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

All remarks of Chiagga, Venice and Genoa are not relevant in this thread. Anyways Slyfox is now reading through my recap and will at some point either start either a Pyrrhic or Veii ATL.
 
Grouchio, have you no sense of historical humor? :D
Of course not Herzen. I just don't like threads derailing on a venetian tangent within the second page. ;)

Anyways a siege of Veii would nevertheless hamper Roman Martial ability for a century or two because 1. The Camilian reforms failed and 2. Brennus still threatened Rome. Speaking of which, how would a failed siege of Veii impact the Senonian siege of Rome?
 
Last edited:
Of course not Herzen. I just don't like threads derailing on a venetian tangent within the second page. ;)

Anyways a siege of Veii would nevertheless hamper Roman Martial ability for a century or two because 1. The Camilian reforms failed and 2. Brennus still threatened Rome. Speaking of which, how would a failed siege of Veii impact the Senonian siege of Rome?

We have so few Venetian tangents...;)

Re. The siege of Rome -- it seems that an epidemic rather than the promise of relief by the Roman army at Veii was the big factor. Have the Gauls practice better sanitary habits while beseiging the last bastion of Rome and you've well and truly screwed the Romans.
(Although in truth, so little is reliably known of what really happened in these events. They're practically semi-legendary.)
 
The events that led to the Roman involvement in the siege of Veii (even accounting for the legend clouding it all) would be completely different without a Roman Veii. The Senones quarrel seemed to be squarely with the Etruscans, particularly Clusium. Assuming Clusium actually did call for help from the Romans and that the Romans answered this call (the nonsense about the ambassadors fighting need not to be believed), that being what led the Senones to go to teach Rome a lesson, then this might not happen. Clusium would have little reason to call on Rome here, since Rome isn't such a powerful force in Etruscan politics now as it was after knocking out Veii.
 
The events that led to the Roman involvement in the siege of Veii (even accounting for the legend clouding it all) would be completely different without a Roman Veii. The Senones quarrel seemed to be squarely with the Etruscans, particularly Clusium. Assuming Clusium actually did call for help from the Romans and that the Romans answered this call (the nonsense about the ambassadors fighting need not to be believed), that being what led the Senones to go to teach Rome a lesson, then this might not happen. Clusium would have little reason to call on Rome here, since Rome isn't such a powerful force in Etruscan politics now as it was after knocking out Veii.
Now how would this hamper Roman expansion in the long run? Why do you want the Romans to be left un-crushed?
 
Now how would this hamper Roman expansion in the long run? Why do you want the Romans to be left un-crushed?

Because its different than just the standard "crush Rome in their crib" timelines. There seem to be 3 types of timelines that involve early Rome here: Rome still conquers everything, Rome conquers no more than Italy, and Rome gets destroyed early. There's nothing that has Rome just continue to struggle it out. Might they still be crushed? Yes, thats always a possibility, since i"m not sure I can keep Rome as a mid-Italian power for very long. But that's not my main intention.
 
Because its different than just the standard "crush Rome in their crib" timelines. There seem to be 3 types of timelines that involve early Rome here: Rome still conquers everything, Rome conquers no more than Italy, and Rome gets destroyed early. There's nothing that has Rome just continue to struggle it out. Might they still be crushed? Yes, thats always a possibility, since i"m not sure I can keep Rome as a mid-Italian power for very long. But that's not my main intention.
So what is? The Roman Republic struggling it out in Italia throughout antiquity? I like the sound of that. What should we discuss next?
 
Bumpity bump. Anyone know a creative way to have the Romans lose the siege? I'm toying with a "No Camillus there to save the day", but Camillus is himself a figure shrouded in such legend (I mean, he's always there to save the day until his retirement in 367), that I'm not sure. Though of course, since it's shrouded in legend and scant in detail, doing that wouldn't be un-historical anyway. Meh.
 
Top