Deleted member 67076
What if the Roman state was a commerce oriented country on par of Carthage or Venice? What effects would that have on their government and military? On their expansion? Would the rivalry with Carthage be even greater?
ManintheField
Banned
The thing is, the Roman Empire was commerce oriented: It created the single largest free trade area the Western world would know for more than a millennium. Markets and trade followed the Roman army wherever it went.
Perhaps the word you're looking for is dominated. A Roman state dominated by merchants would be incredibly different from that of OTL and I'm rather easily convinced that such a Rome would not rise to the level of power and rule that our Rome did.
Perhaps the word you're looking for is dominated. A Roman state dominated by merchants would be incredibly different from that of OTL and I'm rather easily convinced that such a Rome would not rise to the level of power and rule that our Rome did.
Abhakhazia
Banned
Punic and Greek remains found in and around Rome's Forum Boarium suggest that Rome in fact was a early trading city, along the Tiber and north-south Italian trade market. However, they did sign a treaty with Carthage later refusing their ships to travel beyond Cap Bon, forcing them to use Carthaginian middlemen and many trade deals. Maybe if Rome didn't sign this treaty with Carthage, and wanted to continue mercantile activity more aggressively it could do that.
But alternatively, being an aggressive trade power could bring wrath from the Greeks, Etruscans and Carthaginians who dominated the Tyrrhenian trade at the time, causing Rome to fall in its infancy.
But alternatively, being an aggressive trade power could bring wrath from the Greeks, Etruscans and Carthaginians who dominated the Tyrrhenian trade at the time, causing Rome to fall in its infancy.
Deleted member 67076
Yeah, that's it. I also doubt Rome would be the absolute superpower if it was trade dominated but the effects would be cool to see.
Hmm, interesting. What if they signed the treaty and then later repudiated it when the state was strong enough to resist?
Abhakhazia
Banned
I think you might see a Punic War maybe 100 years early, that I'm almost certain the Romans would lose, probably making their trade situation worse and giving their enemies Carthaginian support.
Deleted member 67076
Damn. Although this does give me an idea.
Perhaps Carthage enters civil war or some sort of earlier Mercenary war that results on Carthage being a bit desperate. Rome decides to offer its services as a mercenary unit for an extremely low cost but with the stipulation that the terms of the trading limit treaty are null and void. Carthage, in their desperation, accept the terms. Mercenary war is ended thanks to Roman intervention and Rome starts moving in on a new market.
Rome's not exactly ideally situated to be a trading power. Its about what, 20 miles inland? Any major trading power in the region would have to be coastal, to compete with the other Mediterranean trading powers. Its kinda hard to be an inland trading power when you're on a peninsula.
Abhakhazia
Banned
Or, a possiblity could be Agathocles of Syracuse being successful inflicting a serious defeat on the Carthaginian army at the Battle of the Himera River, much like Hamilcar was at the city of Himera in past centuries, leading to an Greek Kingdom of Sicily encompassing the entire island, damaging Carthaginian trade. This could cause the Italian states like Rome to forge more advantageous agreements with Carthage, or even becoming mercantile powers in their own right.
It's true that trade blossomed under Roman rule of the Mediterranean (it was hugely helped by being able to "piggyback" on the state-run grain ships) but the Roman Empire was not at any point orientated about, or particularly concerned about, trade. By far the largest economic sector was agriculture, and all classical ideology revolved around the idea of the man owning and cultivating his lands, not getting involved in squalid trade deals. This remained true throughout Graeco-Roman history, right up until the end of Byzantium: indeed, I've read an interesting analysis suggesting that it was this resistance to trade within Byzantium's classical heritage that played a large part in the commercial conquest of the Byzantine state by Italian merchant powers from the twelfth century onwards.
Not very likely. Agathocles isn't going to have a prayer at taking Lilybaeum. That city was already a fortress-consider it was what stopped Pyrrhus from taking all of Sicily and the Romans sieged it for years without ever being able to take it by force. And as long as Carthage has Lilbaeum, control of parts of Sicily are constantly going to switch back and forth as the fortunes of both sides wax and wane.
Sulemain
Banned
Not really, considering the whole Byzantine ethos was built on it's link to the classical period. Any attempt to change that would undermine the whole raison d'etre of the Empire. Juddith Herrin goes into some detail about this.
Deleted member 67076
No not for the Byzantines, for the old school Romans. The Byzantines did have commerce oriented supporters in the later empire but they never had an impact.
Sulemain
Banned
I don't think so. The way the Roman Republic was established made the land owning aristocracy dominant. I can see the Republic becoming dominated by the small land owning people, small farmers that is, but being dominated by the merchants? I don't really see how it's possible.
Deleted member 67076
Well, perhaps if we change the basis from power in government from having X amounts of land to being able to pay Y amount of money per year. Maybe a poll tax or something. The logic perhaps initially being that only the wealthiest landowners will be able to get that much revenue but later merchants are able to match that and thus gain a position of power and influence in the government.
Dunno, just throwing out ideas.
Sulemain
Banned
Depends on how you set said poll tax up; baring in mind that Rome was for a long time just a city state with a rather large hinterland then a vast empire, by the time the merchants become wealthy in numbers equal to make a difference, the aristocracy will be entrenched. Not to mention that being wealthy wasn't really seen as an end in of itself.
Deleted member 67076
Hmm, I suppose that could be rectified with Civil war and what not. The lack of the Cult of Money is a problem though. Maybe it could be seen as a way to gain influence for the common man? That commerce is the lower class way to influence, while the aristocracy has land and military glory?
Sulemain
Banned
The lower classes had to fight, and fight hard, for what influence they had. And influence was expressed in terms of land and military prowess. Money wasn't that much of a status symbol; all this has deep roots in Roman society.
Deleted member 67076
Than this needs a very early POD to change. I have no idea which one would work.
