Rome never becomes a republic

Hi!

How do you think governments in the Mediterranean (and later around the world) would have evolved if the Roman kings stayed in control and Rome never adopted a republican form of government? If I remember correctly, the last Roman king (Tarquin or something like that) tried to get his throne back and failed. What would have happened if he had succeeded? Or if he was never dethroned in the first place?

I think the Greek had semi-republican city states here and there, but that is it. What would the world have been like without the concept of a republic?

ACG
 
Since the Etruscans would have helped Tarquin get his kingdom back, wouldn't that mean that Rome would again be subordinate to Etruria? So could the kingdom surviving prevent Rome rising and expanding?
 
Probably yes, and even if Rome gets independence later (Imagine Tarquinius breaking away from Etruria for his own sake) they wont be as big and expansionistic as in OTL simply because the republic gave ambitious people chances. Would a strong king do the same? No i guess.

Am i ignoring butterflies?
 
The problem with such an early change is that there's not really enough certainty about OTL to be able to speculate about the changes. To be sure, Rome probably was a monarchy of some sort early in its history, but the seven recorded kings are likely legendary. The relationship between early Rome and the Etruscans, in particular, is hotly contested.

According to the legends, however unreliable they may be, Roman kingship wasn't strictly hereditary, and the Senate was already in place during the regnal period. Rome's location puts it in a good position to assert some control over Latium, and I suspect Rome would still be a good candidate to assume a leadership position, at least regionally. Though various Etruscan states did gain power, the fact that a larger Etruscan nation never really took root means that they're liable to fall under the dominion of some sort of outside power eventually. Whether or not it's the Romans, of course, is up for debate: it could just as easily have been the Greek city-states of south Italy, or even some sort of ATL equivalent to Pyrhhus.

Something akin to the republican model of government would likely still exist, but how well it takes root depends on a lot of other factors. If it's remembered only as the preferred political system of a handful of outlying Greek colonies, it's not likely to be as influential as it was as the system under which a central Italian city conquered the entire Mediterranean basin.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
The one problem with this scenario, and I think it is pretty damaging, is that that period of Roman history is probably legend at best.

Now, that doesn't mean that Rome was never ruled by kings, but we don't really know when the Republic was created.

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that by say 400 B.C., Rome had a Republic in OTL.

Base your arguments off of changing that "fact"
 
The one problem with this scenario, and I think it is pretty damaging, is that that period of Roman history is probably legend at best.

Now, that doesn't mean that Rome was never ruled by kings, but we don't really know when the Republic was created.

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that by say 400 B.C., Rome had a Republic in OTL.

Base your arguments off of changing that "fact"

That is very true, and a great point, also most of the history we have was altered later generations as well. Another problem is that according to the sources we have, the senate existed as an advising group to the king.

Also, a lot of the ideas of republic also come from other places, then just Rome.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
For what I understand the Kingdom wasn't really popular anymore, and failed because the etruscan kings did not allow the latin elite to get enough influence on the policies. So I could only see a surviving kingdom if the policies of the etruscan monarchs was different, or if a latin king was elected after the fall of Tarquinius who did reform in the way the latin elite wanted.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
For what I understand the Kingdom wasn't really popular anymore, and failed because the etruscan kings did not allow the latin elite to get enough influence on the policies. So I could only see a surviving kingdom if the policies of the etruscan monarchs was different, or if a latin king was elected after the fall of Tarquinius who did reform in the way the latin elite wanted.

Refer to what I said above: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1802857&postcount=5

We don't even know that the Etruscans ever controlled Rome. We don't even know if that Tarquinius existed. That period of Roman History is legend at best.

But for the sake of your argument, lets assume that a king elected after Tarquinius does those reforms.
 
Just what the status of the monarchy was is open to interpretation. What is clear is that the Etruscan dynasty is described by ancient historians as coming to power and acting more like Greek tyrants than as absolute monarchs. Because of the description by contemporary Greek historians of Rome as a Greek city, the Etruscans kings can be seen as more likely historical characters, albeit with elements of fantasy attached to them, than the earlier more shadowy monarchs.

From the traditions it seems pretty clear that the pre-Etruscan kings ruled by consent, their appointment and power were approved by the people and their policies had a local rather than an international focus. The Etruscan dynasty, on the other hand, established contacts at Delphi, undertook massive public works programs and created a power base among the ‘hoplite’ class just like their Greek contemporaries.

While this seems almost too neat a progression from a monarchy founded by a semi-divine character (Romulus) to a tyranny to a republic, it does make sense. Of course the exact circumstances are obscure and layered over with myth and legend, but the general political evolution may very well be true. Separating myth from fact at this early stage is not as important as understanding if such a progression is likely to have happened. I see no reason to doubt the overall story.

As for Rome remaining a monarchy, tradition says the power of the earliest kings, Romulus included, derived from the people and their continued rule depended on the nobles (Senate). When Tarquin broke, or attempted to break, that aristocratic power he failed. It is impossible for a tyrant to seek to form a new power base and simultaneously appease the nobles. Either course chosen invariably leads to the abolition of the monarchy under the cultural and social and political system early Rome seems to have been.
 
Top