WI: No Roman Republic - Consequences?

For whatever reason, Sextus Tarquinius decides not to rape Lucrece, thus keeping the Roman Monarchy around. What would happen?
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
I'm firmly convinced that we simply can't say it. The events were recorded centuries after and we can't clearly distinguish truth and myths in this early times.

However, here are my thougts: without expelling the Tarquinians, Rome stays at peace with the surrounding Etruscan city. Rome has no reason to fight them and no opportuniy to expand. Roma stays an average Italic city, a local power maybe but not more. Ruled by Etruscan kings, this Latin city would probably never rise to power. Other Etruscan or Greek cities might take Rome's place as the ruling power in Italy.

Consequences on the Greek world are impossible to predict due to butterflies, but they will huge anyway.
 
Rome was already the hegemon of Latin at that time, the fall of the monarchy saw their allies turning against Rome, so if the monarchy stays intact then Rome isn't forced to waste a century to recover power in the region, and that will have massive consequences when the Gallic migrations start.

Still the chances of the monarchy surviving are slim. The Senatorial class wanted power and by all accounts Sextus was a stupid ass, he will most likely get the "Romulus Treatment" of "Ascending to the Gods" aka he will be murdered and his body will probably end in the Tiber.
 
However, here are my thougts: without expelling the Tarquinians, Rome stays at peace with the surrounding Etruscan city. Rome has no reason to fight them and no opportuniy to expand. Roma stays an average Italic city, a local power maybe but not more. Ruled by Etruscan kings, this Latin city would probably never rise to power. Other Etruscan or Greek cities might take Rome's place as the ruling power in Italy.

Rome under the last kings had a pretty aggressive foreign policy as far as we can tell, and it was already one of the biggest cities in Italy. Whatever a monarchical Rome ends up doing, staying at peace with the surrounding Etruscan cities probably won't be it.

ETA: Also, it's debatable how "Etruscan" the Tarquins actually were: there's no evidence that contemporary Romans thought of them as foreign interlopers, nor do the ancient sources describe them as such. In fact, the idea that the Tarquins were Etruscan rather than Roman seems to rely on modern notions of nationality which sixth-century-BC Romans wouldn't have recognised, which is probably why it's only in modern works that they're called Etruscan.
 
Last edited:

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
Yes, Cornell (The Beginnings of Rome) has a section comparing Rome with other cities of the period; as I recall, his conclusion was that Rome was about as large as one of the larger Greek cities.

So Rome will become a major power in Italy anyway?

However, the Roman kings will have to find an agreement with the aristocracy, something similar to what the surviving monarchies in Greece did.
 
It is impossible to say when there is so much mixation of myths and truth. We know very few about pre-republican era, Might be that Rome never rise as such power as it was in OTL. Might be that it would control Central Italy, Etruscans Northern Italy, Greeks Southern Italy and Carthagians parts of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. But POD should be so far back that Mediterranenan region even on 200 BCE would be unrecognsible.
 
Assuming only that the story of the Banishment of the Tarquins is historically accurate in its events and ramifications...

And if the POD is equally accurate...

Then a very subtle transformation takes place. A particularly Roman cultural ethic is lost. The ethic works in four parts:

1) To experience a problem
2) To solve the immediate problem by an act of valorous violence.
3) To go back, discuss, and analyze the root cause of the problem (in this case, the ability of any king to violate the particular honor of an honorable family)
4) To burn out the root of the problem by whatever act of LAW is necessary (in this case, the complete extirpation of the whole idea of kingship. A very UNIQUE development in the history of the world)

You not only leave the idea of kingship alive within Roman culture with this POD, you remove the idea of workable government based on an idea of LAW HIGHER THAN kingship completely out of the vocabulary of Western Civilization.

(China still has the concept of "Mandate of Heaven" so a republic model out of Asia is still possible. Also Islam was responsible for the death of any number of corrupt or overweening political establishments, so there's hope there too.)
 

Red Orm

Banned
Assuming only that the story of the Banishment of the Tarquins is historically accurate in its events and ramifications...

And if the POD is equally accurate...

Then a very subtle transformation takes place. A particularly Roman cultural ethic is lost. The ethic works in four parts:

1) To experience a problem
2) To solve the immediate problem by an act of valorous violence.
3) To go back, discuss, and analyze the root cause of the problem (in this case, the ability of any king to violate the particular honor of an honorable family)
4) To burn out the root of the problem by whatever act of LAW is necessary (in this case, the complete extirpation of the whole idea of kingship. A very UNIQUE development in the history of the world)

You not only leave the idea of kingship alive within Roman culture with this POD, you remove the idea of workable government based on an idea of LAW HIGHER THAN kingship completely out of the vocabulary of Western Civilization.

(China still has the concept of "Mandate of Heaven" so a republic model out of Asia is still possible. Also Islam was responsible for the death of any number of corrupt or overweening political establishments, so there's hope there too.)

Great post, but isn't the Mandate of Heaven just basically "if the emperor is doing well, he has the Mandate of Heaven"? As for Islam, that's butterflied away by at least 1100 years.
 
Great post, but isn't the Mandate of Heaven just basically "if the emperor is doing well, he has the Mandate of Heaven"? As for Islam, that's butterflied away by at least 1100 years.

Hey there.

China - No. The concept of the "Mandate of Heaven" allows for a new government to be formed and claim legitimacy, and leaves individuals in a position to transfer their loyalty from the old government to the new government without hypocrisy or guilt. It's actually pretty awesome and really convenient if you think about it.

Islam. I can very easily imagine several major religions arising out of the center of the Middle East with or without a specifically Caesarian Roman Empire, a phenomenon based on local religions, cults, and historical traditions. Something like or nearly like Islam, regardless of butterflies, is highly probable.

I have data to back a lot of my assertions if anyone would like to discuss this, under the specific context of a world without a successful Roman Empire in regard to the development of monotheistic religions.
 
So Rome will become a major power in Italy anyway?

Probably. At the least it would likely be the leading power in Latium.

(in this case, the complete extirpation of the whole idea of kingship. A very UNIQUE development in the history of the world)

Actually, no, Rome in the 510s was already unusual among Mediterranean city-states for being a monarchy; most of the Greek and Italian cities were already under republican or tyrannical rule.
 
I believe Fabius Maximus has misunderstood me.

I used the word "extirpated." NO KINGS. Greeks tolerated kingship in others and tolerated tyrants among themselves. Romans established a policy of consuming Kings, royal families, and dynasties to feed the Republic and later the Empire. Please do not suggest otherwise. One should examine the fate of the Ptolemies when they fell into the hands of Rome. It's not a minor point.
 
I believe Fabius Maximus has misunderstood me.

I used the word "extirpated." NO KINGS. Greeks tolerated kingship in others and tolerated tyrants among themselves. Romans established a policy of consuming Kings, royal families, and dynasties to feed the Republic and later the Empire. Please do not suggest otherwise. One should examine the fate of the Ptolemies when they fell into the hands of Rome. It's not a minor point.
Rome also "tolerated kingship in others". What do you think all those client states were ?
 
Rome also "tolerated kingship in others". What do you think all those client states were ?

Yes, but they had those client state Kings draw up Legal Wills that turned their countries over to the care of the Senate and People of Rome, ending kingship in their countries.
 
Yes, but they had those client state Kings draw up Legal Wills that turned their countries over to the care of the Senate and People of Rome, ending kingship in their countries.

Not always (the aforementioned Ptolemies, for example, went through several generations as a Roman client state before finally being absorbed). Plus, this is more likely due to plain old expansionism rather than anti-monarchism. I note that the British in India did similar things to allied rulers, and they certainly didn't have an ideological hatred of monarchies.
 

Red Orm

Banned
Yes, but they had those client state Kings draw up Legal Wills that turned their countries over to the care of the Senate and People of Rome, ending kingship in their countries.

That's only true in three cases that I know of (Pergamum, Egypt, Bithynia) out of the dozens of client states and hundreds of client kings that Rome has had.
 
Not always (the aforementioned Ptolemies, for example, went through several generations as a Roman client state before finally being absorbed). Plus, this is more likely due to plain old expansionism rather than anti-monarchism. I note that the British in India did similar things to allied rulers, and they certainly didn't have an ideological hatred of monarchies.

I find the British comparison weak, I stand by my theory, don't find my theory adequately disproven for me to jettison it. These things happen. Do have a nice rest of your weekend.
 
That's only true in three cases that I know of (Pergamum, Egypt, Bithynia) out of the dozens of client states and hundreds of client kings that Rome has had.

I find the fact that the Ptolemy Dynasty (of political and arguably religious descent from Alexander the Great, a self-appointed king of kings if there ever was one) and its dismantling by Rome to be a singularly powerful example of a Republican founded culture crowing over the dead corpse of a Royally founded culture. But if you'll never share my point of view, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject. Do enjoy the rest of your weekend.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I find the fact that the Ptolemy Dynasty (of political and arguably religious descent from Alexander the Great, a self-appointed king of kings if there ever was one) and its dismantling by Rome to be a singularly powerful example of a Republican founded culture crowing over the dead corpse of a Royally founded culture. But if you'll never share my point of view, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject. Do enjoy the rest of your weekend.

???????????????? I never said anything about that, your passive-aggressive "But I guess you'll never share my view point, have a nice day!" is aggravating, especially considering that you're moving goalposts and not making any sense.
 
Top