1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

what if hannibal had burned down rome

Discussion in 'World History' started by holy king, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    It's not arcane. :p But yeah, Seleucid Empire, Arche Seleukeia, "that thing that that dude founded back in the day in like Iran and Iraq and Syria somewhere".
     
  2. AndrewG

    AndrewG Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Alaska
  3. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    It is convenient how Herr Anderson kinda just ignores the Hellenic world. I am somewhat amused.
     
  4. holy king

    holy king Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    16,323
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    hm... the wiki blob may be wrong, but why would judaism (and as a consequence no major monotheistic religions) not exist in that timeline?
     
  5. AndrewG

    AndrewG Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Alaska
    Hmm, I don't remember any specific references to Judaism in the story. Maybe without the Jewish diaspora Judaism stayed local and never really caught on in the rest of the world.

    The no Christianity or Islam is a given, though.
     
  6. tariqari

    tariqari Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    104
    Then Rome still would have invaded Carthage and slaughtered them twice as hard.
     
  7. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    How exactly would Rome, a destroyed city, invade Carthage, a not so destroyed city? By that logic, the Seljuk Turks are biding their time, preparing for conquest.
     
  8. silver 2039

    silver 2039 Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Messages:
    16,208
    Indeed. If Rome had been burnt the other Latin States would have broken free and come to an agreement with Carthage.
     
  9. Taras Bulba

    Taras Bulba gone

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    No Rome = fall of Roman Empire = rise of celtic and Germanic tribes and no Byzantine Empire

    No Byzantine Empire = stronger Ottoman Empire = surpressed Balkan states sooner and attack on Germanic tribes/Russian tribes

    Early attack on Russia = quicker fall of Russia = Rise of Sweden or Poland?

    Rise of Poland = disproportionate power in Europe = WWI sooner in Medieval ages

    WWI sooner = no real reason for Hitlers rise = no holocaust

    OH MY GOSH, if Hannibal attacked and sacked Rome he could've prevented the holocaust!!!
     
  10. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    "Rise of Celtic and Germanic tribes"? :p They were already pretty powerful at this point in time; as a matter of fact, during the time when Roma was theoretically being sacked by Qarthadastim soldiers, the Gauls had reoccupied the Cisalpina and pushed out the Roman colonies there. Obviously there would be no Eastern Empire of the Romaioi without a Romani state to precede it, as well.
    You lost me there. The Turks don't come into the picture right now (and won't for another seven centuries), and assuming that the Devlet-i Aliye-yi will rise in the historical fashion - which presupposes about a millennium and a half of the exact same Eastern history, regardless of Roman impact on the Hellenistic states (did you read anything that I said about the potential hegemony of the Arche Seleukeia? ;)) is patently silly anyway.
    So the whole post was a joke? :confused:
     
  11. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,093
    Location:
    In orbit
    Yes, what if? Well, - besides the obvious fact that he couldn't - we'll never know, since we can't redo history. (Ceterum censeo this thread belongs in the Off Topic section.)
     
  12. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    How exactly is Poland a Disproportionate power? We were the Strongest in Europe at one point! We in the mid-to late middle ages were very strong economically, militarily etc. The only thing that would happen in this alternative reality is that we'd have our 1600 borders in the 1300's and we'd never lose Kiev enless Russia becomes stronger letter on, but i'd still doubt they'd be strong enough.

    Therefore you have to rethink your last few idea's. WWI wouldn't have happened in the middle ages. The only thing near enough would be an elongated Seven Years War which took place in the Early Modern Period anyway.
     
  13. Yui108

    Yui108 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Chicago
    Basically what Dachs said. Hannibal had one of the most massive armies in the ancient world, and he didn't even think of besieging Rome.
     
  14. Yui108

    Yui108 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Chicago
    When on Earth was Poland the strongest nation in Europe?
     
  15. silver 2039

    silver 2039 Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Messages:
    16,208
    In every Polish nationalist's dreams.
     
  16. Taras Bulba

    Taras Bulba gone

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    I was referring to the upset in the balance of power that happened in times such as when Germany unified, etc. I'm not even sure what a disproportionate power is, I was just saying that the power IN Europe would be altered if Poland gained more power, etc
    I figured I was making it obvious for ANYONE to really understand that my ideas were getting more and more ridiculous as they went along, as alternative history threads are quite pointless.

    Things happen in history for reasons. You can either go the loser way, and say "oh, well... that COULDN'T have happened so lets just say it couldn't" or "go with what is asked and make up something ridiculous as no one will ever know"

    I chose the second option despite almost everyone choosing the first
     
  17. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,645
    Ok, I don't mean to contradict you, but can you explain why any attempt at sieging Rome would be impossible? If I'm not mistaken (and I can't check it now) Rome lost some allies after Cannae (Capua, etc) and most of the other italian cities were effectively neutral for some time. Hannibal could certainly have assembled a siege train from Capua. I guess that he didn't have enough men for a siege, also - spreading them would make them vulnerable to the remaining roman field army.
    I thought that his problem was not Rome's fortification (even the best fortifications can be defeated), but a lack of soldiers. Can you see any scenario where he could have won? An effective macedonian intervention, or even just further support from Carthage (suppose Hasdrubal hadn't gotten his army trapped against a river)?
     
  18. Godwynn

    Godwynn March to the Sea

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    20,492
    That would be a good thing.

    :)
     
  19. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Don't be hatin' on alternate history. It's valid, or at least entertaining, and it can, if not done frivolously, shed light on some events.
    Didn't have enough men for a prolonged siege, and the Romani had the ability to draw on many of their Italian allies still, despite the field defeats and the Capuan defection. Hannibal had also suffered tremendous losses at Cannae (the victory, IMHO, is less of a good example of a battle of annihilation than, say, Panion), which weakened his chances. As it happens, the Romani had plenty of time to raise new forces; their manpower reserves were simply huge, compared to their enemy's.
    A combination of the two. Besides, as the second Philippos famously said, any fortress can be taken with an assload of gold...but Hannibal hadn't the money, or the men to fully blockade Roma, much less a fleet to prevent resupply down the Tiber as in the Gothic Wars of seven centuries later.
    It depends on the character of Philippos V. Destroying the Romani really wouldn't have helped the Makedonians in the short run, because their involvement in Hellas was rather minor. Philippos always thought of the Pergamenes, Rhodioi, the Achaians, and Aitolians as his primary enemies, well, up until Kynoskephalai. He signed the famous treaty with Hannibal, yes, but he really had no intention of carrying out the terms, and with good reason. Effective Makedonian intervention, therefore, is probably out of the question unless you want to put in a PoD further back. But Hasdrubal is perhaps more likely. Have somebody other than Nero elected consul for 207, and the Qarthadastim would have had not nearly so much trouble uniting their forces. It's possible, anyway. But in this case the result of the Roman victories in the west and Sicilia might either allow the creation of a Republic-in-exile, or perhaps forces would be withdrawn to deal with the new threat.

    As can be seen from the success of the British Revolution timeline, though, implausible premises can still sometimes yield interesting situations. I have already commented on this in some detail, I believe, but it would be interesting to see the career of the third Antiochos in the absence of a defeat at Magnesia. A real Seleukid revival has interesting consequences later on.
     
  20. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    1350-1400'ish.

    Although that was mostly due to the fact that Poland was the onlky country in Europe to not be hit by the Black Death...

    Oh, but i still don't understand how that leads to WWI in 1200 AD.

    I know history pretty well, so i'm curious as to what could've happened if this happened or that person did that instead of this. If your not, then don't post.
     

Share This Page