Roman Colonialism

DominusNovus

How could we get a Roman colonial period, similar to the Greeks'? Here's my theory:

Rome dominates Italy, as per OTL, but things fall apart afterward. The penninsula becomes as disunited as Greece was, and the various cities begin to look outward to expand their power.

Of course, this is very very rough, and has plenty of problems, such as what Carthage will be doing in the meantime.
 

DuQuense

After caenne?? Hannibil figured that since he had destroyed the entire army of Rome, Rome would come to him asking for Terms, & the return of their dead.

After 14 days Hannibal realized that the Romans wern't coming, so He set out after them. By the Time he caught up,[some 4 weeks after the battle] the Romans had raised a Second 10,000 man army, and manageed to fight him to a stalemate.

POD On the morning of the third day, having burned His dead, and gathered all the roman military supplies on the battle field. Hannibal realizes that the Romans have left their dead, and aren't seeking terms. He orders His Army to break camp and sets out in pursuit towards Rome.

Nearing Rome the new Roman Army tries to stop him, but the Romans haven't raised enuff troops, or established nessacary control & command . Hannibal lays seige to & defeats Rome.

This breaks Rome's control over the other Latin Cities, and their territories. Italy returns to the Indepentent city states of Pre Romes rise.

As the whole of the Pennisula is open to raids from various groups around the Med. The Cities start sending out colonies, to improve their positions.

[Ok that last Paragraph is a little weak]
 

Prunesquallor

Hannibal had no siege train, by the time he got to Rome the place would be securely defended. Have you any idea just how difficult it could be to take a city in ancient times? It took Hannibal eight months just to take Saguntum. Numantia, with only about 8,000 men of military age, held out for nine years.
 

Peter

Prunesquallor said:
Hannibal had no siege train, by the time he got to Rome the place would be securely defended. Have you any idea just how difficult it could be to take a city in ancient times? It took Hannibal eight months just to take Saguntum. Numantia, with only about 8,000 men of military age, held out for nine years.
Click to expand...

How advanced were the siege machines of tha ancients?
 

DuQuense

Correction

OK so he doesn't Take the City, But with Hanibal in Control of the Srounds, the City comes to terms. and the Roman Control of the other cities is lost.

This would be a terrible blow to Romes rising Pretige & reputartion.
 

Prunesquallor

No. I think you fail to understand the Roman mind. There's an excellent Scots word, "thrawn", which has varying meanings. Where I come from it means "bloody minded to the point of insanity." The Romans were pre-eminently thrawn. Hannibal's emissary returned with the news that he had simply been informed that "Rome does not negotiate while there's an enemy army in Italy." The Senate even turned down Hannibal's offer of ransom to return the prisoners taken at Cannae. "We have no need for such as these." According to legend, when Hannibal was camped outside Rome, the field where he was based came up for auction. It went for the usual market price (though I wonder if the Senate was behind that.) There were already a couple of legions in Rome. After Cannae two more legions were raised, another was formed from debtors who'd been in prison, two more from freed slaves, and two from survivors of the battle. That's almost as big as Hannibal's army. Rome had simply far greater resources. Hannibal couldn't take Rome, to be bogged down in a prolonged siege would rob him of mobility, the only way he could win was by a decisive battle- which the Senate weren't going to risk.
 
Northstar

Northstar

But what about the other 'Roman' cities? I know you say that the Romans would not give out, but what would the other Roman cities do if Hannibal just sat around and waited? Would they not eventually decide enough was enough, Rome wasn't strong enough to defend them, and start doing their own thing?

:)
 

Lysandros Aikiedes

If Hannibal had achieved what he set out to do, the destruction of Rome causes a power vacuum throughout Italy, which back then was not nearly as culturally homogenous as it is now.

In the north are Celtic tribes, mainly the Insubres and the Boii whom joined forces with Hannibal, and there are the few remaining Etruscan city-states. The Etruscans were in their heyday military allies of the Carthaginians. Which one of them has the potential to prosper without the Romans on their case?

Among the Latin states in central Italy, one of them will have to take Rome's place as the leading city.

In the south, either the Samnite League may recover after less than a century of Roman occupation. Or one of the Greek city-states in Apulia, maybe Taras/Tarantum, becomes the new regional power?!


Sicily was a Roman possession since the First Punic War. If Rome was destroyed by Hannibal, either him or someone else attempts to regain the western half of the island which they lost the first round? If Carthage had additional designs with Italy beyond Rome's destruction, retaking Sicily might be a decent place to start.
 

Adamanteus

The Romans WERE colonialists. Many cities throughout the Mediterranean and England were founded as Roman colonies in order to place Roman influence on an area of control. Often the Romans would deliberately destroy the settlements of locals in order to refound them as Roman towns. So in fact, this is OTL.
 

carlton_bach

MrA said:
But what about the other 'Roman' cities? I know you say that the Romans would not give out, but what would the other Roman cities do if Hannibal just sat around and waited? Would they not eventually decide enough was enough, Rome wasn't strong enough to defend them, and start doing their own thing?

:)
Click to expand...

That was Hannibal's strategy. Peel away allies and subjects until the enemy's strength is so reduced he has to negotiate. Obviously, it didn't work out that way.
 

Tocomocho

Adamanteus said:
The Romans WERE colonialists. Many cities throughout the Mediterranean and England were founded as Roman colonies in order to place Roman influence on an area of control. Often the Romans would deliberately destroy the settlements of locals in order to refound them as Roman towns. So in fact, this is OTL.
Click to expand...

That was what I was going to say. Colonia is a Latin word for a reason.

By the way, wouldn't a victorious Hannibal demand the Roman fleet as a war prize, just like the Romans demanded the Carthaginian fleet after the previous war, and in turn forced Hannibal to march all the way to Rome because the lack of ships?
 

carlton_bach

MrA said:
But, would it have worked that way, if Hannibal had sat there long enough?
Click to expand...

Very unlikely. The Roman system of alliance, subjection and colonisation was multi-tiered and came with plenty of rewards and penalties. It was also based on an expectation of loyalty that at the time was still relatively untarnished, and cut both ways. Allies could confidently expect Rome to stick up for them, and knew that if they quit, Rome would stick it to them, and for all of Hannibal's parading up and down Italy, he didn't actually achieve many things of significance. The problem here was a Hellenistic-style 'army in being' coming up against a distinctly non-Hellenistic entrenched system of fortified towns bound up in strong obligations.

Well, that's simplistic, of course, but basically, it's like a tennage bully trying to break up a group of close friends one of whom is a SpecOps veteran by threatening to beat up on the weak.
 
Northstar

Northstar

carlton_bach said:
Well, that's simplistic, of course, but basically, it's like a tennage bully trying to break up a group of close friends one of whom is a SpecOps veteran by threatening to beat up on the weak.
Click to expand...

That is awesome! That metaphor or whatever its called, is awesome! Awesome!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top