WI: Rome Abandoned?

What if Rome was abandoned after the Galic sack in 387? There were already serious talks about just up and leaving the city after it was plundered and burned by the Gauls. Story goes that they didn't because a patrol decided to set up camp outside the Senate while they were discussing the issue. This was seen as a sign by the gods that Rome was to survive, so they stayed. What if they didn't and instead dispersed into the Italian countryside, snuffing out Rome before it became the Empire we know it will be.
 
The would-be new capital was going to be Veii/Veio, which in all honesty is not very far off at all from Rome City. Roman history will be the same because the Roman people were too ambitious and growing to be put down for long. It's just that the Roman state will have its capital be Veii, and "Rome/-an" become "merely" the name of the nation and people.
 
Such abandonments are really rare in this period, giving the particularily indentitarian (social as political) attachement to the city. A mere sack is generally not enough of a trauma to really shatter this, and even in relatively uncommon case it did, it generally led to a refoundation on a neighbouring site.
 
Such abandonments are really rare in this period, giving the particularily indentitarian (social as political) attachement to the city. A mere sack is generally not enough of a trauma to really shatter this, and even in relatively uncommon case it did, it generally led to a refoundation on a neighbouring site.
Exactly.
Look at Carthage. The Romans sacked, burned and destroyed it. Then salted the ground. The city still regrew on that spot.
 
Exactly.
Look at Carthage. The Romans sacked, burned and destroyed it. Then salted the ground. The city still regrew on that spot.

There is no evidence for Carthage being "salted".

As for OP's question, I have to agree with Umbric Man; they simply would've relocated to Veii and start to call themselves "Veians" or something similiar. The region around Rome was bound the major center of Italy (literally and figuratively), as a opposed to places like Samnium or Etruria.
 
Honestly, whilst I can see it being abandoned temporarily, I still think that they'd return in time.

I think they'd keep the name Romans, as a form of reminding themselves of the vengeance they need to wreak on their enemies, but reform their politics to reflect their now reliance on the outlying cities to even house themselves. - Which could be useful for maintaining a republic in the long term. Perhaps by making it more Federal and ensuring each city/colonia has a representative.

I think that they'd return after a period of time. Perhaps after uniting Italy, or taking over Corsica and Sardinia, as a place for a purpose-built capital. A new Rome that overshadows Ostia - probably on the site of Fiumicino. However, unlike Rome, I think this would be more of an administrative centre like Washington DC. Important, well defended, and only moderately sized for its time, and using the Tiber, a land wall, and a fortified harbour.
 
I would agree the people and state continue being renamed Roman, but if they ever did move back it'd be to Rome itself and with the intent to make it the number one city. Any federal-ish institutions by this time would be too strong to ignore and the Romans Proper in this scenario are still probably the prime citizens in the state - it's a cross of turning back the clock and making things right in their eyes.
 
If the Gauls somehow gneocided the ROman and LAtin populace of the region I could see Rome being abandoned, but never permanently, as in this case, the Gauls would probalby just settle themselves in it, I think.
 
Top