Other Italian tribes empires's possible?

[Magical123]

So there were multiple people's in pre-Roman Italy many of which only the faintest records survive.

Could any of them achieved anything resembling a Roman Empire?

The Samnites? The Lucanians? The Veneti? The Etruscans? The native silician tribes? Oscans?

Did any of them have the potential to form empires of their own?

If so why? And which people's would be most likely to do so?

If not why not? What would make it that they could not?

Other groups of interest: the Campanians? The Sabines, lapyges, Apulians, Bruttians, Sicels, Sicani and Elymians(the Sicilians)

The nuragic civilization in Sardinia?

Did any of them have a chance?

 

[Happers]

The Romans only became an empire because of the events of their society and history. The only other people who could have created an empire were the Etruscans. First, have the Etruscans unite the Italic Peoples, second have then become more centralized, third give them a Etruscan-Carthaginian War, likely a trade war. With these events, you have yourself a wealthy Etruscan Empire.

 

[Magical123]

The Romans only became an empire because of the events of their society and history. The only other people who could have created an empire were the Etruscans. First, have the Etruscans unite the Italic Peoples, second have then become more centralized, third give them a Etruscan-Carthaginian War, likely a trade war. With these events, you have yourself a wealthy Etruscan Empire.

Why couldn't any of the peoples I listed achieve empire?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

The Romans only became an empire because of the events of their society and history. The only other people who could have created an empire were the Etruscans.

The Romans could never become an empire. They were just an obscure peasant colony at the edge of Etruscan territory.

Also the Persians couldn't form an empire, those valleys were just a backwater that could never conquer Mesopotamia.

And the Arabs, no way they could take down the Byzantines and Persians.

 

[Happers]

Why couldn't any of the peoples I listed achieve empire?

It's quite simple actually, none of them wanted an empire, or were just too primitive to bring other people into their society.

Rome did everything right to create an empire, Rome was founded in a very favourable location, they had a willingness to adapt and to absorb, and Rome had extraodinary leadership. The only other people that had these qualities were the Etruscans.

 

[Magical123]

It's quite simple actually, none of them wanted an empire, or were just too primitive to bring other people into their society.

Rome did everything right to create an empire, Rome was founded in a very favourable location, they had a willingness to adapt and to absorb, and Rome had extraodinary leadership. The only other people that had these qualities were the Etruscans.

Okay then could any of them have had a more enduring presence or culture at the very least?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

It's quite simple actually, none of them wanted an empire, or were just too primitive to bring other people into their society.

Rome did everything right to create an empire, Rome was founded in a very favourable location, they had a willingness to adapt and to absorb, and Rome had extraodinary leadership. The only other people that had these qualities were the Etruscans.

There were some special things about Rome, but nothing that couldn't be recreated in other parts of Italy. All a premodern empire requires is a population base.

 

[Happers]

The Romans could never become an empire. They were just an obscure peasant colony at the edge of Etruscan territory.

Also the Persians couldn't form an empire, those valleys were just a backwater that could never conquer Mesopotamia.

And the Arabs, no way they could take down the Byzantines and Persians.

That's what the Alp Celts thought too. As far as we can tell the Alp Celts thought Carthage would destroy Rome.

Persia, that was just luck. The Arabs was just religious fanaticism.

 

[Happers]

Okay then could any of them have had a more enduring presence or culture at the very least?

Maybe, Achaemenid, how much do you know about Pre-Roman Italians? I know a bit but I'm more knowledgeable about the Etruscans.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

That's what the Alp Celts thought too. As far as we can tell the Alp Celts thought Carthage would destroy Rome.

Rome and Carthage were already empires in a geopolitical sense, by the time Hannibal invaded.

Persia, that was just luck.

Persians had sophisticated ancient technologies like the qanats that allowed them to cultivate parts of the desert that weren't able to be cultivated before, giving them a population base. There was some luck in Cyrus the Great's expansion--such as that the Babylonian king was very unpopular and the Persians were able to exploit that. Also the Babylonians were much weaker than the previous Assyrians.

But the Romans had similar amounts of luck at particular moments in their history.

The Arabs was just religious fanaticism.

Religious fanaticism alone cannot take down an empire. The Byzantines and Persians were exhausted by war and the Arabs had advanced tactics and leadership allowing their quick advance.

Maybe, Achaemenid, how much do you know about Pre-Roman Italians? I know a bit but I'm more knowledgeable about the Etruscans.

I'm not an expert. But the various peoples like the Samnites, Oscans, Italian Greeks etc. had plenty of potential for forming empires. Their armies almost brought Rome to its knees multiple times.

The Romans certainly had a few advantages that made their rise probable, but these advantages accumulated over time, not all at once. If you add a similar focus on mobility and adaptability and a tripartite military, which has risen independently in different states, to an area with a population base, then the conditions for empire are there.

 

[Happers]

Rome and Carthage were already empires in a geopolitical sense, by the time Hannibal invaded.


Persians had sophisticated ancient technologies like the qanats that allowed them to cultivate parts of the desert that weren't able to be cultivated before, giving them a population base. There was some luck in Cyrus the Great's expansion--such as that the Babylonian king was very unpopular and the Persians were able to exploit that. Also the Babylonians were much weaker than the previous Assyrians.

But the Romans had similar amounts of luck at particular moments in their history.


Religious fanaticism alone cannot take down an empire. The Byzantines and Persians were exhausted by war and the Arabs had advanced tactics and leadership allowing their quick advance.


I'm not an expert. But the various peoples like the Samnites, Oscans, Italian Greeks etc. had plenty of potential for forming empires. Their armies almost brought Rome to its knees multiple times.

The Romans certainly had a few advantages that made their rise probable, but these advantages accumulated over time, not all at once. If you add a similar focus on mobility and adaptability, which has risen independently in different states, to an area with a population base, then the conditions for empire are there.

....you know what I meant. Ha. But seriously, yeah you're right. Rome could have easily never come to prominence, Persia was an advanced society and the Arabs were military geniuses after centuries of defending against stronger, more advanced empires.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the big reason why the other Italic peoples didn't create an empire was because they were still just too tribal. The Romans got past the tribal faze faster then most societies giving them an advantage over there more tribal neighbors.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the big reason why the other Italic peoples didn't create an empire was because they were still just too tribal. The Romans got past the tribal faze faster then most societies giving them an advantage over there more tribal neighbors.

Many of the other Italic peoples were more tribal and decentralized than the Romans. Although it wasn't inevitable they would stay that way. Rome was essentially an Etruscan colony, so one could imagine founding an Etruscan colony further south, or a Greek colony further north, to face the same challenges that Rome did and have similar influence, and develop in much the same way except in a different area with a different dialect.

As for how the non-Greek peoples in Italy like the Samnites could have formed centralized states without Roman influence or without fighting Rome, I'm not sure. But I would be hesitant to say that the Italic peoples were doomed to be non-urbanized confederations forever. Especially if they're constantly fighting, allying, and trading with Greeks.

 

[Happers]

Many of the other Italic peoples were more tribal and decentralized than the Romans. Although it wasn't inevitable they would stay that way. Rome was essentially an Etruscan colony, so one could imagine founding an Etruscan colony further south, or a Greek colony further north, to face the same challenges that Rome did and have similar influence, and develop in much the same way except in a different area with a different dialect.

As for how the non-Greek peoples in Italy like the Samnites could have formed centralized states without Roman influence or without fighting Rome, I'm not sure. But I would be hesitant to say that the Italic peoples were doomed to be non-urbanized confederations forever. Especially if they're constantly fighting, allying, and trading with Greeks.

Who would have been the most likely runner up for a centralized Italic state? Rome, Etrusca then who else?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Who would have been the most likely runner up for a centralized Italic state? Rome, Etrusca then who else?

The Samnites seem to have been one of Rome's most formidable early rivals, so I would bet on them. If additional Greek migration or population growth had led to greater urbanization in Samnium, or if the Samnites had somehow conquered Neapolis, then I think that could be the first step to an expanding Samnite state.

 

[Magnum]

Samnites is a no-brainer.

Some sort of weird Graeco-Samnite fusion might also be possible.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Who would have been the most likely runner up for a centralized Italic state? Rome, Etrusca then who else?

Sammites. They had achieved control of the Campania when the Romans were in expansion and they had a good shot of winning the first and second wars, if he take Livy and accept his account that the Roman victories could had easily ended has Sammite victories.

The Sammites could had easily replace Rome in achieving control of central Italy and considering their position, they are bound to gain interest Magna Graecia. The fact that they were never pillaged and sacked by the Gauls would give them little interest in controlling the North of Italy, at least during the 4th century bc, but any power in southern italy is bound to want to achieve a defensive northern border.

Also if they control southern italy conflict with Carthage is a certainty.

 

[Happers]

There's your answer Magical. Give the Samnites more Greek influence then you have yourself a Samnite Empire, or at least a successful Kingdom.

 

[Falecius]

Many of the other Italic peoples were more tribal and decentralized than the Romans. Although it wasn't inevitable they would stay that way. Rome was essentially an Etruscan colony, so one could imagine founding an Etruscan colony further south, or a Greek colony further north, to face the same challenges that Rome did and have similar influence, and develop in much the same way except in a different area with a different dialect.

As for how the non-Greek peoples in Italy like the Samnites could have formed centralized states without Roman influence or without fighting Rome, I'm not sure. But I would be hesitant to say that the Italic peoples were doomed to be non-urbanized confederations forever. Especially if they're constantly fighting, allying, and trading with Greeks.

Such an Etruscan colony did indeed exist: Capua, for some time the wealthiest centre in the peninsula outside Etruria proper.

 

[NolanFoster]

Indeed, I cant think of any real inherent advantage Rome enjoyed over Capua, Neapolis, Veii, or many other cities in Italy. Its ruling class seems to have settled on a path of militarism and hegemony to an extent that the others never began to conceive. Its location or demographics werent the deciding factors compared to its neighbors early on.

 

[Practical Lobster]

I believe there was a substantial urban population among the Samnites. Archeological research into the Samnites seems to have uncovered a network of relatively developed sites - more than a petty tribal confederation at any rate.

We can debate why Rome rose indefinitely, but we should be careful as some in this thread have done of attributing the rise of any ancient state or hegemony to a single factor. Generally why states and peoples succeed or fail in their ambitions is a complex and multifaceted science. I know that what I just said might be obvious but people seem to have jumped to some hasty conclusions. Rome's formula was not unique to them, and it changed a lot over their history.

Also I was unaware that the Achaemenids rise was due to luck more than every other event in human history is due to "luck."