WI Late Roman Republic built new fortifications around Rome?

oca2073

Why didn't the late Roman Republic build a new wall to replace the Severan Walls to wall off the entire city from attack? After all usurpers and generals away from Rome were gaining in influence and power after 100 BC. It would have made sense for the Senate to build the wall to consolidate their power and position in Rome, enhance stability and to defend it in case of a civil war.

How would Roman history and in particular Caesar's civil war have changed if Rome was completely walled off and well fortified? Would Caesar still have defied the Senate and crossed the Rubicon?
 
Last edited:

DominusNovus

Well, for the fortifications to be manned would require more troops in the city - or very nearby. That probably wouldn’t have been too popular.
 

Escape Zeppelin

Hmmm. I think part of it was probably that Rome didn't generally need another wall. The might of the Legions kept foreign dangers at bay and building a wall specifically for domestic threats carries a lot of political baggage and issues. Namely, "we've defeated all our enemies, why do we need an expensive and unpopular wall at taxpayer expense?" Plus, the senate was in no way united. A good portion of them probably cheered when Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

In addition it would probably be of limited use in a civil war. Treachery was the leading cause of fortification's defeat and the growing popularity of the generals meant that any soldiers stationed on them were liable to throw open the gates for whoever paid their wages.
 

Fabius Maximus

Getting public opinion on-side is generally quite important in civil wars, and seeming to skulk behind fortifications instead of taking the initiative would have been a very good way to lose the propaganda war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top