What if a far western Greek polis dominated the Western Mediterranean, instead of the Roman Republic?

[Roma_Victrix]

In the 3rd century BC, the biggest contenders for the domination over the Western Mediterranean basin were obviously the Roman Republic and the Republic of Carthage. Yet what if another city-state had come to prominence instead? For instance, Syracuse (which was already relatively powerful) or the Greek city-state of Massalia (Greek: Μασσαλία), now modern-day Marseille in southern France could have hypothetically become far more powerful than they ever were if they had played the same game as the Romans or Carthaginians.

If Syracuse, Massalia, or some other Greek polis conquered the western half of the Mediterranean world, would a Greek power then have assumed the same mantle that the Roman Empire did with its conquest of the whole Mediterranean plus most of Western Europe (minus Ireland, Scotland, Eastern Germany, etc.)? And if that were the case, what would be the impact on all of history going forward? Given the preeminence of refined Koine Greek even in the Roman world and among its elites, I'd say Latin would be of marginal importance in this alternate reality, if not going entirely extinct like Carthaginian Punic had by the fall of the Roman Empire. If Germanic tribes invaded and this Greek empire collapsed, the languages of Western Europe would most likely be Germanic tongues fused with Greek, instead of Romance languages and Germanic languages influenced by Latin.

Oh, the possibilities!

[x187x BigEazyE]

I wonder what 'that' particular professional army would function like. And if an Imperial Empire would have resulted. A Greek Imperial Empire. Interesting....... what if Iskander had not died so early, what would of happened if he went West and Hellanized the Region. reading your post made me think of that possibility.

[Hobbes]

You're pretty much right on the linguistic stuff, but it all depends on how long this empire would have lasted; you wouldn't see much Greek influence if the entire state collapsed after 50 years, for example. As for Syrakousai, I think they were likely candidates for this position, since they had a long history of defeating Etruscans and Carthaginians.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Could these Greeks have contained Carthage? I could say that Spain would definitely fall to the Punici but could the Carthaginians continue into Gaul and Italy?

I think certainly we would have some syncretism in Gaul the way the Gauls had with the Romans. As we know that the Gauls had been influenced by the Greeks to an extent in the north and much greater towards the south. A Greek dominated west would likely result in the total conversion of Gallic peoples into Greek culture (I'm talking language influence, religious influence, coins, sculptures, buildings, etc) but to a much larger scale. Most likely the Gauls would change the construction methods of their towns and oppida to reflect the much more sturdier Greek constructions. Quite likely the Gauls might also totally adopt the Greek alphabet.

[Roma_Victrix]

Not just the Gauls, but also the Celtic Britons, the Iberian Celts, the Germanic tribes inhabiting what is now the western half of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. In my hypothetical scenario, this Greek city-state has basically conquered the same amount of territory the Roman Empire did at its height in the 2nd century AD.

[neoptolemos]

Well that's a really interesting question.
I remember Keegan lamenting about the eventual conquering of the Greeks by Romans.

I ll come up with a more eloquent post later

[Roma_Victrix]

Hmm...the initial conquest was bloody, what with the leveling of Corinth. The Greek historian Polybius himself was taken as a prisoner and deported along with many others to Rome, where he became a tutor for the sons of Lucius Aemilius Paulus. That being said, as the situation normalized and battles like Philippi were no longer fought on the Greek mainland, Greece did fairly well for herself under Roman occupation. I'm thinking of the many public works sponsored in Greece by Roman emperors, who sought to rebuild Greek cities and even ceremoniously assume citizenship of Greek poleis like that of Athens. The advancement of material wealth, literature, science, engineering, and technology also flourished in Greece during the Roman period. During the Roman Empire various prominent Greeks also climbed the social ladder to hold posts as prestigious as Roman senators.

However, it's fairly obvious that if a western Greek polis had conquered the Mediterranean world and the boundaries of what was the Roman Empire, the Greeks would have been in an even greater position. They would not only be the arbiters of higher culture and learning, they would be the dominant ethnic group as opposed to the Latin-speaking Romans. The latter would probably have faded into history as quickly as the Punic-speaking Carthaginians did following the destruction of Carthage.

[Niles Crane]

Well that's a really interesting question.
I remember Keegan lamenting about the eventual conquering of the Greeks by Romans.

I ll come up with a more eloquent post later

Or it might be said the Greeks 'conquered' the Romans around the second century BC.

[neoptolemos]

Or it might be said the Greeks 'conquered' the Romans around the second century BC.

Well I believe the Magna Graecia Greeks had already "conquered" the Romans but the amount of looting the Romans brought back from the Greek expeditions was indeed so overwhelming that the houses of the Roman patricians became swarmed up with Greek art

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

One question,considering Rome was closer to the Greek states,would they have allied with them against Carthage?

[Torvus]

Considering how the Hellenistic world worked and incorporated the local populations of their conquests into their society, I imagine Rome would get incorporated into this "western" Hellenic empire. I like to imagine Massalia (Though I know Syracuse would be more likely) as the center of this Hellenic empire, incorporating Greek, Celtic, and Roman/Italic elements into their society.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Carthge wouldn't have been a problem, they were pretty Hellenistic in my opinion.
Any Greek Empire in the west would likely start off from trade and low level conquests so as long as they can expand to an adequate size before Carthage comes at them then the Phoenicians should not be a problem. Not only that but even the home land had lots of Aramaic and Greek so Carthage wouldn't have been too hard to assimilate. The people in Greece might honestly have a harder time accepting this strange empire.

[Cyclops]

Hellenic Poleis showed a disgraceful lack of tact or imagination in extending their influence. Not one established a comparable regional influence comparable to Karthage let alone Rome.

The local loyalty the Poleis generated was a great strength in motivating its people to great achievements (eg the Athenians mounted invasions into Egypt and Sicily) but it also manifested as insular selfishness and most poleis became hated in direct prportion to their influence. The partial exception in Hella proper was Sparta, who (for a while) struck down tyrants without posting garrisons and earned grudging respect.

The tradition of infighting was transmitted to Magn Graecia, where Sicily typically held the "most hated" crown. I think the Hellenic Polis lacked the breadth to integrate non-Hellenes, or even Hellenes outside their ethnos.

Hellenistic rulers adapted the archaic monarchic traditions of Makedon as well as the nuanced and sophisticated Persian monarchic model to run large multi-cultural states. Not very well, but they were big and lasted up to a few centuries, unlike the mercurial and tiny Syracusan, Athenian and Spartan hegemonies.

[Roma_Victrix]

That's an excellent point, Cyclops. Rome's early expansion was due largely because of the various tactful treaties and wise alliances it built on the Italian mainland, carefully, city by city, region by region, over the course of a couple centuries. It also ensured the loyalty of outlying regions by populating them with Latin colonies. The Greeks also colonized virtually every region of the Mediterranean. However, this was done haphazardly, largely out of necessity of relieving the burdens of the local population, and the relationship of these new colonies to the mother city was never very strong or loyal, especially after several generations.

[Cyclops]

I deplore racist generalisations but...if there's a general Hellenic trait its a willingness to talk. Somee Hellenes did business with everyone, some talked about everything, some learned heaps and some thought heaps as a result. Mostly they even played nicely (at the various panhellenic games) but they did not do smooth politics well.

Rome as a city state developed a pragmatic political culture that allowed enormous growth without too much strife, and when the state became to unweildy for the republic to bear, they managed a transition to absolute monarchy. Not without blood, but the ship of state sailed on. A pinch of success was enough to corrupt Spartan Harmosts and make tyrants of the Athenian Assembly.

[neoptolemos]

I fail to see how could not Syracuse or any other Greek city state of the West not create a hegemony.
The Roman Republic grow bigger not because it was an initial intention but rather as a natural response to threats for her own survival at first.
The field where the Roman politics excelled I dare to say it was the diplomacy.A tradition that went throughout the Byzantine period as well.

Syracuse and Massalia for example did use diplomacy well for their own survival but they were indeed unlucky in some of their choices. The invitation of Pyrhus could have made Syracuse a dominant player in the area but unfortunately it was inconclusive. Had it been different then the Syracusans would have fought the second Punic war, not Romans IMHO.

[AnthoniusII]

I fail to see how could not Syracuse or any other Greek city state of the West not create a hegemony.
The Roman Republic grow bigger not because it was an initial intention but rather as a natural response to threats for her own survival at first.
The field where the Roman politics excelled I dare to say it was the diplomacy.A tradition that went throughout the Byzantine period as well.

Syracuse and Massalia for example did use diplomacy well for their own survival but they were indeed unlucky in some of their choices. The invitation of Pyrhus could have made Syracuse a dominant player in the area but unfortunately it was inconclusive. Had it been different then the Syracusans would have fought the second Punic war, not Romans IMHO.

Neo is 100% right!
Another issue we miss is the devision of the Hellenic world!
Romans -by accident or on purpus- coppied the same politic of annexation and tollerance of diferent to them states and cultures.
While any of Hellenic major forces wanted to completly dominate over every one ,Romans kept those that qonquered in an autonomus state giving them the impression that they were free of choice in the Roman state. It was a simple but very good trick on behalf of Romans that gave them the needed time to secure their positions!!!
In that period Hellenic polis had the impression tha they would enjoy more "freedom" inside the Roman coalition than being part of any Hellenic "allience"!!!

[Roma_Victrix]

Rome as a city state developed a pragmatic political culture that allowed enormous growth without too much strife, and when the state became to unweildy for the republic to bear, they managed a transition to absolute monarchy. Not without blood, but the ship of state sailed on. A pinch of success was enough to corrupt Spartan Harmosts and make tyrants of the Athenian Assembly.

Even after defeating Antony, didn't it take a while for Augustus to amass all the constitutional powers of the various republican offices: consul, tribune, censor, etc.? Even with all those rights and privileges, on top of a huge clientele base, I still wouldn't think of the Principate emperors as absolute monarchs, more as constitutional monarchs. I would say absolutism, in its completely naked form, was not established until the late 3rd century AD when Diocletian formulated the Dominate-style authoritarian regime, scrapping nearly all the old republican offices in the process.

Anyways, Neoptolemos brings up a great point about Syracuse and Pyrrhos of Epeiros, whose war with the Romans could have swung either way given the circumstances and evenly matched forces. Think of the long-term trajectory of things had Pyrrhos won that war and gobbled up Magna Grecia, the southern half of Italy.

[neoptolemos]

2 other points are:
1)In general the Greek colonies were mainly focusing on commerce and commercial ties rather than political dominance and subjugation of the surrounded people.Syracuse was one of the exceptions as she did try to establish a panSicelian and beyond hegemony.This kind of behaviour was partially one of the reasons that drew the attention of Athens for the Sicilian expedition.

2)The strong influence hellenization had to people Greeks came in contact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenization

An interesting example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean

Hellenization

The Hellenization of the Jews in the pre-Hasmonean period was not universally resisted. Generally, the Jews accepted foreign rule when they were only required to pay tribute, and otherwise allowed to govern themselves internally. Nevertheless, Jews were divided between those favoring Hellenization and those opposing it, and were divided over allegiance to the Ptolemies or Seleucids. When the High Priest Simon II died in 175 BC, conflict broke out between supporters of his son Onias III (who opposed Hellenization, and favored the Ptolemies) and his son Jason (who favored Hellenization, and favored the Seleucids). A period of political intrigue followed, with priests such as Menelaus bribing the king to win the High Priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war. The Tobiads, a philo-Hellenistic party, succeeded in placing Jason into the powerful position of High Priest. He established an arena for public games close by the Temple.^[12] Author Lee I. Levine notes, "The 'piece de resistance' of Judaean Hellenization, and the most dramatic of all these developments, occurred in 175 BC, when the high priest Jason converted Jerusalem into a Greek polis replete with gymnasium and ephebeion (2 Maccabees 4). Whether this step represents the culmination of a 150-year process of Hellenization within Jerusalem in general, or whether it was only the initiative of a small coterie of Jerusalem priests with no wider ramifications, has been debated for decades."^[13] Some Jews are known to have engaged in non-surgical foreskin restoration in order to join the dominant cultural practice of socializing naked in the gymnasium, where their circumcision would have been a social stigma.^[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean

And this:

I think that this tiny political influence was a common feature that Emporion shared with most of the Phocaean settlements in thewestern Mediterranean: this is the obvious consequence of the small chorai developed by these cities (Massalia, Elea/Hyele, Emporion). Itis questionable if this was the result of a conscious decision or the result of external constraints. I would like to think the former.Only Massalia had greater freedom of action, although not untilthe second half of the 4th century. At that moment she would expand her influence along the coasts of southern Gaul and Iberia in theform of a loose confederation, but even then she could do little morethan consider as hers the old establishments created in the Peninsulaby Greeks from Emporion. This is the main di fference between theGreek presence in Iberia and Greek colonisation in other areas of the Mediterranean, and certainly one that makes this historical process exceptional.


Notwithstanding this, the Greeks succeeded at last in exerting a very deep cultural influence on the native Iberians (e.g.Strabo 4. 1.5),in such a way that those regions affected by Greek activities had no difficulty in accepting the new cultural models represented, later on,by Rome, thus becoming fully Romanised before any other part of the Peninsula. This was, paradoxically, the main legacy the Greeks left in Iberia on the eve of its becoming Hispania.

http://www.academia.edu/378233/Greek...rian_Peninsula

[Roma_Victrix]

Yes, it is very true that the Iberian tribes and Gauls who came into contact with the Greek poleis in those respective regions were heavily influenced by Greek culture as well as Greek armaments. If the Greeks - unified under a large state like the Roman Republic - penetrated further inland as the Romans had done, who knows to what degree the native peoples in those regions of Western Europe would have been Hellenized. It took quite a long span of time to Romanize them, but it was achieved nonetheless by the Principate period.

Would the Greeks have been more exclusionary when it came to foreign subjects obtaining polis citizenship, though?