What if Rome had remained a Republic

Pompey could have done what Sulla did, but he was a political idiot - lots of money, little actual political nous.

Could he have made the right allies? I can see, for example, a TL where he's victorious as Pharsalus, then forms a new triumvarite with Cicero and someone else (maybe Cato?), leaving his allies to form the details of the political reforms...
 
I agree... Also the Senate brought end of the Republic faster by passing laws like the "Lex Gabinia" and others giving almost unlimited powers to Generals...

You are citing a one time special law, given to a man that died defending the republic? A man i might add that the poster above called "a political idiot". Oh and then senate did not pass the Lex Gabinia.
 
No one? Bystantion was a large booming town.

A small insignificant town which even lost its status as a polis during some more or less minor revolt. Possibly had 8-10,000 people at most, ever.

Besides from being ransacked by the Crusaders and (obviously) captured by the Ottomans, you would find that it was very difficult for the vast majority of Byzantium's opponents to actually take the city.

Before 330? Completely untrue. Sure, its hard to take the place....but only if you put of a layer of ridiculously large, ridiculously expensive land walls. Thessaloniki and Chalcedon were considered as places for a new capital far before Byzantium was considered.
 
I agree... By Caesar's time its way too late to change anything...


I think the best bet is something during the time of the Grachhi.

However, there is a very slim chance the Republic surviving at least another 20 years by the time of Caesar with this scenario (Brutus & Cassius win big at Philippi).

Th reality however is that the Roman constitution was designed to govern a city-state, not a med-wide empire. It requires massive changes to make the state a stable oligarchy with shades of democracy, otherwise it's fundamental structural problems will just tear it apart sooner or later. These changes, while possible IMHO, need quite a lot of stars to align in their favor.
 
I think the best bet is something during the time of the Grachhi.

However, there is a very slim chance the Republic surviving at least another 20 years by the time of Caesar with this scenario (Brutus & Cassius win big at Philippi).

Th reality however is that the Roman constitution was designed to govern a city-state, not a med-wide empire. It requires massive changes to make the state a stable oligarchy with shades of democracy, otherwise it's fundamental structural problems will just tear it apart sooner or later. These changes, while possible IMHO, need quite a lot of stars to align in their favor.

You covered me Magnum...
 
Technically speaking Rome indeed remained a Republic till Diocletian times... :D:D:D


While browsing wiki, I came across a solidus of Leo II (474 AD) which hailed him as "saviour of the republic". So here's a very big question:

When did the Romans stop calling themselves a republic ?
 
Top