How inevitable was the rise of the city of Rome?

[Deleted member 97083]

How inevitable was it that Rome would become the dominant city in Italy? I don't refer to the First Punic War or even the Samnite Wars, but the very early period, 100-250 years after the founding of the city of Rome. Before the Republic, when the Etruscans still dominated the north.

At this early period, were there any specific advantages that the Roman Kingdom had, geographically, logistically, demographically, or politically that gave it an inevitable edge against its neighbors? Or do all of its advantages appear much later?

Could cities like Veii, Pompeii, Neapolis, Tarquini, Capua, or Syracuse have hypothetically become the capitals of the most powerful states in Italy? Obviously not all at the same time.

Regardless of the political power of Rome, would the Tiber River have been one of the most populated parts of Italy? Perhaps with Latins spreading throughout non-Latin dominated kingdoms, like the Aramaeans spread throughout the formerly Akkadian Middle East?

 

[tenthring]

Not remotely inevitable.

 

[Carp]

I can't speak to the history or culture of early Rome, but in strictly geographic terms, not at all. There's not much about its position that screams "an important city will be here" like there is for, say, Constantinople.

One good thing it does have going for it is the nearby salt fields of the Tiber Delta, which were exploited during the period of the Roman Kingdom (and probably long before then). Nevertheless, having control over a single natural resource, even a vital one, is not necessarily a ticket to regional dominance, let alone continental dominance.

 

[Avrorrange]

If a certain individual from the east lives long enough,Rome is likely screwed.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

If a certain individual from the east lives long enough,Rome is likely screwed.

I agree--if Gilgamesh had achieved immortality, Rome probably never would have been built.

 

[Avrorrange]

I agree--if Gilgamesh had achieved immortality, Rome probably never would have been built.

I'm talking about this guy:

 

[Practical Lobster]

I'm talking about this guy:

Bucephalus? Yeah, his longer life might well have butterflied Alexander's death somehow - and thus led to a more enduring Empire along the lines of what Slydessertfox's timeline shows.


Edit: Keeping Rome from being founded is simply a matter of an early enough PoD. Keeping it from becoming great - well that's easy too. Veii or any of its early rivals might have defeated it and kept it from rising substantially. A Samnite based hegemonic league in mid-southern Italy might have really changed the shape of the whole region - and doesn't seem that far off. The distributed model of Samnite cities I think belies a sophisticated, warlike, and urban culture that in another world might have been more than a match for the Latins.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

I'm talking about this guy:

Bucephalus? But how would he conquer Rome?

In all seriousness, if Alexander invaded Italy, that might provide an opportunity for Rome to rally the other Italian city-states together. Whether it actually destroys the viability of Rome as a political center depends on if Alexander sacks the city. Otherwise, if Rome gets lucky and repels the Hellenistic invasion, it rises earlier as a regional hegemon. If it loses to Alexander, the future Greek diadochi kings of Rome still might make Rome their capital, which would replace the Latin state with a Greek one, but the center of power would remain the same.

Edit: Keeping Rome from being founded is simply a matter of an early enough PoD. Keeping it from becoming great - well that's easy too. Veii or any of its early rivals might have defeated it and kept it from rising substantially. A Samnite based hegemonic league in mid-southern Italy might have really changed the shape of the whole region - and doesn't seem that far off. The distributed model of Samnite cities I think belies a sophisticated, warlike, and urban culture that in another world might have been more than a match for the Latins.

Do you think that the Samnites could have conquered Neapolis or Pompeii and made it their capital?

 

[Practical Lobster]

No reason a future Diadochi king in Italy (probably called Hesperia or something in this timeline) should pick Rome apart from it being roughly in the middle. And anyways a Greek influenced state based in Rome would look so different as to be different. For all we know this hypothetical king would set a city up a few miles away bearing their name and watch it swallow Rome into a suburb. Antioch on the Tibereos...

 

[Deleted member 97083]

No reason a future Diadochi king in Italy (probably called Hesperia or something in this timeline) should pick Rome apart from it being roughly in the middle. And anyways a Greek influenced state based in Rome would look so different as to be different. For all we know this hypothetical king would set a city up a few miles away bearing their name and watch it swallow Rome into a suburb. Antioch on the Tibereos...

Antioch or Seleucia on the Tiber would be cool. Although the term "Italia" was actually borrowed by the Romans from the Greeks, who used it to refer to Calabria.

 

[Avrorrange]

Will there even be a Diodochi king if Alexander III lived long enough?Or is this assuming after the empire eventually fractures after decades or centuries of rule?

 

[Practical Lobster]

Antioch or Seleucia on the Tiber would be cool. Although the term "Italia" was actually borrowed by the Romans from the Greeks, who used it to refer to Calabria.

Exactly, Calabria. Not the whole of Italy. Italia would be a small region within a larger kingdom, or perhaps a free league of city states, but not the name of the whole kingdom in a world where Rome is that weak.

Will there even be a Diodochi king if Alexander III lived long enough?Or is this assuming after the empire eventually fractures after decades or centuries of rule?

Maybe - we haven't really ironed out a clear timeline. If Alexander III lives long enough there probably won't be proper successor states, you're right. His son might invade Italy, but probably will be forced to struggle and consolidate.

However, I can still envision generals and charismatic leaders at the periphery trying to seek personal fortunes on such adventures.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Rome's geography is not perfect for global domination- it's not a port, it's on a fairly minor river, it has some resources but nothing major- but being located on the western side of the central Italian peninsula is important. It has a very central location within the Italian peninsula, in terms of both actual geography and population, which is concentrated from Tuscany down to Campania. This allows it to dominate it without serious geographical concerns, a problem that someplace like Rhegium or Tarentum would have, being so far south.

The second thing the Romans really did right was the way they incorporated allies. Settled communities of retired legionaries was a good start, and maintaining cordial relationships with allied Italian cities meant that Rome's "Empire" in Italy wasn't really an empire, it felt like it was one country, united. Only chip-on-the-shoulder places like Capua fell in with Hannibal, and that was with a large Carthaginian army roaming around destroying stuff and sending thousands of Romans to their grave.

The thing that really allowed Rome to become an Empire was Italy- Italy is like Rome itself to the Mediterranean, it's very centrally located. So is North Africa, but unlike North Africa, Italy had an enormous explosion in population in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, due to new agricultural practices. That's how the Romans were able to keep throwing men at Hannibal or throwing men into Sicily even when they were certainly losing massive numbers of them.

So, to sort of clear up this post, I think that a central Italian town (Etruscan, Latin, Greek, doesn't matter) is an good position to be "Rome", as long as the incorporate Italy in a similar fashion. However, I don't think that's an inevitability, especially if this causes butterflies in places like Carthage and Macedonia.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Exactly, Calabria. Not the whole of Italy. Italia would be a small region within a larger kingdom, or perhaps a free league of city states, but not the name of the whole kingdom in a world where Rome is that weak.

Well, there's a long history of Greek names for smaller regions expanding by orders of magnitude to encompass entire continents and peninsulas. For example: Europe, which originally referred to Thrace, Asia which originally referred to western Anatolia, Arabia which first referred to Jordan, India which first referred to Sindh, and several others. Italia was just another one of these broadening toponyms.

Hesperia is possible as a name for Italy, but with the colonists of Magna Graecia/Megale Hellas calling their own heartland Italia, it seems likely that this terminology would expand along with their area of settlement.

 

[James XI]

Are you discounting the Samnites out of preference, or because you believe it was by then irreversable? Because, if the latter, I strongly disagree...the Samnites and/or a Samnite led coalition were a very real danger to the rise of Rome.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Are you discounting the Samnites out of preference, or because you believe it was by then irreversable? Because, if the latter, I strongly disagree...the Samnites and/or a Samnite led coalition were a very real danger to the rise of Rome.

Not discounting the Samnites as a fighting force, just wondering about the earlier period (600s/500s BC), when Rome had yet to achieve hegemony over the Etruscans.

At this early point, I don't think the Romans had the same advanced tactics that they would develop later. The Samnite Wars could have stopped the rise of Rome, as could have the First and Second Punic Wars, but by then, the Romans had clear advantages that made success more likely than failure, and Rome had changed greatly as a society.

 

[PhilippeO]

So, to sort of clear up this post, I think that a central Italian town (Etruscan, Latin, Greek, doesn't matter) is an good position to be "Rome", as long as the incorporate Italy in a similar fashion. However, I don't think that's an inevitability, especially if this causes butterflies in places like Carthage and Macedonia.

Question 1) Is Latium location that strategic, Italy dominated by Latium (absent foreign invasion) is inevitable at that time ?

Question 2) Rome and Veii, my impression is this two town is largest among their League, they also fairly close, did they have some advantage compared to other Latin or Etruscan cities in same region ?

 

[Kerney]

The Samnite Wars could have stopped the rise of Rome, as could have the First and Second Punic Wars.

Other possibilities?

Alexander (already mentioned).
The Gauls, who after all actually took Rome, could have finished it. A Gaulish north and Greek south Italy is quite possible.
Continued Etruscan hegemony and Etruscanization.

 

[zagoth]

Well i believe neither Rome nor Veii were certain in attempting to form an imperium. For after Rome struck Veii its mortal blow, they were stormed by the gauls and a sack lasting months ensued. After this occured there was debate in the senate as to whether they should strait up abandon the city to eventually resettle at the old site of Veii (far more defensible). So i dont believe that the rise of Rome as a major power was certain before the end of the samnite wars.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

The city itself was nothing special. The people of Rome, and their unflinching determination for greatness, their willingness to endure hardship, was what allowed it to become what it did. Rome was inevitable as long as that mentality was there (excepting a complete slaughter of every Roman alive).

The Punic Wars, especially the 2nd, are symbolic of that determination. It had existed since the time of the Roman kings.

- BNC