Rome as a Merchant Empire

[Sulemain]

Than this needs a very early POD to change. I have no idea which one would work.

The roots of the way Rome developed politically lie in it's geography, it's founding, and it's relationship to the Etruscans. I'd argue that if the Etruscans had continued to exist, and Rome remained an Etruscan city, you'd see a more trade focused Rome. But the constraints of geography mean that Rome becoming a great Merchant city a la OTL Venice is very unlikely.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Not very likely. Agathocles isn't going to have a prayer at taking Lilybaeum. That city was already a fortress-consider it was what stopped Pyrrhus from taking all of Sicily and the Romans sieged it for years without ever being able to take it by force. And as long as Carthage has Lilbaeum, control of parts of Sicily are constantly going to switch back and forth as the fortunes of both sides wax and wane.

Ah yes, I forgot about how armed to the teeth Lilybaeum and to a lesser extent Panormus were at the time.

 

[DominusNovus]

Than this needs a very early POD to change. I have no idea which one would work.

If you want something on the fairly implausible side, my current timeline has the Carthaginians peacefully incorporated into the Roman political system.

Shameless plug.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Ah yes, I forgot about how armed to the teeth Lilybaeum and to a lesser extent Panormus were at the time.

There is an opportunity before it was founded in 396. I suppose Dionysius I may be able to pull it off between 405-396 or going much further back, perhaps Gelon might be able to do something.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The roots of the way Rome developed politically lie in it's geography, it's founding, and it's relationship to the Etruscans. I'd argue that if the Etruscans had continued to exist, and Rome remained an Etruscan city, you'd see a more trade focused Rome. But the constraints of geography mean that Rome becoming a great Merchant city a la OTL Venice is very unlikely.

True, but while Rome the city may not be the nucleus of trade, Rome the state might be with the city merely being the head of government. Like Washington and New York.

 

[Sulemain]

True, but while Rome the city may not be the nucleus of trade, Rome the state might be with the city merely being the head of government. Like Washington and New York.

Except for a long time, Rome the city and Rome the state were the same thing to all intents and purposes, you cannot separate them. By the time you are able to distinguish Rome the state and Rome the city, Rome was a proto-feudal Empire; the conditions for it to be merchant dominated were long gone.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Except for a long time, Rome the city and Rome the state were the same thing to all intents and purposes, you cannot separate them. By the time you are able to distinguish Rome the state and Rome the city, Rome was a proto-feudal Empire; the conditions for it to be merchant dominated were long gone.

Can't you do that earlier?

 

[Errnge]

The roots of the way Rome developed politically lie in it's geography, it's founding, and it's relationship to the Etruscans. I'd argue that if the Etruscans had continued to exist, and Rome remained an Etruscan city, you'd see a more trade focused Rome. But the constraints of geography mean that Rome becoming a great Merchant city a la OTL Venice is very unlikely.

Going off this idea, a good POD might be to keep King Tarquin in power, or to have Lars Porsenna's war be even more successful against the infant Republic. If Rome falls back in line with the Etruscans, this could be the proper incubation for a merchant state. After all, the coastal Etruscan city-states were quite similar to what the OP asks. Rome might eventually be able to establish itself as a separate entity from the Etruscan Confederacy, or become hegemonic over it, and establish colonies in Corsica, Sardinia, and costal Liguria and Gaul with a bit of luck (and by luck, I mean Carthage and Syracuse distracting each other long enough for it to work)

 

[Sulemain]

Can't you do that earlier?

I don't really see how, I'm afraid.

 

[Tonifranz]

Except for a long time, Rome the city and Rome the state were the same thing to all intents and purposes, you cannot separate them. By the time you are able to distinguish Rome the state and Rome the city, Rome was a proto-feudal Empire; the conditions for it to be merchant dominated were long gone.

Rome the State and Rome the City, I'd argue, were already distinct after 338 BC, and really, during 264 BC, they are different. And Rome didn't become proto Feudal till about the seventh century AD when the themes were established.

Except you have ports like Ostia, which is really indistinguishable from Rome, and later on, Neapolis in the 4th century. Have the Neapolitans given Roman Citizenship early on, and perhaps give them a monopoly of trade outside of Italy... and there you have it, Merchant Romans, even if those merchants do speak Greek.

 

[Sulemain]

Rome the State and Rome the City, I'd argue, were already distinct after 338 BC, and really, during 264 BC, they are different. And Rome didn't become proto Feudal till about the seventh century AD when the themes were established.

Except you have ports like Ostia, which is really indistinguishable from Rome, and later on, Neapolis in the 4th century. Have the Neapolitans given Roman Citizenship early on, and perhaps give them a monopoly of trade outside of Italy... and there you have it, Merchant Romans, even if those merchants do speak Greek.

I would argue that Rome the state and Rome the city were very closely linked up until the 3rd Century AD, and that proto-feudalism arose in the same time period.

Having Neapolis as the dominant Roman trading city is all well and good, but it doesn't really alter Rome's fundamental character.

 

[Errnge]

I would argue that Rome the state and Rome the city were very closely linked up until the 3rd Century AD, and that proto-feudalism arose in the same time period.

Having Neapolis as the dominant Roman trading city is all well and good, but it doesn't really alter Rome's fundamental character.

I don't think that's a proper assessment at all. It seems to be based around the idea that only when Rome was no longer the capital of the Empire could it be indistinguishable from the state, and that's obviously not the truth. Evidence of this can be seen in the aftermath of the Social War in the 1st century BC, but arguably even earlier in entities such as the Latin League, and certainly by the time of the 2nd Punic War when Rome's territories began to expand beyond Italy. In essence, if a Roman citizen didn't have to be from Rome to be a citizen, or live in Rome to contribute, it seems fairly obvious that there was a distinction between the city and the state.