Would Anyone Be Interested in a Romans losing the Siege of Veii TL

So the siege of Veii imo was one of those watershed moments that set the Romans on their path to greatness. Shortly thereafterward Rome was sacked by Brennus, but Roman intervention in that conflict was an indirect result of their victory at Veii. I have always been interested in doing a timeline on this, but I fear it would be too similar to the amazing TL by Errnge, "The Weighted Scales" (for those few who don't know of that TL, it starts with the sack of Rome being more thorough and permanent, nipping Rome in the bud), yet of not nearly as high quality and well researched.

So would you guys be interested in such a TL? Ive been throwing Hellenistic era tl's around in my head as well, so it's not like this is my only option for a second tl.

***Note: This wouldn't affect the time I spend on continuing Is Rome Worth One Man's Life, but would be updated alongside it***
 
Of fucking course!!! :D:D:D

Don't worry about the similar POD, it's the alternate timeline in itself that makes the difference. I will gladly collaborate with you at every corner. :D
 
Other possible TL's btw would be:

-DIfferent first Punic War
-Pyrrhus becomes King of Egypt and Demetrius King of Macedon
-Caudine Forks Massacre
-and others.
 
1. How could the outcome of the First Punic War be changed?
2. How would Pyrrhus be able to usurp the throne of Alexandria from the Ptolemies? How could Demetrius stay on the throne of Macedon whilst 'licentious and extravagant', which made the Athenians long for Cassander?
3. The Caudine Forks Massacre I would most certainly be able to assist in as well. :D

I'll see if I can get some other members' attention on this.
 
Anything that is about the destruction of Rome while in its crib surely interests me.
Glad to have you on board! How much do you know about the timeframe? Because if it's in-between 500 BC and 323 BC, I'm your guy! (My recap threads that is!)
 

Deleted member 67076

First Punic war interests me. Everything else, not really. Fuck the barbarians.
 
First Punic war interests me. Everything else, not really. Fuck the barbarians.
Why? Aren't you a descendent of Barbarians yourself? :p

Besides, I heavily pity/woe the conquered peoples of OTL Rome. I'd like to see the Celts form vast kingdoms across Gaul and Hispania for instance! ;)
 
It sounds interesting. There are an awful lot of ways that Rome's early history could take a bad turn, and it can't hurt to give each of them a run. I'm particularly interested in a PoD that sounds like it might result in a more multipolar Mediterranean (as it sounds like this could be). If you're concerned about it being to similar, then perhaps you should air some of your other ideas and see if something a bit different grabs more attention.
 
A funny little idea I've always had is a less successful Pyrrhus actually leading to Rome being in a weaker position against Carthage. The gist of it is that Pyrrhus is turned away very early on, and thus doesn't venture to Sicily and "liberate" the Greek city-states there that are under Punic sway. With Carthage basically owning all of Sicily and holding strong garrisons in the major cities, the Mamertines don't have the means to occupy Messana and cause the First Punic War.

Of course the powder keg might blow up eventually, with two powers dominating on either side of the strait being an untenable situation; however, Carthage holding all of Sicily from the get-go certainly puts them at a bit more of an advantage. I don't know, you could explore the butterflies from there.
 

Deleted member 67076

Why? Aren't you a descendent of Barbarians yourself? :p

Besides, I heavily pity/woe the conquered peoples of OTL Rome. I'd like to see the Celts form vast kingdoms across Gaul and Hispania for instance! ;)
Muh Latin Pride tho.

Well that's just you. I don't like barbarians and other filler peoples getting in the way of The Glorious Imperium Sine Fine. The Punics are the exception since they are worthy rivals.

On a more serious note, I'd really like to see Celtic expansion into Germania, Iceland and Scandinavia, if possible. I mean, they took over part of the Balkans OTL, so why not those places?
 
A funny little idea I've always had is a less successful Pyrrhus actually leading to Rome being in a weaker position against Carthage. The gist of it is that Pyrrhus is turned away very early on, and thus doesn't venture to Sicily and "liberate" the Greek city-states there that are under Punic sway. With Carthage basically owning all of Sicily and holding strong garrisons in the major cities, the Mamertines don't have the means to occupy Messana and cause the First Punic War.

Of course the powder keg might blow up eventually, with two powers dominating on either side of the strait being an untenable situation; however, Carthage holding all of Sicily from the get-go certainly puts them at a bit more of an advantage. I don't know, you could explore the butterflies from there.

Well what I meant was a more successful Pyrrhus in Italy. A more successful Pyrrhus in Sicily would mean he takes Lilybaeum and from that point, there's little stopping him from pulling an Agathokles and sieging Carthage. And unlike Agathokles, he has the means to pull it off.

But I think the best POD for a more successful Pyrrhus in Italy is Rome accepting his initial peace offerings, which essentially left him in control of Magna Graecia and had the Romans giving considerable concessions. They almost accepted it OTL, only barely turning away from it at the last second, so its not impossible (contrary to what the "Rome never surrenders!!" people might believe).
 
Well, I just always liked the irony of a less successful Pyrrhus equaling more trouble for Rome down the road.

And Soverihn, the Carthaginians are not worthy rivals! Puny Punic traitor traders with no known wit are our undeserving adversaries.
 
The Carthaginians will always be worthy adversaries. The fact that a predominately peaceful sea trading people managed to transform themselves into an effective land fighting force over the years on Sicily, given Rome a hell of a 23 year fight for control of the island, and then, spawn one of the greatest generals in history....
 
The Carthaginians will always be worthy adversaries. The fact that a predominately peaceful sea trading people managed to transform themselves into an effective land fighting force over the years on Sicily, given Rome a hell of a 23 year fight for control of the island, and then, spawn one of the greatest generals in history....

The Roman side of the First Punic War was honestly much more impressive. They started off without a navy at all (critical in any Mediterranean war), they lost about twice the amount of men as Carthage did, and they were fighting on an island where everybody hated them and loved the Carthaginians (traders are good for trade). Plus I'm pretty sure that the Carthaginians were using mercenaries most of the time.
 
And Soverihn, the Carthaginians are not worthy rivals! Puny Punic traitor traders with no known wit are our undeserving adversaries.

I guess trading peoples get no love on AH.com. A reason this board seems to have an animus towards Venice. Well, that and 1204.... The Byzantine fanboys will never forgive 'em for that. ;)
 
The Roman side of the First Punic War was honestly much more impressive. They started off without a navy at all (critical in any Mediterranean war), they lost about twice the amount of men as Carthage did, and they were fighting on an island where everybody hated them and loved the Carthaginians (traders are good for trade). Plus I'm pretty sure that the Carthaginians were using mercenaries most of the time.
Not everyone hated the Romans on Sicily, far from it. The Greek colonists on the island had a long hatred of the Carthaginians. Not to mention, the loyalty of the cities on Sicily had always been fickle in the previous Punic-Syracusan wars on the island, and the same proved to be true for the First Punic War. The Roman conduct of the war overrall was impressive, but really, Roman generalship was pretty pathetic during the whole war-it helped that Punic generalship proved equally lacking in ability.

But what really won the First Punic War for Rome was Syracuse. Had Hiero not caved in so early, Rome would have no chance in hell in getting anywhere in any siege of Syracuse. They couldn't supply their army for a long siege, couldn't even dream of assaulting Syracuse's walls successfully, and had no connections in the city to take it through treachery. By providing them with supplies, Hiero enabled them to survive what otherwise would have been a crippling loss early in the war that would have forced them to pull out for lack of supplies.
 
So what will it be folks? A failed siege of Veii? Or a more-successful Pyrrhus impacting the Punic Wars?

(Personally since I don't have my recap of the Hellenistic World anywhere near completion, my work would be far more useful in a Veii POD)
 

Deleted member 67076

I guess trading peoples get no love on AH.com. A reason this board seems to have an animus towards Venice. Well, that and 1204.... The Byzantine fanboys will never forgive 'em for that. ;)
Venice is a blight that should have been wiped out from this planet. A pity Genoa didn't crush them in the War of the Chioggia.

1204 holds a place in my heart right up there with 9/11. #Neverforget

So what will it be folks? A failed siege of Veii? Or a more-successful Pyrrhus impacting the Punic Wars?

(Personally since I don't have my recap of the Hellenistic World anywhere near completion, my work would be far more useful in a Veii POD)
Punic wars! Punic wars!
 
Top