WI: The Romans had spoken Etruscan instead of Latin

Infinity

Banned
Romans developed superior military tactics and discipline out of necessity. The ancient etruscans predated the latin people. Those who are there first have little incentive for growth and improvement as do those who come second. Therefore, the etruscans would have grown more slowly than the Romans in the otl. As a result, Carthaginians and Hellenistic civilizations would become more prominent in this time line.
 
Romans developed superior military tactics and discipline out of necessity. The ancient etruscans predated the latin people. Those who are there first have little incentive for growth and improvement as do those who come second. Therefore, the etruscans would have grown more slowly than the Romans in the otl. As a result, Carthaginians and Hellenistic civilizations would become more prominent in this time line.

Speaking Etruscan does not change any of the 'necessity' factors pushing Rome to become a military powerhouse.
 
Speaking Etruscan does not change any of the 'necessity' factors pushing Rome to become a military powerhouse.

I think it does, not because of the language but because of the "Why are they speaking Etruscan?" factor. It is either that Rome was not founded in the way it was historically, and thus everything about its impetus would be changed, or that under an Etruscan king it Etruscanified and became solidly within that millieu. The first makes it simply another Etruscan city from the start, so what impetus is there for it to expand in the way that Rome did historically? The second alternative means that it is brought more firmly into the Etruscan world than historically, so again where is it independent impetus coming from?

Of course, it can be argued that some centuries down the line things change, that maybe the rest of the Etruscan world is devastated by civil war or Gaulish invasion and Rome emerges dominant, perhaps due to having a better defensive position, but this is either mere speculation or an authorial narrative.
 

Infinity

Banned
Speaking Etruscan does not change any of the 'necessity' factors pushing Rome to become a military powerhouse.
Being first, the Etruscans were more complacent than the Romans. Their fate wasn't dependent on a single city. The Romans had the fear of their city being taken. That fear drove them. In contrast, the Etruscans were in a more comfortable position. The rise of the Romans took the Etruscans by surprise, and by then it was too late.

Indeed, the Romans never felt secure. In contrast, the Etruscans remained blissful and stable for centuries. They were the status quo. During the relevant time period, Etruscans never had to struggle for their survival the way the Romans did. The Villanovans were a distant memory. Suffice to say, the Etruscans did not have the same imperative for expansion as did their Italian neighbors. That's not to say they wouldn't expand at all under the right conditions, just not at the rate of the Roman otl.

Maybe the rest of the Etruscan world is devastated by civil war or Gaulish invasion and Rome emerges dominant.
The Carthaginians and Greeks are motivating factors for strong central authority. Although, in the otl, they largely butted heads with Rome as a response to its rapid expansion. If it takes longer for there to be a unified Italy, then Carthage and the Greeks are more likely to turn on each other. The Gauls remain relevant, but the Etruscans should be able to handle them. Arguably, a unified Gaul (at least a large warband) was a response to a unified Italy.
 
Last edited:
Top