Regarding the Greeks and Romans...

Suppose that the Romans only go so far as the edge of the Italic peninsula and the various Greek and Punic colonies around the Mediterranean Sea remain intact. What could happen that would contain the spread of the Romans, assuming that Rome is not eventually destroyed?

I thought about the spread of populations from a resource conservation point of view, in the sense that going far from one's homeland would require great amounts of time and resources (food, shelter, materials for tools, etc.) But I want a more coherent and sensible description ·· perhaps involving alternative developments of specific events such as the Pyrrhic War that could lead to different outcomes in the long term.

Any ideas for how a sensible alternate timeline can work given the assumptions in the first paragraph?
 

Deleted member 67076

Carthaginian victory in the First Punic War might do the trick.
 
Suppose that the Romans only go so far as the edge of the Italic peninsula and the various Greek and Punic colonies around the Mediterranean Sea remain intact. What could happen that would contain the spread of the Romans, assuming that Rome is not eventually destroyed?

I thought about the spread of populations from a resource conservation point of view, in the sense that going far from one's homeland would require great amounts of time and resources (food, shelter, materials for tools, etc.) But I want a more coherent and sensible description ·· perhaps involving alternative developments of specific events such as the Pyrrhic War that could lead to different outcomes in the long term.

Any ideas for how a sensible alternate timeline can work given the assumptions in the first paragraph?

I had an abortive timeline where the Carthaginians win the First Punic War, although it results in the gradual fragmentation of Roman Italia. In my personal opinion, Rome could not be 'contained' per se, due to demographic factors. Italy, and Latium in particular, was very densely-populated for the time. Even if the establishment of Carthaginian or Syracusan dominance over Sicily was completed, the Romans would eventually come for it, although they could be redirected towards the North to control the Po Valley and Alpine approaches (which would help with repelling the ever-present threat of Gaulish incursions). But eventually, the Romans are going to direct their efforts to Sicily and the rest of the Mediterranean. A large part of this is both Italy's relative strength during the period and the 'vengeance' culture which seems to have been developed by reliance on a successful military career for political success in the Republic. Revenge is an easy excuse for a war where you can distinguish yourself, and thus open opportunities for individual aggrandisement.
 

Dirk

Banned
Make your POD during the Pyrrhic War, perhaps. Rome's defeat of Pyrrhus showed it that nobody could touch them if they went after the Magna Graecia city states, and pretty much every Magna Graecia was either defeated or accepted Roman dominance within a decade or two of the end of that war.

Pyrrhus winning makes the Greeks in Italy and Sicily stronger, and the Romans and Carthaginians both weaker, ironically.
 
You have to do more than have Rome defeated. Rome's entire system rested on the allies essentially supplying soldiers rather than paying tribute-that meant Rome needed to fight wars and expand constantly. You have to change that along with any defeat.
 
There's also the problem of the Roman political view on war in this era. Simply put, their general strategy was 'keep fighting.' So, as long as the Republic could field armies, they'd keep on fighting their neighbors, no matter the number of defeats.
 
There's also the problem of the Roman political view on war in this era. Simply put, their general strategy was 'keep fighting.' So, as long as the Republic could field armies, they'd keep on fighting their neighbors, no matter the number of defeats.

Well it's easy to make them lose the First Punic War even late in the war: Just have their last fleet destroyed in another storm, the fleet that senators actually paid out of their own pockets for. Then they sue for some sort of peace.

The problem with Rome on war though is war was also seen as a way for Romans to earn glory and make a name for themselves. War and politics was intertwined. The political leaders were the military leaders (compare this to Carthage where the civilian government was detached from the military really). You need a complete overhaul of the Roman system to make them just stop. That can come with a few decisive defeats in wars I think, but it wont be easy.
 
I agree that you could see a more equal peace after the first punic war. However, that wouldn't stop Rome from expanding in other directions in the following decades. They'd have to suffer continual defeats on multiple fronts, year after year.
 
Not as difficult as it sounds methinks. The Romans had a knack for losing battles early in their wars...and the Gauls could give them a mauling or two.

The problem is that losing early battles never stopped them. It rarely even slowed them. They tended to be pretty adaptive when it comes to figuring out why they lost, and the nature of the military commands meant that they'd get rid of poor leaders pretty quickly (of course, it also encouraged poor leadership at times).

You would need consistent losses all throughout a war that the Romans would go on to lose, to drain both the political will and the manpower of the Republic. And, honestly, given how dogged they were historically, you'd probably need multiple wars like that.
 
Hmmm... have Rome gain the reputation of a violent mad dog, in a military sense, so any time Rome attacks a 'civilized' neighbour, every surrounding state drops their quarrels and defends the victim?

Admittedly, if e.g. Syracuse annoys Carthage and Tarentum enough, the rescuing armies might have 'unavoidable difficulties' and only arrive AFTER the Romans had sacked the place. But they then take the city back, install a friendly regime, and demand indemnity from the Romans.

A permanent alliance between Carthage and Magna Graeca alliance isnt going to be stable. You probably need two or three Hellenic powers (leagues, possibly a really powerful single city or two) plus the Carthaginians so a spat with e.g. Carthage doesnt make the weaker power feel forced to ally with the Romans.
 
Top