[Mikolaj]

...the Punic Wars, would it then occupy the important place in Western history Rome does?

Speaking of Rome, today is the Ides of March...beware!

[GandalfTheGrey]

although its fun to speculate, there are in reality an infinite number of possibilities

[briansmith86]

If Carthage had won

....You would have never been born.... and more importantly plastic novelty ass would have never been invented

[GandalfTheGrey]

we could all be walking on Mars for all you know

[Thunderhawk]

If Rome was subdued, completely, and limited/didnt grow, then Christians would be very small in number, and I suspect Islam would never have formed (or atleast, very very different).

I suspect the Greeks would rise in power again, and Celtic Britons would be a major power.



Without the training, education and material produced and distributed by Rome, I suspect (off the top opf my head):


Spain and the Biriths isles would be Celtic, though Spain would be largely ruled by foriegners and the British Isles united and ruled from Wales.

France (Gaul) would be over run by the Germans.
Most of Germany would stay Slavic, and the Alps would become Slavic.
Huns, Magyars, Tatars and other Asiatic hordes would set up in Eastern Europe (mainly central and S Euro-Russia).

Viking raids would still have happened, but limited and fewer (less concentrated wealth to plunder, less equipment and knowledge gained, and a more militant population resisting. I suspect they would not have taken Moscow, and only a slim chance at taking Novgorod)


Balkans would be largely Greek and Illyrian, few or no Slavs. Probably ruled (or influenced) by the Parthian/Persians.

Southern Italy would stay/be Greek, probably home of an independant Greek community.

Modern day Poland would stay Goth, Slovakia and North Western Euro-Russia (Moscow and Novgorod) would be a border region between Slavs and a region populated by Asiatic hordes.

Caucasses and the region north of it would be part of Persia/Parthia.


Funny, perhabs, I see Briton becoming a power, and I see the areas of modern Spain and France becoming powers (assuming they arent divided or over ran beforehand) aswell - good farm land, geogrpahy and a similar/united people helps the development of power.

Indpendant Israel and Basque states - though probably vasals (note: still indpendant) to the local power.

Islam, if it develops, would spread to the Greeks (be resisted) and the Celts (be resisted) and the Slavs and Goths (minor absorbtion)



.. just off the top of my head.

[starman2003]

Independent Israel

No, the Parthians and Persians would've ruled them for centuries. There would've been revolts but Sassanid Persia was good at taking fortified cities e.g. Dura and Hatra.

[Spin]

...the Punic Wars, would it then occupy the important place in Western history Rome does?

No, Carthage was mainly a trading power. Rome was mainly interested in conquest which is why it became the power it was, and also why it triumphed in the Punic Wars.

Southern Italy would stay/be Greek, probably home of an independant Greek community.

It wasn't at the time of the first war, I fail to why it would return to Greek culture.

[Thunderhawk]

@ starman2003

I see Israel existing as a Vasal to other powers in the area, its just a POV.

It wasn't at the time of the first war, I fail to why it would return to Greek culture.

With Rome falling/occupied, I see the Greeks re-emerging as powers in the Med. and restablishing old colonies and trading posts, aswell as expanding and making new ones.

.. untill they are subdued from the East.

[Vladimir]

Huns, Magyars, Tatars and other Asiatic hordes would set up in Eastern Europe (mainly central and S Euro-Russia).

Still, Slavic expansion eastwards would later occur, pushing the hordes away.
You see, Eastern Slavs were a barrier shielding Europe from the hordes Asia produced. But instead of eroding, it grew stronger and eventually moved towards the hordes, defeating them.
I think this expansion eastwards would be even more rapid, if Slavs would not be able to colonise Balkans.

[Spin]

You see, Eastern Slavs were a barrier shielding Europe from the hordes Asia produced

Oh really? What about the Parthians? They existed perfectly comfortably without having to fight the Indian or Chinese powers constantly.

With Rome falling/occupied, I see the Greeks re-emerging as powers in the Med. and restablishing old colonies and trading posts, aswell as expanding and making new ones.

I'd disagree, I think that Pontus would have emerged the dominant power in the Aegean.

[Thunderhawk]

Without Roman arms and education, I dont believe the Germans would have been able to take what is now Eastern Germany, back then it was Slavic and it was the Slavs that came from there (escaping Germano Christianization) that made up a large part of the Balkan slavs.

I'd disagree, I think that Pontus would have emerged the dominant power in the Aegean.

With a victorious Carthage and a defeated/destroyed Rome, I can see old Persian trades allies as flourishing (independantly). However, I still see the Greeks remergng as powers. Perhabs not "the" power in the med, but a regional power - and that region being Europian Med IMO.

[Stipe]

It's a counterfactual question. You can't say that so many things would probably have happened if something didn't, because it did. We may just as well postulate that Khublai Khan would move his capital to Manhattan.

I especially find it difficult to predict its impact on the whole of population movements and political changes across Eurasia. Why exactly does it become an inevitability that Gaul would be overran by Germans? Similarly, how do you know that a state in Spain couldn't be established either natively or by an incoming tribe? The attractions of the empire were one impetus for migrations, but they weren't the only one.

Simply, an infinite number of things could have happened based on an infinite number of possible outcomes.

A few things I find questionable in particular:

Viking raids would still have happened, but limited and fewer (less concentrated wealth to plunder, less equipment and knowledge gained, and a more militant population resisting. I suspect they would not have taken Moscow, and only a slim chance at taking Novgorod)

Moscow (and probably even the great towns of Kiev and Novgorod at least in any significant way beyond trading posts) didn't exist when the Vikings entered Rus'. More importantly, I don't know how one would claim that there would be a more militant population present. One might suppose it from the previous assumption of steppe nomad armies coming into Eastern Europe; but they did that historically too. The area of Novgorod for example is far removed from that area and in an area that disadvantages steppe peoples. Similarly, we can't even say if the Vikings' entrance had to take the form of raids (or if it even did - chronicles, although not the most reliable sources, say otherwise and it's not unheard of for slavs to invite foreigners to lead their states). I also don't know why Vikings raids would be more limited and fewer. Perhaps outright attacks, but the same population pressures should exist prompting at the very least colonization and conflict (again as historically happened)

Balkans would be largely Greek and Illyrian, few or no Slavs. Probably ruled (or influenced) by the Parthian/Persians.

and

Without Roman arms and education, I dont believe the Germans would have been able to take what is now Eastern Germany, back then it was Slavic and it was the Slavs that came from there (escaping Germano Christianization) that made up a large part of the Balkan slavs.

I think a lot of the assumptions made here are rather factually problematic. Firstly, the slavs did not originate in East Germany, nor did the Balkan slavs probably migrate from their. Those lands were territories that were moved into by the slavs as Germanic peoples fled westward in the face of Hunnic assault. The tribes of the second wave at least we know came from territory that is today southern Poland (around Krakow) and Moravia in the Czech Republic.

The Balkan slavs (actually, the first wave as the Serbs and Croats arrived in the second wave) arrived as part of the Avar tribal confederacy which had subjugated them in the area of Poland and the Carpathians. The Christian Germanic tribes were already far to the west at that time and the German conquest of the East was not completed until several centuries after the Slavic migration had already occured (meaning already well into the feudal period).

This is further related to something said elsewhere, about Poland remaining Gothic and Eastern Germany remaining Slavic. That would actually be quite impossible as a Gothic Poland would have blocked Slavic migration westward in the first place. I'm also unsure as to why Poland would stay gothic, but I don't have the time to talk about that right now.

[Clausewitz]

It's a counterfactual question. You can't say that so many things would probably have happened if something didn't, because it did. We may just as well postulate that Khublai Khan would move his capital to Manhattan.

I especially find it difficult to predict its impact on the whole of population movements and political changes across Eurasia. Why exactly does it become an inevitability that Gaul would be overran by Germans? Similarly, how do you know that a state in Spain couldn't be established either natively or by an incoming tribe? The attractions of the empire were one impetus for migrations, but they weren't the only one.

Simply, an infinite number of things could have happened based on an infinite number of possible outcomes.

QFT.

We're talking about outcomes in history at least a thousand years down the line. We record battles, elections, and successions in history within the last century that could have turned the world on its head had even the slightest change been made. History is chaotic.

Still, though, it's an entertaining curiosity to bear out these fantasies but I think it's at least as relevant to do it in a computer game or a board game or a stricter kind of simulation than a broad historical survey.

[Cato]

We all know that this task is impossible without Hari Seldons P-history thingy.

Besides, as someone already has pointed out. History is chaotic. Even the slightest change, and nothing will look or be the same.

[Spin]

Why dom't people look at the short term, rather than the long?

Looking at the short term it is considerably easier to guess the effects of what would have happened had Carthage won either the first or second war.

To say that the entire idea is stupid is false, it only becomes so if you try and look at it over a time period of more than say 200 years.

[Stipe]

Well, I disagree even for the short term of, say, a decade or shorter. Although it can be fun, the whole thing ends up being built on false premises. In the case of Rome for example, there were several decisive moments early on when it could quite possibly have been completely defeated, but it defied that and went on to conquer. By changing one of those results, you may be presented with a number of choices with some appearing more likely than the others, by just assuming that the most likely would occur in your narrative (which is the only logical thing you can do) you create an inevitability of logic that never actually exists and is why historians specifically avoid these kinds of questions.

Now, I'm not saying you can't do it for entertainment's sake, but it needs to be understood that each narrative is basically just a fantasy scenario and doesn't have any real academic value.

[Thunderhawk]

The Roman empire brought about a technical, education and equipment exchange in Europe.

Without the equipment made by the Romans, the education it gave its "allies", and the big threat that unifies oppositions, I see much of Europe staying disorganized and/or small, and having limited equipment and a small knowledge of how to make it.

Frankish swords were better then what the Vikings made (one of the reasons they went to France), which was a technical knowledge kick started by Rome.

German conquest of Eastern Germany was possible by a couple reasons, and IMHO, because they had an organized structure (from Roman beurocracy, Christian unification, and the holliness of their cause ) and equipment (either Roman/Byzantine, or heavily influenced by those designs, and using their techniques) they were able to do so.


Many of the Slavs of the Balkans are from East Germany (your second wave?) after the great slavic uprising in East Germany was put down (or, should I say, reconquest.. as it took a while)




As for the Goths and Poland, Northern modern Poland was Gothic ~1200 years ago, and those Goths then slowly migrated south and out of central Europe. With less unification in Europe, and no Byzantine empire, I see the asiatic hordes migrating into the plains and mild hills of the Balkans/Eastern Europe (much like they did), but with less opposition. With the amount of conflict there, I think the Goths would have stayed in Poland.

Poland being Gothic ~9th Centuary would not stop western migration of the Slavs, as the Slavs had already migrated West (into Germany) centuries earlier.

although its fun to speculate, there are in reality an infinite number of possibilities

I agree.
My intire blurb was just for fun
"What ifs" are great for science and discovery, I see no reason why it cant be applied to History so long as its understood to be a what if.

[Spin]

Now, I'm not saying you can't do it for entertainment's sake, but it needs to be understood that each narrative is basically just a fantasy scenario and doesn't have any real academic value.

I will agree to that to a degree. But the useful thing with such a question is that people must inevtiably look at military strength and leadership abilities of a state couple with culture, in which there is some academic value.

Although I will admit that I am only doing this for entertainment, and that there is not much in the way of academic value in this.

[Stipe]

Many of the Slavs of the Balkans are from East Germany (your second wave?) after the great slavic uprising in East Germany was put down (or, should I say, reconquest.. as it took a while)

It at least wouldn't be the second wave. Slavic migration into the Balkans occured in two distinct waves separated by about a century - although the nature of those waves are pretty different. The first wave was in the 6th century and was a destructive event with slavic tribes under the control of the Avar confederacy, spreading (and settling) as far south as Thessalay being stopped only after the failed attack on Thessalonika. The second wave deals specifically with the Serbs and Croats, neither of whom lived on the territory of modern Germany, who had superior military organization and either from invitation or just on their own moved south and displaced the Avars in that area and created their own principalities (and later kingdoms)

This is where the major problem with this idea comes up for me though. If you're referring to the uprising of 983, that's already some 300-400 years after the second wave of slavic migration was completed so I can't see any possible relationship with that event. Similarly, although the Avars reached Germany, they did not stay there long as the territory was unsuited for their nomadic society and had great difficulty fighting off the Franks. On top of that, Slavs only first appeared in Brandenburg (original Slav form of the name is Branibor) in the early 7th century meaning the first wave of the Balkan slav immigration occured earlier.

As for the Goths and Poland, Northern modern Poland was Gothic ~1200 years ago, and those Goths then slowly migrated south and out of central Europe. With less unification in Europe, and no Byzantine empire, I see the asiatic hordes migrating into the plains and mild hills of the Balkans/Eastern Europe (much like they did), but with less opposition. With the amount of conflict there, I think the Goths would have stayed in Poland.

Poland being Gothic ~9th Centuary would not stop western migration of the Slavs, as the Slavs had already migrated West (into Germany) centuries earlier.

Can you provide references for those dates? They strike me as being far too late as a recognizable Kingdom of Poland under the Piast dynasty was already in existence by the mid 10th century. On the other hand, there was the much earlier gothic migration southwards into the Balkans and Italy (and eventually on into Spain) through the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. It's my understanding that goths inhabited areas of Poland/Belarus/Ukraine at a pretty early date, and had already split with part beginning to move south by the third century and the rest migrating into Pannonia by the the fifth.

And this is another problem, if the Goths had just stayed there, Slavs would have had to migrate across their kingdom to get to Eastern Germany by the 7th century.

Also, for the reason that Slavs were frequently part of the hordes of Turkic lead confederacies there is no reason to surmise that they wouldn't do the same.

[Thunderhawk]

@ Stjepan

Its the ability to correct odd/misunderstood ideas that I always liked about "What ifs". So, thanks for the corrections.

however:

If the first wave was 6th C., then which Slavic group moved into and mixed with the locals of Dacia?

The great slavic uprising, and subsequent reconquest struck me as a peak and then end of the migration of Slavs from E. Germany to the Balkans.




As for the Goths in Poland, Ive read about it here and there for a while, just google it if you want a source or two. 9th C. was (more or less) the end of the Goths in Poland, as many of them had left earlier and the remainder was being absorbed into other local groups.