A greek city states replaces Rome?

[LSCatilina]

I am sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity.

They're quite good anyway.And they're one of the few to sing in occitan )

Anyway, Errenge is right on Massalia i think, i retire then Massalia from the list.

 

[amphibulous]

To romans, carthiginians were also ,easterners' and all that. The rumors of human sacrifices, the use of mercenaries.. they where repugnated, from what I heard.

Greeks... they where kinda decadant, effetes now, but heirs of a glorious culture for a good portion of the roman elites.

It is clear greeks came second - first, delendo carthagum(?). After...

The point is that the Roman's would always make such a decision based on their own *interests* rather than sympathy.

 

[amphibulous]

Actually Rome had a pretty good reputation for standing by its allies and in general giving them a pretty good deal for their vassalage.

Who was this reputation with and in what period? Roman taxes on client states were handled by tax farmers in the Republic, which is the period most relevant here, which meant that the tax agents maximized the amount taken at all costs. One of the complaints - even from the Italian Allies - that we hear constantly is that Allies have to sell their free populations into slavery to pay their taxes. This is one of the major causes of the Italian War. When Italian slaves are freed in Sicily but not those of other Allies taken into tax slavery, the whole place goes up in a revolt lasting years.

So no - the "pretty good deal" thing is quite false, at least under the Republic. Romans were very good at turning up to defend their client states - but that's because these states were Roman property!

 

[Monopolist]

What about Cumae? They did pretty well, especially early on (late sixth early fifth cent BC), IOTL, in the same region that Rome later grew to dominate. They defeated the Etruscans several times, and were actively sought as allies by warring Italian cities. It seems to me that, with a couple breaks (such as, perhaps, Aristodemos of Cumae living a bit longer), they might be one of the best bets to satisfy the OP.

That said, Rome was a pretty unique circumstance, and I don't think any Greek City could ever be powerful enough to have the sort of empire Rome did, or even remotely close to be honest. Sparta struggled to hold its Hegemony for as long as it did; Athens would be far overstretched if it tried to expand beyond Greece Proper and Ionia and would experience mass revolts if even attempted to do so (or if it didn't... people didn't like Athens back then); Massalia is unlikely to defeat the hordes of Gauls around it in the first place to establish any sort of empire; Cumae almost certainly isn't going to do it, despite my argument for it; Taras could barely handle the Italian tribes around it; and Syracuse, while the best bet, has to not only overcome but conquer Carthage (to best satisfy the OP), then project its power over the other Greeks, and conquer Italy while remaining stable... which isn't going to happen. It's an interesting question, but none of them are ever going to achieve what Rome did. If there is ANYONE that could conquer roughly what Rome did in the Ancient world, I have said and will say again that the Arverni of Gaul have the best shot.

 

[Sharkani Rend]

I think Sparta is too unstable a power to create a massive quasi-Roman empire. The entire power of Sparta relies upon the Spartans, who despite all being warriors, would not have nearly the population to conquer all of Greece. Should Sparta try this, I'm sure Persia would side with Athens in the Peloponnesian War, and side as in give Athens gold. Persia doesn't like Athens, but Persia likes a powerful Greece even less.

Exactly what I mean - around 400 BC Sparta took over Athens, and instead of strenghtening the Peloponese League they kinda neglected it.

My TL envisions Spartan to seize to be enthnic term, but the recruits for agoge to be collected from the whole Hellenic world. Spartan becomes a meritocracy -- only Spartans deal with meta-state and military affairs, but everyone who worths can become a Spartan.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

It all depends on Alexander the Great surviving to an older age; what else would he have conquered, and would his troops have continued to follow him beyond India? Would they have mutinied again? Historically, Alexander was thwarted of his ambitions twice: by stubborn refusal of his own soldiers, and by death itself.

Alexander's expanding empire is part of the problem. Communications are slow, most of the troops are levied from Macedonia and Greece, with few Syrian and Persian auxiliaries. If Alexander lived longer, he would needed to build on what he already had, instead of simply adding more territory and overstretch his existing resources. It isn't the fault of his his soldiers for refusing to go on. They were only human.

It's documented that Alexander planned to march south into Arabia, then take on the Carthaginians. Hannibal wouldn't have been born until decades later, thus Carthage may well have lacked a general to match Alexander's excellent leadership skills. Assuming Macedonia would be flush with success, such peoples assimilated into the phalanx ranks, a massive force would then move on to its next target.

Not only would Macedon need a big navy to reach Carthage itself, but they would have to rely on the support of Greek states in the west such as Syracuse and Taras. Extended campaigns in the western Mediterranean would be risky to the security of his whopping empire in Asia.

The Romans were known to the Hellenic world - rich in culture, tough, capable, resourceful warriors, backed by a high degree of intelligence. Around this point in the AH timeline, they would have crushed Samnite resistance, laid claims to Sicily, parts of Iberia (partially due to a wane in Carthaginian hegemony of the Mediterranean), perhaps embroiled in a war with the Gauls. In the short term, Alexander's warmongering would have saved Rome from the near-catastrophic Cannae. For a time, the far-sighted politic Roman Senators might have sealed an alliance with Alexander in order to end the Carthaginian threat. However, ultimately, the alternative here might well have been an even worse fate for Rome!

Your over-admiration for Roman qualities aside, they were still contending with the Samnites for supremacy in Italy (Second Samnite War) when Alexander was alive. Why should anyone at the time, even the Romans themselves, see them as becoming more than a locally powerful tribal confederation in Italy? There was no "Carthaginian threat" in the later 4th/early 3rd centuries BCE.

Very likely Alexander wouldn't have dawdled as did Hannibal. I'm certain a besieged Rome by a powerful Hellenic force would have fallen. On the other hand, if by this time he died, then this conceivably would have rent his invading army into seperate factions, civil war divided his empire - and the wily Romans ready to take advantage of any opportunity! We could have seen many such soldiers join in with Rome's ventures towards an Empire of their own...

Again, Rome had yet to establish itself as top dog in Italy over the Samnites. It took Rome nearly a century to become a military power in the Mediterranean after Alexander died.

If Alexander died as he did in OT, then we must ask the question: 'what if Hannibal followed his victory at Cannae through to a conclusion?' The conquest of Rome itself would have left Gaul, southern Europe, and Asia Minor at the mercy of a triumphant Carthage. It's difficult to know if they would have followed Rome's 'gradual web spinning' policy at empire-building (i.e: first North Africa, then Gaul, then hundreds of miles away in Egypt, etc). Would we have seen Numidian mercenaries and Elephants striding ashore to fight the Celts? Or would the great Carthaginian Empire have stalled, never to reach what a fallen Rome 'might' have achieved? Would there have been a mighty war between Carthage and Gaul? Who would win such a premise?

If Hannibal was able to follow up his victory at Cannae with Rome's personal destruction, he would still have comprehensibly destroy all the Roman colonae between Etruria and the Campania to make all recovery impossible (Rome had more than 200,000 citizens in this period). And even with this achieved, Carthage itself does not exactly have the long-term capability to conquer an empire like Rome did. Rome achieved what it did because it was willing to grant citizenship to whole communities of people. Tentatively at first, but it became a matter of course after the Marian Reforms, when serving Socii troops and auxiliaries were granted citizenship upon completion of service to the republic. Not to mention the Social Wars. With Greeks and Phoenicians, this was even more reluctantly done. Rome did not have better soldiers than anyone, or wiser politicians. They were just forced by circumstances to expand their citizen-base, which increased loyalty to their cause and it turned out well for them.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Exactly what I mean - around 400 BC Sparta took over Athens, and instead of strenghtening the Peloponese League they kinda neglected it.

My TL envisions Spartan to seize to be enthnic term, but the recruits for agoge to be collected from the whole Hellenic world. Spartan becomes a meritocracy -- only Spartans deal with meta-state and military affairs, but everyone who worths can become a Spartan.

Sparta could not establish a larger empire with the rigid society it had. They whole citizen body were conditioned to become soldiers, so every other occupation was forbidden to them and thus neglected. Trade, manufacturing crafts and agriculture were considered suitable for Perioikoi and Helots, and they anyone who couldn't complete the Agoge, or couldn't afford, could not be a citizen. The standards were so rigid, that the Spartans would only weaken themselves in the long-term.

 

[eliphas8]

Sparta could not establish a larger empire with the rigid society it had. They whole citizen body were conditioned to become soldiers, so every other occupation was forbidden to them and thus neglected. Trade, manufacturing crafts and agriculture were considered suitable for Perioikoi and Helots, and they anyone who couldn't complete the Agoge, or couldn't afford, could not be a citizen. The standards were so rigid, that the Spartans would only weaken themselves in the long-term.

Although the Spartans did put a hell of a lot of investment in manufacturing for the military, they even had a proto-factory devoted to making huge ammounts of weapons and armor.

 

[CandyDragon]

Although the Spartans did put a hell of a lot of investment in manufacturing for the military, they even had a proto-factory devoted to making huge ammounts of weapons and armor.

But the Spartans are too rigid a society- they would never allow non Spartans to become citizens, and the allies of the Spartans are fair weather friends at best.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Although the Spartans did put a hell of a lot of investment in manufacturing for the military, they even had a proto-factory devoted to making huge ammounts of weapons and armor.

That's great, but with a steadily diminishing base of loyal manpower, they have no hope of conquering a larger empire, no matter how well furnished they are with armaments.

 

[Sharkani Rend]

Sparta could not establish a larger empire with the rigid society it had. They whole citizen body were conditioned to become soldiers, so every other occupation was forbidden to them and thus neglected. Trade, manufacturing crafts and agriculture were considered suitable for Perioikoi and Helots, and they anyone who couldn't complete the Agoge, or couldn't afford, could not be a citizen. The standards were so rigid, that the Spartans would only weaken themselves in the long-term.

I know. I mean to get rid of the origin / blood criterion for agoge selection, and to gather and filter amidst the whole mankind. Such Spartan society will become its ideal - only Spartans engaged with war and politics , and Spartans only engaged in war and politics.

 

[cimon]

Athens is the only city state in the Mediterranean to replace Rome;its empire at its peak comprised 178 cities-the last being Semeli in south -east Asia Minor-and population of about 20000000 people.With few amendments to its constitution(probably during the 'Persian Wars' but before 460 BC) it would triple its population,make the peace of Callias(449BC) more humiliating for Persia(inter allia the money idemnity could maintain the fleet for 10 years)to the benefit of Cimon's operations then avoid the Peloponnesian War and an
open conflict with Sparta and its alliance and turn against Syracusae in Sicily with one difference:the diabolical genius of Alcibiades should be left
to act by leaving a watchdog situation back in Athens.
With the fall of Syracusae Sicily would follow and then south Italy would be attached to the chariot of Alkibiades who to my estimate and for very valid reasons was greater than Alexander.Alkibiades then as an excellent
orator would persuade Sparta to ally with Athens-oversee the situation in
central Greece,bring Thessaly into the Peloponnesian alliance and watch Persia living behind two Athenian fleets which,along with the Peloponnesian fleet would be able to control the Aegean and the straights of Dardanelles.
This is a good start,it remains the easy matter of Carthage at that time and the subjugation of the rest of Italy until Rubicon.
Don't forget that in the Mediterranean the fleet is a paramount force and at that time,in real history,the Athenian fleets could control the seas uncontested.
Of course Athens should maintain good relations with Macedon.

 

[cimon]

I know. I mean to get rid of the origin / blood criterion for agoge selection, and to gather and filter amidst the whole mankind. Such Spartan society will become its ideal - only Spartans engaged with war and politics , and Spartans only engaged in war and politics.

Very difficult to change the beliefs of the most conservative city in Greece,especially when in 6th and half the fifth cenury Sparta was considered the supreme power in Greece.

 

[cimon]

Although the Spartans did put a hell of a lot of investment in manufacturing for the military, they even had a proto-factory devoted to making huge ammounts of weapons and armor.[/QUOTE
OK Eliphas,Aikiedes is right;the Spartans had developed everything military and around military(they had the first front line mobile hospitals and first class military surgeons for their time) but that is never enough to constitute a modern progressive state.(never mind about their population)

 

[cimon]

Exactly what I mean - around 400 BC Sparta took over Athens, and instead of strenghtening the Peloponese League they kinda neglected it.

My TL envisions Spartan to seize to be enthnic term, but the recruits for agoge to be collected from the whole Hellenic world. Spartan becomes a meritocracy -- only Spartans deal with meta-state and military affairs, but everyone who worths can become a Spartan.

Yes my friend ,but this is the reason for the Greek word 'Utopia'
If what you intend is achieved,then we would speak about another city and certainly not Sparta.

 

[cimon]

I think Syracuse or maybe Tarentum are your only hope. Athens and Corinth are too close to each other and to Persia. But the best candidates, unfortunately, will still be Carthage and another Italic tribal confederation (Samnites or Etruscans, or maybe Cisalpine Celts out of Mediolanum?)

Small in achievements;only Athens and Sparta had the real power,Sparta of course with its alliance(for your information Corinth is part of the Peloponnesian/Spartan alliance.)

 

[cimon]

If someone did a plausible TL with Pyrrhus taking over Southern Italy and making Epirus unify the Greek City states... that'll be great.

A three-sided balance of power in the Mediterranean between Epirus, Rome and Carthage.

Pyrrus tried and he could not.Epirus had a small population,that is why although victorius against the Romans,his losses in battle being irreplaceable is what defeated him.

 

[Tobit]

Pergamum was a powerful Greek City State, if for some reason the seleukids collapse, they might be able to rule all of anatolia. They would probably have enough resources to be a great power.

 

[cimon]

Maybe Megalopolis could be great if it manages to unite the Achaean League. If it was to mirror Roman development it could perhaps be the center of a reinvigorated Greek Empire.

I like the sound of the Megalopolite Empire![/QUOTE
Very small,very late,a rural place....

 

[Tobit]

Maybe Megalopolis could be great if it manages to unite the Achaean League. If it was to mirror Roman development it could perhaps be the center of a reinvigorated Greek Empire.

I like the sound of the Megalopolite Empire![/QUOTE
Very small,very late,a rural place....

It was only made very small, after being burnt to the ground by Spartans, and they made off with 300 talents of loot. It was however a great city with one of the largest theatres in the Greek world able to seat 20,000.

The outcome could have been different though. The Achaean league under Aratus was able to truly assert independence from Macedonia. He almost succeeded in bringing Athens and the entire Aetolian league into alliance until he broke his leg and became very sick. If he succeeded in throwing out the Macedonian garrison in Athens he would be more than ready for when the Spartans attack.

Philopoemon of Megalopolis was the next important Strategos after Aratus, and he succeeded reforming the Greek military copying a more flexible style of warfare. However by that time it was too late and the Romans invaded and burnt Corinth.