Challenge: American history a much closer parallel of Roman history.

We've all heard the constant claims that America is similar in some way (whether in detail or in breadth, of substance of superficiality) to the Roman Republic/Empire. But what I'm interested in (as a bit of a fun game with the members of this board) is to try to reshape America so that it mimics Roman history in terms of order of events, while still keeping unique American characteristics, institutions, geography, etc. (although these can be modified to create closer parallels in Rome).

Anyone interested in developing this project with me through to completion? It's not meant to be very serious, just something semi-silly to do on the side.
 
If US develops parliamentary (as opposed to presidential) system then PM could serve for very long time.

Just a thought.
 
Well, I guess it helps to make an outline of Roman History. Someone criticize my schema below, because this is off the top of my head with a little wikipedia.

1. Kingdom Period
2. Republic
-i. Patricians reign supreme after overthrowing the monarchy.
-ii. Plebeians struggle for equality, achieving it politically by the end.
-iii. The classes are equal, but patricians still dominate as the main issue is territorial expansion. Economy deteriorates as a result
-iv. Unemployed plebeians swell Rome's population. Against this new economic gap play out a renewed struggled between the patricians and the plebeians. Political instability ensues, ending in the disestablishment of the Republic and creation of an empire.
3. Empire

To have America's history more closely track that of Rome's, you really need much stronger class tensions, a society where class identity is more important than ethnicity. I think this will require a pre-revolution POD, as the men who led the American Revolution were enlightenment thinkers who strongly opposed all trappings of nobility (if not the actual economic power).
 
You could have a legally enshrined class based society by having their never be a Jeffersonian Revolution the generation after the founding fathers. Without the enfranchisement of all (white) (male) Americans we could see a de facto Patrician class claiming descent from the legendary "Founding Fathers" and an Equestrian class of nouveau riche soldiers, traders, industrialist, and bankers.
 
You could have a legally enshrined class based society by having their never be a Jeffersonian Revolution the generation after the founding fathers. Without the enfranchisement of all (white) (male) Americans we could see a de facto Patrician class claiming descent from the legendary "Founding Fathers" and an Equestrian class of nouveau riche soldiers, traders, industrialist, and bankers.

Well...no, the "Jeffersonian Revolution" was really just the validation of the Republican Constitution, whereby one party succeeded the other without bloodshed.

But I do sort of see what you are saying. Keep the laws on who can vote limited to landholding men and a class divide becomes apparent. But it has to be the primary divide of the nation, rather than the OTL division between northern, puritan aristocracy and southern slavocrats.

How about something like this.

1. The Revolutionary War is avoided due to a compromise resembling the Albany Plan of Union, whereby an American parliament is established and significant authority devolved to it, but the colonies remain in the United Kingdom.

2. The American parliament is supposedly free for all citizens, but only landholding men can vote. This invites a very British classist political society.

3. Napoleonic Wars (or an equivalent conflict) break out. The UK again taxes the colonist heavily, impresses sailors into their Navy, and generally pisses people off. The new, politically enshrined American aristocracy lead a revolt, which results in the successful creation of a new state.

4. The American Republic has three classes: The aristocratic patricians, the free plebeians (encompassing a bourgeoisie "equestrian" class and your traditional farmers and laborers) and slaves. Sound familiar?

But this starts to run into problems. With all of the land west of the Appalachians, disenfranchised men can settle out west. They will inevitably be able to vote in their frontier states. I suppose this could set the stage for a different sectional struggle where the western whites struggle against eastern domination. However, the issue of slavery still divides northern and southern patricians and plebeians.

So it's not perfect, but how does that seem so far?
 
Someone criticize my schema below, because this is off the top of my head with a little wikipedia.

1. Kingdom Period
2. Republic
-i. Patricians reign supreme after overthrowing the monarchy.
-ii. Plebeians struggle for equality, achieving it politically by the end.
-iii. The classes are equal, but patricians still dominate as the main issue is territorial expansion. Economy deteriorates as a result
-iv. Unemployed plebeians swell Rome's population. Against this new economic gap play out a renewed struggled between the patricians and the plebeians. Political instability ensues, ending in the disestablishment of the Republic and creation of an empire.
3. Empire

1. Probably, though we have no trustworthy sources.
2.
-i. Correct. Probably. Same lack of sources.
-ii. Sort of. Lack of sources once again.
-iii. Not quite true. All Roman citizens are notionally equal, but rich plebeian families quickly rise to dominance, pushing aside both patricians and their former plebeian allies. By the time of the Late Republic, rich plebeian families are dominant, with patricians probably in a minority. There's not too much evidence of economic decline in the period, anyway, as Rome was certainly able to field very large citizen armies.
-iv. Instability was probably more down to the creation of a professional army and the fact that Rome essentially lacked a political system for governing an empire. This led to essentially "Government by looting", where Roman administration consisted of private contractors being hired in by Roman governors to tax provinces white. The dealing out of provinces became a highly lucrative game, and by the last decades of the Republic, imported provincial wealth was all but vital to sustain any sort of political career. Wealthier men had more power and influence, and a vicious cycle ensued- power brought wealth, and wealth brought power.
3. Yes, Empire. A system that was largely welcomed by the Roman aristocracy as it allowed them to get filthy rich without having to risk life and limb in doing so.
 
Thought of a way to fix that. Assume that after the Napoleonic Wars finish, there is another conflict between the American Republic and the United Kingdom. Maybe somebody gets over ambitious and tries to add Bermuda or a British Caribbean island to the Republic. Maybe it's a reaction to a butterfly I haven't foreseen. But war breaks out.

Meanwhile, tensions between Northeastern Puritans and the rest of the country lead to them seceding and returning to the British fold. The rest of the war is an inconclusive stalemate. And the treaty which ends it Sees the American Republic lose New England and the Canadian maritimes. This means that the northern aristocracy has been eviscerated and the south is running the show. Slavery spreads across the entire west.

So that includes period 2i if you buy my schema for the Roman Republic. Now our American plebeians can begin their struggle in earnest. Because they do not have any political recourse, there struggle requires military action, if limited in scope. So imagine fighting outside of state capitals and maybe even a large peasant army descending on Philadelphia (which I assume is the capital). This phase probably only lasts a decade or two.

This would be followed by territorial expansion. Perhaps a war with Mexico, which, when victorious, would have resulted in even larger territorial acquisitions. Then I could see a war with Britain to regain the lost territory. Again, while the patricians and plebeians are legally equal, it is the aristocracy who drive the expansion and hold de facto power within the state.

The next phase is one of instability. In this America the industrial revolution still causes massive social and economic dislocation. The Gracchi brothers' equivalents will likely be socialists, who will be much more powerful in this America. Unfortunately, during the industrialization of the late 19th century, slavery is still legal. Imagine slaves laboring in factories along with poor whites. Class antagonism in this society will probably have racial overturns, with poor whites wailing that they are being reduced to de facto slaves.

Following the Roman example, it makes sense that the patricians (a word which now also refers to the equestrians i.e. bourgeoisie) would use racial tensions to keep the slaves and working class plebeians divided. However, workers struggle will be much, much more violent and will lead to military power struggles, first between the patricians and the plebeians. Eventually, however, players within the struggle rise above it seize power, instituting a de facto dictatorship.

The American Republic, in hindsight, was a bloody experiment. The world is horrified by the political chaos, by the continued tolerance of slavery, and by their ruthless expansionism. Sound similar enough to Rome?
 
Well...no, the "Jeffersonian Revolution" was really just the validation of the Republican Constitution, whereby one party succeeded the other without bloodshed.

But I do sort of see what you are saying. Keep the laws on who can vote limited to landholding men and a class divide becomes apparent. But it has to be the primary divide of the nation, rather than the OTL division between northern, puritan aristocracy and southern slavocrats.

How about something like this.

1. The Revolutionary War is avoided due to a compromise resembling the Albany Plan of Union, whereby an American parliament is established and significant authority devolved to it, but the colonies remain in the United Kingdom.

2. The American parliament is supposedly free for all citizens, but only landholding men can vote. This invites a very British classist political society.

3. Napoleonic Wars (or an equivalent conflict) break out. The UK again taxes the colonist heavily, impresses sailors into their Navy, and generally pisses people off. The new, politically enshrined American aristocracy lead a revolt, which results in the successful creation of a new state.

4. The American Republic has three classes: The aristocratic patricians, the free plebeians (encompassing a bourgeoisie "equestrian" class and your traditional farmers and laborers) and slaves. Sound familiar?

But this starts to run into problems. With all of the land west of the Appalachians, disenfranchised men can settle out west. They will inevitably be able to vote in their frontier states. I suppose this could set the stage for a different sectional struggle where the western whites struggle against eastern domination. However, the issue of slavery still divides northern and southern patricians and plebeians.

So it's not perfect, but how does that seem so far?

Er, I meant Jacksonian. :( Sorry! But I like what you're doing so far. What you've described is a good parallel to the Roman Kingdom, with the remaining details easily fleshed out. Also, as for moving west, that could be slowed down. From what my (admittedly mediocre) knowledge of the Roman Republic, the Patrician class was historically hesitant to declare war against Rome or one of it's allies was out and out attacked. Most of the aggressive wars of conquest were forced by the Plebians and their Tribune representatives, so we could see American expansion to the west slowed by reluctance on the part of the Federal government to push beyond set geographical boundaries (first the Appalachians, then the Ohio Valley, the Mississippi or whatever, so on and so forth). Instead of the rapid growth of Manifest Destiny we'd see a slower push outwards as the United States increasingly gets locked into international affairs.

Instead of western and eastern sectional struggle, we could see a more sharply defined urban/rural rivalry in the North, as the factory working plebians in the cities establish workers communes (equivalent to the multiple successions of the plebians Rome experienced), establishing power bases with which to fight for more rights. Perhaps instead of Tribunes, we could have a Congress of the Trade Unions or some sort of Congress of Communes rise as another organ of government.

As for Northern and Southern rivalries... well, the Roman Empire did split into West and East eventually. Maybe a C.S.A-equivalent still rises, taking the South and whatever Central American territories the country has, with it, becoming the American equivalent of the W.R.E (the more backwards half of the Empire that suffers a relatively short, sharp collapse into smaller proto-feudal states) while the north becomes the E.R.E (most prosperous, more stable, able to last longer until very gradually eroded away by a new radical ideology (some alt-communism instead of Islam?) until it gradually becomes an irrelevent state confined the New York or Chicago or whatever.
 
-iii. Not quite true. All Roman citizens are notionally equal, but rich plebeian families quickly rise to dominance, pushing aside both patricians and their former plebeian allies. By the time of the Late Republic, rich plebeian families are dominant, with patricians probably in a minority. There's not too much evidence of economic decline in the period, anyway, as Rome was certainly able to field very large citizen armies.
Right, I should have mentioned the rise of the equestrian class. Which is actually a very important parallel to the rise of the Bourgeoisie in both actual and alternate American history.

As far as economic decline, you're right. I was thinking more of the instability caused by the influx of slaves. And then all of the employed citizens moving to Rome, altering the social fabric.

-iv. Instability was probably more down to the creation of a professional army and the fact that Rome essentially lacked a political system for governing an empire. This led to essentially "Government by looting", where Roman administration consisted of private contractors being hired in by Roman governors to tax provinces white. The dealing out of provinces became a highly lucrative game, and by the last decades of the Republic, imported provincial wealth was all but vital to sustain any sort of political career. Wealthier men had more power and influence, and a vicious cycle ensued- power brought wealth, and wealth brought power.
That also has parallels with industrialization, in my mind anyways. I wonder how a professional army would be worked into this America's history. Hmm...
 
Right, I should have mentioned the rise of the equestrian class. Which is actually a very important parallel to the rise of the Bourgeoisie in both actual and alternate American history.

"Equestrians" were not really a distinct class of Roman until (arguably) the later Principate, and perhaps not even then. The equestrians of the Republic were simply aristocrats who chose not to pursue a political career up the Cursus Honorum. In other words, they were wealthy landowners or merchants who did not run for elected office and therefore could not sit in the Senate. They could still be influential as backers of political allies, though.
 
Er, I meant Jacksonian. :( Sorry! But I like what you're doing so far. What you've described is a good parallel to the Roman Kingdom, with the remaining details easily fleshed out. Also, as for moving west, that could be slowed down. From what my (admittedly mediocre) knowledge of the Roman Republic, the Patrician class was historically hesitant to declare war against Rome or one of it's allies was out and out attacked. Most of the aggressive wars of conquest were forced by the Plebians and their Tribune representatives, so we could see American expansion to the west slowed by reluctance on the part of the Federal government to push beyond set geographical boundaries (first the Appalachians, then the Ohio Valley, the Mississippi or whatever, so on and so forth). Instead of the rapid growth of Manifest Destiny we'd see a slower push outwards as the United States increasingly gets locked into international affairs.

Instead of western and eastern sectional struggle, we could see a more sharply defined urban/rural rivalry in the North, as the factory working plebians in the cities establish workers communes (equivalent to the multiple successions of the plebians Rome experienced), establishing power bases with which to fight for more rights. Perhaps instead of Tribunes, we could have a Congress of the Trade Unions or some sort of Congress of Communes rise as another organ of government.

As for Northern and Southern rivalries... well, the Roman Empire did split into West and East eventually. Maybe a C.S.A-equivalent still rises, taking the South and whatever Central American territories the country has, with it, becoming the American equivalent of the W.R.E (the more backwards half of the Empire that suffers a relatively short, sharp collapse into smaller proto-feudal states) while the north becomes the E.R.E (most prosperous, more stable, able to last longer until very gradually eroded away by a new radical ideology (some alt-communism instead of Islam?) until it gradually becomes an irrelevent state confined the New York or Chicago or whatever.

Some good ideas here. I've refined things a bit below.

Omit any second war with the UK. New England remains a part of the American Republic. The struggle between landowners and the plebeians, led by the equestrian i.e. bourgeoisie plays out as I originally thought. There are still sectional tensions, but they are put off by a war with Mexico in maybe the 1850s. Mexico possesses Louisiana and is a much more formidable opponent then in OTL. This requires the formation of a regular standing army, which will have later repercussions. However, the war is a success for the American Republic, which makes larger gains then OTL against Mexico.

Now we have both class and sectional tensions to deal with, as industrialization, immigration, and the decline of southern Agriculture all contribute to unrest and a shifting social fabric. I have some ideas for how it plays out, but its becoming harder for me to shoehorn this timeline into a Roman Republic analogue. Abolitionists in the north are a growing voice, but are tempered by the rising industrialists, who fear stirring the pot will cut into their profit margins. In the south, the slavocrats are losing power as their cotton exports are less and less valued internationally, due to the rise in Egyptian and Indian cotton production. Meanwhile, imagine Irish factory workers and southern slaves reading translated copies of the Communist Manifesto.

Perhaps in an analogue to the Gracchi brothers, a socialist party attempts to put some socialist policies into practice, but are repressed violently. In the south, slave revolts occur, but are also put down by the professional army. Against this backdrop wealthy northerners and southerners compete for the soul of the nation. This is the closest thing I can think of to an analogue to the political unrest of Roman times, which Basileus describes better than I can.

It would follow that a civil war breaks out and ends with a wealthy man, popular with the people, crushing the south, freeing the slaves, giving some concessions to workers, but overall preserving the status quo socially. Politically, that war would signal the end of the Republic. Perhaps in the 1890s or early 1900s?

After this I'm kind of foggy. The political system of the American Republic does not seem open to as much violent struggle between "great men" as that of the Roman Empire. In fact, I really can't see whoever is leading the north in the above paragraph actually overthrowing the empire. Hum...

One idea I did have, inspired by your post, was the seizure of the south by blacks in the southeast and hispanics in the southwest. Maybe it's far fetched, I just felt like sharing.
 
We've all heard the constant claims that America is similar in some way (whether in detail or in breadth, of substance of superficiality) to the Roman Republic/Empire. But what I'm interested in (as a bit of a fun game with the members of this board) is to try to reshape America so that it mimics Roman history in terms of order of events, while still keeping unique American characteristics, institutions, geography, etc. (although these can be modified to create closer parallels in Rome).

Anyone interested in developing this project with me through to completion? It's not meant to be very serious, just something semi-silly to do on the side.


I'm not great with American or Roman history, but I'll give it a shot:


1776: The American Protectorate is formed as a Autocratic Dictatorship, with power in the hands of the "Captain-General", functionally a King, but not called such due to the recent war with England. He has a cabinet of advisers made up of wealthy landowners, a senate. His successor is elected by the senate,and his home and seat of power is a building in the city of New York known informally as the White Palace.

1776-1798: The Senators power increases steadily.

1814: The 7th Captain-General, Louis Tarrin Stuart, is driven out of New York by his senators, after his son Samuel Tarrin rapes and murders Lucy Courtenay, daughter of a wealthy Boston landowner. After this incident, Louis' nephew, also called Louis, instigated a revolt against the already hated Stuart.

1815: The American Republic is formed, much of the power formerly invested in the General is now divided between two "Presidents", who share the White Palace as a home, now renamed the White House. The Presidents receive one 4 year term, and must wait 10 years to run for the office again. The rest of the Power is invested in the senate.

1827: Men from the lower class, who had previously been unable to hold Presidential office, revolt until that right is given to them.

1830: A Law is passed requiring one of the Presidents to be from a lower class family.

1850: The Republic Clashes with the Kingdom of Canada, in a War for dominance of the North Atlantic trade.

1858: The American Republic defeats Canada in what becomes known as the first Canadian war.

1862: The Second Canadian war begins, this one is far more costly and damaging, America is invaded by the Canadian General Hanford.

1868: The American Republic defeats Canada once more.

1870:The Third and final Canadian war begins, it is a short and simple affair, America razes the Canadian capital to the ground and kills most of it's citizens, in an action condemned by the international community as a war crime.

1904: American General James Caska conquers much western territory, becoming hugely popular in New York.

1908: Caska is given the title of Lord Protector, and has supreme command over the American Government.

1914: Caska is shot in New York on March 15th by a group of senators.



I Left out a whole lot of events and oversimplified it to hell (Pretty much everything Caesar did), but whatever, just an experiment.
 
Keep in mind that this isn't mean to be the hardest of timelines, but more of a Turtledovesque sort of deal. If it's hard to make something fit with realistic rules, then going a bit unrealistic is okay. :)

As for the slave question, I see the South maintaining it's peculiar institution in this world, if not de jure, then de facto through a mixture of apartheid, debt slavery, and other such measures, up until the very end of the *C.S.A./W.R.E., depicting the heavy dependence on it's mineral wealth the west had and in recognition of the proto feudal nature of the society. The U.S.A/E.R.E. will become more heavily industrialized and mercantile, representing the historically more mercantile nature of the eastern half of the Empire.
 
One idea I did have, inspired by your post, was the seizure of the south by blacks in the southeast and hispanics in the southwest. Maybe it's far fetched, I just felt like sharing.

I could see that as a good metaphor for the Migrations Period that resulted in the collapse of the W.R.E. A series of wars against the independent non-American states in Latin America weakens the *C.S.A, causing a cascading series of revolts in that region that spread to the core lands of the country that results in general chaos as the oppressed races seize huge chunks of land, gradually mixing their native traditions and the legacy of slavery they've inherited to forge new states.
 
Alright, so I tried to refine my ideas into a form that makes a little more sense. I posted what I came up with on my blog, so please tell me what you think.
 
Top