PDA

View Full Version : I want to be Rome in the place of Rome...



Rosacrux
06-14-2004, 14:59
Alternative history is fun, no?

So, let’s get alternative as it gets: What if Rome had succumbed, which city-state or state could create an empire as great (or at least comparable) as Rome’s?

My candidates:

- Some of the Macedonian successors
Alexander did conquer half the “known” world, Greek kingdoms spread from Cyrenaica to the Hindus river, but none of the successors made the break. If Rome didn’t grow huge, could they unite more than one of the successor kingdoms and make it really big?

- Athens
They lost their chance long before Rome become a decent power in Italy: By losing the Peloponnesian war, their empire building was stopped in track. To those who don’t know, Athens had an empire of sorts (comparable to the later Italian city alliance of Rome) that included 2/3s of the Aegean islands, a good chunck of mainland Greece, the bulk of the Ionian City/states, Cyprus, Byzantium and the surroundings, lands in Italy and even in Pontus (Scythia).

- Syracusae
The Greek superpower of the West. Syracusae under Dionysios build an impressive little empire, stretching throughout the whole of Sicily and southern Italy, to Illyria and the Ionian islands. Dionysos did leave only incompetent successors, though, so the empire was dissolved before it became a threat to Rome.

- Some other Greek
Pyrrhus of Molossia (Epirus) for instance, was one of the two generals who nearly got Rome on her knees. But he couldn’t replenish his losses, and he had to withdraw from Italy after defeating the Roman and Carthagenian armies in a series of battles. Alexander of Molossia had a fair chance too.

- Carthago
The one of the two grand contestants on this poll. Nobody came as close as Hannibal Barka in annihilating Rome and diminish its power for good. But nobody failed so tragically as he, having to live as a refugee after losing everything – and his homeland – to the Romans, who didn’t leave one stone upon another in the once glorious Carthago.

My vote goes to Athens, with Carthago a close second. What about you?

Sjakihata
06-14-2004, 15:54
I think Carthago, if they'd won the punic wars, would have spread and became a massive empire. Maybe not too much north (ie. germany etc) but more of africa, the east and the center of europe.

Also, the Persians, had they not been defeated by Athens + allies and Sparta + allies, would have had a great opportunity to create an empire even bigger than Rome.

ROCKHAMMER
06-14-2004, 16:18
There are a lot of possibilites with these choices. Athens could have done the job had the city states not worked so hard to maintain there independance. If there had been a centralised government it would have been possible for them.

Carthage is also a possibility if they had a more militaristic government and were not so involved with commerce and economics. If Hannibal had been able to get control of the government things would be much different in the world today. I believe he would have conquered Rome. As it is, he didn't get the support from home and lost.

I, however, chose Alexander's successors. The only thing that caused Alexander's Empire to fall apart in the first place was his early death. If he had had the time to solidify his Empire and father a worthy heir his Empire, imho, would never have crumbled. As it turned out, his succesors squabbled and divided up the Empire, turning it into a group of smaller kingdoms which could not last without the support of the others. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

rasoforos
06-14-2004, 16:22
Athens seems to try and use its second chance today Once more they are looting the common fund of the Greeks to build all sort of stuff in their city. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

The Wizard
06-14-2004, 16:24
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ June 14 2004,15:54)]Also, the Persians, had they not been defeated by Athens + allies and Sparta + allies, would have had a great opportunity to create an empire even bigger than Rome.
Greece was just a drop of water in the sea that was Persia...



~Wiz

rasoforos
06-14-2004, 16:26
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 14 2004,10:24)]
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ June 14 2004,15:54)]Also, the Persians, had they not been defeated by Athens + allies and Sparta + allies, would have had a great opportunity to create an empire even bigger than Rome.
Greece was just a drop of water in the sea that was Persia...



~Wiz
True but the west would be wide open for them...Rome might have never risen to its formidable power if the Persians had paid them a visit...

The Wizard
06-14-2004, 16:32
Maybe so. As it is, Alexander I is depicted in Persepolis as one of the subjects carrying Darioush's throne http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But Persia had nothing to look for in the west. What was there to find, other than more barbarians besides Thracians and Skythians, Greek colonies, and independent Phoenician colonies? Not much when compared to the vast riches of the Fertile Crescent, Persia, the caravans of Bactria and Sogdia, India, and even Egypt...



~Wiz

rasoforos
06-14-2004, 16:38
Mainland Greece was not much of a bargain either if you think about it...

The Wizard
06-14-2004, 16:41
Greek orators were obviously convincing men to take tens of thousands of Persians into a land of which all the resources are worth less than those of lowland Macedonia...

Anyway, I fail to see how third century Athens could have taken over as the main power again. Sparta's deeds as main city in Greece would never be forgotten, but neither would Athens's, at least among the Delic cities...



~Wiz

Longshanks
06-14-2004, 19:35
Personally I don't think any nation or people at the time was really capable of replacing Rome. Certainly had Rome's rise been curtailed at some point, another state would have become the regional superpower. However, I seriously doubt it's empire would have been as large, dominating, or anywhere near as long-lasting as the Roman Empire was.

ah_dut
06-15-2004, 17:32
Longshanks is right in that most empires were not so expansionist so would be regional powers but nothing as major a scale as Rome became. No one had the admin structure to do this.imho of course