Which period of Roman history would be most interesting to write about? (pick 2)

  • Early/Middle Republic (509 - 146 BCE)

    Votes: 31 29.0%
  • Late Republic/Civil Wars (146 - 30 BCE)

    Votes: 32 29.9%
  • Early/Middle Empire (30 BCE - 235 CE)

    Votes: 32 29.9%
  • Third Century/Late Empire (235 - 476 CE)

    Votes: 50 46.7%

  • Total voters
    107
Latin Right scenario sounds really intriguing. If you don't end up doing it could you at least share some ideas of how you imagine it'll go?
 
Wow! Can't believe I didn't see these until now!

Caesar is offed by one of his legates, and Pompey is secure - what does he do?

Well, in this situation, it depends on when Caesar is killed.
1: before the Battle of Alesia: Labienus (or whomever takes command afterwards) would probably be forced to retreat from Gaul, and the returning army would demand payment from the senate, so the civil war mights start without a leader (or perhaps Crassus would assume command of Caesar's forces if the POD is before Carrhae).
2: between Alesia and the Civil War: Pompey would likely act quickly and send his senatorial allies to take the Gallic commands and consolidate power. Pompey remains the strongest man in Rome, he gradually alienates the senate, and they flock to the next charismatic upstart who can challenge Pompey, the cycle continues
3: during the Civil War, before the Battle of Dyrrhachium: Caesar's death leaves a power vacuum in his faction, and one of his commanders acts swiftly to consolidate power. The likeliest candidate is Antony, but there are also men like Decimus Brutus, Marcus Lepidus, Gaius Curio, or Domitius Calvinus who might each gain supremacy within the first year of the Civil War. Whoever emerges from the conflict is gonna be facing an uphill battle, since Pompey will have gained a lot of strength in Greece in the meantime, and with their superior numbers, an invasion of Italy may be possible around 46-45 BCE.
4: during the Civil War, before the Battle of Pharsalus: Caesar was in dire straights after Dyrrhachium, and one of his troops actually tried to kill him IOTL during this battle, so imho, this is the likeliest time for the assassination to happen. If he died at this battle, his army would likely surrender, facing an overwhelming numerical disparity and very poor supply lines. ITTL, Antony would attempt to rally a defense of Italy, but with Caesar dead, Pompey's victory would be pretty certain (similar to how Cinna’s assassination made Sulla's victory much likelier)

Latin Right scenario sounds really intriguing. If you don't end up doing it could you at least share some ideas of how you imagine it'll go?

Probably it would involve a lot more development and colonization in Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica (which remained rural backwaters for pretty much all of Roman history, despite being the first provinces ever incorporated). This would mean the cultural patterns, military culture, and political class would be more fully incorporated into the Republic. This would firstly, set a precedent for the incorporation of conquered peoples as socii. This would make the potential recruiting base for the legions much much larger, but also bring in a larger pool of wealthy socii into the political class of the Republic. It probably means a much earlier social war, possibly at the same time as the Punic Wars, leading to a much different expansionary history of the Republic. The Republic would probably be much slower to expand, since the incorporation of socii would make it more difficult to politically digest these new regions. Spain would probably be completely off the table for annexation under this system, and Rome would probably stick to annexing coastal settlements and not venture very far inland, at least until after the conflict of citizens vs socii is resolved.

Could the Ostro-Gothic Kingdom in Italy be seen as "Roman"?

This is a good one imo, but it would require Odoacer to put an actual Roman citizen on the throne. Some senator would suffice, but he would probably pick a child, since child emperors can't do much by definition. In this view, as long as he keeps his army happy, he'd be politically invincible from threats within Italy, and he'd probably spend his reign fighting a three-front war against the Visigoths, Vandals, and ERE. It's unlikely he'd last too long under those circumstances, but he may be surprisingly resilient (as happened IOTL).
 
Last edited:
This is a good one imo, but it would require Odoacer to put an actual Roman citizen on the throne. Some senator would suffice, but he would probably pick a child, since child emperors can't do much by definition. In this view, as long as he keeps his army happy, he'd be politically invincible from threats within Italy, and he'd probably spend his reign fighting a three-front war against the Visigoths, Vandals, and ERE. It's unlikely he'd last too long under those circumstances, but he may be surprisingly resilient (as happened IOTL).
Could not Odoacer just declare himself Roman and then reform the land he controlled?
 
Well the main reason the balance got so bad was because of that slave Amanda e it so they didn’t need and worker do slaves were just not sold at mass auctions and instead given to state to build forts and other stuff then they would be fine
 
IDK if anyone's posted this yet, but Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus takes the purple after Marcus Aurelius instead of Commodus and formalizes the process of adoption with the Senate to formalize a process of the Senate confirming an emperor's nominee for their heir, thus resulting in a more politically stable empire and no 3rd Century Crisis.
 
IDK if anyone's posted this yet, but Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus takes the purple after Marcus Aurelius instead of Commodus and formalizes the process of adoption with the Senate to formalize a process of the Senate confirming an emperor's nominee for their heir, thus resulting in a more politically stable empire and no 3rd Century Crisis.

While I'm all for a longer-lasting Antonine dynasty, I think that the idea that Commodus is responsible for the 3rd century crisis is a little bit reductionist. The crisis itself was complicated, but in his seminal work, "The Fall of Rome, a New History," Peter Heather argues that between the 1st-3rd centuries, the Empire was only able to survive because there were no serious challengers to Roman dominance in the Mediterranean. However, with the rise of Sassanid Persia, there was now a serious threat to Roman rule in Syria and Egypt (the 2 richest provinces by far, and a critical part of the Empire). The political/military apparatus of the Empire proved unable to engage in sustained campaigns on multiple fronts without producing usurpers to the throne, and this is essentially what caused the crisis (although inflation certainly also played a role). Viewing the crisis in this context, Diocletian was only able to stop the bleeding by dividing the empire in half (and later into fourths). With two emperors in office, and the city of Rome no longer required to gain legitimacy, the command structure of the army was able to adapt to the new multi-front nature of imperial warfare without causing the same level of devastation when civil wars broke out (note that even though the 4th century had numerous large civil wars, none of them resulted in a repeat of the 3rd century crisis).

In this view, the only way to avoid the crisis would be to prematurely divide the Empire. However, most of the Antonine emperors (Hadrian excluded) were fairly absorbed in the politics of Italy, so dividing the empire or moving the capital wouldn't necessarily occur to them. This is why IOTL the division of the Empire only came after a succession of Illyrian emperors (note that both Valerian and Gallienus had fairly long reigns but failed to end the crisis). Although I think it's a good POD, it would probably require another emperor on the caliber of Hadrian to resolve that particular issue in time to stop the crisis (i.e. before the Sassanids overthrow the Parthians). A formalized succession is a good start, but it's a half measure and wouldn't do anything to address the structural causes of the crisis or prevent usurpers from simply seizing the throne by force.
 
I find the idea of Sicily being described as a rural backwater odd. It was a thriving agricultural island, whose cities were large, successful and modern.

Rural backwater implies it was not living up to its potential, but its potential was to be provide fertile crops in abundance, and to house its people safely and in comfort

I'm not sure what alternative to this ideal is being posited for the province?
 

IMO it's more the formalization of succession than the absence of Commodus that helps the Empire in this situation. I agree that it'd still be a struggle for Rome to overcome the Sassanids on the eastern frontier, but I think that short of dividing the Empire a formalized non-hereditary succession is a necessary though not sufficient criterion. If the Empire lasts stably for a long time afterwards, probably Pompeianus and then another emperor or two elected stably, the memory of Vespasian will die away and people will less immediately think of marching on Rome to declare themselves Emperor. Other reforms probably have to happen still though.
 
I find the idea of Sicily being described as a rural backwater odd. It was a thriving agricultural island, whose cities were large, successful and modern.

Rural backwater implies it was not living up to its potential, but its potential was to be provide fertile crops in abundance, and to house its people safely and in comfort

I'm not sure what alternative to this ideal is being posited for the province?

In this context, backwater means that the province is politically non-influential. At least in the context of the Roman Empire, there were numerous agricultural provinces which were much more critical (Africa and Egypt come to mind), and not only did such provinces produce numerous powerful administrators and emperors (the Severan dynasty were descended from native Africans), but also received the attention of numerous legions. Not that Sicily was unimportant or obscure, just that most of the land on Sicily was farmed privately by the elites living in Italy (Crassus for example owned a lot of land in Sicily). This outflow of wealth from Sicily to Italy blunted the possibility of a native Sicilian ruling class from gaining much clout in Rome, thus "backwater". Some estimates claim that Sicily had a population similar in size to Hispania (the homeland of both Trajan and Hadrian), yet the outsized political influence of Hispania when compared with Sicily is emblematic of this disparity. However, if, during the very early days of the Republic, a precedent had been set to integrate the would-be provincials more fully, it might be possible for a new cultural or political dynamic to be introduced to the Roman world (or at least see a more diverse ruling class earlier in Roman history).

EDIT: Although, TTL would focus more heavily on the possibility of Sardinia and Corsica's contributions to the Republic under this model, cause imho that's the more interesting possibility. These islands were certainly much less developed than Sicily and hosted pretty much no large cities or military presence for all of imperial history (Sextus Pompey notwithstanding)

IMO it's more the formalization of succession than the absence of Commodus that helps the Empire in this situation. I agree that it'd still be a struggle for Rome to overcome the Sassanids on the eastern frontier, but I think that short of dividing the Empire a formalized non-hereditary succession is a necessary though not sufficient criterion. If the Empire lasts stably for a long time afterwards, probably Pompeianus and then another emperor or two elected stably, the memory of Vespasian will die away and people will less immediately think of marching on Rome to declare themselves Emperor. Other reforms probably have to happen still though.

There was already a precedent of co-emperors being selected (both Nerva and Trajan as well as Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius ruled concurrently), so it's not too unlikely that we might see that co-rulership transfer from simply sharing the empire to dividing the empire. However, the biggest change would have to be the creation of a new capital so that, even if the throne is usurped later, the perennial "marching on Rome" wouldn't simply repeat. That pattern was another big driver of the 3rd century crisis (Rome was marched on nearly 10 times during that century) because it left large sections of the border more or less undefended. The last major important reform would be a tactical one (and the easiest to achieve), and that's the development of the two-pronged defense system. Dividing the legions into limitanei and comitatenses left the border easier to cross, but less vulnerable to an overwhelming attack, since the bulk of the legions would be operating from less vulnerable bases deeper in Roman territory. It's a good TL, and I might revisit it someday, but tbh I've got enough of a Rome-wank on my plate rn

EDIT: The Romans should've abandoned Britain as well, in the long-run it was a drain on the Empire's resources (way more than Dacia or Mesopotamia by some measures) and besides a consistent supply of slaves, it didn't add much of value besides the prestige of following in Caesar's footsteps (which is why it was conquered in the first place)
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
I have one more of a story:
A Roman Governor who committed some offence against Caesar - such as a failed assassination plot or Publius Quinctilius Varus - is summoned to Rome. Instead of letting him commit suicide and save family honor, Caesar tells him --- "Get you to Seres (China), or I will have your whole family boiled alive." Then he does the Marco Polo thing.
 
I'm interested in seeing The Latin Right as well as The Last of the Republicans. Seeing the former would be interesting to seeing how Rome's political system could've evolved and changed from OTL, and if it could even avoid the corruption and inefficiency that doomed Rome to an empire. The latter would be interesting to see how Marc Antony would rule Rome, especially if he ever gains a love for Cleopatra as IOTL.
 
A Desert Called Peace is the coolest IMO, I’ve always wandered what would have happened if Rome had persisted in not granting citizenship to the Italic people, consequently losing the Social War.
 
A Desert Called Peace is the coolest IMO, I’ve always wandered what would have happened if Rome had persisted in not granting citizenship to the Italic people, consequently losing the Social War.

Probably my second favorite TL idea on this thread. ITTL I'd imagine that the new Italian confederacy would co-opt the Roman political system (with a senate, consuls, etc) based in Corfinium an establish some sort of regional tribal-affiliation system (increasing local government and the power of local militias and tax collectors). I'm not sure how much, if at all, Rome would be able to regain its status under this system, but it would certainly shift the focus of Italian power back into Italy. ITTL Pontus would probably dominate the East, eventually coming into conflict with Parthia, Armenia, and Egypt over control in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the sea would once again become bifurcated in politics, with the West keeping to itself and the East doing the same. It would more-or-less revert to the foreign policy patterns of the 3rd century BCE, with the Italians fighting each other, and possibly with whatever power emerges from Roman holdings in Africa. Spain would be almost fully abandoned, and the Gauls would throw a century-long party, raiding and pirating as they pleased. It's unclear how the inevitable conflict over control of Cisalpine Gaul or Sicily would take shape, but they would certainly be flash points for conflict, whereas the Eastern Mediterranean would likely keep to themselves, perhaps with a rump "Roman Republic" or even "Macedonian Republic" establishing itself in the East, as many Roman senators had extensive clienteles in Greece.
 
I was wondering is there any way that the Province of Africa could form the center of a splinter Roman Empire, the way that Byzantine Empire did?
 
I was wondering is there any way that the Province of Africa could form the center of a splinter Roman Empire, the way that Byzantine Empire did?

Depends what timeframe you're talking about. It took a while for Africa to recover from the Punic Wars, so if the timeframe is during the Republic, then probably not. Even Lepidus, who was one of the most powerful and wealthy men in Rome during the end of the Republic, couldn't do much against Octavian, who's superior economy, legions, and base of support left Lepidus unable to govern independently. Probably the earliest time frame for an African Empire would be one of the following:

1. The 3rd Century Crisis: With most of the armies occupied elsewhere in the Empire, and splinter states seeing considerable success elsewhere, I could see a barracks-emperor emerging in Carthage to take over the province. Possibly, if one of the Gordians had survived, they might flee to Africa after having their power usurped, and establish a base of support there, they would just have to make sure that they bribed or otherwise won the loyalty of the Numidian legion(s)

2. The Fall of the West: Of course, IOTL, a Roman splinter kingdom did emerge in Africa, except historians call it the Vandal Kingdom. However, for a more legitimate, longer-lasting splinter kingdom to emerge, it would have to be led by someone from the imperial government. Possibly, if the planned invasion of Majorian succeeded, the ERE might force the WRE to allow Africa to remain nominally independent, or perhaps one of the dozen usurpers between 408-435 could form a legitimate government (probably Bonifacius or someone along those lines)

The biggest problem with the viability and longevity of an African Empire would be one of geography. In order to remain secure from invasion, they would have to control all of the African coast between Cyrenaica and Mauritania, and the difficulty in administering such a wide area in opposition to the Empire in Europe would be considerable (which is partially why the Vandals were so challenging to dislodge once they moved in). The inability to directly govern the rugged interior was a major factor leading to the fall of Carthage in the first place, and I don't see how a Roman-derived African empire would fair any better
 
Depends what timeframe you're talking about. It took a while for Africa to recover from the Punic Wars, so if the timeframe is during the Republic, then probably not. Even Lepidus, who was one of the most powerful and wealthy men in Rome during the end of the Republic, couldn't do much against Octavian, who's superior economy, legions, and base of support left Lepidus unable to govern independently. Probably the earliest time frame for an African Empire would be one of the following:

1. The 3rd Century Crisis: With most of the armies occupied elsewhere in the Empire, and splinter states seeing considerable success elsewhere, I could see a barracks-emperor emerging in Carthage to take over the province. Possibly, if one of the Gordians had survived, they might flee to Africa after having their power usurped, and establish a base of support there, they would just have to make sure that they bribed or otherwise won the loyalty of the Numidian legion(s)

2. The Fall of the West: Of course, IOTL, a Roman splinter kingdom did emerge in Africa, except historians call it the Vandal Kingdom. However, for a more legitimate, longer-lasting splinter kingdom to emerge, it would have to be led by someone from the imperial government. Possibly, if the planned invasion of Majorian succeeded, the ERE might force the WRE to allow Africa to remain nominally independent, or perhaps one of the dozen usurpers between 408-435 could form a legitimate government (probably Bonifacius or someone along those lines)

The biggest problem with the viability and longevity of an African Empire would be one of geography. In order to remain secure from invasion, they would have to control all of the African coast between Cyrenaica and Mauritania, and the difficulty in administering such a wide area in opposition to the Empire in Europe would be considerable (which is partially why the Vandals were so challenging to dislodge once they moved in). The inability to directly govern the rugged interior was a major factor leading to the fall of Carthage in the first place, and I don't see how a Roman-derived African empire would fair any better
Perhaps Ricimer still takes out Majorian after the successful reconquest of Africa? Then whoever Majorian leaves in charge of Africa basically says fuck you to Ricimer and rules Africa independently,just like Marcellinus and Aegidius.
 
Top