DBWI: The Roman Republic, instead of the Seleucid Dynasty, united the Mediterranean?

What if the Roman Republic, instead of the Seleucid Empire, had united the Mediterranean? While the Roman-Carthaginian rivalry did lead to Rome's destruction, the Ptolemaic-Seleucid rivalry was just as intense. If the Romans were just a bit luckier, and the Hellenes less, perhaps the Romans could have bested Carthage, which would have given them a position to invade Hellas, then Egypt, then Syria, sort of a reverse of Seleucid expansion.

Would such a Roman 'empire' destroy Hellenic civilization and lead to barbarism from the Pillars of Heracles to Sogdiana? Or would the Romans, like the proto-Macedonians, acknowledge their own semi-barbarity and become Hellenes themselves?
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt Rome could have united the entire Mediterranean, unless somehow Egypt and Greece just gave up without a major war. But if they did... we can expect more focus on Gaul's development than IRL. Gaul is big, forested, populated, and rich, perfect for an Italic kingdom to exploit due to it's proximity.
 
I highly doubt Rome could have united the entire Mediterranean, unless somehow Egypt and Greece just gave up without a major war. But if they did... we can expect more focus on Gaul's development than IRL. Gaul is big, forested, populated, and rich, perfect for an Italic kingdom to exploit due to it's proximity.
Well, Roman mercenaries were quite effective when they were used by Antiochus XII and Philip III. Little survives of Rome's legacy, but the evidence we do have suggests they had an effective military. If they survived long enough to catch the Seleucids off guard, they probably could have taken Egypt.

The Seleucids probably wouldn't lose everything east of Mesopotamia if all their attention isn't focused on the west.

Very true. The Gallic-Germanic Wars were devastating, and without those conflicts, the Seleucids would have retained Persia for centuries instead of having to reconquer it from the Baktrians.
 
Very true. The Gallic-Germanic Wars were devastating, and without those conflicts, the Seleucids would have retained Persia for centuries instead of having to reconquer it from the Baktrians.
If by "reconquer", you mean briefly hold Media for less than a generation and have Babylonia and Mesopotamia routinely switch hands...
 
Rome was quite effective militarily. People forget that they won their first war with Carthage, and lost the second only with the improbable success of the strategy of Hannibal invading Nearer Hesperia overland, from Farther Hesperia. He could have been stopped by any number of Roman intercepting armies, or if only a couple fewer cities had stayed loyal to Rome. Rome as master of the Western Mesogeios would have been in a stronger position than Carthage proved to be because of the larger population of their home territory in Nearer Hesperia. I can't believe they would have had any interest in invading Hellas, but certainly could have held their position in the Western Mesogeios. Carthage of course also turned out to be vulnerable to an attack sent overland from Egypt, but Rome was in a more defensible location.

The problem would have been their political system. If the history of the Classical world showed anything, you really can't build an empire without a king.
 
What if the Roman Republic, instead of the Seleucid Empire, had united the Mediterranean?

Well if they are able to conquer something outside of Italy (and this supposes they build a fleet that can beat a Punic on), they will have a huge area under their control to defend and administrate. However, history of city states like Athens or Sparta teaches us that a polis can't govern an Empire: only kingdoms like Macedonia or Syria (Seleucids) can. So even if the Romans united the Mediterranean, their Empire would have dissolved in bloody civil wars due to the inability of a republic to govern the territory.
 
You'd have to think that a Roman Republic holding an empire that size would need a more centralized administration. A Kingdom of Rome, maybe? Even then, it's not very central to some of the more important areas in the east.

I doubt Rome would remain the capital for long. Somewhere in the Balkans, maybe, or Anatolia?
 
Well if they are able to conquer something outside of Italy (and this supposes they build a fleet that can beat a Punic on), they will have a huge area under their control to defend and administrate. However, history of city states like Athens or Sparta teaches us that a polis can't govern an Empire: only kingdoms like Macedonia or Syria (Seleucids) can. So even if the Romans united the Mediterranean, their Empire would have dissolved in bloody civil wars due to the inability of a republic to govern the territory.

You forgot that Rome were able to control regions of Hesperia for a few decades, as well as some regions of Gallia when they defeated Qart-Hadast in the first Puno-Roman War. They seemed pretty decent at war and were reasonably organized. You'd probably just need to keep a few of the other Italic peoples loyal to Rome; Rome lost when several of the Rasnic cities (Etruscans) opened their gates to Hannibal.

And Qart-Hadast did really well for a quasi-Republic; it took the Seleucids four wars to take down the city and strip it of its power, and before then called the West Mediterranean their own.

You'd have to think that a Roman Republic holding an empire that size would need a more centralized administration. A Kingdom of Rome, maybe? Even then, it's not very central to some of the more important areas in the east.

I doubt Rome would remain the capital for long. Somewhere in the Balkans, maybe, or Anatolia?

I looked into it; I don't think they would willingly take a king; they had a strong hatred of monarchs apparently. They did have this weird tyrant style system for whenever they were at war where they picked one guy to be basically Tyrant of the realm for a year or as long as the crisis lasted. I could see a sort of Elective Monarchy forming from that, akin to what the Boioi eventually went with.

And to them, Rome was The City; I don't see them moving unless they absolutely need to.
 
I don't think you really understand Empire. Qart-Hadasht, Athens - these classical cities had empires just fine. Not so stable, maybe, but it took Seleucia centuries to reunite the fragments of Alexandros' empire too.

Never mind all the city states since then. Alexandria sat astride the gates of Egypt and from that base managed control of much of Africa and Syria (even sacking Antiochia and setting up a puppet 'Empire').
 
I don't think you really understand Empire. Qart-Hadasht, Athens - these classical cities had empires just fine. Not so stable, maybe, but it took Seleucia centuries to reunite the fragments of Alexandros' empire too.

Never mind all the city states since then. Alexandria sat astride the gates of Egypt and from that base managed control of much of Africa and Syria (even sacking Antiochia and setting up a puppet 'Empire').

Ah yeah, that was after they turned their focus eastward. Seleucids seemed to have a lock on the center for a long while, regularly keeping Anatolia, Graecia, Syria and Mesopotamia, but never was able to hold the West and East in full. Sure the west were still subjects during that expansion, but they did regain independence upon Philip III's death and the Xiongu Crisis that followed. Probably because even with the ingenious redesign of the Satrapies, it was impossible to fully govern, and once they managed to reach Bactria, they had to focus far more to keep those eastern realms. Still, their legacy is one that was indelible; Greek could be heard from as west as Emporion to as east as Alexandria-Arachosa until the Iranian Revival and the Slavic Migration diluted the effect.

And city states were indeed potent when given the opportunity. Emporion formed the nucleus of the Hesperian Kingdom, and the Neo-Alexandrian State lasted for a long time before losing control to native Copts. Atiqa took the torch so to speak from Qart-Hadast when the Seleucid Authority decayed in the west and created a great and potent Elective Dual Monarchy.
 
Top