|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jun 12, 2024 10:09:58 GMT
What are some good PoDs for an earlier collapse of Rome and what might the consequences be for Europe?
The only good PoDs I can think of are
1. Roman defeat in the Second Punic War
2. A Roman defeat in the battle of Catslaunian Plains.
In scenario I it's hard for me to predict any certain consequences. The entire history of Europe would be unrecognizable.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 12, 2024 13:28:39 GMT
During the latter Empire (since Commodus, but before Diocletian) there might be many opportunities.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2024 17:34:49 GMT
How early do you want to go? There are plenty of options from the start of the republican period, including the Etruscan managing to restore their monarchy or ending up sacking and destroying Rome. Similarly the Celts actually sacked Rome but it recovered.
The 2nd Punic war is a popular one, with a number of possible PoDs. - say Hannibal's brother and reinforcing army avoiding being ambushed and link up with hin, he gets more support from the Greeks in southern Italy, a slightly different and more successful war for him brings forward the Latin revolt or the Macedonians intervene before Hannibal is driven from Italy and they bring in additional forces and the siege knowledge to enable fortified locations including Rome itself to be taken.
You could also see say a Carthaginian victory in the 1st Public war, although that might not lead to the crushing of Rome, Pyrrhus of Epirus being a better strategist, or possibly the Latin's winning their rebellion against Rome but only after a bitter conflict that sees the city itself crippled.
Those are all in the early centuries. Possibly a bit later the assassins win their war with Caeasar's supporters but the attempt to restore a republic fails miserably and further conflicts exhausts the empire with Italy wracked by bitter fighting.
Once the empire is in place its not really threatened as a great state until the crisis of the 3rd century as its now called. Possibly a number of strong rulers don't emerge and it fragments into regional states, in Gaul, Italy, N Africa, Greece and say somewhere in the east or those regions are conquered by the Sassanids.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jun 13, 2024 5:39:22 GMT
Octavian dying early might also work too, possibly at the hands of Brutus, in the event that he tries to warn his uncle.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2024 8:42:19 GMT
Octavian dying early might also work too, possibly at the hands of Brutus, in the event that he tries to warn his uncle.
That would probably lead to Mark Antony being the clear if not unchallenged leader of the Cesarean faction in the following civil war. IIRC he hadn't met Cleopatra yet so he might stay more Rome focus but a lot would depend on how the resulting wars went.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 13, 2024 9:27:25 GMT
what about The Battle of the Allia fought 387 BC ?
Here Gallic tribe invaded North Italy and sack Rome
the invaders made victories over roman armies
but failed to occupy the area do hot climate and local disease.
had the weather be cooler...
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 7, 2024 2:20:31 GMT
What are some good PoDs for an earlier collapse of Rome and what might the consequences be for Europe? The only good PoDs I can think of are 1. Roman defeat in the Second Punic War 2. A Roman defeat in the battle of Catslaunian Plains. In scenario I it's hard for me to predict any certain consequences. The entire history of Europe would be unrecognizable. Any thoughts? A hypothetical big picture question related to this: What if as a consequence of either of these two scenarios the rise of Rome to be either the all Italian and certainly the all-Mediterranean, all-European power is averted, and there just is really no substitute for the Roman Republic and Roman Empire is geopolitical history of the "classical" and "western" world from the 200s BC to 400s AD. Italy has its own politics going on, Carthage has its own politics going on, but at a maximum, it never includes more than the North African coast, a lot of Spain, West Mediterranean islands, and some coastal enclaves in Italy and South France. Spain/The Iberian peninsula are not wholly united and have multiple polities. Gaul may end up with some large polities but rarely all united as one, similarly for Brittania and Germania, various parts of the Balkans, the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, and Near East remain the realms of Diadochi and native dynasties, and perhaps later Parthians, Persians, perhaps Huns. What major economic and technical development *fails* to happen from the 200s BC to 200s AD as a result of a less politically and economically integrated Euro-Mediterranean space? And does the Euro-Mediterranean space still face similar climate, disease, and trade driven declines in the economy, population, and material culture and complexity between roughly 300 AD and 700 AD that it saw in OTL? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 7, 2024 10:50:08 GMT
What are some good PoDs for an earlier collapse of Rome and what might the consequences be for Europe? The only good PoDs I can think of are 1. Roman defeat in the Second Punic War 2. A Roman defeat in the battle of Catslaunian Plains. In scenario I it's hard for me to predict any certain consequences. The entire history of Europe would be unrecognizable. Any thoughts? A hypothetical big picture question related to this: What if as a consequence of either of these two scenarios the rise of Rome to be either the all Italian and certainly the all-Mediterranean, all-European power is averted, and there just is really no substitute for the Roman Republic and Roman Empire is geopolitical history of the "classical" and "western" world from the 200s BC to 400s AD. Italy has its own politics going on, Carthage has its own politics going on, but at a maximum, it never includes more than the North African coast, a lot of Spain, West Mediterranean islands, and some coastal enclaves in Italy and South France. Spain/The Iberian peninsula are not wholly united and have multiple polities. Gaul may end up with some large polities but rarely all united as one, similarly for Brittania and Germania, various parts of the Balkans, the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, and Near East remain the realms of Diadochi and native dynasties, and perhaps later Parthians, Persians, perhaps Huns. What major economic and technical development *fails* to happen from the 200s BC to 200s AD as a result of a less politically and economically integrated Euro-Mediterranean space? And does the Euro-Mediterranean space still face similar climate, disease, and trade driven declines in the economy, population, and material culture and complexity between roughly 300 AD and 700 AD that it saw in OTL?
One big butterfly with no universal empire to make it look a 'natural' development is that Christianity is less likely to become the religious juggernaut that it did OTL and the bulk of the Med region stays polytheistic. Which would change a hell of a lot. Not sure what sort of more organised religion would replace the less centralized faiths of OTL - possibly Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Judaism still manages to produce some offshoot that becomes an all-embracing and conquering faith?
Without Rome becoming the monster it did how long does the Greek domination of the eastern Med and large chunks of central Med survive? Sooner or later the Seleucid are likely to lose their eastern lands with some Iranian tribe founding a new empire but could it continue in say Syria and Anatolia, possibly also Mesopotamia, perhaps even reunifying much of the western Alexandrian empire with control of Egypt and the Greek mainland. That might provide a 'Roman-light' state in the eastern Med that has a similar role to OTL. How far this might extend into the central Med, specifically the Greek colonies in Sicily and central Italy could be a question.
If that large empire doesn't appear then a number of Greek states are likely to continue to dominate the eastern parts of the Med although if a Sassanid type aggressive empire re-emerges that could be a major power with successes in the region, without a unified opponent to challenge them.
If there is a fractured Med region then your likely to see more technological progress than OTL simply because large monolithic states tend to be very conservative as they often consider any social or cultural change as a possible threat to the current status quo and their power. There probably isn't the cultural and technological basis for a 17-18thC level technological revolution but you could see a lot of change developing.
There will be 'barbarian' invasions from the north and more rarely but more destructively attacks by steppe tribes from the NE although their unlikely to reach deep into Germany with its swamps and forests or Italy and points west and south. If Greece is divided and you get something similar to the 2nd C AD Gothic raids by sea you might see some settlement of parts of Greece or Anatolia but hos effective I don't know.
Anyway initial thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 10, 2024 14:10:48 GMT
Good question. Maybe Italy will stay split between Greeks, Latin, Samnites, Etruscans etc. forever, and so will the Med world. Because Carthage would be content to rule the seas and control trade, and no other power is aggressively expansionist. Maybe the Parthians are (I don't know much about them), but they're a bit far east. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 10, 2024 15:43:33 GMT
Good question. Maybe Italy will stay split between Greeks, Latin, Samnites, Etruscans etc. forever, and so will the Med world. Because Carthage would be content to rule the seas and control trade, and no other power is aggressively expansionist. Maybe the Parthians are (I don't know much about them), but they're a bit far east.
I'm not sure that the Greek successor states weren't that expansionist and could see the Seleucid's especially emerging as a 'super' power seeking to gain much of the earlier Persian empire - or as they would probably put it restoring Alexander's empire - although how far west of Greece and Egypt even a successful Seleucid state might be capable of pushing I don't know.
The Pathians seem to have had somewhat limited aims compared to their predecessors and successors, partly possibly because they seemed to be a strongly feudal state with many rival noble families often contesting with the monarchy. As such I doubt they would expand much past say Syria and eastern Anatolia at their best. Unless things changed drastically of course.
Would suspect that someone would unite most of Italy sooner or later, whether an internal or external power but that could be some centuries in the future and would depend on the views of other external powers who might like to prevent a unified 'Italian' state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 10, 2024 15:51:48 GMT
Good question. Maybe Italy will stay split between Greeks, Latin, Samnites, Etruscans etc. forever, and so will the Med world. Because Carthage would be content to rule the seas and control trade, and no other power is aggressively expansionist. Maybe the Parthians are (I don't know much about them), but they're a bit far east.
I'm not sure that the Greek successor states weren't that expansionist and could see the Seleucid's especially emerging as a 'super' power seeking to gain much of the earlier Persian empire - or as they would probably put it restoring Alexander's empire - although how far west of Greece and Egypt even a successful Seleucid state might be capable of pushing I don't know. That's true... IOTL they tried to conquer Egypt, but the Romans used their weight to stop them. This obviously wouldn't happen ITTL. IOTL, the Seleucides declined and never got a break... maybe this'd change here, I just have no idea how.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 10, 2024 16:04:23 GMT
I'm not sure that the Greek successor states weren't that expansionist and could see the Seleucid's especially emerging as a 'super' power seeking to gain much of the earlier Persian empire - or as they would probably put it restoring Alexander's empire - although how far west of Greece and Egypt even a successful Seleucid state might be capable of pushing I don't know. That's true... IOTL they tried to conquer Egypt, but the Romans used their weight to stop them. This obviously wouldn't happen ITTL. IOTL, the Seleucides declined and never got a break... maybe this'd change here, I just have no idea how.
Possibly if some version of this guy, Antiochus III without a strong Rome to check him? Although his initial changes of expanding into Greece were helped by Rome 1st defeating his Macedonians allies who dominated the region. The Seleucid's were the largest and general power powerful of the successor states so barring a military genius emerging elsewhere their the most likely by some way I would suspect. However it did also leave them with the widest range of potential rivals. |
|
