning that when the Pontics come about, they are met by several different factions that could potentially be defeated one by one until they reach the eastern plateau where their advance would be halted by the Scythians or Yuezhi.

Very interesting here. Spengler's theory of history is very underrated in AH works. It would be nice to read a TL that incorporates these ideas!

Regarding Spengler/Toynbee's ideas of history, we see that both assume that a Universal Empire (or Civilization-state) forms for each Civilization. Provided that external circumstances do not occur to prevent the "Empire" from forming. (For example, consider OTL Punic civilization whose likely contender to form their "Universal Empire", Carthage, was destroyed by the Romans, more on this later). In OTL the Romans fulfilled that role for "Apollonian" civilization as you mentioned, and the Qin-Han fulfilled this for the Chinese (what Toynbee calls "Sinic").

With this in mind, for your scenario I think that one of the themes in the TL is to determine who would fulfill the role of "Universal Empire" in Apollonian civilization. You could take the easy way out and simply have the Seleukids restore Alexander's empire and there you have the Universal Hellenic Empire. It's not a bad idea and I'd love to see a TL with this premise. But I think your suggestion of having the Mithridatic kingdom fulfill this role instead is very interesting from a narrative standpoint. As a very rough Spenglerian analogy, one can liken the formation of the (alt)Mithridatic Pontic Empire to the rise of Qin in the late Warring States Period. In this analogy, the Seleukid Empire divided by rival claimants would be analogous to the anti-Qin alliances of the other Warring States dominated by the State of Chu. Here, Qin, which was the semi-barbarian frontier kingdom that spent decades conducting with internal reforms like Legalism and developing military experience against nomadic peoples would use that strength to defeat all rivals and form a true imperial dynasty after a series of campaigns. Mithridatic Pontos is very similar. The Pontic kingdom is also a semi-barbarian frontier kingdom and a mix of Hellenistic, Iranian and Anatolian influences. And they could deal with conflicts against the Galatians, Armenians and others (like intervening in the Antigonid-Seleukid war) as a way to develop their strength and power base before the main struggle comes. There's a lot that can be done with this. In short, the Pontic kingdom after a series of campaigns by an ambitious monarch is able to conquer the warring Seleukid remnants (that the Saka or Yuezhi have not already taken) and proclaim to restore order and an end to the constant warfare and heavy taxation. Thus, the Universal Empire is formed.

Now on to Carthage. OTL Punic civilization was destroyed the Romans, but in the ATL, Carthage survives. This means that Carthage would still be able to form a mighty empire, with the Barca family anticipating the Caesars. It's likely this empire would be limited to the western Mediterranean. Since Punic and Hellenic civilizations are separate, it's possible that the Carthaginians can exist with whichever Hellenic empire is in the east in a manner resembling OTL Roman-Persian relations. Some wars every now and again, but neither truly able to defeat the other and therefore both recognizing the other as "equal". The "Two Eyes of the World" to paraphrase emperor Galerius.

If we continue to use Spengler's model of history, we can expect the Pontic empire (in either its 'Byzantine' or 'Alexandrine' manifestations) to survive at least until the 200s/300s at which point its collapse might see large demographic shifts. Germans invading and overrunning the Balkans and Anatolia while a new wave of Eastern Iranians oust the Scythians and Yuezhi (probably themselves tired after centuries of and and off war with the Pontics, once again in either manifestation as an Iranian-focused or Indian-focused empire). There is also the question of Arabs. I imagine that in the Levant we might see the rise of a Aramaized-Hellenized Arab empire which could conquer Egypt and halt the Germans at the Taurus Mountains. This is not infeasible considering the Palmyrenes were an Aramaized-Arab dynasty.

This is long into the TL's future (600 years post-POD) but it allows for an interesting look into what such a world could look like and that's us barely leaving Late Antiquity!

Again this is all very interesting and shows that you can take this TL quite a long way. Spengler had an idea of the "Magian" civilization/culture that he argues reached its "Universal Empire" under the Islamic Caliphate. Whether or not this is true, I think you can modify this idea here by having an Aramaic/Syriac/Arab empire that rises in Late Antiquity that would be the foundations for a future "Magian" civilization in the future.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

Very true. It seems you're leaning towards a Seleukid victory in this scenario. So regarding the Diadokhoi, a Seleukid restoration of Alexander's empire is how the "Diadokhoi Wars arc" will proceed. However, the idea that the Seleukids can restore Alexander's empire is not mutually exclusive with also having Perso-Greek monarchs usurp the legacy of Alexander in the TL. Those "Perso-Greek" monarchs in this case would indeed be the Mithradatic kings of Pontos, which you explore later in your post. The idea would be that the Seleukids restore the empire of Alexander. On the surface, all seems well. The empire is restored. The Basileus seems all-powerful and no apparent major threats exist. However, trouble lies below the surface. Rival dynastic claimants lead to civil wars of succession crises. The empire is exhausted after decades of warfare. Eastern nomadic invaders like the Saka and Yuezhi threaten the eastern frontier. And heavy taxation levied throughout the realm to fund the many preceding wars make many citizens bitter at the regime...

I'm only leaning towards a Seleucid victory since that's what I already have in my worldbuilding notes. I'm perfectly fine with an Antigonid victory if people think that's the better outcome. I do like what you have laid out in the event that the Seleucids are victorious. It goes in line with what I'm thinking.

It is here that the Perso-Greek kings can seize the opportunity.

Very interesting here. Spengler's theory of history is very underrated in AH works. It would be nice to read a TL that incorporates these ideas

You should check out Tomislav's Syriac Civilization TL, i forget it's name but I found it very enjoyable and an influence for my own TL ideas. I feel two issues for Spengler is that Decline of the West is such a pain to actually read and that some people think he was a Nazi.

Regarding Spengler/Toynbee's ideas of history, we see that both assume that a Universal Empire (or Civilization-state) forms for each Civilization. Provided that external circumstances do not occur to prevent the "Empire" from forming. (For example, consider OTL Punic civilization whose likely contender to form their "Universal Empire", Carthage, was destroyed by the Romans, more on this later). In OTL the Romans fulfilled that role for "Apollonian" civilization as you mentioned, and the Qin-Han fulfilled this for the Chinese (what Toynbee calls "Sinic").

With this in mind, for your scenario I think that one of the themes in the TL is to determine who would fulfill the role of "Universal Empire" in Apollonian civilization. You could take the easy way out and simply have the Seleukids restore Alexander's empire and there you have the Universal Hellenic Empire. It's not a bad idea and I'd love to see a TL with this premise. But I think your suggestion of having the Mithridatic kingdom fulfill this role instead is very interesting from a narrative standpoint. As a very rough Spenglerian analogy, one can liken the formation of the (alt)Mithridatic Pontic Empire to the rise of Qin in the late Warring States Period. In this analogy, the Seleukid Empire divided by rival claimants would be analogous to the anti-Qin alliances of the other Warring States dominated by the State of Chu. Here, Qin, which was the semi-barbarian frontier kingdom that spent decades conducting with internal reforms like Legalism and developing military experience against nomadic peoples would use that strength to defeat all rivals and form a true imperial dynasty after a series of campaigns. Mithridatic Pontos is very similar. The Pontic kingdom is also a semi-barbarian frontier kingdom and a mix of Hellenistic, Iranian and Anatolian influences. And they could deal with conflicts against the Galatians, Armenians and others (like intervening in the Antigonid-Seleukid war) as a way to develop their strength and power base before the main struggle comes. There's a lot that can be done with this. In short, the Pontic kingdom after a series of campaigns by an ambitious monarch is able to conquer the warring Seleukid remnants (that the Saka or Yuezhi have not already taken) and proclaim to restore order and an end to the constant warfare and heavy taxation. Thus, the Universal Empire is formed.

I had never made the connection between Pontus and the Qin. I really like that as it makes perfect sense. How would you see Italy's place within Apollonian civilization.

Now on to Carthage. OTL Punic civilization was destroyed the Romans, but in the ATL, Carthage survives. This means that Carthage would still be able to form a mighty empire, with the Barca family anticipating the Caesars. It's likely this empire would be limited to the western Mediterranean. Since Punic and Hellenic civilizations are separate, it's possible that the Carthaginians can exist with whichever Hellenic empire is in the east in a manner resembling OTL Roman-Persian relations. Some wars every now and again, but neither truly able to defeat the other and therefore both recognizing the other as "equal". The "Two Eyes of the World" to paraphrase emperor Galerius.

For Carthage, I played with the idea of the Numidians forming the Punic universal empire but that is something I've yet to decide. Perhaps Carthage itself forming the universal empire is in fact the better outcome. Of course, a Carthaginian universal empire means we can't have a Barcid breakaway state in Iberia. It would be interesting to see how a 'Caesarian' Carthage would differ politically and structurally from its republican government and imperial Rome. Its relationship with the Numidians would also be interesting to have a look at.

Again this is all very interesting and shows that you can take this TL quite a long way. Spengler had an idea of the "Magian" civilization/culture that he argues reached its "Universal Empire" under the Islamic Caliphate. Whether or not this is true, I think you can modify this idea here by having an Aramaic/Syriac/Arab empire that rises in Late Antiquity that would be the foundations for a future "Magian" civilization in the future.

That is very much the plan for the post-Antiquity stage of the TL. A non-Islamic period of Arab migrations could see them conquer the Middle East and carve out a Magian universal empire but these Arabs are less cohesive culturally than OTL and thus are largely Syrianized in the Fertile Crescent while those in the deserts remain Arabophones.

 

[CastilloVerde]

I had never made the connection between Pontus and the Qin. I really like that as it makes perfect sense. How would you see Italy's place within Apollonian civilization.

Now for a digression on Spengler/Toynbee's theories!

For Italy, the answer depends on whether we are discussing OTL or ATL.

In OTL, Italy (Rome) conquered the Hellenistic states and eventually created the Universal Empire for the "Apollonian" civilization. Using a rough Spenglerian comparison, one can liken Rome to that of the Qin for the Chinese Civilization. Let's see: A semi-barbarian polity in the west of the established cultural powers. A military culture. Reforms leading to a developed, professional military. A society that can overcome major defeats. Yes, this is both Rome and the state of Qin!
But what is most important in this comparison is that these two both fulfilled the role of founding their civilization's Universal Empire.

In the ATL, Rome/Italy's potential would never be reached. You mentioned that the "Italic" civilization would be a satellite civilization or a peripheral part of the Hellenic civilization. I think this would be the case. It would probably be similar to OTL Korea and Vietnam compared to "Sinic" civilization - peripheral areas to the major polity. In your scenario, Italy would be subordinated to both Punic and Hellenic civilizations. This ensures that a Universal Empire would never come out of Italy (at least until the Punic and Hellenic empires fall and a dynastic cycle is never formed, but that's another discussion). Due to a peripheral position to the Hellenic civilization, the Italians likely adopt a lot of Hellenic culture (as in OTL), but the Italians would do so as vassals or tributaries to the major Hellenic civilization to the east, sort of like Korea to China.

End digression.

For Carthage, I played with the idea of the Numidians forming the Punic universal empire but that is something I've yet to decide. Perhaps Carthage itself forming the universal empire is in fact the better outcome. Of course, a Carthaginian universal empire means we can't have a Barcid breakaway state in Iberia. It would be interesting to see how a 'Caesarian' Carthage would differ politically and structurally from its republican government and imperial Rome. Its relationship with the Numidians would also be interesting to have a look at.

The Barcids can certainly establish an autonomous "state" in Spain, more or less independent from central Carthaginian control. A (alt)Populares-Optimates conflict in Carthage in the post-Punic Wars period likely has the "Barcid" faction as the Populares analogue and an "anti-Barcid" faction as the Optimates analogue. The Barcid faction would support expansion in Spain and Italy and be supported by the army due to the fact that the army is the group conducting this expansion. The trend here would eventually lead to charismatic generals receiving popular support from the soldiers/mercenaries and thus result in this faction favouring popular politics, of which Hannibal is a good example. The Barcids would be opposed by the anti-Barcids in the senate. As the anti-Barcids would have many adherents in the senate, this faction is therefore aristocratic. This group would be less interested in overseas expansion in Spain and Italy, likely favouring trade over conquest. This would mean that this group is more mercantile-oriented rather than one focused on the army (which is mostly the domain of the Barcids). Rather than the army, the focus on trade likely leads to this faction encouraging the growth of the navy. There may also develop an army-navy rivalry similar to OTL Imperial Japan. For Carthage, the attitudes can affect how the two factions prefer to use the military. The anti-Barcids preferring to focus their fleets to ensure trade is undisturbed, while expansion in Spain and Italy and possibly North Africa is the goal for the Barcids.

Here, the Barcids have a base of power in Spain which can be more or less independent when a Carthaginian civil war occurs between the two factions. If Carthage's situation can be likened to that of Rome, then a populare-Carthaginian general can conquer the Carthaginian lands in Africa in the last civil wars leading to the creation of the Punic "Universal Empire".

As for the Numidians, I think it would be interesting to have the Numidians form a kingdom under an (alt)Masinissa, taking advantage of the Carthaginian civil wars. This kingdom would eventually contend with the anti-Barcid controlled Carthage in North Africa, in effect splitting the attention of the anti-Barcids between two major fronts. If the Numidians can conquer much of Carthaginian possessions in Africa, this can sufficiently weaken the anti-Barcid base of support. Perhaps then, some African Punic settlements can petition the Barcids for protection from the Numidians. The anti-Barcids would be mostly discredited due to failure to stop the Numidian invasion. This enables an opening for the overseas Barcids to come and "restore order" in Africa. Drawing upon their decades of experience fighting the Iberians and Romans, the Barcids can overcome the anti-Barcid supporters and then face the Numidians in the final struggle. This struggle would be a major one, with analogues being the Chu-Han Contention in China or the ATL's Mithridatic Wars. Let's assume a Barcid victory. Then, the Barcid generals would be hailed as liberators and establish a golden age in Carthage. Now, the Punic lands are all under the control of one empire. The Punic Universal Empire is born.

That is very much the plan for the post-Antiquity stage of the TL. A non-Islamic period of Arab migrations could see them conquer the Middle East and carve out a Magian universal empire but these Arabs are less cohesive culturally than OTL and thus are largely Syrianized in the Fertile Crescent while those in the deserts remain Arabophones.

Very interesting!

You should check out Tomislav's Syriac Civilization TL, i forget it's name but I found it very enjoyable and an influence for my own TL ideas. I feel two issues for Spengler is that Decline of the West is such a pain to actually read and that some people think he was a Nazi.

I read the opening post of @Tomislav Addai's TL and the writing style is very similar to Toynbee's A Study of History. I'll certainly check out the rest of it.

 

[NedStark]

I feel like there is a tendency of projecting Late Roman Republic politics into ATL Carthage, but here are a few things to consider:

1) It took centuries of massive and rapid territorial expansion, and resulting massive social changes for Republican Rome to get to Sulla first, and then Caesar a few decades after Sulla. Yes, the Republic’s rapid expansion was the root cause of its downfall.

2) There were no obvious signs that Hannibal might have been inclined to launch a coup. He could have easily got elected as Suffete like IOTL. After him, his descendants might not be sufficiently talented/competent to pull a Caesar.

3) Carthage was a maritime trade republic, so it would have expanded far less aggressively than OTL Rome. This means far fewer wars and conquests and thus far fewer opportunities for a Caesarian military leader to emerge.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

Now for a digression on Spengler/Toynbee's theories!

For Italy, the answer depends on whether we are discussing OTL or ATL.

In OTL, Italy (Rome) conquered the Hellenistic states and eventually created the Universal Empire for the "Apollonian" civilization. Using a rough Spenglerian comparison, one can liken Rome to that of the Qin for the Chinese Civilization. Let's see: A semi-barbarian polity in the west of the established cultural powers. A military culture. Reforms leading to a developed, professional military. A society that can overcome major defeats. Yes, this is both Rome and the state of Qin!
But what is most important in this comparison is that these two both fulfilled the role of founding their civilization's Universal Empire.

In the ATL, Rome/Italy's potential would never be reached. You mentioned that the "Italic" civilization would be a satellite civilization or a peripheral part of the Hellenic civilization. I think this would be the case. It would probably be similar to OTL Korea and Vietnam compared to "Sinic" civilization - peripheral areas to the major polity. In your scenario, Italy would be subordinated to both Punic and Hellenic civilizations. This ensures that a Universal Empire would never come out of Italy (at least until the Punic and Hellenic empires fall and a dynastic cycle is never formed, but that's another discussion). Due to a peripheral position to the Hellenic civilization, the Italians likely adopt a lot of Hellenic culture (as in OTL), but the Italians would do so as vassals or tributaries to the major Hellenic civilization to the east, sort of like Korea to China.

I see we're both on the same side regarding ATL Italy's place 'civilizationally'. Italic being a satellite civilization of the Hellenic civilization makes perfect sense.

End digression.

The Barcids can certainly establish an autonomous "state" in Spain, more or less independent from central Carthaginian control. A (alt)Populares-Optimates conflict in Carthage in the post-Punic Wars period likely has the "Barcid" faction as the Populares analogue and an "anti-Barcid" faction as the Optimates analogue. The Barcid faction would support expansion in Spain and Italy and be supported by the army due to the fact that the army is the group conducting this expansion. The trend here would eventually lead to charismatic generals receiving popular support from the soldiers/mercenaries and thus result in this faction favouring popular politics, of which Hannibal is a good example. The Barcids would be opposed by the anti-Barcids in the senate. As the anti-Barcids would have many adherents in the senate, this faction is therefore aristocratic. This group would be less interested in overseas expansion in Spain and Italy, likely favouring trade over conquest. This would mean that this group is more mercantile-oriented rather than one focused on the army (which is mostly the domain of the Barcids). Rather than the army, the focus on trade likely leads to this faction encouraging the growth of the navy. There may also develop an army-navy rivalry similar to OTL Imperial Japan. For Carthage, the attitudes can affect how the two factions prefer to use the military. The anti-Barcids preferring to focus their fleets to ensure trade is undisturbed, while expansion in Spain and Italy and possibly North Africa is the goal for the Barcids.

Here, the Barcids have a base of power in Spain which can be more or less independent when a Carthaginian civil war occurs between the two factions. If Carthage's situation can be likened to that of Rome, then a populare-Carthaginian general can conquer the Carthaginian lands in Africa in the last civil wars leading to the creation of the Punic "Universal Empire".

I feel like there is a tendency of projecting Late Roman Republic politics into ATL Carthage, but here are a few things to consider:

1) It took centuries of massive and rapid territorial expansion, and resulting massive social changes for Republican Rome to get to Sulla first, and then Caesar a few decades after Sulla. Yes, the Republic’s rapid expansion was the root cause of its downfall.

2) There were no obvious signs that Hannibal might have been inclined to launch a coup. He could have easily got elected as Suffete like IOTL. After him, his descendants might not be sufficiently talented/competent to pull a Caesar.

3) Carthage was a maritime trade republic, so it would have expanded far less aggressively than OTL Rome. This means far fewer wars and conquests and thus far fewer opportunities for a Caesarian military leader to emerge.

You both make good points on Carthage. I will start with NedStark's analysis. You make a valid point regarding Hannibal probably not being inclined to launch a coup and it is likely that his descendants would not have the same competence as himself. However, your point about expansion is countered well I think by CastilloVerde. Iberia would allow the Barcids to develop a strong base of operations and might set precedence for other generals to be aligned with populists. However, I feel that Barcid primacy might limit the opportunities of other generals to gain as much power or influence as the Barcids. Perhaps the Carthaginian civil war between populist generals and aristocrats sees the latter actually align with generals whose career advances are hampered by the pre-eminence of the Barcid family. This would benefit the aristocrats in that they have a stronger military without having to rely heavily upon mercenaries.

As for the Numidians, I think it would be interesting to have the Numidians form a kingdom under an (alt)Masinissa, taking advantage of the Carthaginian civil wars. This kingdom would eventually contend with the anti-Barcid controlled Carthage in North Africa, in effect splitting the attention of the anti-Barcids between two major fronts. If the Numidians can conquer much of Carthaginian possessions in Africa, this can sufficiently weaken the anti-Barcid base of support. Perhaps then, some African Punic settlements can petition the Barcids for protection from the Numidians. The anti-Barcids would be mostly discredited due to failure to stop the Numidian invasion. This enables an opening for the overseas Barcids to come and "restore order" in Africa. Drawing upon their decades of experience fighting the Iberians and Romans, the Barcids can overcome the anti-Barcid supporters and then face the Numidians in the final struggle. This struggle would be a major one, with analogues being the Chu-Han Contention in China or the ATL's Mithridatic Wars. Let's assume a Barcid victory. Then, the Barcid generals would be hailed as liberators and establish a golden age in Carthage. Now, the Punic lands are all under the control of one empire. The Punic Universal Empire is born.

Very interesting!

I read the opening post of @Tomislav Addai's TL and the writing style is very similar to Toynbee's A Study of History. I'll certainly check out the rest of it.

With a Punic victory in the Second Punic War, I do not see Massinissa switching his support to Rome. As such, I believe he would have been the one to unite Numidia ITTL. However, the kingdom could collapse like it did OTL due to succession problems manipulated by the Carthaginians. Not to mention that Mauretania would also be a factor. I like the timeline of events you've laid out regarding the formation of a Punic universal empire. Let me add to it:
1. Iberia increasingly becomes a personal fief of the Barcids and becomes autonomous and in many ways, independent in all but name. Increasingly, there is less and less cooperation between Carthage and Carthago Nova. There is sporadic low level conflict between the two factions. Imagine a world perhaps where Caesar and his lineage become kings in all but name of Gaul and have to contend with the senate in Rome who they technically are serving.
2. After a period of division caused by Carthaginian manipulation, Numidia is reunited by a skilled princeling who becomes King and defeats the aristocratic faction in several battles and are able to make territorial gains. Barcids are too busy in Iberia while Carthage is dealing with some naval war or some other distraction. Perhaps this Numidian king is very savvy and is able to secure the mass defection of mercenaries serving Carthage.
3. Eventually the Barcids intervene and invade North Africa, defeating this king and restoring order to Carthage. They bring with them a whole new sleuthe of elites who are accustomed to tribal politicking in Iberia and they bring that with them to North Africa. Numidia has been reduced to perhaps two client kingdoms and Mauretania is ultimately integrated into this clientage system.
4. I imagine the maximum extent of this Punic Empire would be annexing more of Iberia and southern Italy. Perhaps even Cyrenaica but nothing else. This empire would be a patchwork of varying levels of princelings and monarchs all overseen by some extraconstitutional figure in the form of the Punic 'emperor'. I doubt this head of state would go for king as a title. Perhaps the Greeks would call this position an 'Autocrat'. One idea I have for the head of state is that he is called a 'Rab'.
5. Eventually, the Punic universal empire would collapse and I imagine Berbers would play the role of the conquering foreigners and they would build their states upon a Puno-Berber foundation the same way the West is built on Romano-German foundations. These Berbers could perhaps even conquer Iberia and unlike the Germans of OTL, spread their language moreso than the Germans did as many of the regions they conquered as the Carthaginians would have Punicized less lands than the Romans Latinized. Thus, we could perhaps see a Berber Iberia. Eventually we would later see a Berber universal empire emerge

 

[Alberta89]

Please note that if Hannibal besieges Rome (which is probably a requirement for any of these scenarios), he'd be in a swamp, where his men could be hit by malaria. If you really want to neutralize Rome, have the Great Fire of Rome strike 200 years early, so Hannibal doesn't actually have to besiege it.

 

[NedStark]

You both make good points on Carthage. I will start with NedStark's analysis. You make a valid point regarding Hannibal probably not being inclined to launch a coup and it is likely that his descendants would not have the same competence as himself. However, your point about expansion is countered well I think by CastilloVerde. Iberia would allow the Barcids to develop a strong base of operations and might set precedence for other generals to be aligned with populists. However, I feel that Barcid primacy might limit the opportunities of other generals to gain as much power or influence as the Barcids. Perhaps the Carthaginian civil war between populist generals and aristocrats sees the latter actually align with generals whose career advances are hampered by the pre-eminence of the Barcid family. This would benefit the aristocrats in that they have a stronger military without having to rely heavily upon mercenaries.

The Barcid expansion in Spain was largely about establishing coastal Punic colonies and interior client states - rather than Roman-style direct annexation, at least until the OTL Second Punic War.

Besides, Hannibal’s political and financial reforms as elected suffete ITTL should be more successful than IOTL without Rome’s diplomatic pressure to remove him. Successful reforms should help stave off the social problems faced by the late Roman Republic (note that Carthaginian core lands would not be devastated the same way Italy was in a Carthage victory TL), especially if TTL Carthage does not increase much in size and population so that the republican system is stretched to a breaking point (like OTL Rome) - which is likely.

Something that I rarely see is a TL featuring a republican state that lasts until and well beyond the Migration Age.

 

[omnidirectional]

Ideas:

1: An expanded Carthage might face the problem of its human sacrifice religion being unpalatable. There's a scene in the novel Sallambo about a mercenary revolt in Carthage after the 1st Punic War where babies are burned and the crowd is told to chant "They are not men, but oxen!" by the priests to make it go down easier.

Christianity will be butterflied. So my idea was Buddhism spreads through the Seleucids and becomes the "anti-human sacrifice" religion in a latter Carthaginian empire.

2: Barcid dominated Spain will still have a big Celtiberian population and they'll have power from being mercenaries. I predict a Punic-Celtic fusion culture in that region in the long run, and a greater and more long lasting Celtic-Gaulish culture in the rest of Europe without Roman conquest. The survival of the Druids, the spread of coins and writing despite Druid opposition, tribes becoming states, etc.

3: Since the Carthaginians and Phoenicians tried exploring Sub-Saharan Africa, with the Hanno the Navigator expedition, and the main land threat to Carthage is Saharan tribes like the Numidians or Garamantes or Tuaregs, this could lead to increased contact in antiquity between the Mediterranean and Sub Saharan Africa.

 

[Fidel Llorente]

The Barcid expansion in Spain was largely about establishing coastal Punic colonies and interior client states - rather than Roman-style direct annexation, at least until the OTL Second Punic War.

Besides, Hannibal’s political and financial reforms as elected suffete ITTL should be more successful than IOTL without Rome’s diplomatic pressure to remove him. Successful reforms should help stave off the social problems faced by the late Roman Republic (note that Carthaginian core lands would not be devastated the same way Italy was in a Carthage victory TL), especially if TTL Carthage does not increase much in size and population so that the republican system is stretched to a breaking point (like OTL Rome) - which is likely.

Something that I rarely see is a TL featuring a republican state that lasts until and well beyond the Migration Age.

You make valid arguments as to why a republican Carthage might continue to exist.
Regarding Iberia, Carthaginian would likely see the Phoenicians involved in a complex network of different loyalties and allegiances with the various tribes of the interior. This is why I earlier on proposed that the Punic Universal Empire might be built upon a patchwork of polities.
Regarding social problems, I would say it wouldn't be social problems that would drive the issues at the elite level but rather a conflict between the traditional aristocratic elite and a more martial elite emerging out of the military with Hannibal as a predecessor figure. Besides, often it is actually a period of expansion and growth which precedes civil strife as the new elite compete over access to these new resources rather than share them.

Ideas:

1: An expanded Carthage might face the problem of its human sacrifice religion being unpalatable. There's a scene in the novel Sallambo about a mercenary revolt in Carthage after the 1st Punic War where babies are burned and the crowd is told to chant "They are not men, but oxen!" by the priests to make it go down easier.

Christianity will be butterflied. So my idea was Buddhism spreads through the Seleucids and becomes the "anti-human sacrifice" religion in a latter Carthaginian empire.

There is a general trend it seems in this period of more humanizing religion, which leads us onto a whole new question I think has been ignored so far in this thread. What of religion! Christianity isn't going to emerge, that's for sure. But there are so many opportunities to explore! Perhaps a widespread Isaic cult spreads within the Hellenic and Punic worlds in which Isis is worshipped as part of a Shakti-like henotheist cult as part of a trinity that also includes Sarapis and Harpocrates. Perhaps Mithras' cult (not OTL Roman Mithraism) becomes much more popular in the Iranian world. Zoroastrianism as we know it OTL would not exist either. Now, regarding Buddhism I think it could definitely see much more success than IOTL. I imagine Buddhist followings developing in Mesopotamia and Egypt and gaining ground amongst those that OTL were converts to Christianity. Regarding its spread to Punic lands, I'm not too sure about that.

2: Barcid dominated Spain will still have a big Celtiberian population and they'll have power from being mercenaries. I predict a Punic-Celtic fusion culture in that region in the long run, and a greater and more long lasting Celtic-Gaulish culture in the rest of Europe without Roman conquest. The survival of the Druids, the spread of coins and writing despite Druid opposition, tribes becoming states, etc.

The Celts are one of the largest winners of a world in which Rome is neutered, that's for sure. I would even say that western Europe's civilization would be began by the Gauls leading to a radically different Europe ITTL. The idea of Europe as a civilisational whole probably would not even exist.

3: Since the Carthaginians and Phoenicians tried exploring Sub-Saharan Africa, with the Hanno the Navigator expedition, and the main land threat to Carthage is Saharan tribes like the Numidians or Garamantes or Tuaregs, this could lead to increased contact in antiquity between the Mediterranean and Sub Saharan Africa.

It seems Punic exploration in West Africa seems to have declined from the time of Hanno the Navigator (please correct me if I am wrong). I don't think contact between the two would be increased much compared to OTL due to the sheer distances and difficulties in travel. Perhaps the Canaries are properly colonized ITTL. Even the Romans discovered the islands historically so the Phoenicians definitely would.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

A Carthaginian victory is a really interesting scenario, and for me one of my favourite types of pre-1900 alternate histories. Many of the things I would have said have already been written by other posters, but I think its important to consider that the mercantile nature of the Carthaginian republic, and their use of foreign mercenaries, increases the rate at which they can influence Gallic and Hispanic tribes culturally. I also believe that the Numidians will one way or another become their 'Illyrians', by which I mean an early-assimilated neighbouring people that provide a large manpower pool helping to make their polity more robust.