Kill the Roman Senate

I admit I might be guilty of a little bit of clickbait here, as what the title suggests isn’t absolutely necessary, but...


In my timeline about the Seleucids, the Seleucids have now defeated the Romans twice in the 160s BCE. Rome is still in effective control of Greece, but one of its consuls (the one that survived the second defeat) signed a treaty agreeing to pay back the indemnity that the Seleucids paid the Romans after the Treaty of Apamea. I personally find it very unlikely that the senate will ratify this treaty, and if they don’t, what then?


Tiberius Gracchus the Elder died during his humiliating defeat in Syria. His sons are alive and still likely to go into politics, though their careers might be very tumultuous given their father’s reputation. However, if Rome is forced to pay back the indemnity (and then some), what effect could this have on the reforms proposed by Gaius Gracchus in his Lex Sempronia Agraria? Will they be more popular among the upper classes, or no? If not, and if they are still shutdown, given the fact that the non-citizen Italians were already quite discontented with fighting foreign wars and coming home to find their farms bankrupt or bought out from under them, might this cause some kind of a revolution?
 

Maoistic

Banned
-Brennus actually conquers Rome instead of just sacking it.
-Hannibal decides to take Rome after Cannae and gets lucky in actually conquering it.

Those two are the ones I think are the most plausible for a destruction or at least drastic reconfiguration of the Senate.
 
-Brennus actually conquers Rome instead of just sacking it.
-Hannibal decides to take Rome after Cannae and gets lucky in actually conquering it.

Those two are the ones I think are the most plausible for a destruction or at least drastic reconfiguration of the Senate.


Alright... what about the situation I just explained?
 
It sounds like what you're proposing is an earlier Social War that gets even more out of hand. If the poor and dispossessed can combine with the Italian allies and wreak absolute havoc on Rome and get their seat at the table (or kill the Senate) the real question is more "what would emerge from the chaos." A second huge question is if all the discontent factions can hold together as a unified front or if they'll splinter and open themselves up to collapsing.

One big problem is there's really no precedent for a rebellion of this time really succeeding - at least none that I can think of. The idea that Rome, on the continual upswing that OTL would see it catapulted to ever greater power, just kind of fizzles out is a wild one. Plus by this point there's Roman colonies across Italy and elsewhere - what becomes of them?
 
The closest thing I can think of to something like that is the Third Servile War. Spartacus marched the length of Italy twice and defeated the Legions in open battle nine times. Let’s say that the Social War starts as per OTL,but at some point things go off the rails, as a group of rebellious slaves take advantage of the chaos and escape, only instead of simply slipping away, they wind up freeing other slaves and their movement begins to snowball. At this point a Spartacus type figure emerges and makes common cause with the Socii. Now the Roman Republic has a big problem. Not only do they have put down their Italian Allies, but they also have put down a major slave revolt. They can do one or the other fairly easily, but they might not be able to do both at the same time.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like what you're proposing is an earlier Social War that gets even more out of hand. If the poor and dispossessed can combine with the Italian allies and wreak absolute havoc on Rome and get their seat at the table (or kill the Senate) the real question is more "what would emerge from the chaos." A second huge question is if all the discontent factions can hold together as a unified front or if they'll splinter and open themselves up to collapsing.

One big problem is there's really no precedent for a rebellion of this time really succeeding - at least none that I can think of. The idea that Rome, on the continual upswing that OTL would see it catapulted to ever greater power, just kind of fizzles out is a wild one. Plus by this point there's Roman colonies across Italy and elsewhere - what becomes of them?


In my timeline (IMTL? Lol), the Romans first lost a decisive battle in North Africa against the Seleucids under Antiochus IV and have now lost a slightly more protracted war against Demetrius I. In the first instance, they signed the Treaty of Leptis, in which they agreed to pay back the indemnity paid to them by the Seleucids, and return political hostages from Greece (including Alexander son of Perseus). They released the hostages, except Alexander, and refused to pay the indemnity, which led to the war that they have now lost. The second treaty is the Treaty of Daphne, in which the surviving consul agreed to pay back the indemnity, abandon Greece, return Alexander, and to a re-drawing of the borders of Northern Greece, setting up a series of buffer states... as well as the return of the Molossian slaves.


I haven’t decided whether or not the Senate will ratify the Treaty of Daphne, although I am inclined to think that they wouldn’t on principle. This would likely lead to another war, one that they are no longer popular or powerful enough in the Eastern Mediterranean to win and maintain the status quo. Such a war would also break out just before the Numantine War in Hispania. So, ITTL, Rome is not necessarily on an upward swing, and if they are put in a position where they have to pay back that indemnity, some kind of reform seems inevitable to me, but I could be wrong.
 
The closest thing I can think of to something like that is the Third Servile War. Spartacus marched the length of Italy twice and defeated the Legions in open battle nine times. Let’s say that the Social War starts as per OTL,but at some point things go off the rails, as a group of rebellious slaves take advantage of the chaos and escape, only instead of simply slipping away, they wind up freeing other slaves and their movement begins to snowball. At this point a Spartacus type figure emerges and makes common cause with the Socii. Now the Roman Republic has a big problem. Not only do they have put down their Italian Allies, but they also have put down a major slave revolt. They can do one or the other fairly easily, but they might not be able to do both at the same time.


Sorry about the double post, I’m not home yet...


Anyways, this was actually kind of what I was thinking. The original intent of Antiochus IV ITTL in demanding the return of the Molossians was as a gesture to the people’s of Greece, since the Romans had originally invaded under the pretense of “liberating” them from the oppressive rule of the Antigonid kings. If the Republic were to TRY to go about tracking down the Molossians and freeing them, I cannot see this not leading to a large scale slave revolt. ITTL, it has been nearly a decade since the original 150,000 were enslaved - couples have likely married and had children by now. A slave revolt combined with a Social Revolt could very well bring the Romans to their knees and force them to negotiate.


What I am really interested in though, is what reforms actually might take place? Can we if the Senate and make the Republic more democratic, enough so to hold it together after such a bitter start? Or would it more likely devolve into some kind of a demogogic military dictatorship?
 
Romans,iotl, we're ... Interesting. They could be defeated, but they never accepted their defeats.
If they had to, they'd revolutionize warfare to do it.
Creating the Legions when defeat by Epirus, iirc, and turning naval battles of manoeuvre into ersatz land battles by boarding.

My guess is that they'd figure out WHY they lost and fix it.
They might agree to said treaty, purely as a delaying tactic, with the intent of raising and reforming enough armies to crush their opponents and take everything back.

Not the answer you were looking for, I know, but Romans were not good at accepting reality, and really great at forcing reality to bend.
 
Romans,iotl, we're ... Interesting. They could be defeated, but they never accepted their defeats.
If they had to, they'd revolutionize warfare to do it.
Creating the Legions when defeat by Epirus, iirc, and turning naval battles of manoeuvre into ersatz land battles by boarding.

My guess is that they'd figure out WHY they lost and fix it.
They might agree to said treaty, purely as a delaying tactic, with the intent of raising and reforming enough armies to crush their opponents and take everything back.

Not the answer you were looking for, I know, but Romans were not good at accepting reality, and really great at forcing reality to bend.


In truth, I was kind of leaning toward that conclusion. The Romans had a very puffed up view of themselves, and I just can’t see them paying that indemnity barring catastrophe. The Senate would be highly unlikely to ratify the treaty, and they would find themselves into a corner before they submitted.


Still, the latter half of the 2nd century BCE was a pretty volatile time for them that, looking back, one has to be impressed that they not only made it out of it controlling Italy, but controlling th Mediterranean. I am currently researching Roman relations with the city-states/leagues of Greece, and quite honestly, it would seem that it could go either way. But, if the Romans were to lose a war in Greece, after having already lost in North Africa and Syria, this could really rattle Roman society to its core, I think. The Numantine War would be happening simultaneously, which they might also lose (as they almost did IOTL) it preoccupied with a losing fight in Greece. And if they lose both wars, the people are going to demand not only military, but social reform, I think.


But then, a war in Greece doesn’t seem to be inevitable...
 
Top