Could Rome Be Checked in the 1st Century B.C.

[Errnge]

So, recently I've been reading up on the late Hellenistic Era/ Late Roman Republic, and as I read, I couldn't help but notice the uncanny number of competent and devastating adversaries Rome faced between 113 B.C. and 13 B.C. the Romans faced:

the Cimbri (Cimbrian War: 113-101) losing 5 battles before Marius took over
Jugurthine War (112-105)
the 2nd Servile War (104-100 B.C.)
the Social War (91-88 B.C.) where civil war broke out in the Italian homeland
the Mithradatic Wars (90-63 B.C.) where they faced arguably their toughest opponent since Hannibal, Mithradates the Great as well as Tigranes the Great
Burebista's Dacian Expansion (82-44 B.C.)
the Sertorian Revolt (80-72 B.C.) in Iberia
the Third Servile War (73-71 B.C.) led by Sparticus
the Gallic Wars led by Vircingetorix (58-50 B.C.)
Caesar's Civil War (49-45 B.C.) with Caesar against Pompey
Liberator's Civil War (43-42 B.C.) with Mark Antony and Octavian against Brutus and Cassius
the Sicilian Revolt (44-36 B.C.)

So, with all of this going on, all of these massive wars, many of which overlapped, is it possible to check Roman power and keep them as a regional power? How would this affect the other parts of the Mediterranean world? Would someone else rise to the power of Rome, or would the status quo remain?

 

[Nassirisimo]

Well, Rome's chief advantages in the period were-

A- The worlds best army. Disciplined, experienced, and perhaps most importantly, strategically mobile. They also proved themselves superior to the Phalanx, which was the chief professional military formation of the Eastern Mediterranean states' armies, at least at the beginning of the century.

B- Brilliant Generals. Marius, Sulla, Lucullus, Caesar, and many more. Although other states at the time certainly had competent generals, none had them in the quantity enough to win war after war, and sometimes in more than one theater simultaneously. While I'm traditionally quite weary of the "Great Man" theory of history, there seems to be a definite correlation between Roman victories and brilliant generals. The Romans suffered plenty of military defeats including a number of pitched battles. Rome's troops were not able to stop themselves being badly defeated at the first Battle of Zela by Mithridates' army.

It seems to me that if you took a few key figures away from Roman history, you could easily get Rome being limited to the status of a Western Mediterranean power rather than the superpower it became in the course of the first century BC. However, with that being said, it is possible that an alternative crop of great generals will lead Rome's armies, as its highly unstable political and social system also seemed to be excellent at producing quality generals. So realistically speaking, I'm not actually quite sure how you could stop Rome's rise, at least by this point. It would probably have to be the Cimbri and Teutons that extinguish Rome before Marius is able to save it or something along those lines.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

A good pod would be mithridates holding on to the east and Greece.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Julius Caesar brings back yards and yards of tartan cloth, starting a new fashion craze, so for a few years all of Rome is checked?

There.

 

[Chris Triangle]

A good pod would be mithridates holding on to the east and Greece.

...Made easier by a defeat and sacking of Rome at the hands of the Cimbri.

Though the Cimbri themselves are a bit of a mystery, such a period of temporary weakness would potentially allow opportunistic old enemies to reemerge and perhaps new ones as well.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Cimbri have no reason to want to sack Rome. Their whole reason for being in the area was migrating into the alps and or southern Gaul.

 

[Chris Triangle]

The Cimbri have no reason to want to sack Rome. Their whole reason for being in the area was migrating into the alps and or southern Gaul.

Ok, you're obviously a Roman expert so I'm hesistant to question you but what makes you so sure that they would not have done so?
I think they intended to do both but I'm mostly guessing here. The Romans seem to have felt their own country to be threatened by these incursions of Cimbrians against whatever Roman allies they clashed wtih. Clearly both sides were very concerned about the outcome and since the Cimbrians had been amassing their forces for some time and were closing in on Northern Italy, I would think that they would have had the intent to continue their marauding as far as was possible as they had done elsewhere. With a victory over the Roman army, wouldn't they have little little more than the walls of Rome and its last ditch defenders standing in their way of eliminating the major threat to themselves and their allies and of a chance at pillaging a relatively rich city? Certainly if they made peace with Rome and settled in Northern Italy, any further provocations would lead to a fight to the death to decide things once and for all.

 

[DominusNovus]

Look at that list of wars in the first post (ps, you forgot a few, like Sulla's, and the last one between Octavian and Antony). Six of them took place in the heartland of the the Empire, Italy. Several of them required massive reserves of manpower in order to emerge victorious. If this were a video game, the SPQR would be drained and devastated for decades afterwards as they tried to rebuild after all that destruction, and everyone around them would gang up on them and take pieces of the pie.

What happened historically? Rome just dusted off its shoulders and conquered the remaining bits around it that happened to be independent, and made its borders look nice and neat. Maybe history was a video game after all...

Ultimately, it seems that the manpower reserves of the Roman Republic in Italy itself at the time were still so immense that, with their political and military system, they could withstand pretty much anything their contemporaries could throw at them. This, as you've demonstrated, is not a hypothetical, it is exactly what happened.

We don't know precisely enough about the demographics of the era to really understand exactly why this worked so easily, but it seems that, if you're looking for a way to really nip Rome during this time, your best bet is with the Social War. That is the only time, after all, that the Roman Republic was willing to swallow its pride and give its opponent pretty much everything they wanted, so they clearly understood how serious a threat it was to them.

If the Socii can emerge triumphant, you've just eliminated a massive proportion of the Republic's manpower reserves. Only one problem with this scenario: Now, you've got an Italian Confederation taking Rome's place.

 

[Pericles]

Look at that list of wars in the first post (ps, you forgot a few, like Sulla's, and the last one between Octavian and Antony). Six of them took place in the heartland of the the Empire, Italy. Several of them required massive reserves of manpower in order to emerge victorious. If this were a video game, the SPQR would be drained and devastated for decades afterwards as they tried to rebuild after all that destruction, and everyone around them would gang up on them and take pieces of the pie.

What happened historically? Rome just dusted off its shoulders and conquered the remaining bits around it that happened to be independent, and made its borders look nice and neat. Maybe history was a video game after all...

Ultimately, it seems that the manpower reserves of the Roman Republic in Italy itself at the time were still so immense that, with their political and military system, they could withstand pretty much anything their contemporaries could throw at them. This, as you've demonstrated, is not a hypothetical, it is exactly what happened.

We don't know precisely enough about the demographics of the era to really understand exactly why this worked so easily, but it seems that, if you're looking for a way to really nip Rome during this time, your best bet is with the Social War. That is the only time, after all, that the Roman Republic was willing to swallow its pride and give its opponent pretty much everything they wanted, so they clearly understood how serious a threat it was to them.

If the Socii can emerge triumphant, you've just eliminated a massive proportion of the Republic's manpower reserves. Only one problem with this scenario: Now, you've got an Italian Confederation taking Rome's place.

It would create such chaos in the empire that it probably wouldn't rule more than Italy itself.

 

[Sian]

A much more decisive Cimbri horde might do it ... say them pushing for Italy after the victory in Arausio.

If it would kill off the roman empire for good is an open question, but it would certainly give the a massive scare and force them to divert forces from their other colonies to a degree that they could get into a spiral of pain, specially with dissatisfaction within the Italian allies since it was personal bickering between roman commanders that made the battle the disaster it was

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Ok, you're obviously a Roman expert so I'm hesistant to question you but what makes you so sure that they would not have done so?
I think they intended to do both but I'm mostly guessing here. The Romans seem to have felt their own country to be threatened by these incursions of Cimbrians against whatever Roman allies they clashed wtih. Clearly both sides were very concerned about the outcome and since the Cimbrians had been amassing their forces for some time and were closing in on Northern Italy, I would think that they would have had the intent to continue their marauding as far as was possible as they had done elsewhere. With a victory over the Roman army, wouldn't they have little little more than the walls of Rome and its last ditch defenders standing in their way of eliminating the major threat to themselves and their allies and of a chance at pillaging a relatively rich city? Certainly if they made peace with Rome and settled in Northern Italy, any further provocations would lead to a fight to the death to decide things once and for all.

You make a good point. Though if memory serves, at least initially, they didn't want to fight the republic, they just passed through. The Romans pretended to let them through and tried to attack but were crushed.

This was what lead them to stick around IIRC, and what I believe also gave the Teutones the idea of joining the party. A nice POD would get them to keep their armies together instead of separating them and allowing Marius to isolate and take out the two armies that they formed individually. I still think sacking Rome is a stretch. I'm not sure they could sack Rome. Italy isn't completely undefended like it was in say, 270 AD when Rome was very nearly sacked.

Though crushing Marius itself has a lot of butterflies...

 

[Mikestone8]

Any way the arrival of the Cimbri could be postponed a generation or so - so that it coincides with theb Third Servile War? Could spartacus join forces with the Cimbri, and if so could they win?

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm curious why so many are pinning their hopes on the Cimbri sacking Rome. Hannibal couldn't do it.

 

[DominusNovus]

It would create such chaos in the empire that it probably wouldn't rule more than Italy itself.

Which, at the time, was all that really mattered, militarily speaking. YOu've got another generation or two before the Legions are appreciably mustered from outlying areas.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

It would create such chaos in the empire that it probably wouldn't rule more than Italy itself.

At this point, Rome only got their legions from Italy...

 

[Artaxerxes]

I'm curious why so many are pinning their hopes on the Cimbri sacking Rome. Hannibal couldn't do it.

Hannibal didn't have 100'000 men*


*figures according to historical sources so utter nonsense most likely

 

[High Plains Drifter]

Only 3 of the wars have a serious chance at limiting Rome to an Italian only power.

Cimbrian War: 100,000+ warriors tromping all over Italy, causing the death of Marius, Sulla, and even more Roman nobles than killed in OTL, and possibly sacking Rome would be more than a little detrimental to Rome's future greatness.

Social War: The unallied status cities breaking Rome's hammer lock over the entire peninsula would cause a redistribution of power. Rome might or might not return to the top, but even if it did so, the power structure would be different with much, much less of a Rome-centric viewpoint. Also a successful Social War would likely see the deaths of Marius, Sulla, and a whole bunch of their cronies who later became powerful - Pompey, Lucullus, Sertorius, Crassus, etc.

Mithridatic Wars: Don't see the war really ever getting carried over to Italian peninsula itself. But stops Rome's eastward expansion. More important and future important Roman's are killed.


I don't see any of the Rome versus Rome civil wars being enough to check the Republic's advance. They continually add them IOTL and those didn't seem to slow them much.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Capua

Any chance Capua could get an opening and become the most powerful city in Italy, in the event of Rome being checked. I was thinking before or around the time of Hannibal, but i suppose it could be after. What does everyone think

 

[Errnge]

Any chance Capua could get an opening and become the most powerful city in Italy, in the event of Rome being checked. I was thinking before or around the time of Hannibal, but i suppose it could be after. What does everyone think

this thread is dealing with a specific time period, much much later.

Here is an interesting idea. Considering that the Mithradatic Wars coincided with the Third Servile and the tail end of the Social War, what are the chances Mithradates could use these to his advantage to destabilize the Italian Peninsula?

 

[Artaxerxes]

Any chance Capua could get an opening and become the most powerful city in Italy, in the event of Rome being checked. I was thinking before or around the time of Hannibal, but i suppose it could be after. What does everyone think

IIRC Capua did defect to Hannibal, his intent was to wage war in the traditional style and convince Romes allies that it was best to abandon her until Rome could no longer fight and sued for peace.

Sadly Rome just kept on going, they weren't a traditional city-state, they'd already convinced a good chunk of the Peninsula that citizenship and a stake in Romes future would benefit everyone involved.

Romes greatest strength was its willingness to get others involved as partners and stakeholders in the city and senate, hence the huge pool of manpower.

If Hannibal succeeds it could be that Capua heads up a coalition, possibly strongly modelled on the Roman concept of citizenship and ultimately eclipses Rome.

Doubtful mind, but still possible.