Unconsensual
Banned
I'm doing general background research and brainstorm for a TL where Roman technology and farming makes it to the New World around the 1st century, and I'd figure I'd get some feedback on how plausible the scenario is. Also I wish to maintain some sort of historical butterfly net/convergence in Europe, so the Roman empire will come and go more or less like it did OTL .
Personally I put the limit for the Roman transfer before 150A.C.E. the Roman Empire was more or less in decay after 150A.C.E. . Also the NW would need time for the Roman transfer to make an impact, so the more time the better.
So my general line of thinking; the Roman empire was by no means incapable of creating a self sustaining colony in the NW, but what was missing was the will. So how do we foster such an interest in the Atlantic?
Geography:
The Iberian penusula was ideally located to launch into the NW by distance and access to the trade winds (Like OTL). The Pyrenees provides splendid isolation from Europe naturally leading to an increased focus on naval pursuits and somewhat away from the Mediterranean. Also the Iberian peninsula was rich in metals, a nice bonus for the rulers.
The British Isles was too much of a back water at the time to consider.
Gaul had some potential (especially with the Veneti) but it was missing a lot of Romanization, for one thing only the Southern Gauls had writing
one of the key technologies I wish to transplant to the NW . Gaul was simplly too connected to the rest of Europe, too much investment into armies over navies.
Morocco, possible but the western Atlantic facing portion at the time wasn't very important. The rest of Morocco was too Mediterranean focused really.
Politics:
The Roman empire was simply too focused on the Mediterranean and the city of Rome to divert major resources to some Atlantic endeavor. After the defeat of the Carthaginians the navy took a backseat to the army for practically the rest of Roman history.
Ideally there would be a Iberian republic focused towards the Atlantic. The possibility of a centralized Iberian state was most likely as a side effect of conquest.
A breakaway Carthaginian Iberia is the earliest possibility, but it only consisted of the southern Iberia and there was the threat of Roman conquest. (there was a brief span of 2 decades in the 2nd punic war where Carthage conquered a good deal of Iberia but there wasn't time to consolidate the holdings or a good chance to rebel with Roman/Carthaginian armies nearby) To be successful it would need to hold the Pyrenees to deny an easy Roman invasion. Also Iberia was a major source of Carthaginian manpower, Carthage will not let it go easily, plus it would cause pretty big butterflies for the Punic wars.
Wiki map of Carthaginian Iberia
Now after the Carthaginian possibility comes the possibility of a breakaway Roman Republic. The Spanish locals were by no means loyal Roman subjects, plenty of revolts throughout it's time . The next option would be Quintus Sertorius's republic in 78-72BC. QS was a capable statesman and capable commander, but most important of all he was able to gain the support of a good deal of the natives. But he was probably assassinated and his embryo state crushed. Quintus Sertorius's republic had great potential but importantly it had incorporated many of the technologies and farming package I wish to transfer to the NW. As an added bonus QS was once forced to retreat to the "Atlantic Islands" (it was rather unclear whether it was the Canaries/Madeira) after the Cilian Pirates he had allied with were defeated in a battle against Annuis, a land he found pleasant and wished to settle in.
Next comes the question of locating a suitable POD. I think that assassinations are rather chancy events, prone to minor influences. There are two obvious choices to avert in terms of assassinations, QS himself and Julius Salinator (the general whose death contributed to QS losing the easily defensible Pyrenees to Sulla). The main problem with both of these PODs is that it was really too late, with QS constantly in the field against the Romans he never got the time to build anything that would be conductive to an NW colony. QS could've pulled it off eventually but that would be stretching the European butterfly net that would require Iberia to be returned to the Roman empire at some point.
So what I am looking for in order to get a more successful Iberian Republic? Well a weaker Rome is a plus, QS would get more breathing space. What were the main possbilities of a weaker Rome during the time?
Also QS who was originally exiled to due his support of the Populares in their feud vs the Optimates as Sulla defeated them in 87BCE and again in 82BCE.
Now the easiest of the four possibilities to influence imo would be the Social War. The social war was a result of long-lasting grievances between Rome and her Italian subjects over the Rome-biased system of land distribution, lack of representation of Italian subjects in Roman politics, and the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus; a key reformer for the Italian subjects.
POD:Suppose the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus fails, what would happen? Well his reforms offering more inclusive participation for the Italian subjects probably won't go through, the reactionaries that opposed him were still in power (a good deal of the Roman elites) and the system that caused the grievences was quite entrenched. After all Marcus Livius Drusus wasjust one man, but he was the spark needed for the war (he wasn't the first supporter of the subjects assassinated either). Without his death to incite the simmering discontent of the Italian subjects the Social war would be delayed somewhat.
A Social War delayed by say... 1-2 years would mean that Mithridates VI of Pontus would generally be more successful in the east as Rome is embroiled in a civil war (also it would take time to reposition the Roman legions that was in OTL already positioned in Southern Italy to strike). The Social War would go more or less as it did in OTL as the only different variable: Mithridates VI has alot of pro-Roman/on the fence city states in Greece (like OTL) and probably can't offer much more help to the Italian subjects than OTL with all the problems closer in Greece .
It would also mean that Sulla's fame would be delayed since he is starting later than OTL to display his great tactical ability in the Social war. Given the delayed prestige Sulla's election to consul would most likely be delayed and so it is quite likely that Marius is assigned to lead the armies against Mithridates instead of Sulla (in OTL it was a close call b/w Sulla and Marius). Now Sulla was a superior general to Marius in OTL, so I don't see Marius faring better in Greece than Sulla OTL especially when Mithridates has had more time to consolidate his position in Greece.
In OTL Sulla left for Mithridates with the legions while Marius stayed. Marius used Sulla's absence to gain control of the senate and revoked Sulla's command of the legions, this caused Sulla to take his most loyal legions and march upon Rome executing important Populares in support of Marius and forcing Marius into exile. (The legions were more loyal to Sulla than Marius in general)
Now in OTL Sulla's Greek campaign was delayed by his march on Rome, in this TL the legions do not have to march on Rome but the time saved is more or less canceled out by the more recent social war causing more time for the legions to be assembled in Southern Italy (in OTL there were holdouts that had to be dealt with even after the Social War formally ended).
However in this TL Sulla doesn't have a reason to march on Rome nor does he has access to his legions in Greece. In OTL the siege of Athens took Sulla half a year, with Marius's inferior commanding abilities and the legion are somewhat less effective. Archelaus :the capable commander of the Pontic forces, unlike OTL is able to sneak in more reinforcements and supplies by sea while still maintaining the OTL block aid of the Roman forces.
Now Sulla in OTL took Athens and pushed back the remaining defender to the Acropolis by early March . In April Sulla was forced to march his legions to the plains of Boiotia to feed his legion and counter a Pontic force advancing from Thessaly.
In this TL the defenders are more slightly more numerous and better supplied. The siege drags on for an additional 5 weeks, straining Marius' supply situation. Like Sulla Marius cannot stay in Athens where the land was relatively infertile for an extended period of time and must either retreat west(political suicide) or march to the plains of Boiotia to feed and face the Pontic army.
In OTL Sulla was able to inflict a catastrophic defeat at Chaeronea in 86 BC and again at Orchomenus in 85 BC.
In this TL Marius' strained supplies would limit his mobility (he has to follow the stomachs of his soldiers) but more importantly Marius was not the genius tactician Sulla was, it is unlikely that Chaeronea or Orchomenus would be replicated, at least not on the same ridiculous exchange rates. (Wikipedia has it listed as 1Roman:916 Pontics, yeah right
).
Facing less mobile enemies and an inferior Roman commander than OTL Archelaus is able to use his Pontic cavalry to greater effect than OTL, inflicting a defeat upon Marius legions and forcing him to retreat into the mountains south of the plains of Boiotia towards the Roman controled Gulf of Patras . For the course of the next year Marius and Archelaus engage in a game of cat and mouse where Marius cannot advance into the plains where Archelaus' cavalry reign and Archelaus cannot advance into the mountains where Marius' legions would inflict great losses to the constricted cavalry.
Then much like OTL Archelaus recieves reinforcements of 80,000 by 85 BCE in addition to his original 120,000 , this combined with Archelaus' increasing naval superiority makes Marcius' position in Greece untenable forcing him to return to Rome in shame.
With Marius busy in Greece Sulla was able to use his absence to increase his political clout in Rome, many rival Populares are removed from power. (Reverse of OTL) Starting from a weaker political position than Marius OTL it takes Sulla longer to build up political support, but by the time he reaches the support needed to remove Marius from command Marius' poor performance in Greece was starting to show and it was unnecessary do so. Upon Marius' return to Rome Sulla places Marius on trial for the loss of Greece and uses his influence to remove Marius from command of the Legion. Marius does not have the poltical support he had OTL, and when he tried to stage a revolt the legions (tired, battered, with less loot than OTL and much less relative loyalty to Marius) responded by arresting Marius and presenting him to Sulla who has him stoned to death.
More to come on this draft
Edit: So what has changed from OTL?
Personally I put the limit for the Roman transfer before 150A.C.E. the Roman Empire was more or less in decay after 150A.C.E. . Also the NW would need time for the Roman transfer to make an impact, so the more time the better.
So my general line of thinking; the Roman empire was by no means incapable of creating a self sustaining colony in the NW, but what was missing was the will. So how do we foster such an interest in the Atlantic?
Geography:
The Iberian penusula was ideally located to launch into the NW by distance and access to the trade winds (Like OTL). The Pyrenees provides splendid isolation from Europe naturally leading to an increased focus on naval pursuits and somewhat away from the Mediterranean. Also the Iberian peninsula was rich in metals, a nice bonus for the rulers.
The British Isles was too much of a back water at the time to consider.
Gaul had some potential (especially with the Veneti) but it was missing a lot of Romanization, for one thing only the Southern Gauls had writing
one of the key technologies I wish to transplant to the NW . Gaul was simplly too connected to the rest of Europe, too much investment into armies over navies.
Morocco, possible but the western Atlantic facing portion at the time wasn't very important. The rest of Morocco was too Mediterranean focused really.
Politics:
The Roman empire was simply too focused on the Mediterranean and the city of Rome to divert major resources to some Atlantic endeavor. After the defeat of the Carthaginians the navy took a backseat to the army for practically the rest of Roman history.
Ideally there would be a Iberian republic focused towards the Atlantic. The possibility of a centralized Iberian state was most likely as a side effect of conquest.
A breakaway Carthaginian Iberia is the earliest possibility, but it only consisted of the southern Iberia and there was the threat of Roman conquest. (there was a brief span of 2 decades in the 2nd punic war where Carthage conquered a good deal of Iberia but there wasn't time to consolidate the holdings or a good chance to rebel with Roman/Carthaginian armies nearby) To be successful it would need to hold the Pyrenees to deny an easy Roman invasion. Also Iberia was a major source of Carthaginian manpower, Carthage will not let it go easily, plus it would cause pretty big butterflies for the Punic wars.
Wiki map of Carthaginian Iberia
Now after the Carthaginian possibility comes the possibility of a breakaway Roman Republic. The Spanish locals were by no means loyal Roman subjects, plenty of revolts throughout it's time . The next option would be Quintus Sertorius's republic in 78-72BC. QS was a capable statesman and capable commander, but most important of all he was able to gain the support of a good deal of the natives. But he was probably assassinated and his embryo state crushed. Quintus Sertorius's republic had great potential but importantly it had incorporated many of the technologies and farming package I wish to transfer to the NW. As an added bonus QS was once forced to retreat to the "Atlantic Islands" (it was rather unclear whether it was the Canaries/Madeira) after the Cilian Pirates he had allied with were defeated in a battle against Annuis, a land he found pleasant and wished to settle in.
Next comes the question of locating a suitable POD. I think that assassinations are rather chancy events, prone to minor influences. There are two obvious choices to avert in terms of assassinations, QS himself and Julius Salinator (the general whose death contributed to QS losing the easily defensible Pyrenees to Sulla). The main problem with both of these PODs is that it was really too late, with QS constantly in the field against the Romans he never got the time to build anything that would be conductive to an NW colony. QS could've pulled it off eventually but that would be stretching the European butterfly net that would require Iberia to be returned to the Roman empire at some point.
So what I am looking for in order to get a more successful Iberian Republic? Well a weaker Rome is a plus, QS would get more breathing space. What were the main possbilities of a weaker Rome during the time?
- The Social War 91-88 BCE: Rome vs Italian subjects
- First Mithridatic War 87-85 BCE: Rome vs Greeks led by Pontus
- Sulla's First Civil War 88-87 BCE: Sulla vs Marius, Marius loses and some important supporters of the Populares were excuted or fled into exile.
- Sulla's First Civil War 82 BCE:Sulla vs Marius Minor, Marius and the Populares crushed.
Also QS who was originally exiled to due his support of the Populares in their feud vs the Optimates as Sulla defeated them in 87BCE and again in 82BCE.
Now the easiest of the four possibilities to influence imo would be the Social War. The social war was a result of long-lasting grievances between Rome and her Italian subjects over the Rome-biased system of land distribution, lack of representation of Italian subjects in Roman politics, and the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus; a key reformer for the Italian subjects.
POD:Suppose the assassination of Marcus Livius Drusus fails, what would happen? Well his reforms offering more inclusive participation for the Italian subjects probably won't go through, the reactionaries that opposed him were still in power (a good deal of the Roman elites) and the system that caused the grievences was quite entrenched. After all Marcus Livius Drusus wasjust one man, but he was the spark needed for the war (he wasn't the first supporter of the subjects assassinated either). Without his death to incite the simmering discontent of the Italian subjects the Social war would be delayed somewhat.
A Social War delayed by say... 1-2 years would mean that Mithridates VI of Pontus would generally be more successful in the east as Rome is embroiled in a civil war (also it would take time to reposition the Roman legions that was in OTL already positioned in Southern Italy to strike). The Social War would go more or less as it did in OTL as the only different variable: Mithridates VI has alot of pro-Roman/on the fence city states in Greece (like OTL) and probably can't offer much more help to the Italian subjects than OTL with all the problems closer in Greece .
It would also mean that Sulla's fame would be delayed since he is starting later than OTL to display his great tactical ability in the Social war. Given the delayed prestige Sulla's election to consul would most likely be delayed and so it is quite likely that Marius is assigned to lead the armies against Mithridates instead of Sulla (in OTL it was a close call b/w Sulla and Marius). Now Sulla was a superior general to Marius in OTL, so I don't see Marius faring better in Greece than Sulla OTL especially when Mithridates has had more time to consolidate his position in Greece.
In OTL Sulla left for Mithridates with the legions while Marius stayed. Marius used Sulla's absence to gain control of the senate and revoked Sulla's command of the legions, this caused Sulla to take his most loyal legions and march upon Rome executing important Populares in support of Marius and forcing Marius into exile. (The legions were more loyal to Sulla than Marius in general)
Now in OTL Sulla's Greek campaign was delayed by his march on Rome, in this TL the legions do not have to march on Rome but the time saved is more or less canceled out by the more recent social war causing more time for the legions to be assembled in Southern Italy (in OTL there were holdouts that had to be dealt with even after the Social War formally ended).
However in this TL Sulla doesn't have a reason to march on Rome nor does he has access to his legions in Greece. In OTL the siege of Athens took Sulla half a year, with Marius's inferior commanding abilities and the legion are somewhat less effective. Archelaus :the capable commander of the Pontic forces, unlike OTL is able to sneak in more reinforcements and supplies by sea while still maintaining the OTL block aid of the Roman forces.
Now Sulla in OTL took Athens and pushed back the remaining defender to the Acropolis by early March . In April Sulla was forced to march his legions to the plains of Boiotia to feed his legion and counter a Pontic force advancing from Thessaly.
In this TL the defenders are more slightly more numerous and better supplied. The siege drags on for an additional 5 weeks, straining Marius' supply situation. Like Sulla Marius cannot stay in Athens where the land was relatively infertile for an extended period of time and must either retreat west(political suicide) or march to the plains of Boiotia to feed and face the Pontic army.
In OTL Sulla was able to inflict a catastrophic defeat at Chaeronea in 86 BC and again at Orchomenus in 85 BC.
In this TL Marius' strained supplies would limit his mobility (he has to follow the stomachs of his soldiers) but more importantly Marius was not the genius tactician Sulla was, it is unlikely that Chaeronea or Orchomenus would be replicated, at least not on the same ridiculous exchange rates. (Wikipedia has it listed as 1Roman:916 Pontics, yeah right
Facing less mobile enemies and an inferior Roman commander than OTL Archelaus is able to use his Pontic cavalry to greater effect than OTL, inflicting a defeat upon Marius legions and forcing him to retreat into the mountains south of the plains of Boiotia towards the Roman controled Gulf of Patras . For the course of the next year Marius and Archelaus engage in a game of cat and mouse where Marius cannot advance into the plains where Archelaus' cavalry reign and Archelaus cannot advance into the mountains where Marius' legions would inflict great losses to the constricted cavalry.
Then much like OTL Archelaus recieves reinforcements of 80,000 by 85 BCE in addition to his original 120,000 , this combined with Archelaus' increasing naval superiority makes Marcius' position in Greece untenable forcing him to return to Rome in shame.
With Marius busy in Greece Sulla was able to use his absence to increase his political clout in Rome, many rival Populares are removed from power. (Reverse of OTL) Starting from a weaker political position than Marius OTL it takes Sulla longer to build up political support, but by the time he reaches the support needed to remove Marius from command Marius' poor performance in Greece was starting to show and it was unnecessary do so. Upon Marius' return to Rome Sulla places Marius on trial for the loss of Greece and uses his influence to remove Marius from command of the Legion. Marius does not have the poltical support he had OTL, and when he tried to stage a revolt the legions (tired, battered, with less loot than OTL and much less relative loyalty to Marius) responded by arresting Marius and presenting him to Sulla who has him stoned to death.
More to come on this draft
Edit: So what has changed from OTL?
- The Populares are ousted permanently earlier than OTL, this gives Quintus Sertorius a head start into exile like OTL.
- Pontus essentially just won the first Mithridatic War, while there is no formal peace Rome cannot effectively challenge Pontus in Greece. Expect Greek city states to start switching allegiances and distancing themselves from Rome after the defeat. Right now Pontus will try to convince/force more Greek states to join them, Archelaus's priority would be to secure a base near the Ionian and Adriatic seas so he can use his superior navy to make a Roman counter attack difficult while he wipes out the rest of the Roman garrisons.
- Sulla has not met or defeated Archelaus, so he doesn't befriend him like they did in OTL. Archelaus was essential in getting Rome generous victory terms in the first Mithridatic War and provided invaluable advice to the legions in the second and third Mithridatic War as he fell out of favor in the pontic court. In this case Archelaus's who was already a favorite of the King would only seem greater in the court.
- The legions are exhausted and demoralized, while the core of the infantry is still intact it will take time to rebuild ,with the coming of the season many of the men are needed to harvest crops back home. For now Sulla has to bide his time. With Pontus still rising in the East it is unlikely that Sulla would pay as much attention to Quintus Sertorius as he did OTL.
Last edited: