AHC: A Fortified Rome

The reasoning behind this thread is 1) I have seen 2 AHC threads here lately and my badluck side is saying to make it 3. 2) Earlier this week I began reading H.G. Wells' The Outline of History, particularly (Chapter? Section?) 5 when he begins to narrate the rise of the Roman Empire. He states at 3 different times either plebeians or legionnaires actually march out of Rome and head up the Tiber River to found a new city due to the patricians "corruptness". And at 3 separate times the patricians placated the "protesters".
What fascinated me the most is that the legionnaires actually set a foundation for the new city. Your challenge is this, you must devise a scenario that leads both a large number of plebeians and legionnaires to actually settle the area. This challenge comes with its own demands, and at these demands I leave you to your own brains to figure them out.
Thank You, and have a nice day :D
EDIT: I just realized that I named this AHC thread "fortified Rome" which has nothing to do with the actual challenge itself. *FacePalm. Please excuse my error.
 
Rome was largely built where it was because it's very near one of the few crossings of the Tiber. To build a city anywhere else nearby is pointless. These protestors, if they would actually leave, would probably just go to another city, one that isn't going to be swallowed by Rome quickly, due to Rome's place along the river.
 
Rome was largely built where it was because it's very near one of the few crossings of the Tiber. To build a city anywhere else nearby is pointless. These protestors, if they would actually leave, would probably just go to another city, one that isn't going to be swallowed by Rome quickly, due to Rome's place along the river.

If that is true then how is their evidence that there was a foundation for city built? But your statements ring true, but at the time of the exodus' the Roman Empire wasn't an empire at all. It was a mere city-state. So if the protesters traveled a good distance up the river Tiber then it is safe to presume that they could have built their own city? And the citizens and soldiers in OTL were important in some way to the patricians, which some how made the patricians give in. If they hadn't turned back do you think Rome would have stayed the same?
 
If that is true then how is their evidence that there was a foundation for city built? But your statements ring true, but at the time of the exodus' the Roman Empire wasn't an empire at all. It was a mere city-state. So if the protesters traveled a good distance up the river Tiber then it is safe to presume that they could have built their own city? And the citizens and soldiers in OTL were important in some way to the patricians, which some how made the patricians give in. If they hadn't turned back do you think Rome would have stayed the same?

There would have been no way that they would leave. The various parts of Rome needed each other to survive. Whatever the posturing, they were not going to actually leave. They would both be screwed without each other.
 
Top