|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 13, 2024 17:42:10 GMT
What if the Roman province of Judaea teleported west to Morocco at the start of the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD? This would be a move 1,000 km straight west or so, and then, to fit in with the local coastal features, maybe 50-80 km north. The ASB teleporting Judaea bring in any any vital supporting geographic features for the integrity of the land, like the minimum necessary sources and outlets for the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, and Sea of Galilee. The equivalent amount of land from Morocco, with its local features, from Atlantic beach, to portions of the Atlas Mountains, and local inhabitants, presumably Berber/Amazigh and related people, not yet under Roman rule, swap places with the rebellious Roman province of Judaea which has just overcome or thrown out all its Roman garrisons. This is what it looks like on the map: www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/54064292430/in/photostream/lightbox/Where do things go from here? If I were a betting man, and you were having me bet my house on it, I would say that the Romans would feel compelled to conquer and suppress Judaea in Morocco, and would not feel right ignoring it just because it has 'landed' on territory not under current Roman jurisdiction. It is still close enough for the Romans to find out where it 'landed' in a couple weeks, and confirm it beyond reasonable doubt within a couple months, and the (so far) successful (as of 66) rebellion is, by itself enough of an insult to Roman imperial honor that it compels revenge. Some logistical hassle in switching around and gathering forces for suppression would be required. I would also suspect that within the next decade or so, the Romans would feel compelled to conquer the fragment of Morocco/Mauretania teleported in place of Judaea, now occupying the 'gap' between Egypt, Syria, and Arabia Petraea, that lacks the Dead Sea or Jordan River. It just seems too important a junction to leave uncovered and outside of a continuous eastern Roman frontier. However, it should be interesting, moving the whole Judaean-Palestinian branch of Roman Jewry, even if much of this population will soon be displaced, and of the nascent Christian movement from its eastern Mediterranean initial habitat, to the Atlantic coast of the empire and closer to the western side of the Mediterranean instead. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 14, 2024 16:14:58 GMT
Interesting scenario. The big uncertainty would be how the assorted groups would react to what they would see as divine intervention. I would expect the Jews to see it as a sign of god's intervention on their behave, although it does cut them off from the rest of their population around the empire. This could make them distinctly more fervent in their beliefs with more influence being gained by the Zealots, which would be bad for groups in Judea which were either non-Jewish or not the 'right' type of Jew - which would probably include not only 'pagans' but groups like the Samaritans and the early Christians, at least those in the province. This could
For the rest of the empire the event will be seen as divine but who will think it means that a pestilent minority has been removed and 'good ridden to bad rubbish' and how many - apart from those Jewish groups outside Judea who see it as protection for their homeland and are probably unhappy that they haven't also been 'rescued' - might wonder if this strange religion might have some basis?
The initial impact on all sides would reduced somewhat as they realise that the new location of Judea isn't that far from Roman territory.
If this occurs in 66AD would it be before or after the ambush and destruction of the Legion XII Fulminata and auxiliary troops under the Syrian legate Cestius Gallus,? If the latter the Romans are more likely to seek revenge, especially to regain the lost eagle while otherwise, especially if no invasion before the overthrow of Nero and resulting civil war in 69AD the new emperor might be willing to ignore them for the moment.
Assuming this civil war occurs I wonder how much would change? Any army being prepared to invade Judea assuming its not already there would be based in Iberia or possibly NW Africa. If so would that be Vespasian and what sort of army he would have? Possibly a larger one than OTL as he wouldn't be operating from neighbouring Roman provinces but be invading by sea or via an overland march through 'wild' territory. This would mean pretty much all the challengers for the throne would be in western Europe although someone else could see to raise the Balkan or eastern legions in a bid for the purple.
I would agree that the region replacing Judea is going to be brought into the empire. Its too strategic a location and if the ISOT occurs before Gallus's move to suppress the rebellion he could find his legion enough for this task, although with confusion on both sides.
Sooner or later the Romans will seek to 'reclaim' Judea and thing could get even bloodier than OTL. How the Jews there would interact with those left in the empire and whether Jerusalem would still maintain its position as the centre of the faith, or some seek to build a new city where the old one used to be would be interesting. Which is the promised land, the place where the bulk of the Jews live and their ancient cities are or were they used to be in Palestine??
In the longer term even if Christianity still rose to rule the empire there's going to be a fair number of changes. It might as persecution of those Christians inside Judea and the distancing of those outside Judea from their Jewish roots might make them less mistrusted while the monotheistic faith has attractions for an autocratic system. However Jerusalem is probably going to be less important, although there would still be the association with Jesus. Plus the effects of it being at the extreme west of the empire rather than far to the east and in a fairly isolated position is going to affect its political importance. It could also be lost to the rest of the empire when that starts to fracture somewhat earlier than OTL.
If a figure like Mohammad was to appear then, especially once he takes a position distancing himself from the old monotheistic faiths, then its likely that Jerusalem is going to be unimportant to him. However that's a long time after the event and while there were causes for a surge of Arabs out of the peninsula whether it would have a religious context and of what sort would be a subject of uncertainty.
Anyway another interesting scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 14, 2024 23:07:41 GMT
If this occurs in 66AD would it be before or after the ambush and destruction of the Legion XII Fulminata and auxiliary troops under the Syrian legate Cestius Gallus,? I was thinking after... Its too strategic a location and if the ISOT occurs before Gallus's move to suppress the rebellion he could find his legion enough for this task, although with confusion on both sides. Since it won't happen before then, the Romans will have the inconvenience of having to muster additional forces. Which makes me wonder, how hard a time would the Romans have conquering the slice of Morocco that replaces Judaea, with its more rugged, partly mountainous terrain, and Berber, Berberian Barbarians? .....And even before the Romans march down the Atlantic coast of Africa for Judaea delenda est, the relocated Judaeans, and their indigenous North African neighbors have another military concern....each other! How would the borderland encounters between the relocated rebels and populace of Judaea, and the surrounding indigenous people of central coastal Morocco/Mauretania go? The Jews have fanaticism and captured quality Roman equipment and some familiarity with Hellenistic/Roman tactics, but their ground is lower-lying than the surrounding native high-ground, and settled, urbanized folk, on average, tend not to be as good individual fighters man for man and clan for clan as more tribally organized peoples like the Berbers of the day. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 15, 2024 13:05:47 GMT
If this occurs in 66AD would it be before or after the ambush and destruction of the Legion XII Fulminata and auxiliary troops under the Syrian legate Cestius Gallus,? I was thinking after... Its too strategic a location and if the ISOT occurs before Gallus's move to suppress the rebellion he could find his legion enough for this task, although with confusion on both sides. Since it won't happen before then, the Romans will have the inconvenience of having to muster additional forces. Which makes me wonder, how hard a time would the Romans have conquering the slice of Morocco that replaces Judaea, with its more rugged, partly mountainous terrain, and Berber, Berberian Barbarians? .....And even before the Romans march down the Atlantic coast of Africa for Judaea delenda est, the relocated Judaeans, and their indigenous North African neighbors have another military concern....each other! How would the borderland encounters between the relocated rebels and populace of Judaea, and the surrounding indigenous people of central coastal Morocco/Mauretania go? The Jews have fanaticism and captured quality Roman equipment and some familiarity with Hellenistic/Roman tactics, but their ground is lower-lying than the surrounding native high-ground, and settled, urbanized folk, on average, tend not to be as good individual fighters man for man and clan for clan as more tribally organized peoples like the Berbers of the day.
OK. after the initial Roman attempt to crush the revolt ends in a bloody failure.
Not sure about the population of the region which has replaced Judea but the Romans tended to be able to crush small opponents and they would be distinctly isolated from their own neighbours and supply sources. They could also find the neighbouring lands, which could be a temptation to raid, although they might become exposed on the more open terrain and are likely to upset the locals in such a process.
Good point that the Jews are now in an alien environment and that could cause problems between them and their new neighbours. They might well have more resources, although I think apart from a few locals they weren't that urbanised but definitely more so than the mountains around them and the distinctly more arid environment, although the ASB responsible is moderating things with regards to their own lands in terms of maintaining the Jordan river and seas of Galilee and Dead Sea.
The big uncertainty here would be when Nero gets deposed and what sort of chaos would follow. Given the circumstances the timing could be different which is also likely to change the location and status of possible claimants. It could be that the ISOT event will trigger unrest or possibly that the uncertainty causes people to stick to the familiar and Nero stays in charge a bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 20, 2024 13:50:37 GMT
Not sure about the population of the region which has replaced Judea but the Romans tended to be able to crush small opponents and they would be distinctly isolated from their own neighbours and supply sources. They could also find the neighbouring lands, which could be a temptation to raid, although they might become exposed on the more open terrain and are likely to upset the locals in such a process Certainly I could imagine Berber-Nabataean-Arab Bedouin Roman cross-raiding until the Romans come in to establish a frontier to their liking, and deal with a few more mountains than they expected. Good point that the Jews are now in an alien environment and that could cause problems between them and their new neighbours. They might well have more resources, although I think apart from a few locals they weren't that urbanised but definitely more so than the mountains around them and the distinctly more arid environment, although the ASB responsible is moderating things with regards to their own lands in terms of maintaining the Jordan river and seas of Galilee and Dead Sea. Good points - Not certain how much more arid Atlantic Morocco is. I think it's got colder nights, especially colder winter nights, with the possibility of some frosts at the higher elevations (so not effected the teleported land itself, but maybe providing some spring moisture) The big uncertainty here would be when Nero gets deposed and what sort of chaos would follow. Given the circumstances the timing could be different which is also likely to change the location and status of possible claimants. It could be that the ISOT event will trigger unrest or possibly that the uncertainty causes people to stick to the familiar and Nero stays in charge a bit longer. Good question on Nero. I'd bet on him still being toast pretty quickly, drastic change usually being considered a bad omen, but immediate post-succession dynamics getting scrambled a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 20, 2024 13:58:28 GMT
OK, now I think I will change up the scenario a little bit. What if much of the Levant, the Phoenecia, Samaria, and Judaea (Yahud) districts of the Persian Empire's Eber-Nari (Greater Syrian) Satrapy, gets swapped with western Iberia/Lusitania in 333 BCE, while Alexanders the Great's Macedonian Hoplites are overrunning the Persians in Asia Minor but have not gotten to the Levant yet? OTL Persian Empire satrapies: www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/54080589500/in/photostream/lightbox/Teleportation scenario: www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/54079252012/in/photostream/lightbox/This scenario sends native populations of Judaea and Samaria, Jews and other peoples at this time, and Phoenecians of Lebanon and the Syrian coast, and the resident Persian garrisons and central officials, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic shore, a few degrees latitude north of their prior position, covering over much of Portugal and Galicia. The Dead Sea and Jordan River are brought over to Iberia as well. The equally surprised residents of ancient Lusitania/western Iberian coastal lands end up in the vacated space in the eastern Mediterranean between the Sinai and the Syrian hinterland. This has a few interesting effects. The Punics/Phoenicians of Carthage (Karth-Hadast) in North Africa, and their Punic fellows who had set up colonies elsewhere on the North African coast, western Mediterranean islands, and south Iberian coasts, find that their motherland, including Carthage's OG-original gangster mother city of Tyre, is now west of them, on the Atlantic side of Iberia, to the north. Fairly soon I would expect real power and authority of resident Persian officials to erode in favor of native Phoenician and Jewish forces. Happily, for Tyre, it is saved by its ASB geographical change from its brutal siege, sack, and massacre by the forces of Alexander. How are the dueling Persian and Macedonian armies affected by the sudden disappearance and replacement of the Levantine coast they know and expect by a different stretch of coastland populated by unfamiliar barbarians who know neither of them nor the Egyptians? Also, the Phoenician naval bases pressed into service on behalf of the Persians are gone, and would be unavailable to the Macedonians and Greeks under Alexander as they conquer the place. Does this cause any complication for the Macedonian conquest of Egypt? The removal of Jerusalem and Judaea removes the mixing of the majority of Jews and centers of Jewish life with Hellenism after the completion of Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire. It is not that no Jews or Jewish communities are exposed to Hellenism, there were substantial Egyptian and Babylonian Jewish communities by this time, but the priestly and temple hierarchy of Jerusalem that the Persians had allowed to get reestablished and reconcentrate in Judaea and Samaria is now far west of the Hellenistic east, the rest of the Semitic Aramaic east, with the Phoenicians and their Carthaginian Punic West Mediterranean offspring as their most sophisticated neighbors, and completely unfamiliar Iberians, Celtiberians, and Basque peoples as their new landward neighbors to the east in place of the sons of Ishmael. We know about two centuries down the line this entire area may be destined to fall under Rome, but much can change in the meantime. 333 BCE is long, long before the Barcids set up their extensive empire penetrating into the interior of Spain. Tyre and transplanted Phoenicia is likely to take over and intensify the trade for Cornish-British tin, and probably develop other trades and interactions with the European Atlantic coasts. Some Jews are likely to be present in their larger trading centers. 3 Semitic languages and scripts will be introduced to Iberia, Phoenician, Hebrew, and likely Aramaic as a lingua franca. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 20, 2024 16:27:06 GMT
Well that's a totally different scenario and going to cause a lot of confusion and butterflies. Points that come to mind. a) Barring some unfortunate event Alexander will continue and conquer the Persian empire and probably go further east as OTL. It might be speeded up by the lack of a seige of Tyre and the loss of those fairly developed land for the Persians as well as the weaker navy they will have as a result. At some point news will come from the distant west of what's happened to the region but I doubt that it will affect Alexander's opinions and actions other than possibly cursing the gods that they denied he those lands for his empire.
Not sure how this would affect his empire in the longer term. Likely still a succession crisis when he dies and it splinters with this region being a little less wealthy because of its lower population and social development. Also presumably there won't be rivers such as the Tagus feeding through this territory so it could be more barren relying on coastal rains for its water without either its OTL or the original water sources like the Jordan. However its crucial position will still make it a battleground between whoever emerges as having power in Egypt and Syria.
b) For the regions transported there will be direct and indirect impacts. For the former, depending on how confident they would be about whether the Persian empire would have won or not the assorted communities may be relieved that their been avoided a Greek conquest. In part for religion as the Jews won't like polytheistic rulers whereas the Persians have been pretty lenient with them while the Phoneticians have long had a fair measure of rivalry with the Greeks in many naval and trading areas. This is more likely to affect the Jews I suspect given their deep belief in divine support. I suspect that the bulk of the Jews, especially those transported, will still consider their land, in its new location as the promised although some, especially those left behind might consider it still the historical location. However I could see at least some Jews from the east seeking to move westwards to the new location.
In terms of their environment, instead of being secure as part of a massive empire - albeit one in its dying days - their now on the verge of Europe and will have to deal with the loss of all trading links and new 'barbarian' neighbours, some of which are likely to be hostile because their lost both friends and their own trade routes now cut off by the newcomers. Also the Tagus especially is now going to join the Jordan I think, presumably then flowing into the Dead Seam which will get more water, rather than the ocean. I suspect the Phoneticians will do better here as they seem to have been more sophisticated and should be able to defend their cities better than the Jews and also they can look to establish trade routes in their new location.
They will have to make changes as instead of being on the eastern end of the Med they now sit on the open ocean which will mean needing to deal with tides and far worse storms and other weather. There is the possibility that this will prompt naval technological change to handle those waters more regularly which could have an impact on how far their trade goes. Possibly beyond the Tin Islands [SW Britain] to the north to say N Germany and Scandinavia and in the south further down the African coastline.
Of course the other influence will be the old Phoneticians running into Carthaginian trading regions and ships. A lot would depend on how well the two groups interact or not. It could be Phonetician traders take over Carthaginian trade outside the Med, which their in a position to do, or even inside Iberia and they could be the power coming to dominate Iberia rather than Carthage. Which would restrict the trade options of Carthage, although that could make them concentrate on the central Med rather than just make them weaker. Or the two groups could end up combining against the perceived Greek threat which might mean Carthage comes to dominate Sicily and take over Syracuse before Rome can get a foothold there and possibly aid from the now western Phoenicia could make a big difference in any war with a growing Rome. Or somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 22, 2024 1:17:58 GMT
Interesting scenario. The big uncertainty would be how the assorted groups would react to what they would see as divine intervention. I would expect the Jews to see it as a sign of god's intervention on their behave, although it does cut them off from the rest of their population around the empire. This could make them distinctly more fervent in their beliefs with more influence being gained by the Zealots, which would be bad for groups in Judea which were either non-Jewish or not the 'right' type of Jew - which would probably include not only 'pagans' but groups like the Samaritans and the early Christians, at least those in the province. This could This paragraph looks like it has a sentence and thought accidentally severed at the end. How the Jews there would interact with those left in the empire and whether Jerusalem would still maintain its position as the centre of the faith, or some seek to build a new city where the old one used to be would be interesting. Which is the promised land, the place where the bulk of the Jews live and their ancient cities are or were they used to be in Palestine?? That is a good question I had not put much thought into. wWuld there be a substantial fraction of people, then or later, who believe that the "real" Judaea/Israel/Jerusalem/Holy Land is actually in its original location, despite the swapping out of the original population, the changing out of the landforms, and the disappearance of known monuments and ruins? Or, would it be universally accepted, by those who care about where Judaea/Israel/Jerusalem/Bethlehem/Nazareth/Hebron - the various Holy Sites of Old Testament Judaism and Christianity, as appropriate - are located, that the new, teleported location on the northwest African, or Iberian coast is the real, genuine article? Because that's where the familiar land features, monuments, and populations of believers are? I had been taking the latter for granted. However Jerusalem is probably going to be less important, I'm not sure why in the long-run, assuming the Christian Biblical canon is still basically the Old Testament and New Testament If a figure like Mohammad was to appear then, especially once he takes a position distancing himself from the old monotheistic faiths, then its likely that Jerusalem is going to be unimportant to him. This I am more inclined to agree with. It will just be so far from Arabia and its caravan routes. Though the Jews and their religion won't be unfamiliar to the Arabs, Jerusalem, the real one by I think majority agreement, will be very far away, much further than Constantinople and even Rome. However that's a long time after the event and while there were causes for a surge of Arabs out of the peninsula whether it would have a religious context and of what sort would be a subject of uncertainty. Absolutely spot on....about the uncertainties of all this. Of course the other influence will be the old Phoneticians running into Carthaginian trading regions and ships. A lot would depend on how well the two groups interact or not. It could be Phonetician traders take over Carthaginian trade outside the Med, which their in a position to do, or even inside Iberia and they could be the power coming to dominate Iberia rather than Carthage. Which would restrict the trade options of Carthage, although that could make them concentrate on the central Med rather than just make them weaker. Or the two groups could end up combining against the perceived Greek threat which might mean Carthage comes to dominate Sicily and take over Syracuse before Rome can get a foothold there and possibly aid from the now western Phoenicia could make a big difference in any war with a growing Rome. Or somewhere in between. A nicely comprehensive consideration on old versus new Punic possible relations - conflict or confrontations, and comprehensive on other matters, related to land and water features, the reach of trade and so on. Well done! |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2024 8:12:45 GMT
Interesting scenario. The big uncertainty would be how the assorted groups would react to what they would see as divine intervention. I would expect the Jews to see it as a sign of god's intervention on their behave, although it does cut them off from the rest of their population around the empire. This could make them distinctly more fervent in their beliefs with more influence being gained by the Zealots, which would be bad for groups in Judea which were either non-Jewish or not the 'right' type of Jew - which would probably include not only 'pagans' but groups like the Samaritans and the early Christians, at least those in the province. This could This paragraph looks like it has a sentence and thought accidentally severed at the end. How the Jews there would interact with those left in the empire and whether Jerusalem would still maintain its position as the centre of the faith, or some seek to build a new city where the old one used to be would be interesting. Which is the promised land, the place where the bulk of the Jews live and their ancient cities are or were they used to be in Palestine?? That is a good question I had not put much thought into. wWuld there be a substantial fraction of people, then or later, who believe that the "real" Judaea/Israel/Jerusalem/Holy Land is actually in its original location, despite the swapping out of the original population, the changing out of the landforms, and the disappearance of known monuments and ruins? Or, would it be universally accepted, by those who care about where Judaea/Israel/Jerusalem/Bethlehem/Nazareth/Hebron - the various Holy Sites of Old Testament Judaism and Christianity, as appropriate - are located, that the new, teleported location on the northwest African, or Iberian coast is the real, genuine article? Because that's where the familiar land features, monuments, and populations of believers are? I had been taking the latter for granted. However Jerusalem is probably going to be less important, I'm not sure why in the long-run, assuming the Christian Biblical canon is still basically the Old Testament and New Testament If a figure like Mohammad was to appear then, especially once he takes a position distancing himself from the old monotheistic faiths, then its likely that Jerusalem is going to be unimportant to him. This I am more inclined to agree with. It will just be so far from Arabia and its caravan routes. Though the Jews and their religion won't be unfamiliar to the Arabs, Jerusalem, the real one by I think majority agreement, will be very far away, much further than Constantinople and even Rome. However that's a long time after the event and while there were causes for a surge of Arabs out of the peninsula whether it would have a religious context and of what sort would be a subject of uncertainty. Absolutely spot on....about the uncertainties of all this. Of course the other influence will be the old Phoneticians running into Carthaginian trading regions and ships. A lot would depend on how well the two groups interact or not. It could be Phonetician traders take over Carthaginian trade outside the Med, which their in a position to do, or even inside Iberia and they could be the power coming to dominate Iberia rather than Carthage. Which would restrict the trade options of Carthage, although that could make them concentrate on the central Med rather than just make them weaker. Or the two groups could end up combining against the perceived Greek threat which might mean Carthage comes to dominate Sicily and take over Syracuse before Rome can get a foothold there and possibly aid from the now western Phoenicia could make a big difference in any war with a growing Rome. Or somewhere in between. A nicely comprehensive consideration on old versus new Punic possible relations - conflict or confrontations, and comprehensive on other matters, related to land and water features, the reach of trade and so on. Well done!
On the 1st point correct. I think I was intending to say that this isolation after a divine event boosting the influence of the Zealots is likely to be bad for groups they think of as impure/heretical which could greatly change the development of Christianity especially. Paul has already played a major role in spreading the faith, or at least his form of it, beyond Palestine and the wider Levant and according to legend at least established a Christian community in Rome itself. As such it will survive although whether it still conquers could be a question. If it does then its likely to be even more hostile to Judaism than OTL. Which could be bad for the bulk of the Jews, now in the extreme west of Europe, which is likely to become staunchly Christian - at least unless and until another group like the Muslims take over the region.
On the location of the promised land I think because it contains the bulk of the population and the physical infrastructure, including the Temple the new location will win out. However because its so far away from Jews outside Judea and initially at least outside the Roman empire - ditto for the earlier dated scenario - you could see some Jews in regions such as Egypt and Mesopotamia making pilgrimages to the old site as far easier and more practical to them.
I was thinking that Jerusalem is likely to be less important to a Christian empire and later because its likely to be more associated with Judaism and also going to be further away from the primary centres of early Christianity in the ME/Anatolia/Greece region. Of the early centres of political/religious importance only Rome was in the west and probably only received its importance in the modern faith because of the calamities that overran the older patriarchies. However could be wrong about this. As you say the core story of Christ is still set there but if much of that early community dies out because of purges after the ISOT its likely to feel tainted to many Christians I suspect.
|
|
