Rome Is Never Founded (753 BC)

[Teriyaki]

Point of Divergence … Most of what we now call the Modern World can trace its roots back to Ancient Rome. The most popular legend about how Rome was founded involves the twins Romulus and Remus. Born to a vestal virgin, the King at the time felt threatened by the birth of these twins, and ordered them to be abandoned on the banks of the Tiber River. They were discovered by a she wolf who weaned them, and the two boys were later raised by a shepherd, growing up unaware of their royal identities. When they finally discovered their identity, the two young men disagreed on where to found a new city. Remus was killed by either Romulus or one of his supporters, and Romulus established what would later become known as the city of Rome.

What if the two boys were never discovered by the banks of the Tiber River by the she wolf and passed away? Rome is never founded. How does this shape the world as we know it today?

 

[Resurgam]

Another city, probably Carthage, becomes "Rome." But this releases so many butterflies that it's all but impossible to postulate the modern world.

 

[Lalli]

Lack of Rome would cause gigantic butterflies. Perhaps Etruscan controlled Italy and Carthage controlled Western Mediterranean. World would be extremely unrecognisble even only just few centuries later at least Europe, North Africa and Middle East would be totally different.

 

[Pischinovski]

Besides 753 BCE being a purely mythical date, I believe it to be almost imposdible for *Rome not to be founded. It is simply a good place for a settlement.

We should instead ask ourselves how to keep *Rome as small as possible.

 

[Teriyaki]

So would it be better to say Rome remains a small community with no political clout?

 

[Dante]

Or Rome just stays/becomes another Etruscan city, and I don't think the Etruscans had it in them culturally to go a-conquering. Overall I don't really think another power just steps in and takes Rome's place. Carthage probably would have set up colonies around the Mediterranean, however, I don't see them out and out conquering areas and "Punicizing" them. Carthage would probably act more like Portugal or the Dutch would later on, setting up trading posts and "working" with the natives. What transpires with the Diadochi, I have no idea. However, I don't see one of them completely trouncing their rivals and spreading west with any great success.

 

[cmakk1012]

The “settlement” of Rome was almost certainly just a consolidation of the small villages on the famous Seven Hills.

It’s pretty easy to butterfly Roman expansion with all sorts of PoDs, though, so it doesn’t really matter.

 

[piratedude]

It'd be interesting to see how the 'celts' develop, especially if they continue to have hellenizing influnces from places like masalia

 

[Arkenfolm]

Couldn't another Latin city nearby take the place of Rome to some degree or another? Rome would still exist, given that Romulus and Remus were 99% fictional characters. So it's more just "no Latin expansion". Maybe the Samnites or Faliscans or another Italic group?

 

[Claudius]

It seems possible that without OTL Rome the Gauls will be the ones to go "a-conquering". They were fairly tech-savvy, had exposure to the more advanced Mediterranean civilizations, and were on their way to state-building when Caesar arrived. Given another few centuries and they might have taken on the Italic states or Iberia and made their own empire.