AHC: smallest plausible Roman Republic/Empire after Battle of Zama?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama

This was the battle ending the second Punic War, that gave Rome an overwhelming upper hand in the western mediterranean.

With a PoD or 201 or 200 BC, can we plausibly end up with a Roman/Republic Empire that peaks at only 25% or 50% of its historical land area?

If so, how?

The thing about the Romans is that although it was established in a "fit of absentmindedness" and was not the dream of a single founding conqueror like Alexander or Napoleon, the Romans had a certain set of *habits* and *capabilities* that seem to make it very difficult for them to be contained by other powers or contain themselves, at least in areas suitable for their kinds of agriculture.
 
One where an understanding is reached with the Seleucids, that their sphere of influence is on the Asian side of the Aegean, the Romans on the European. This would be Syrian War.
 
@Slydessertfox had an interesting point.

I'd suggest the obvious:

In Europe: no Roman general conquers entire Gaul. Until Caesar, I don't think any general seriously considered this vast enterprise, and the Republic as whole was fairly content with the prosperous stretch of land connecting Hispania and Italia while maintaining cordial relations with some regional Gallic principalities and Massalia (which wasn't annexed until the Caesarian Civil war, if I recall correctly).

It's interesting to not that while we today can't imagine Italy without the Alpine regions, on Roman times (culturally speaking, at least) the country ended on the river Rubicon, and the modern Swiss and Austrian regions that belonged to Ancient Rome were annexed by Augustus. So, in this ATL, the Helvetian and Norican realms survive intact, even if as client states.

Also, limit the Dalmatian conquests to only the littoral (it was seem as necessary to the Roman Republic, because of the rampant piracy in the Adriatic), but leave the hinterland to a multitude of client tribal groups instead of outright annexing them.

In Spain... now I personally find this hard to conceive, as any general would eventually want to claim the entire peninsula, but you can have a surviving Cantabrian or Lusitanian realm coexisting the Republic (which retains land only on the eastern and southern part of Spain)

In Africa: A more successful Mauretanian or Numidian warlord manages to contain the Roman possessions on modern Tunisia and eventually Lybia, but preserves native control upon the rest of the region all the way to the Atlas mountains.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Both of you bring up some fascinating alternatives, one where the the Romans stop at Asia, and another where, instead, they forego deep expansion north of the Mediteranean shoreline.

One where an understanding is reached with the Seleucids, that their sphere of influence is on the Asian side of the Aegean, the Romans on the European. This would be Syrian War.

It would be interesting to see this develop and how it could come about. The Seleucids never allying with Pontus? Or the Romans making successful overtures to the Seleucids to stab Pontus in the back once Pontus shows an interest in Greece?

A water border for the Romans is much easier for the Romans to defend than the historic borderlands with the Parthians and Persians.

I would presume the Romans would eventually want Egypt for the grain and might have a land border with the Seleucids in Sinai or Palestine, or the Maccabees as a buffer state.

This scenario would likely see the Seleucids center of gravity shift westward, because I believe they were already losing Persia itself to the Parthians. So the core of their kingdom would now be Syria and Asia Minor, with Mesopotamia and Armenia being borderlands they fight over with the Parthians.

As for the Romans, they have shorter easily and cheaply defensible borders with Seleucids. That saves them from the costs of conflict to the east and allows them to concentrate their defensive strength on the European frontiers.

However, Asia Minor and the Levant were rather rich and productive provinces, so Rome is weakened by not having their revenues.

In the alternative,
In Europe: no Roman general conquers entire Gaul. Until Caesar, I don't think any general seriously considered this vast enterprise, and the Republic as whole was fairly content with the prosperous stretch of land connecting Hispania and Italia while maintaining cordial relations with some regional Gallic principalities and Massalia (which wasn't annexed until the Caesarian Civil war, if I recall correctly).

Rome is spared fighting and occupation costs in northern Europe (although over the centuries, Gallic and Teutonic threats to Italy and the Roman Mediterranean can re-emerge (as they had been threats at times up until the time of Marius). But it should be cheaper than OTL most of the time and make the cost of fighting the Parthians and then Persians more bearable.

In time, Rome has the opportunity cost of not getting the produce of Gaul (which was more productive than Italy for the 2nd through 5th centuries and don't get the mineral wealth of Britain's tin or Dacia's gold. An interesting alternative world, where Rome is basically entirely focused on what had been the historic empires (Carthaginian, Macedonian, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian) of the Med and West Asia, where northern European exercises "self-determination" and is not subordinated to any Mediterranean state.
 
Interesting idea. I always thought by myself, when the romans made the first big mistakes, which led to the Fall of the Republic. One is the way of provincial administration via the pro-magistrate after the 1st punic war. The romans obviously discussed a lot how to to deal with Sicilia and Sardinia. What if they decide for a less monarchic and more republican way of province government?

I expect that Hannibal will start the 2nd punic war anyways. But what if the romans do not start to expand east aftwerwards? I am not that experienced in this part of roman history. Did'nt they attack Macedonia because their king supported Hannibal? Why exactly went the romans East first time. And now avoid that!

Of course there is always the roman greed for dignitas and auctoritas. And the easiest way to get it for every competent roman general and politician is to start a war.
 
Last edited:
Well, considering after the end of the second Punic war, the Romans wanted to get revenge over the Macedonians, I don't see how the expansion in Greece could have been avoided. But surely, if Antiochus III not only didn't invade Thrace, but also gave Hannibal to the Romans, the expansion towards Asia could likely avoided. Narbonensis could have been sufficient for Rome - always to never see the rise of a Gallic hegemon power; about Spain I am not sure, the Iberians were rather hostile and I can't imagine how Rome could get friendly with them.

Carthage... I don't know. It was too much the hatred towards the city... And Rome will never accepted to see it to be taken by the Numidians. But, Numidia would have likely survived if Giugurta didn't order the extermination of the Roman and Italic merchants at Cirta.
 
Well, considering after the end of the second Punic war, the Romans wanted to get revenge over the Macedonians, I don't see how the expansion in Greece could have been avoided. But surely, if Antiochus III not only didn't invade Thrace, but also gave Hannibal to the Romans, the expansion towards Asia could likely avoided. Narbonensis could have been sufficient for Rome - always to never see the rise of a Gallic hegemon power; about Spain I am not sure, the Iberians were rather hostile and I can't imagine how Rome could get friendly with them.

Carthage... I don't know. It was too much the hatred towards the city... And Rome will never accepted to see it to be taken by the Numidians. But, Numidia would have likely survived if Giugurta didn't order the extermination of the Roman and Italic merchants at Cirta.
Maybe have the Macedonians return to a more combined arms approach instead of just spamming infantry.
 
Maybe have the Macedonians return to a more combined arms approach instead of just spamming infantry.

They were too much embroiled in their military traditions to make adeguate changes at that point, and however until the first Macedonian war their phalanx units never fought with the Legions before. Besides, not necessarily a combined arms tactic will have worked against the Romans...
 
They were too much embroiled in their military traditions to make adeguate changes at that point, and however until the first Macedonian war their phalanx units never fought with the Legions before. Besides, not necessarily a combined arms tactic will have worked against the Romans...

Maybe a pod where someone realizes that the way they were using the phalanx is completely wrong and read how Alexander and Philip used to use them.As for combined arms approach against the Romans,I have to say that the Romans are most vulnerable to cavalry,so good shock cavalry may be the key to victory.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
the second Punic war, the Romans wanted to get revenge over the Macedonians, I don't see how the expansion in Greece could have been avoided.

So what if the Macedonians don't go to war with the Romans in the first place and give the Romans something to avenge?

Why did the Macedonians pick a fight with Rome anyway?

(Anticipatory balance of power politics? Bribery by Carthage? A Roman threat demonstrated by Roman occupation of Epirus or was ir southern Illyria?)

Maybe it wouldn't have saved them in the long run, but could it have avoided drawing Rome's hostile attention anywhere east of Illyria?
 
So what if the Macedonians don't go to war with the Romans in the first place and give the Romans something to avenge?

Why did the Macedonians pick a fight with Rome anyway?

(Anticipatory balance of power politics? Bribery by Carthage? A Roman threat demonstrated by Roman occupation of Epirus or was ir southern Illyria?)

Maybe it wouldn't have saved them in the long run, but could it have avoided drawing Rome's hostile attention anywhere east of Illyria?

Well, Philip V should haven't given ear to Demetrios of Pharos who influenced the King as having a grudge with the Romans, albeit the fault of his ruin was entirely on his shoulders. If Philip gave him to the Romans instead to grant asylum, things should have been different even on the Greek theatre, I convene.
 
Top