A Greek Rome?

An idea I just had, I don't know if someone already come up with it, or if there will ever be a story from me or anyone else... Hell, I don't even know if this is ASB... I think not since it's all in the realm of possibility?

Here it is:

What if Latin was one of the numerous Greek dialects or what if the Ancient Romans were actually Greeks since the ancient times.

I think the POD could be the surrounding territories of Rome as an ancient Greek colony, just as they did colonize lot of places in the Mediterranean Sea, as this OTL map shows.

Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.png


In the ATL world, they just went a little further up in Italy, up to include the ancient Latin territories.

Let's say that a Greek speaking Rome will still start expanding as OTL one (maybe some butterflies will be killed for that to happen?)
I suppose they will have a much easier time integrating the already "Greek" territories compared to OTL, maybe quicker too, allowing for a better control of the Bosporan region and the Black Sea.
They will still fight the Phoenicians (Cathage) for Mediterranean supremacy, most likely winning.

The main differences I can came up at the moment will be much further up in the time scale... not having 2 different languages will prevent the latin/greek split that happened OTL, it will also make a combined administration of west and east easier, perhaps turning any possible split as a truly administrative division of powers instead of an ethnic one along the road?

Please consider that I just come up with this, like 5 minutes ago, I don't even know if it's completely crazy but... What other changes are likely to happen in this scenario in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
This isn't necessarily me crapping on your idea but weren't most Greek colonies for the most part stick to the coast? Rome's not that far but a bit of a distance away from a coastline - unless this Greek Rome is founded at the mouth of the river Tiber. This Rome could conceivably be located where the Roman port of Ostia Antica was located, allowing it to easily trade with its other Greek contemporaries and the Phoenician colonies in North Africa?
 
This isn't necessarily me crapping on your idea but weren't most Greek colonies for the most part stick to the coast? Rome's not that far but a bit of a distance away from a coastline - unless this Greek Rome is founded at the mouth of the river Tiber. This Rome could conceivably be located where the Roman port of Ostia Antica was located, allowing it to easily trade with its other Greek contemporaries and the Phoenician colonies in North Africa?
Well, while most of Greek colonies stick to the cast, not ALL of them were.
But yes, this Rome could start from Ostia and go inland instead of the other way around, since Ostia was probably the first Roman colonia ever.

This will make raiding it easier though...
 
latin/greek split that happened OTL
What division do you speak of? It may of course help with the religion divide if you smash every butterfly on the way to 1054, but I find it unlikely for OTL christianity to arise ITTL. And as far as I know there was no actual ethnic divide between latin and greek speaking romans.
 
It isn't impossible, but I think you're going to have to have Ostia and Neapolis effectively apply quite a lot of political pressure - essentially making allies in the area.

Specifically allies that don't want to be under Etruscan dominion. Ostia and Rome are actually (AFAIK) two major crossing sites for the Tiber river. So Ostia creating a colony/fort to control that other crossing isn't a bad idea by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it could even be that the Latins of Rome become Greek allies for this very purpose - support in fighting the Etruscans, effectively becoming a Latin version of the Etruscans.

If we assume another Greek city doesn't have massive external butterflies, I could even see this later influencing Alexander the Great - enough to send a general (maybe Zopyrion is sent there rather than go and conquer the Black Sea) - effectively having a Diadochi ruler in Italy. Rome could become an important city, especially if it was the central base for that Generals army, but otherwise, it isn't the city it was IOTL - it is one of many Italic vassals of the Greeks.
 
What division do you speak of? It may of course help with the religion devide if you smash every butterfly on the way to 1054, but I find it unlikely for OTL christianity to arise ITTL. And as far as I know there was no actual ethnic divide between latin and greek speaking romans.
As far as I remember while in OTL both Latin and Greek where considered Roman main languages, with the passing of the centuries the administration of the West used mostly Latin and that of the East Greek, both were still Roman, but that was one of the first "stones" that built the "wall" dividing East and West over the centuries.

While at the time it was not considered an issue, it was after a while the starting point that decades later caused the West and the East to develop 2 different cultures.
It was just the beginning, but from that point outward the difference became only greater.

For instance, even if we keep everything else as OTL-like as possible (which in this scenario is laughable but, oh well), with the fall of the West etc still as canon, then the West will actually speak Greek dialects instead of OTL Latin ones, any possible cultural split will be less severe compared to the one in OTL.

Note that all of the above apply to OTL, in this scenario I doubt that things will go in the same way to actually cause those situation to begin with.

Or at least that is my opinion... which could be wrong :p
 
As far as I know the greek language supplanted latin only under Heraclius.
2 different cultures
I don't think that language played a major role in it, the conquest of the west by german tribes did. It can curtail the OTL issues of Faith, but I am not certain there won't simply be a number of new ones since the underlying political structure remains the same.
And I don't think that the western kingdoms speaking increasingly divergent and bastardised dialect of the same language would help compared to OTL. At least the westerners weren't besmirching roman native language once it fully shifted to greek.
 
It isn't impossible, but I think you're going to have to have Ostia and Neapolis effectively apply quite a lot of political pressure - essentially making allies in the area.

Specifically allies that don't want to be under Etruscan dominion. Ostia and Rome are actually (AFAIK) two major crossing sites for the Tiber river. So Ostia creating a colony/fort to control that other crossing isn't a bad idea by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it could even be that the Latins of Rome become Greek allies for this very purpose - support in fighting the Etruscans, effectively becoming a Latin version of the Etruscans.

If we assume another Greek city doesn't have massive external butterflies, I could even see this later influencing Alexander the Great - enough to send a general (maybe Zopyrion is sent there rather than go and conquer the Black Sea) - effectively having a Diadochi ruler in Italy. Rome could become an important city, especially if it was the central base for that Generals army, but otherwise, it isn't the city it was IOTL - it is one of many Italic vassals of the Greeks.


Thanks for your input. :) What I was thinking about was for the Latins to be "Greekcized", perhaps the Faliscans too?
At the time of the ATL Greek settlement, the Latins were only a little part of the Italic speaking pool, with very little "territory" compared to Umbrains etc.

My purpose was that of having Greek language manage to take hold in that region after colonization, like it did in other places, to the point of turning it into a Greek speaking area instead of Latin/Italic, but still helping history along in starting the Roman expansion...

Idk... perhaps all of this was a dumb idea to begin with :p
 
As far as I know the greek language supplanted latin only under Heraclius.

I don't think that language played a major role in it, the conquest of the west by german tribes did. It can curtail the OTL issues of Faith, but I am not certain there won't simply be a number of new ones since the underlying political structure remains the same.
And I don't think that the western kingdoms speaking increasingly divergent and bastardised dialect of the same language would help compared to OTL. At least the westerners weren't besmirching roman native language once it fully shifted to greek.
Greek was always the lingua franca of the Post-Alexander East, though. Latin was the official language, but everyone in urban areas would have conducted business in Greek.
 
Well, while most of Greek colonies stick to the cast, not ALL of them were.
But yes, this Rome could start from Ostia and go inland instead of the other way around, since Ostia was probably the first Roman colonia ever.

This will make raiding it easier though...

Then it'll incentivize these alt-Romans to build up a quality navy to keep the city safe from raiders? Famous for its warships but lackluster in terms of foot soldiers?
 

Deleted member 97083

A Greek Rome might rise up and start expanding earlier. By the time Rome really started expanding its inflluence, much of the actual Greek colonization seems to have slowed down.

Yet former Greek colonies in Magna Graecia and Anatolia (indirectly under Persia) were already pretty significant by the 400s BC.

Greek Rome's big break in the Italian peninsula, and its first hegemony against Italic tribes could occur earlier than Alexander.
 
Rome was founded in 753 BCE according to traditional chronology. The timeframe is more or less corroborated by archaeology. This is about when whe find the earliest traces of Greek colonial presence in Southern Italy at all, actually a little earlier, though a trading presence was there already. This means that when hypotetical Greek settlers show up at Ostia, they'd already find a Latin-speaking (well, probably; the local language is not documented this early) urban center called Rome upriver, though a relatively small one. Could this Rome Hellenize, to some degree at least, through the interaction with a Greek colony at Ostia? It might be, but the first interactions are likely to be fairly hostile. The Greek colonial ventures often appear to have had a marked identitary streak and to poor relationships with natives, though this might an artifact of the Hellenic historical tradition of later times, which emphasised ethnic Greekness and tended to record armed clashes. This is not set in stone however, if the Greek colony and the Romans find common cause against the nearby developing Etruscans of Veii. Veientans would also take a very dim view of Hellenic settlers at the Tiber's mouth. Romans might be well-placed to establish themselves as the main regional partners of the Hellenes undercutting the lucrative trade of other South Etruscan and Latin centers, leading to an early partial but deeper Hellenization in Rome and a stable partnership.
Roman social structures were relatively blind to ethnicity (compared to most Hellenic ones), so it would be the Greek component that has to assimilate politically (in the long run), but they would bring a huge linguistic and cultural imprint.
The problem however is that this Rome will not necessarily develop the same extreme imperialistic drive seen IOTL. Early Roman expansionism had three interrelated drivers: land-hunger, self defense/siege mentality, and (less critical) religion. Trade was a lesser concern (unlike Athenian and Carthaginian imperialisms). If Early Rome is integrated early and deeply in Hellenic trade networks, it would be a more elitary, somewhat less agrarian society, curiously resembling even more closely its immediate neighbours and competitors, the Etruscan cities. The land-hungry agrarian yeomanry that filled the ranks of the early legion would have less political clout and thus less motivation to die for the benefit of its Hellenizing aristocracy. In a context culturally more tied to Greece, the social conflicts might lead lead to permanent civil unrest and long term paralysis rather than an imperialism-based compromise (it nearly happened IOTL anyway during the Early Republic). Siege mentality might still develop, but it really became a key factor only after the Gaulish sack, some three centuries and half after the POD.
Hellenization would likely greatly diminish the role of the native war god, Mars, and generally affect the religious dimension of Roman militarism. (Also, Mars was tied to the agrarian side of society, as the god who defended the fields; a more mercantile Rome would de-emphasize this cult).
 
On further thinking, here's a semi-plausble scenario.
Ostia IOTL was allegedly established by the third traditional Roman king, Ancus Martius, in order to strenghten Roman trade. What if he, or whoever was actually in charge then, invited Greek settlers to establish the place instead? They'd get the land and trading opportunities and bring the Roman kingdom technology, refined culture, wealth and manpower. Rome is already tradionally used to ethnic mixing: tradition says Romans were divided into three tribes of Latin, Sabine andd the Etruscan origin (IIRC; it was likely more complicated), adding a Hellenic fourth tribe might be feasible.
There is indication of the Etruscan city of Caere having done almost exactly that with both Hellenic and Punic trading communities at the ports it controlled, though possibly not as early as I am proposing.
This would be in the first half of the seventh century BCE or slightly later. That's about when the earliest writing in Etruscan and Latin pops around, but a significant Greek population might encourage a Greek written standard to take root (though Greek literacy is only a very little older according to documents we have).
This sets precedent for Rome accepting Hellenic reefugees from civil and inter-polis wars in Hellas and even in other colonies when this sort of nastiness rocks the Hellenic world in earnest during the following century. Since Rome is not (yet) technically "Hellenic", nobody complains, as in, it's not like the Romans are taking sides in inter-Hellenic fights but just being a convenient dumping ground for their losers. Rome does, however, reap the rewards in terms of commercial opportunities and technology, and also grows land-hungry with all these new people to feed (people who would have gone elsewhere IOTL, so Megale Hellas has slightly less people here, might make a difference for a couple colonial attempts who barey succeeded IOTL). It also becomes a more important manufacturing and trading center competing with Etruscan cities, and is using its Hellenic connection to undercut the direct competitors among them, especially Veii. This brings social tensions earlier and on a larger scale, with perhaps som more anti-Etruscan feeling. The Etruscan monarchy of Rome (well, "tyranny" would be more accurate, even more than IOTL) is less stable and lasts less. The Republic has a rockier start, with more instability and wars with neighbours both naval (with Punic involvement) and on land that help cement a Roman identity and siege mentality. Rome is not fully Greek by any means but it starts projecting the image of protector of Greekness in the Thyrrenian Sea against the Punic and Etruscan competing partnership. The Greeks in Rome adopt the Italic cult of Mars, however.
Around 500 BCE, the Roman Republic is an expanding middling power well ensconced in Central Italy.
It has a strong martial tradition, a respectable though not imposing naval strength, a significant Mediterranean trade network, a very cosmopolitan civic tradition dominated linguistically and culturally by Greek elements mixed with Latin, Sabine, Oscan and Etruscan ones. It outweighs any single other Etruscan, Italiote, Punic or Italic individual polity in the neighbourhood except Carthage, Syracuse, and arguably Capua, but would be no match for an alliance of the largest Etruscan or Oscan states (yet). However, it dominates utterly the nearby Latin city states, who follow its leadership in a deeply unequal alliance, as do a few other non Latin cities and tribes. It has just managed to conquer the long-standing rival, Veii, thus dominanting the lower Tiber entirely. It sometimes plays protector to beleaguered Greek colonies such as Alalia and Velia, in whose defense it hones its military readiness.
In order to end violent civil unrest and sustain relatively far-flung military interventions, as well as nearly constant warfare in the Appennine front (allegedly in self-defense) a political compromise has been reached between the urban elites (mostly merchant and Greek-speakers), the traditional landholding aristocracy, the urban manufacturing middle class and the small landholders (the latter two groups would have formed the plebs IOTL).
All classes have political representation. The armed retinues of wealthy patrons have been merged into a powerful integrated army in which all classes serve on the basis on their possibilities and receive political voice accordingly (the poorest urban workers doing it as oarsmen) but some assemblies give the wealthy more votes. However, no one is barred from magistratures on the basis of birth. Citizenship is open to immigrant coming to settle the expanding Roman territory and willing to serve in the military (this is quite un-Greek, I know). The system is moderately oligarchic but distributes the benefits of imperialism across all sections of citizenry, in the form of loot, land, slaves, and trading opportunities.
Greek is the prestige language, and the Eastern (Ionian/Attic) alphabetic standard is gaining ground as commerce with the East becomes more important.
Relationships with Carthage oscillate, but at the moment, outside the occasional flashpoint in Corsica, they are not overly hostile as Carthage is increasingly worried about Sicily where Syracuse is th main competitor. Caere, Vetulonia and Tarquinia are generally rivals; with other Etruscan polities, it varies. Massalia and Capua tend to be allies, the forming Samnite confederacy looks more and more a potential enemy.
Travelers from Athens bring news of a new form of Politeia, called Demokratia, that some rabble-rousers in the Greek port of Ostia sometimes refer to. In the same port-city, trading magnates begin to think about the opportunities of the immense realm of the King of Kings they are acessing through traders from Miletos, who also bring news of strange new ways of thinking about nature and the gods by some wise men of their lands. Orators sometimes appear with some of these ideas. In Rome proper, there's talk of asking permission to send athletes to the next Olympiad; that would be good training for some in the military, always much needed.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that Rome that is Greek would rise to the same position as Latin Rome.

The reason Rome dominated Central Italy, and with it, all of Italy, is its leadership of the Latin League, which was at first, a league based on shared kinship and language, in which Rome was the largest city. Later on, Rome became leader of the league in response to the threat of the hill tribes of the Aedui and Volsci invading Latium. Such league was formed in 495 BC at the foedus Cassianum. As a result of this, Rome had access to a large pool of willing allied manpower. It was that alliance that allowed the Latin League to fend off the Volsci, Aequi, and Aequi, and other tribes after at first. It was this league that allowed Rome to recover from the sack of Rome in 390 BC.

Of course, in 340 BC, Rome grew that it was able to defeat the Latin League, but to get to that point, it first had to ally and then to lead the said league so it can survive the troublesome fifth century, and a Greek Rome would not be able to lead such a league based on kinship and language. No other Greek city in Italy or the West was able to do so, so I doubt the Greek Rome would be different.

So Greek Rome would share the same fate as Tarentum and Neapolis. A large Greek metropolis, with a hostile hinterland.
 
Well, while most of Greek colonies stick to the cast, not ALL of them were.
Such as?
Greek was always the lingua franca of the Post-Alexander East, though. Latin was the official language, but everyone in urban areas would have conducted business in Greek.
Also as early as Augustus speaking Greek was a requirement for Roman officials serving in the east. To say nothing of any Roman aristocrat worth his salt became fluent in Greek. Greek was the language of culture, literature, and rhetoric, even for the many Romans.
I disagree that Rome that is Greek would rise to the same position as Latin Rome.

The reason Rome dominated Central Italy, and with it, all of Italy, is its leadership of the Latin League, which was at first, a league based on shared kinship and language, in which Rome was the largest city. Later on, Rome became leader of the league in response to the threat of the hill tribes of the Aedui and Volsci invading Latium. Such league was formed in 495 BC at the foedus Cassianum. As a result of this, Rome had access to a large pool of willing allied manpower. It was that alliance that allowed the Latin League to fend off the Volsci, Aequi, and Aequi, and other tribes after at first. It was this league that allowed Rome to recover from the sack of Rome in 390 BC.

Of course, in 340 BC, Rome grew that it was able to defeat the Latin League, but to get to that point, it first had to ally and then to lead the said league so it can survive the troublesome fifth century, and a Greek Rome would not be able to lead such a league based on kinship and language. No other Greek city in Italy or the West was able to do so, so I doubt the Greek Rome would be different.

So Greek Rome would share the same fate as Tarentum and Neapolis. A large Greek metropolis, with a hostile hinterland.
I think a better idea would just be to make Latin evolve to be much closer to Greek. I'm no language expert so I have no idea how to go about that, but its more in line with what OP is looking for.
 
This isn't necessarily me crapping on your idea but weren't most Greek colonies for the most part stick to the coast? Rome's not that far but a bit of a distance away from a coastline - unless this Greek Rome is founded at the mouth of the river Tiber. This Rome could conceivably be located where the Roman port of Ostia Antica was located, allowing it to easily trade with its other Greek contemporaries and the Phoenician colonies in North Africa?
Well the myth of rome is that they where the last trojans just make it true
 
I think a better idea would just be to make Latin evolve to be much closer to Greek. I'm no language expert so I have no idea how to go about that, but its more in line with what OP is looking for.
There were some ancient grammarians willing to accept the fancy notion that Latin was a particularly divergent dialect of Greek, but that had no sound basis, was never widely accepted, and there is no known way to make such a thing closer to reality in a world where Rome is still founded. Unless you are willing to assume a POD before any verifiable history in the relevant region happened.
Latin and Greek in the earlier times did indeed show similarities (and they are obviously tied to shared heritage) but they were not the same language by any means. The currently accepted theory of IE diffusion would require an early Bronze Age POD to make the language of the would-be inhabitants of Rome closer to Greek, unless you are assuming something about Bronze Age Collapse people movements (unlikely, but possible).
 
Well the myth of rome is that they where the last trojans just make it true
There is little evidence that Trojans spoke any sort of Greek. Of course, it is also possible they did, we simply don't know. Clearly, Homeric Age Hellenes perceived the Trojans as different, but this does not need to be taken as a linguistic information.
 
I think a better idea would just be to make Latin evolve to be much closer to Greek. I'm no language expert so I have no idea how to go about that, but its more in line with what OP is looking for.
Very difficult due to different verb usage.
Greek is fairly different to most of the other western IndoEuropean branches.
 
The speech that became Latin split off very early from what became Greek. I think a better idea would just be for Greeks to somehow conquer Rome and replace it's population with Greeks. It's quite possible that Rome is already too established but written sources are almost non-existent that early.

I think it's growth will be constricted much like the cities in Magna Graecia were, as @Tonifranz states above.
 
Top