The challenge is to create a Roman or Italic state that is as little Hellenistic in culture and religion as possible, the POD can be as early as the start of the archaic era in Greece but I was still envisioning Greek presence in the Western Mediterranean world, so avoiding presence of Greeks from Italy is not allowed(and probably very hard even with a 800 BCE POD)
AHC/WI: Anti-Hellenistic Rome/Italy
- Thread starter Gloss
- Start date
I don't think so, except in areas that already had their own equally- or more-advanced civilisations (like Egypt).
So, maybe that's what's needed: have native Italian culture reach a similar or higher level of cultural sophistication by the time the Greeks start poking around in the western Mediterranean, and they'd be much less likely to adopt Hellenic cultural traits.
Maybe prevent greek settlement of the south?? Don't know how far this butterflies stuff tho
Ancient Rome is often seen as a collection of small farming settlements dominated by an Etruscan elite. We do have archaeological evidence for the existence of kings at Rome, but we simply can’t tie that evidence too tightly to the traditional narratives. There is a long gap (roughly three hundred years) between the end of the monarchy and the beginnings of Roman historiography.
Early Rome had a significant Etruscan population, and it was not unusual in that part of Italy in general for great families to move around and assume positions of power elsewhere. There is evidence of important Latins in Etruscan cities, and of course much evidence of Etruscans in Rome.
The archaic Rome was in the border of the Etruscan and Latin territories, and it seems indeed to have benefited from some mixed identity and a lively interchange between both cultures. The demography of ancient Rome was thus multi-ethnic, including, for example, Etruscans and other Italics besides the Latini, the latter seemed to be the dominant constituent. Actually, the Etruscan exerted a strong cultural and political influence on Latium populations and differences between Latini, Italics or even Etruscans were probably less important than we thought.
The story of Tarquin the Elder, descendant of a Greek refugee who came to Rome from an Etruscan city, well reflects this multicultural situation and the Greek influence. When the younger Tarquin had need of definitive oracular advice, he sent his sons to Delphi in Greece, and it was to Greece too that the founding fathers of the Republc went for the laws that were to be embodied in the Twelve Tables.
The prevailing view is that Rome was founded by Latins who later merged with Etruscans. In this interpretation, Etruscan cultural objects are considered influences rather than part of a heritage. The main criterion for deciding whether an object originated at Rome and traveled by influence to the Etruscans, or descended to the Romans from the Etruscans, is date. A second criterion is the opinion of the ancient sources. A modern theory of etymology holds that the name of the city could be of Etruscan origin (and perhaps the city itself, though this cannot be proven), derived from rumon, "river".
Traditionally we do consider that the Romans absorbed much of their culture from the Etruscans, whose culture was influenced by Greek resident traders and by the Greek colonists of southern Italy. But when you have a map of Greek colonies and ancient trade routes, you can see that Italy and Latium are situated in the middle of complicated network of trade routes and colonies. Koine Greek had become one of the most common trade languages of the Mediterranean and into Asia Minor after the conquests of Alexander the Great.
There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy when Rome was still a smallish city-state. Rome was also the intersection of the principal roads to the sea coming from Sabinum (in the northeast) and Etruria (to the northwest). Greek traders resided in Rome, alongside many traders of various origins. The Greek influenced all of Italy and probably directly influenced Rome too. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away.
We can still consider that before the Pyrrhic War (280–275), the Greek-Roman relations were mostly one-sided as Romans were seen as Barbarians. The Greek accounts about the Romans changed after this war. The Pyrrhic War was Rome's first confrontation with the professional armies and mercenaries of the Hellenistic kingdoms in the eastern Mediterranean. After this victory, Rome was recognized as a part of the Mediterranean diplomatic system and asserted her hegemony on Magna Graecia (southern Italy).
It was at the time of the Macedonian wars of the early second century BC (214–148 BC) that the Latin cultural tradition was exposed fully to a culture that the Roman elites considered in many ways as richer and more sophisticated. Rome became heavily involved in Greek affairs and the Roman aristocracy seized upon Greek culture.
A nice POD, would be Pyrrhus winning against Rome and traumatizing them as much as Brennus did. It could lead to a conservative and reactionary backlash against Greek influences. Funnily, Rome was allied with Carthage against Pyrrhus, which could mean a Carthaginian-influenced Rome.
Early Rome had a significant Etruscan population, and it was not unusual in that part of Italy in general for great families to move around and assume positions of power elsewhere. There is evidence of important Latins in Etruscan cities, and of course much evidence of Etruscans in Rome.
The archaic Rome was in the border of the Etruscan and Latin territories, and it seems indeed to have benefited from some mixed identity and a lively interchange between both cultures. The demography of ancient Rome was thus multi-ethnic, including, for example, Etruscans and other Italics besides the Latini, the latter seemed to be the dominant constituent. Actually, the Etruscan exerted a strong cultural and political influence on Latium populations and differences between Latini, Italics or even Etruscans were probably less important than we thought.
The story of Tarquin the Elder, descendant of a Greek refugee who came to Rome from an Etruscan city, well reflects this multicultural situation and the Greek influence. When the younger Tarquin had need of definitive oracular advice, he sent his sons to Delphi in Greece, and it was to Greece too that the founding fathers of the Republc went for the laws that were to be embodied in the Twelve Tables.
The prevailing view is that Rome was founded by Latins who later merged with Etruscans. In this interpretation, Etruscan cultural objects are considered influences rather than part of a heritage. The main criterion for deciding whether an object originated at Rome and traveled by influence to the Etruscans, or descended to the Romans from the Etruscans, is date. A second criterion is the opinion of the ancient sources. A modern theory of etymology holds that the name of the city could be of Etruscan origin (and perhaps the city itself, though this cannot be proven), derived from rumon, "river".
Traditionally we do consider that the Romans absorbed much of their culture from the Etruscans, whose culture was influenced by Greek resident traders and by the Greek colonists of southern Italy. But when you have a map of Greek colonies and ancient trade routes, you can see that Italy and Latium are situated in the middle of complicated network of trade routes and colonies. Koine Greek had become one of the most common trade languages of the Mediterranean and into Asia Minor after the conquests of Alexander the Great.
There was much contact between Etruscans, Romans, and Greeks in Italy when Rome was still a smallish city-state. Rome was also the intersection of the principal roads to the sea coming from Sabinum (in the northeast) and Etruria (to the northwest). Greek traders resided in Rome, alongside many traders of various origins. The Greek influenced all of Italy and probably directly influenced Rome too. Major Greek towns like Naples and Cumae are about 200 km south of Rome, or 10 hours (by trireme) to 25 hours (merchant ship) away.
We can still consider that before the Pyrrhic War (280–275), the Greek-Roman relations were mostly one-sided as Romans were seen as Barbarians. The Greek accounts about the Romans changed after this war. The Pyrrhic War was Rome's first confrontation with the professional armies and mercenaries of the Hellenistic kingdoms in the eastern Mediterranean. After this victory, Rome was recognized as a part of the Mediterranean diplomatic system and asserted her hegemony on Magna Graecia (southern Italy).
It was at the time of the Macedonian wars of the early second century BC (214–148 BC) that the Latin cultural tradition was exposed fully to a culture that the Roman elites considered in many ways as richer and more sophisticated. Rome became heavily involved in Greek affairs and the Roman aristocracy seized upon Greek culture.
A nice POD, would be Pyrrhus winning against Rome and traumatizing them as much as Brennus did. It could lead to a conservative and reactionary backlash against Greek influences. Funnily, Rome was allied with Carthage against Pyrrhus, which could mean a Carthaginian-influenced Rome.
Last edited:
TBH I think the un-Hellenised nature of early Roman culture tends to be exaggerated, or at least over-simplified. What actually seems to have happened is that elite culture in the regal period was quite strongly influenced by that of the contemporary Greek world (and not just via the Etruscans, either -- there's archaeological evidence of a colony of Greek merchants in Rome during the late sixth century BC, for example), but during the fifth century Rome, and Italy in general, underwent a period of turbulence and economic contraction, which caused a lessening (although not cessation) of trade and cultural exchange with the Greek world. Then as Rome became more powerful and wealthy over the course of the fourth and third centuries, contacts with Greece started to revive. It seems that at least some of the Roman elite were Hellenised enough to speak Greek fluently even before the Pyrrhic War, because the head of the Roman embassy to Tarentum in 280 BC was able to address the crowd in Greek (albeit with what they regarded as a funny foreign accent).
What does it mean to have an "advanced civilization"? It's such a nebelous term when taking the perspective of people living in any given ancient society, why would all human societies value the same things? Because empirically they really don't seem to.
Also I think you aren't considering the different kinds of influence that are possible, eventually Greek influence on Rome was pretty strong and more than just a few cultural traits, Romans tried to integrate themselves in Greek mythology, Greeks pervaded urban centers where they never actually independently settled prior to Roman rule, Romanization in the East was done through Greeks etc.
Well I said in my main post that I didn't want to avoid it, it would have been a cop out that would have been hard to engineer anyway.
How can a culture be in any non-subjective sense richer and sophisticated? I feel like this idea is simply strongly reductive. Many Romans considered eastern cultures degenerate and decadent too and there doesn't seem to have been any uniform concept of superiority in terms of complexity of one culture over another.
That is in terms of objective measurements, obviously some Romans would have considered Greek culture beneficial, better etc. but it would be a mostly subjective view and changing that would be part of the PoD, not something to take as universal constant.
Honestly I'd want to avoid that too, maybe instead the attitude arises through Greek resistance in Greece and Southern Italy? What about internal Roman factions? Aren't there are any that would react differently to Greek influence if they were inppower, maybe even lessening Roman expansionism or mass slavery would less the presence of Greeks in Roman urban centers of Italy.
Quite strongly by what metric?