What if the Romans had hated the greeks?

[Atterdag]

Rome was in the middle of the Italian peninsula and thus in the middle of the struggle between Greek and Etrsucans also, Etruscans occupied Rome and thus the romans came to hate the Etruscans. The romans also, for a variety of reasons, came to love the greeks, as we all know.

What if it had been the greeks who occupied Rome and the romans had come to hate the greeks instead? Assuming Rome still rises to become the empire we know it was, but instead of the widespread love of greek culture, there is a hatred on the same level the Romans felt against the Etruscans. The Romans don't need to idealize the Etruscan society however.

Would there be a higher degree of Latinization in Greece and the Balkans? Would Romanian-esque languages be more common there? How would this affect modern european views on Greek culture, philosophy etc.

 

[Albert.Nik]

Probably ASB. Without Greek influence,Romans could have remained like the other Italo-Celtic and Germanic petty kingdoms.

 

[Atterdag]

Probably ASB. Without Greek influence,Romans could have remained like the other Italo-Celtic and Germanic petty kingdoms.

Could have, but where they guaranteed to be? They would still be exposed to lots of Greek influence, even if they'd despise the greeks themselves.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I don't think there was a love of Greeks, merely Greek cultural artifacts (preferably after it had been looted and placed in your villa). Cato the Elder famously despised Greek culture and more specifically Greek morality

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't think there was a love of Greeks, merely Greek cultural artifacts (preferably after it had been looted and placed in your villa). Cato the Elder famously despised Greek culture and more specifically Greek morality

He despised it in large part because he felt that it was taking over Rome; that the Romans were becoming "just like Greeks". His hatred of Greek culture, manners and ethics is ultimately a testament to the fact that, by his day and age, they influenced Rome to a considerable extent. Cato wasn't an example of the leading Roman attitude towards Greece in his time period: he was in fact a man famous for going against the near-universal attitude of philhellenism that held sway at the time.


In any event, although there was Greek influence (both indirectly via other cultures and more directly via Megale Hellas) from an early stage, Cato did have a point: Rome became ever more hellenised in many aspects during his age. This was a result of Rome's ongoing expansion, which extended to swallow up -- and thus incorporate -- the Greek world. They quite literally made it their own. That development can be prevented in an ATL... by breaking Rome's ascent. Cripple them before they even take Megale Hellas. Have Greeks cripple them. Then Rome will not be an Empire, but it may be an embittered warrior nation with a very "old Roman" culture and (at least for some time) a raging hatred towards all things Greek.

Cato would love it.

 

[stevej713]

It's hard to define or quantify one group of people "hating" another. You say Romans hated Etruscans and loved Greeks, but what does that mean? If a person loves one country/people/culture over another, what influence does that have over his life and the lives of others? Besides, we are talking about the "Romans", as if their dispositions didn't change across distances and time, or that they weren't individuals with different opinions. A Roman on the banks of the Tiber in 500 BC might have a significantly different view of the Etruscans or the Greeks than his descendant living in Spain.

 

[Orisha91]

I don't know about hate but there was a level of contempt and appreciation on both sides. It was seen as weak to be too learned in philosophy or musical instruments. There was contempt among some in Roman society for the "effete" Greeks but they did appreciate Greek accomplishments. And on the other side, some Greeks could only fit Romans into there world view as descendants of the Trojans; so not quite barbaroi. There organization and discipline was appreciated though.

Yet that still wasn't always quite enough.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'd question a couple of the assumptions made in the OP. I don't think there's any evidence that the Romans "hated" the Etruscans; indeed, they credited the Etruscans with inventing various symbols of office and religious customs which were later adopted by the Romans, and Etruscan seers were held in high regard down to the Imperial period. Nor do I think it's accurate to say that the Etruscans occupied Rome. One or two of the later kings came from a city in Etruria, but that doesn't equate to an Etruscan occupation, any more than the accession of George I equated to a Hannoverian occupation of Britain. As far as I can tell, the idea that sixth-century Rome was an Etruscan satellite is a myth created by nineteenth-century scholars, who tended to equate ethnic and cultural groups, and hence assumed that Etruscan elements in Roman culture were evidence of Etruscan political domination. In reality, of course, people can adopt elements of foreign culture without any implications of political domination; modern Chinese cities, for example, are heavily Westernised in many respects, but I'm sure their inhabitants would strongly dispute any suggestion that China is under Western occupation. Etruria represented a rich, sophisticated, and prestigious culture right on the doorstep of Rome, so it's not surprising that elements of Etruscan culture were adopted by the Romans.

It's also worth pointing out that none of the historical sources give any evidence that the Tarquins were seen as under the thumb of foreigners, or that their expulsion was part of or occasioned any sort of nationalistic anti-Etruscan backlash. Indeed, the gens Tarquinia was seen as being of Greek rather than Etruscan origin (and Tarquinius Priscus supposedly moved to Rome because, as a non-Etruscan, he was ineligible for political office in Tarquinii!), and their expulsion was always portrayed as the expulsion of a single family, not of Etruscans in general. This last point is backed up by the Fasti, which IIRC have several Etruscan names amongst the early consuls.

 

[Skallagrim]

Excellent observations, @Fabius Maximus. Also:

Etruria represented a rich, sophisticated, and prestigious culture right on the doorstep of Rome, so it's not surprising that elements of Etruscan culture were adopted by the Romans.

Later on, as Rome had grown far beyond its origins as a city-state, the exact same held true in regard to Greece. No wonder the Romand adopted a lot of Hellenic elements into their culture-- and indeed, this did not signify occupation of Rome by Greece (although Cato felt otherwise). Rather, the reverse was true. It is in large part for this reason that the only way I can see the partial 'hellenisation' of Rome being prevented is by ensuring that Rome never grows to hold any part of the Hellenic world. And ideally, even then, Rome should be in an embittered adversarial relation with the Greeks.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

Then Rome will not be an Empire, but it may be an embittered warrior nation with a very "old Roman" culture and (at least for some time) a raging hatred towards all things Greek.

Cato would love it.

What might such an "Old Roman" republic look like? And how might they hype up their non-Greek aspects considering the Romans already shared so much with the Greeks like a majority of their religion?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Later on, as Rome had grown far beyond its origins as a city-state, the exact same held true in regard to Greece. No wonder the Romand adopted a lot of Hellenic elements into their culture-- and indeed, this did not signify occupation of Rome by Greece (although Cato felt otherwise). Rather, the reverse was true. It is in large part for this reason that the only way I can see the partial 'hellenisation' of Rome being prevented is by ensuring that Rome never grows to hold any part of the Hellenic world. And ideally, even then, Rome should be in an embittered adversarial relation with the Greeks.

Rome held Punic world. But although some Punic cities like Utica saved themselves from the kind of destruction inflicted on Carthage, they remained culturally uninfluential.

What would be needed for Romans to treat the Greek cities they spare like they treated the Punic cities they spared? Both Carthage and Corinth were destroyed the same year.

 

[JorgeGG]

I don't know about hate but there was a level of contempt and appreciation on both sides. It was seen as weak to be too learned in philosophy or musical instruments. There was contempt among some in Roman society for the "effete" Greeks but they did appreciate Greek accomplishments. And on the other side, some Greeks could only fit Romans into there world view as descendants of the Trojans; so not quite barbaroi. There organization and discipline was appreciated though.

Yet that still wasn't always quite enough.

I would say it was contempt of Greek culture and society of some Romans like Cato. They thought that the difference was between the decadent, inmoral and demagogue Greek and the virtuous, patriotic and civic Romans.

 

[Skallagrim]

What might such an "Old Roman" republic look like? And how might they hype up their non-Greek aspects considering the Romans already shared so much with the Greeks like a majority of their religion?

That's hard to say. The obvious answer is "start with imagining Rome as it was up to about 300 BC and extrapolate from there", but that tells you quite little. This is what Cato had in mind, envisioning a quasi-romantic past under aristocratic rule. In reality, the Conflict of the Orders is a done deal, and Rome has changed from its earlier form. Military reforms are also a given, since they were devised in part for a conflict against the Greeks. Even if said conflict ends in defeat for Rome, that still won't negate the reforms.

The actual differences compared to OTL will be in Rome's attitude to the outside world, and in culture. If Rome's expansion is broken, it can't just be re-directed. The ascent of an empire is based on the exploitation of subdued territories, which will finance new expansion, while the territories captured earlier are slowly integrated (romanised). If that process is halted to a significant extent, the wealth pump runs dry, and the imperial ambition becomes impossible to finance. Thus: Rome ends up as a nation instead of an Empire. That means less comopolitanism, less religious syncretism etc. -- Less change. More of a fixed national identity. This also means that the imperial way of financing the government will be impossible, which means more of a tax burden on citizens. Which means, ultimately, more influence for those who pay taxes. Which means a path to political and social status for wealthy men of lowly origins. Moreso and earlier than in OTL. (That's not something Cato would've expected!)

Back to culture. In OTL, the Romans increasingly patterned their writings, poetry, visual art, architecture and philosophy on the Greek example. Won't happen here. No Iliad. No other poems clearly based on Greek examples. No increased tendency to make monumental architecture look like the stuff in Athens. No styles in statues and murals copied directly from the Greeks. As far as this stuff is concerned, you can look at Roman examples from an earlier date, and expect the ATL stuff to look more like that than like the later stuff from OTL. As far as philosophy is concerned: the Romans imported Greek philosophy wholesale and really went to town on it. I vaguely suspect that in this ATL, based on earlier Roman attitudes, Rome would be somewhat "un-philosophical". They'd pride themselves -- like the Spartans (not that they'd appreciate the comparison in this ATL!) -- on being above endless meandering speculation. Romans are Men Of Action! Real men! Not like those effeminate Greeks! (Okay, that's obviously a caricature, but you get the point.)

Rome held Punic world. But although some Punic cities like Utica saved themselves from the kind of destruction inflicted on Carthage, they remained culturally uninfluential.

What would be needed for Romans to treat the Greek cities they spare like they treated the Punic cities they spared? Both Carthage and Corinth were destroyed the same year.

I think a major issue here is that the Roman and the Carthaginian attitudes never really jived, so to speak. They were strategically allied at one stage, but they never realy understood or appreaciated each other's cultural priorities and mind-set. Romans conquered Megale Hellas and saw something they wanted to make their own. They looked across the sea at Carthage and the other city-states, and they only saw an inherently foreign enemy. Same was true the other way: I think the only notable Carthaginian who truly understood the Roman mind-set was Hannibal. Judging by how they approached the war, his peers certainly didn't... and they didn't really understand Hannibal, either. (If Hannibal had been born a Roman, he'd have been a great one.)

The Romans saw Greece as dazzling, and wanted to possess it. They saw Carthage as alien, and wanted to crush it. The two attitudes cannot be equated, because to the Romans, Greece and Carthage couldn't be equated.

 

[Arcavia]

Nor do I think it's accurate to say that the Etruscans occupied Rome. One or two of the later kings came from a city in Etruria, but that doesn't equate to an Etruscan occupation, any more than the accession of George I equated to a Hannoverian occupation of Britain

I mean, even accepting the traditional history as flawless, there's still conflict with Veii. But if anything, I find it more likely that Rome outgrew and subsumed Etruria culturally as well as politically, but never outgrew the Hellenosphere.

If Hannibal had been born a Roman, he'd have been a great one.)

I now want to see a TL where Hannibal is taken as a hostage in his youth and adopted into a Roman family. Gens Scipii for added irony.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

TBH I don't think it's possible to prevent Rome from being at least somewhat Hellenised, simply because Hellenic culture was in many ways the cultural koine of the archaic and classical Western Med, so any important state with international connections would end up dealing with it, and it was so prestigious that there'd be very strong incentives to copy aspects of it in order to look more cultured. Judging by the archaeological evidence, Cato and his ideological supporters were greatly exaggerating the rustic, un-Greek simplicity of early Rome -- as far back as the Tarquinian period, Roman material culture was influenced by the Greeks.

What would be needed for Romans to treat the Greek cities they spare like they treated the Punic cities they spared? Both Carthage and Corinth were destroyed the same year.

I think the main difference is that nobody else really seemed interested in copying many aspects of Carthaginian culture, whereas everybody wanted to copy the Greeks. I don't know enough about Carthaginian culture to comment on what they lacked that the Greeks had, though. If you want the Romans to go on with negligible Greek influence, I suppose the best way would be to have them/the Latins/some other native Italian group (most likely the Etruscans) develop their own equally high and prestigious culture, so that they see no point in copying the Greeks. Though bringing about the social conditions necessary for this could well end up creating so many butterflies that subsequent history becomes virtually unrecognisable.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I mean, even accepting the traditional history as flawless, there's still conflict with Veii.

I'm certainly not denying that the Romans fought wars with the Etruscans (aside from anything else, there's the fact that Etruria ended up a part of the Roman Empire...), simply that Rome was ever under the political domination of an external Etruscan state. (At least for any appreciable length of time; it's possible that Lars Porsenna ended up subjugating the city, but if so, the Romans seem to have been able to assert their freedom within a few years.)

 

[Deleted member 114175]

This also means that the imperial way of financing the government will be impossible, which means more of a tax burden on citizens. Which means, ultimately, more influence for those who pay taxes. Which means a path to political and social status for wealthy men of lowly origins. Moreso and earlier than in OTL. (That's not something Cato would've expected!)

Plutocrats instead of aristocrats? Before the industrial revolution, though, hadn't imperial expanding states tended to have more social mobility due to increased size of the military and new opportunities from expansion?

Back to culture. In OTL, the Romans increasingly patterned their writings, poetry, visual art, architecture and philosophy on the Greek example. Won't happen here. No Iliad. No other poems clearly based on Greek examples. No increased tendency to make monumental architecture look like the stuff in Athens. No styles in statues and murals copied directly from the Greeks. As far as this stuff is concerned, you can look at Roman examples from an earlier date, and expect the ATL stuff to look more like that than like the later stuff from OTL.

Since Iberia was one of the areas Latinized most effectively, I wonder if we can look at medieval Castilian culture, subtract all the elements that explicitly result from Christianity, and the remaining parts are what Rome would be without Greek influence. (Obviously, this would be inexact)

If Hannibal had been born a Roman

By the Gods, this is an excellent idea for a timeline

I think the main difference is that nobody else really seemed interested in copying many aspects of Carthaginian culture, whereas everybody wanted to copy the Greeks. I don't know enough about Carthaginian culture to comment on what they lacked that the Greeks had, though. If you want the Romans to go on with negligible Greek influence, I suppose the best way would be to have them/the Latins/some other native Italian group (most likely the Etruscans) develop their own equally high and prestigious culture, so that they see no point in copying the Greeks. Though bringing about the social conditions necessary for this could well end up creating so many butterflies that subsequent history becomes virtually unrecognisable.

Well, is it that nobody was interested in copying Carthaginian culture in comparison to the Greeks? Or just that the entirety of the Near East was already in the Hellenistic sphere since Alexander, and the Carthaginian colonial project in Iberia was interrupted by the Romans?

 

[piratedude]

Well the biggest key to this, as others have said, would be to avoid absorbing the greek world into themselves, or at least as little as possible.

I think if someone was able to unify and keep together magna greacia before the Romans come poking their noses into their business, then i think a balance of power could be maintained between Rome, 'Neahellas', and Carthage, with the Gauls being allies and foes by turns

 

[Derek Pullem]

That's hard to say. The obvious answer is "start with imagining Rome as it was up to about 300 BC and extrapolate from there", but that tells you quite little. This is what Cato had in mind, envisioning a quasi-romantic past under aristocratic rule. In reality, the Conflict of the Orders is a done deal, and Rome has changed from its earlier form. Military reforms are also a given, since they were devised in part for a conflict against the Greeks. Even if said conflict ends in defeat for Rome, that still won't negate the reforms.

The actual differences compared to OTL will be in Rome's attitude to the outside world, and in culture. If Rome's expansion is broken, it can't just be re-directed. The ascent of an empire is based on the exploitation of subdued territories, which will finance new expansion, while the territories captured earlier are slowly integrated (romanised). If that process is halted to a significant extent, the wealth pump runs dry, and the imperial ambition becomes impossible to finance. Thus: Rome ends up as a nation instead of an Empire. That means less comopolitanism, less religious syncretism etc. -- Less change. More of a fixed national identity. This also means that the imperial way of financing the government will be impossible, which means more of a tax burden on citizens. Which means, ultimately, more influence for those who pay taxes. Which means a path to political and social status for wealthy men of lowly origins. Moreso and earlier than in OTL. (That's not something Cato would've expected!)

Back to culture. In OTL, the Romans increasingly patterned their writings, poetry, visual art, architecture and philosophy on the Greek example. Won't happen here. No Iliad. No other poems clearly based on Greek examples. No increased tendency to make monumental architecture look like the stuff in Athens. No styles in statues and murals copied directly from the Greeks. As far as this stuff is concerned, you can look at Roman examples from an earlier date, and expect the ATL stuff to look more like that than like the later stuff from OTL. As far as philosophy is concerned: the Romans imported Greek philosophy wholesale and really went to town on it. I vaguely suspect that in this ATL, based on earlier Roman attitudes, Rome would be somewhat "un-philosophical". They'd pride themselves -- like the Spartans (not that they'd appreciate the comparison in this ATL!) -- on being above endless meandering speculation. Romans are Men Of Action! Real men! Not like those effeminate Greeks! (Okay, that's obviously a caricature, but you get the point.)




I think a major issue here is that the Roman and the Carthaginian attitudes never really jived, so to speak. They were strategically allied at one stage, but they never realy understood or appreaciated each other's cultural priorities and mind-set. Romans conquered Megale Hellas and saw something they wanted to make their own. They looked across the sea at Carthage and the other city-states, and they only saw an inherently foreign enemy. Same was true the other way: I think the only notable Carthaginian who truly understood the Roman mind-set was Hannibal. Judging by how they approached the war, his peers certainly didn't... and they didn't really understand Hannibal, either. (If Hannibal had been born a Roman, he'd have been a great one.)

The Romans saw Greece as dazzling, and wanted to possess it. They saw Carthage as alien, and wanted to crush it. The two attitudes cannot be equated, because to the Romans, Greece and Carthage couldn't be equated.

I think there is a difference between Latins not adopting Greek cultural influences and the Roman Empire not incorporating Greek influences.

It is difficult to imagine any significant Rome which did not incorporate Megale Hellas - and given the proximity of these towns to Rome then some cultural exchange is inevitable. But taking the example of Carthage - Punic society and even the language did not disappear immediately after the destruction of Carthage. Punic influence was significant in Roman Africa for some time (the language may have survived the Romans - just).

A much wider adoption (or continuation if you like) of Cato's attitudes is not incompatible with empire - but by their very presence the Hellenised subjects of the Roman Empire will still be influential. Just not at the very top strata of Roman society.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Since Iberia was one of the areas Latinized most effectively, I wonder if we can look at medieval Castilian culture, subtract all the elements that explicitly result from Christianity, and the remaining parts are what Rome would be without Greek influence. (Obviously, this would be inexact)

Probably not, TBH. For one thing, even if you subtract the explicitly Christian elements, there will still be plenty of subtle Christian influence which will have a major effect on Castilian culture. For another, whilst Iberia was Latinised, this occurred after Rome itself have already been (partially) Hellenised, so you'd still be getting indirect Greek influence.

Well, is it that nobody was interested in copying Carthaginian culture in comparison to the Greeks? Or just that the entirety of the Near East was already in the Hellenistic sphere since Alexander, and the Carthaginian colonial project in Iberia was interrupted by the Romans?

During the archaic period (roughly the 8th to the 6th centuries BC) Greek cultural influence in Italy was much stronger than Carthaginian, and this was hundreds of years before either Alexander or Roman involvement in Spain.