Samnite Italy

I've been considering a TL in which the Samnites rise to power in Italy and defeat the Romans for hegemony on the peninsula. A quick search has showed me that the topic has popped up here from time to time, but with little serious discussion in the past.

My question is, what is the earliest POD for putting the Samnites on track to defeating Rome? I was thinking an early victory in the first and second Samnite Wars (or TTL's equivalent)?
 
I'm not really well versed on that time period of the area. Were they that different culturally from the Romans?
 
I believe that, atleast from livy's description of it, the first samnite war was actually a fairly closely-run thing. If the samnites win the battles of mount gaurus and saticula, the latins will most likely go along with their original plan to fight rome, so rome would probably lose that.
Of course, I don't actually know all that much on the topic. This is just from a quick wikipedia search.
 
Find E. T. Salmons work Samnium and the Samnites

It has a lot of brilliant work on the Samnite wars. The major difficulty of early Roman history is that is was mainly collected by families trying to fluff up their own achievements (wether they had to make them up or not). He does a fantastic job of picking apart the First and Second Samnite Wars as they are full of made up battles and he complains about Consuls and Legates who end up in two places at the same time according to Roman historical record.

Rather hilariously Salmon picks out the large amount of battles in the First and Second Samnite Wars the Romans describe as "lasting until nightfall" that the writers refuse to admit the Romans lost or went undecided.

Livy is apparently the worst when it came to the record avoiding a large period of the Second Samnite War to go into his own bizzare alternate history of how the Romans would have beaten Alexander the Great had he invaded Italy (which is utterly laughable). He also uses it to avoid talking about periods of Samnite successes against Rome. Current translations (or perhaps just the one I have) shunt this tangent to the appendix to avoid messing with the flow of the history.

Samnites were more federal in outlook than the centralised Romans. The Samnite League consisted of 4 major tribes; the Pentri (the largest); the Hirpini; the Caudini (of the Forks fame) and the Caraceni ('Those who dwell among the rocks'). The Samnites were herders mostly and lived in austere and rustic conditions. They built their towns on hilltops and guarded all the entrances to their high home with strong fortifications. It was only during Roman domination that they were forced off the hills.

When their population would become too large they gathered all those willing to leave, or those who had been "sacrificed" as children to Mamers for a victory in battle (known as the Sacrati) and began a migration from the mountains to better pastures under the banner of a totemic animal like the wolf (hirpini and lucani) or the bull like the Samnites themselves. So they could spread their domain through Sacrati settlements like the Roman coloniae.

It was this wanderlust that caused friction and then outright war with other Italian peoples.

To gain victory in desperate battles the Samnites would make a deal with the god Mamers to sacrifice their first born of spring both animals and children. The first born of all animals as part of the deal were actually sacrificed, the children however were called the Sacrati and were destined to lead migrations into new lands under a totemic animal.

Samnium (or Safinum in Oscan) was divided up into districts. Each town and the land around it was organised by a figure called a pagus, several pagus would take orders from a Meddix and several Meddix would take orders from the Meddix Tuticus, rather similar to Roman Consul, but there was only one. The Samnites had powers given to their leaders similar to the Roman Imperator though it was Embratur in Oscan.

The Samnites had a special religious military organisation the Legio Linteata or Linen Legion. Sworn by strong oaths they numbered in the tens of thousands and were devoted to serve the League.

An Italy dominated by the Samnites would likely be under a federation dominated by the Samnites. They likely would not have expanded beyond Italy and would have clashed mainly with the Hellenic adventurers serving Tarentum or other cities in the Magna Graecia. Samnite mercenaries would likely be as common as Gallic mercenaries throughout the Mediterranean serving in others wars and taking over cities and establishing tiny Samnite or Sabine enclaves like the famous Mamertines of Sicily.
 
Last edited:
Excellent summary Gordius! As it so happens, I've actually already ordered a copy of E.T. Salmon, which should arrive by next week.

Here's my thinking for a possible TL:

A solid victory in the First Samnite War will mean that the Samnites occupy the fertile (and much more populated plains) of Campania by the second half of the fourth century B.C., which will give them a marked advantage in the future. Obviously, this will have important ramifications, since the inhabitants, being much more settled and urbanized, are probably going to exert influence on Samnites. From my understanding, at this time, Campania was largely Oscan speaking, with Etruscan and Greek cultural influences from the north and south, respectively.

If the Samnites manage to defeat the Romans over the course of the next few decades (I'm thinking possibly in some alternate version of the Samnite Wars, but with a Samnite victory), they'll also have hegemony over Latium and central Italy. This is going to make them a dominant power on the peninsula, which could have the potential to drag them into various conflicts with the Greeks and the Carthaginians.

What I'd like to accomplish is a TL in which the Samnites eventually control much of the western Mediterranean, with the Oscan language being dominant in place of Latin. That being said, in the interest of plausibility, I can't see them necessarily expanding into Gaul, western Iberia or North Africa, let alone the Hellenistic east, as Rome did. My thinking is that the combined effects of being dragged into various political conflicts with the Greeks and Carthaginians in Italy (the price of being a local power), along with the influence of the Campanian cities on Samnite culture, might make this possible.

Thoughts?
 
Great idea!

I find that too many think Roman domination of Italy as inevitable when it was a very close run thing against the Samnites.

If the Samnites dominate Italy I can imagine the heavily urbanised Caudium and Campania being the centre of power. They were quite heavily Oscan due to their shared Sabine heritage. It was only under Roman domination that Latin began to dominate and even under the reign of Augustus there were plays in Rome that were still conducted in Oscan, though it was rapidly dying out. The Samnites did not seem to be very keen on naval power given they were almost all landlocked (but then again the Romans hired the Greeks of Magna Graecia to row their ships for some time).

There was a rivalry in the Roman Senate at the time of the first two Samnite Wars as the Plebians were gaining power over the older families. E. T. Salmon has an excellent section describing the rival factions both pushing in different directions. The newly empowered Plebians favoured north Italy as there was more land to farm while Patricians favoured Southern Italy as it was wealthier. Due to the First Samnite war ending in success the Patricians won out and the full annexation of the Liris valley (which started the First Samnite War) and eventually Campania took place.

There was a war that almost destroyed early Roman power between the early Samnite wars (1st and 2nd) that may help you. Tribes like the Aequi, the Hernici, the Volsci and the Aurunci rose against Roman domination shortly after the First Samnite War, when Rome declared dominion over them. The Samnites, foolishly, sided with the Romans to destroy this anti-Roman league and many of these small tribes between Latium an Caudium were utterly destroyed without a trace. If the Samnites sat it out they could let both sides exhaust themselves against each other and then sweep in to destroy both after a victory in the First Samnite War.

Be aware of the Hellenic cities also. The Samnites may be able to defeat the likes of Alexander of Epirus or Kleomynes of Sparta, but Pyrrhus may force them to pay him tribute. If you have Pyrrhus go for Macedon instead of Sicily after a brief campaign that will leave Italy to its own devices.

Tarentum already chafed under Pyrrhus' domination. A few years of neglectful rule and the chains will be cast off perhaps the Samnites and the cities of Magna Graecia act in unison to achieve independence and when the Samnites grow to expand outside of Italy the Greeks supply their naval expertise under less duress than during Roman domination. As a tributary of Epirus the Samnites could end up sending mercenaries to Sicily and further afield, now that Pyrrhus has is no longer available to stop the Carthaginians. Seed the Western Mediterranean with Samnite mercenaries that take over cities and set up small states (like the Mamertines) that would lead to a new wave of mercenary veteran colonies.

Incidents involving Samnite mercenaries could lead to interventions by the Samnite League pushing their dominion further and further across the Western Mediterranean.

Excellent choice on the pre-order!
 
Last edited:
I think you've laid a great foundation for a timeline, good luck with it! I suggest that Capua would serve as the capital of the Samnites, along with Naples serving as the main port city; as Ostia was to Rome and Piraeus to Athens. The Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD would have interesting consequences in the region, espicially since the center of Samnite power would be so close to it.
 
I think at one point the Saminites trapped 7/8 or something stupidly big of the Roman Citizen-Militia/"Army" in the same spot, a pass or something. The commander didn't want to befriend the Romans, so his father suggest he kill all of them if he didn't want to befriend them since that would remove the Roman threat for a generation. The commander instead decided to let the Romans go after forcing them to promise payment, so the Romans were furious but still at full military manpower...
 
I think you've laid a great foundation for a timeline, good luck with it! I suggest that Capua would serve as the capital of the Samnites, along with Naples serving as the main port city; as Ostia was to Rome and Piraeus to Athens. The Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD would have interesting consequences in the region, espicially since the center of Samnite power would be so close to it.

Indeed. Pompeii was also a very important city in Southern Italy at this time. It had went into a rather drastic decline by the time Vesuvius erupted, but if it had not in this timeline the centre of power of Samnium could be seriously threatened.

. I think at one point the Saminites trapped 7/8 or something stupidly big of the Roman Citizen-Militia/"Army" in the same spot, a pass or something. The commander didn't want to befriend the Romans, so his father suggest he kill all of them if he didn't want to befriend them since that would remove the Roman threat for a generation. The commander instead decided to let the Romans go after forcing them to promise payment, so the Romans were furious but still at full military manpower...

That would be the famous Battle of the Caudine Forks and the commander was Gavius Pontius, a member of the one of the most esteemed Samnite families in Caudium that produced Pontius Telesinus and Pontius Pilate, much later.
 
Yeah, so if Gavius killed the Romans off, it's possible the Samenites might be able to force Rome into being subordinate to them.
 
My gf's family comes from one of the alleged 'capitals', though more like meeting arena than political nerve center, so I've been interested in this for a while.

Find E. T. Salmons work Samnium and the Samnites

It has a lot of brilliant work on the Samnite wars. The major difficulty of early Roman history is that is was mainly collected by families trying to fluff up their own achievements (wether they had to make them up or not). He does a fantastic job of picking apart the First and Second Samnite Wars as they are full of made up battles and he complains about Consuls and Legates who end up in two places at the same time according to Roman historical record.

Rather hilariously Salmon picks out the large amount of battles in the First and Second Samnite Wars the Romans describe as "lasting until nightfall" that the writers refuse to admit the Romans lost or went undecided.

Livy is apparently the worst when it came to the record avoiding a large period of the Second Samnite War to go into his own bizzare alternate history of how the Romans would have beaten Alexander the Great had he invaded Italy (which is utterly laughable). He also uses it to avoid talking about periods of Samnite successes against Rome. Current translations (or perhaps just the one I have) shunt this tangent to the appendix to avoid messing with the flow of the history.

Samnites were more federal in outlook than the centralised Romans. The Samnite League consisted of 4 major tribes; the Pentri (the largest); the Hirpini; the Caudini (of the Forks fame) and the Caraceni ('Those who dwell among the rocks'). The Samnites were herders mostly and lived in austere and rustic conditions. They built their towns on hilltops and guarded all the entrances to their high home with strong fortifications. It was only during Roman domination that they were forced off the hills.

When their population would become too large they gathered all those willing to leave, or those who had been "sacrificed" as children to Mamers for a victory in battle (known as the Sacrati) and began a migration from the mountains to better pastures under the banner of a totemic animal like the wolf (hirpini and lucani) or the bull like the Samnites themselves. So they could spread their domain through Sacrati settlements like the Roman coloniae.

It was this wanderlust that caused friction and then outright war with other Italian peoples.

To gain victory in desperate battles the Samnites would make a deal with the god Mamers to sacrifice their first born of spring both animals and children. The first born of all animals as part of the deal were actually sacrificed, the children however were called the Sacrati and were destined to lead migrations into new lands under a totemic animal.

Samnium (or Safinum in Oscan) was divided up into districts. Each town and the land around it was organised by a figure called a pagus, several pagus would take orders from a Meddix and several Meddix would take orders from the Meddix Tuticus, rather similar to Roman Consul, but there was only one. The Samnites had powers given to their leaders similar to the Roman Imperator though it was Embratur in Oscan.

The Samnites had a special religious military organisation the Legio Linteata or Linen Legion. Sworn by strong oaths they numbered in the tens of thousands and were devoted to serve the League.

An Italy dominated by the Samnites would likely be under a federation dominated by the Samnites. They likely would not have expanded beyond Italy and would have clashed mainly with the Hellenic adventurers serving Tarentum or other cities in the Magna Graecia. Samnite mercenaries would likely be as common as Gallic mercenaries throughout the Mediterranean serving in others wars and taking over cities and establishing tiny Samnite or Sabine enclaves like the famous Mamertines of Sicily.


Lol, yeah. There's an undoubted respect for Samnite military prowess and toughness that filters through, but all the usual Roman rationalizatioms. Maybe the most interesting aspect is how much like modern imperial apologists their routine sounds, and is true here, where according to Rome the pattern pretty much always goes:

1) Rome sitting there minding it's own business, nary a thought for the world beyond their borders.

2) Barbarian State A attacks somewhat less Barbarian state B for no good reason, just pure unadulterated greed for the material wealth/land/control of B.*

3) B comes hat in hand to Rome, begs for assistance against those A bastards...and generally offers up all their material wealth/land/control in return. Presumably everyone and their neighbour would much prefer losing everything to Rome rather than losing everything to anyone else because reasons.

4) Rome debates. Much hand wringing and reluctance to acquire all that wealth/land/control, but usually persuaded round by the thought of martial duty and glory. By usually I mean always.

5) Rome declares war on A. Wars happen. Now, like with say the Brits and Napoleon, you need to understand that from this point onwards all the wars and broken peaces are A's fault, irrespective of how many times it's Rome 'technically' declaring war/breaking peace treaties. If anything is ever so obviously Rome's fault that it can't be completely ignored it still won't be Rome's fault, but rather the fault of a specific individual Roman who was always too much like A for Roman tastes anyways, and every good Roman says so.

6) Often at some point along the way...possibly when 'confusion' arises over just what, where and when they agreed to give up everything to Rome in exchange for protecting...er...the nothing left over, you might see B 'betray' Rome and pitch in with A, those traitorous bastards. At this point it becomes a war of Roman honour and revenge, and you can almost hear the protests against acquiring all the wealth/land/control wailing out from the Forum. Still, they'll manage somehow.

7) In the end Roman endurance, toughness, intelligence and sheer rightness-ness wins out and you have Ovations and the odd triumph. You'll also have some generals who lost a battle anti-climatically unexpectedly forgiven...demonstrating Rome's pragmatism and enlightenment and then you'll have soldiers who lost unexpectedly banished/killed/punished, demonstrating Rome's martial vigour, honour and determination. Marx might identify slightly different rubrics at play, but then he's from north of the Olive Line, so what could he possibly know about anything?

Anyways, the gist is that contrary to what many think, ancient Imperial powers with any kind of representative structure were often just as prone to constructing apologetic narratives that excuses their acquisitiveness, and most if not all Roman invasions would be under the banner of quasi 'intervention'...if not at the time, in very short order after the fact. Nobody is the bad guy in their own movie, and that commonality with modern expansionist 'interventionist' powers is imo very entertaining, if a bit sad.

*there is a variant where Rome itself is attacked directly, but that's pretty rare.
 
Last edited:
My gf's family comes from one of the alleged 'capitals', though more like meeting arena than political nerve center, so I've been interested in this for a while.




Lol, yeah. There's an undoubted respect for Samnite military prowess and toughness that filters through, but all the usual Roman rationalizatioms. Maybe the most interesting aspect is how much like modern imperial apologists their routine sounds, and is true here, where according to Rome the pattern pretty much always goes:

1) Rome sitting there minding it's own business, nary a thought for the world beyond their borders.

2) Barbarian State A attacks somewhat less Barbarian state B for no good reason, just pure unadulterated greed for the material wealth/land/control of B.

It is always the danger of ancient history that we have so few resources to work with. The First and Second Samnite Wars the Romans blame on the Samnites "aggression" despite clearly stating that they were the ones who attacked the Samnites just like blaming Hannibal for beginning the Second Punic War despite their historians clearly stating they were in breach of the deal with Carthage to remain north of the Ebro River in Iberia.

The First War began after an agreement between Rome and the Samnite League to divide the Liris Valley between them. Rome in the north side, the Samnites in the south. The Samnites invaded a city on the south side of the Liris and Rome used it as an excuse to intervene. While the Romans claimed victory the war ended rather indecisively and the Liris Valley treaty was renewed while the Romans wiped out the minor tribes, like the Volscians, that did not want to be 'protected' under the auspices of Rome.

The Second War started when the Romans started to place colonies on the Liris river crossings and then push across the river itself. The Samnites attacked the colonies as they breached their deal. Roman historians speak of outrage despite once more clearly spelling out their own perfidious actions.
 
I think at one point the Saminites trapped 7/8 or something stupidly big of the Roman Citizen-Militia/"Army" in the same spot, a pass or something. The commander didn't want to befriend the Romans, so his father suggest he kill all of them if he didn't want to befriend them since that would remove the Roman threat for a generation. The commander instead decided to let the Romans go after forcing them to promise payment, so the Romans were furious but still at full military manpower...

Whilst the Battle of the Caudine Forks certainly existed, the bit about the Samnite general asking his dad for advice sounds suspiciously like a later embellishment designed to show that the middle course isn't always the best.
 
Whilst the Battle of the Caudine Forks certainly existed, the bit about the Samnite general asking his dad for advice sounds suspiciously like a later embellishment designed to show that the middle course isn't always the best.

I don't know, there are many embellishments to the Roman-age stories, but this one is fairy plausible. And for the point of the OP, killing all the Romans might give the Samnites a chance.
 
I don't know, there are many embellishments to the Roman-age stories, but this one is fairy plausible. And for the point of the OP, killing all the Romans might give the Samnites a chance.

I don't doubt that they let the Romans go (otherwise they wouldn't have ended up losing) for a hefty ransom (because letting them go for nothing would be too stupid to be plausible), but the bit where his father gives him two contrasting pieces of advice and then the son decides to follow the middle path seems the sort of thing that would get added to the story later.
 
I don't doubt that they let the Romans go (otherwise they wouldn't have ended up losing) for a hefty ransom (because letting them go for nothing would be too stupid to be plausible), but the bit where his father gives him two contrasting pieces of advice and then the son decides to follow the middle path seems the sort of thing that would get added to the story later.

First off, the entire story as stated is fairly plausible. Also, even if it didn't happen exactly that way, the father was close enough to ask for advice and it doesn't seem out of character to. Given this was a huge opportunity, the commander might have been wondering what to do with being more successful that he might have imagined. Relations were not open war, but they were tense, so the suggestion of killing them all is easy to imagine. So I'm 75% sure the story happen as presented, and even if it didn't, I'm 24% sure it went like this: dad says "Do you want to befriend the Romans?" son says "no, we weren't friends" and dad says "ok, if we don't want to reconcile, kill them all"
 
I would read the shit out of this TL.

The Thing about the Samnites is that Much of what became the Roman Legions was taken from them. Manipular Formation? Samnites. Scutum Shield? Samnites. Even the standard three line setup with Hastati, Velites, and Triarii were stolen from the Samnites. Before that, evidence suggests Rome Favored Hellenic Style Warfare.
 
Top