alternatehistory.com

As we know, Roman power was spread throughout Italy theough a series of alliances with the other cities of the peninsula. Nominally, these other cities were independent, and only owed to Rome mutual obligations of defense (yes, there were more details). This is, on the surface, no different than a number of leagues of cities in the classical world, some relatively equal, others, with a clear leader, like Rome.

Rome's case is relatively unique, in that the league continued to consolidate and solidify, and the independence of the other cities continues to erode, gradually, and usually peacefully, over the centuries, until the idea of those cities as independent was not even hunored.

So, if you were forced to pick one point in history when Rome (as in, the Romans and their allies) stopped being recognizable as a league of allies, when would you pick?

The Latin War? The problem there is that the Romans maintained the basic structure of their alliance system and mostly just developed gradiations of rights and obligations.

The First Punic War? It saw their first provinces, with no reciprocal alliances, just territories directly under Roman rule. But still, Italy was a web of alliances. Even in the Second Punic War, it was notable that the Italians generally stayed loyal to the alliance system, and was remarked upon at the time.

The Social War? Sounds pretty solid, except that the war ended with the other Italian coties generally having more rights than before the war, though they were more tightly bound to Rome through those rights.

Hell, the idea that Italy was a series of allies really outlastes the Republic itself, with the early Empire still respecting their exemption from taxes.
Top