A greek city states replaces Rome?
- Thread starter Fabilius
- Start date
amphibulous
Banned
It's doubtful that the Macedonian Empire could be brought up to Roman specs. The Romans built their Empire around sound communications - first the Med, then major rivers. Their road building was just icing on the cake.
They also took a significant amount of time with their expansion, while Alexander took a decade. This seems all impressive for one man, but comes at the cost of being able to properly cement his legacy among some of the indigenous populations, especially in the further east, who didn't take to Hellenism.
Road building wasn't a trait unique Roman civilzation. Hellenes, Persians and Celts built roads roads as well. Only after the professionalization of its military would the Romans possess a permanent corps of engineers to maintain its expanding road network on a somewhat regular basis.
I would say an earlier POD with some nation coming out of the Levant, perhaps Assyrians instead of exiling them, possibly using as puppets both Israelite and Phoenician navies. They would later take on Asia Minor and Greece. This would give them control of all the Eastern Mediterranean. They would later learn of the Western lands and either allow for trade by their vassals or go of and conquer them.
Neither of those are Greek, amigo. The purpose of the thread is to find a Greek candidate to replace Rome as a large Mediterranean political entity.
Sparta under Cleomenes III wasn't quite what I would call decaying. It was becoming more decadent, and did rely more on mercenaries and even armed helots, but as a force it defeated multiple armies many times it size and managed to conquer as far north as Corinth.
Aratus only allied with Macedon after Sparta had ravaged the countryside and the League was demoralized.
My whole idea is that Aratus succeeds in bringing Athens and Aetolia into the league (which he very nearly did) then there would be no need to ally with Macedonia. The Romans though were useful allies to bringing down Macedonia.
Syracuse could dominate if a natural disaster devastated Rome, or Carthage to stop them from spreading over Sicily. Then Archimedes can create clockpunk superweapons to conquer the Mediterranean and then EUROPE!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! ASB FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!
I kid, but Archimedes would be useful to who ever got their hands on him.
I kid, but Archimedes would be useful to who ever got their hands on him.
That narrow minded mentality like Aratus is what prevented some Greek city states from expanding their vision;If the various greek states had the general feeling that they should unite against barbarians,as they did with the Persians,Romans would never have entered the Greek world..-
an example in case is Pergamum;called for Roman help in the battling of diadochoi.Had Pergamum not done that Rome would never dare to take on the Greek world of Eastern Mediterranean.The Greeks were a lot more powerful and with infinitely more resources than Rome.
It lacked population and resources;even with Neodamodeis,there weren't enough plots of land to distribute to new citizens,and adequate time to devote to the traditional Spartan training(needed a generation of new Spartans)
A thing I wonder.... Greeks and Phoenicians/Punics used to be so in a way competitors.
If Rome never came to be, would there be warfare between the biggest greek state of the area and Carthage, by example?
If Rome never came to be, would there be warfare between the biggest greek state of the area and Carthage, by example?
If the Spartans were failing, the Archaen League led by Aratus or Philopoemon was doomed. Then what cities had Infinitely more power than the Romans?
Well, there was. Syracuse v. Carthage. There were I believe three large scale wars on record between them, but I think more.
Tobit, Athenians and Spartans in the 5th and early fourth centuries and Alexander in the late 4th century,Epameinondas leading the armies of a Greek Confederation IF he survived the battle of Mantineia(362 BC)
Alexander was a great organiser-you don't build cities if you are not-he proved it in his conduct of war/s-some of his military innovations that are studied until today in military academies,are in the fields of Administration and Logistics.At his time,his first step in the west would be against Carthage and then of course Italy;Livy tries to tell us how difficult would be Italy for Alexander,but of course he hasn't convinced anyone as yet...
I would very much like to see a surviving Alexander turning West.It would be refreshing to see Carthage a...parking lot and Rome in ruins.Probably he would give the...ruins to Samnites.
Rome,despite what it appeared to be,had no geostrategic perspective;its general attitude to the world was defensive like,'once an enemy always an enemy' and if as a result the enemy was defeated,his lands were annexed.
The only clearly imperial move of Rome was the campaign of Agricola against Britain with what followed.Otherwise we fail to see in Rome any geostrategical notions dictating an imperial policy.
Naturally,whether that be Alexander, Athens or Syracuse or both.
Last edited: