WI: Attalus Doesn't Bequeath the Kingdom of Pergamon to Rome?

When Attalus died suddenly in 133 BC, his will shocked everyone: He handed over the kingdom of pergamon to Rome. Some, like Mithradates VI would claim it was a forgery. It was what became Rome's prestigious province of Asia, and the money that came with it was the nail in the coffin for Tiberius Gracchus. This would also set up the chain of events that would lead to the Mithridatic Wars. It also helped hasten the chain of events leading to the downfall of the republic.

So what if, instead of leaving the Kingdom of Pergamon to Rome upon his death, Attalus had left it to his step-brother, Aristonicus? IOTL Aristonicus lead a popular rebellion to keep Pergamum out of Roman hands but it failed. So assuming Attalus leaves his kingdom to Aristonicus, how much longer will it take the Romans to get a foothold in Asia? Would they declare war on Pergamon? What effects does this have on the late republic as a whole?
 
Last edited:
I imagine with Rome's long record of backstabbing its vassals, I imagine that things more or less stay similar even if Pergamum is not annexed to the Roman Republic immediately. Perhaps the Roman Republic decides to annex Pergamum once Mithridates begins to prove himself as a nuisance and obstacle to Roman domination in the East like after the First Mithridatic War? Rome would want a foothold in Asia Minor to keep an eye out on Pontus and they wouldn't want to risk the chance of Mithridates or some other powerful king in Asia Minor causing trouble in Roman Greece. Mithridates did in OTL.

Oh there would probably be no Asiatic Vespers happening. Doubt that there would be as many Romans living in Asia Minor if the area is not under direct Roman rule but I do expect the Roman response to be the same.
 
One of the biggest reasons mithridates learned to hate Rome was because of their extortion to an insane degree in Pergamon and how they ended aristonicus's rebellion (by poisoning the water supply of the last stronghold).
 
One of the biggest reasons mithridates learned to hate Rome was because of their extortion to an insane degree in Pergamon and how they ended aristonicus's rebellion (by poisoning the water supply of the last stronghold).
Well, that and how Rome treated those who stood by her. Mithidates' father (also named Mithridates) had joined Rome and a number of Anatolian states in defeating the rebellion of Aristonicus, and Pontus had got a share of the spoils from it. However, Rome later confiscated these gains, as she was beginning to fear that Pontus was becoming too powerful.
 
Well, that and how Rome treated those who stood by her. Mithidates' father (also named Mithridates) had joined Rome and a number of Anatolian states in defeating the rebellion of Aristonicus, and Pontus had got a share of the spoils from it. However, Rome later confiscated these gains, as she was beginning to fear that Pontus was becoming too powerful.

Yeah. But iirc laedice (or her name was something like that) I thought willingly gave it up? But yeah Rome had a nasty history of how they dealed with so called "friends of Rome"
 
The descriptions of Attalus attacking his servants in the hallways and sending poisonous "gifts" to his friends showed only that he was incapable of rule and that his eventual scruffy gardener image showed his apathy to running a kingdom. Though these may have been exaggerated to give legitimacy to Romes eventual usurpation of Pergamum.
It was a tactic of certain kings at the time to write wills bequeathing their lands to Rome to stop pretenders killing them in their sleep. Attalus' untimely death caused the will to be enacted, that perhaps he had never intended to carry through.

Aristonikos or Eumenes III is next in line. Without the need for support from the disenfranchised it is highly unlikely that the Heliopolitae will come to be. The Gracchi brothers may continue their Plebian backed shenanigans though citing the great wealth from Carthage mainly as opposed to the newfound wealth exacted from Asia, Blossius of Cumae the philosopher that inspired Aristonikos may still end up in Pergamum as a royal guest.

The main question is will Rome accept a pretender in the Kingdom without the Will. As many have said a "friend of Rome" is no guarantee of blissful relationship. Will opportunity and greed overcome friendship?
At this point the Roman Republic was heinously corrupt and would probably cite any excuse to invade and take control especially of Pergamum which was already being harvested by unscrupulous Roman Money Lenders who had plagued the region around Asia for decades due to Attalus' apathy towards his own people. It was too big of a prize to not take and to those that say the Senate may not want to overstretch themselves, it never stopped them originally.

Any excuse could be used, perhaps the new king did not have their blessing, perhaps they disputed his claim or perhaps even they had a Will forged themselves who knows.

In that case however you would have an already established king with greater support from the people of Pergamum. It may take many more years and be a far worse cost than our rebellion, which did not go that well for the Romans, but they would win eventually or they would lose and then return in a time of weakness and instability to exact revenge.
 
Top