No Rome?

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete amici,

I had an interesting thought this morning. There are many "what-if" books on the sci-fi market, about a world where the Roman Empire never fell.

But what of the opposite? What if Rome had not existed? What if they had been crushed by the Etruscan League? What if the Carthaginians had finished Rome as thoroughly as Rome did to the Carthaginians?

What would be the political situation? What would the current world lack?

We all acknowledge the great debt the world owes to the Romans. So what would have happened if a city spanning seven hills had not become an empire? I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Publius Dionysius Mus]

Salvete!

A tough question, and in my opinion very difficult to answer. Simply because we don't have as much information on other people than we had on Rome. For example Carthage; the Phoenicians would have possibly build their own empire if they had defeated the Romans. But we don't have much detailed information on them to be able to find out how everything would have been like further in History. It could be the same as now, with the Germanic invasions in the fifth century, and then maybe the Vandals sacking Carthage.

The Etruscans, Greeks and all other people from Asia could also have ruled an empire, but in my opinion not as big as the Roman empire. Greeks, witht heir system of city-states, would have never been able to rule a vast empire as big as the Roman empire. Same problem with Etruscans and Asians.

One thing though, Gaul would not have been conquered by any of those people, I think. It lies to far north for Carthaginians, and the Etruscans, Asians and Greeks would have no interest in it, simply because of the minor trade possibilities.

Just my two eurocents...

Valete bene

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Indeed a tough call.

Well surely the world would look different. I think that if the Etruscan Confederation would have revived after regaining Latium and continued to grow, they would sooner or later come into conflict with Carthago and/or the Greeks. A safe bet would be that the Greeks would come under fire first, as they were the Etruscans' and Carthaginians' common foe. Perhaps such a conflict would eventually destroy all parties involved and give rise to a newcomer (like Sparta vs Athens and then Macedonia conquering them all).

Also, some things in history would be unaltered by these (non)-events, such as the coming of the Gauls in the 4th century BCE and the pressure of the Germans in the 4th century CE and onwards. Perhaps, at that time, there would be a Celtic empire or a Celto-Germanic one?

Scorpio

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete,


Indeed, hard to answer.

One thing (in my opinion) is sure: the Phoenicians would never have ruled an empire as big as Rome. They had the chance to conquer land before rome rose, and they never did. They simply established colonies (as Carthago) but didn't surpress the local people as the Romans did. Their interest was mainly trade.

I think there would have been a more scattered landscape, with smaleer empires, doomed to co-operate. The phoenicians certainly would have been one of the most powerful, as they managed to controll the trade on the mediterranean.


Valete,

Loc