What if Rome never existed?

[pawpaw]

i really can't see who would of risen up to replace rome, it would of taken the other civ's at the time to change their way of life so much we can't predict who would become what in time. the carathagians were interested only in a trading empire, their later agressive behavoir was due to rome itself. the greeks were hopelessly divided and even forming city-state leagues wouldn't get you the world. the persia was a large but revolt plagued empire that could barely hang on to itself, not conquer even larger lands. the etuscans, samites and othert italians were not very agressive compared to rome, i doubt one would rise to the top, the mts in italy divided them into 10-12 pockets where they were content to live till rome approuched. the celts and germans were just raiders who loved to fight each other or anyone. it would taken a major change in character in one of these cultures to push it down romes path. rome was special for its time and thats why she and not others rose

 

[Xen]

Syracuse harbored similer plans for italian conquest throughout its history, at one time having all but literally a single city on the extream west coast od Sicily under its control, as well as the toe of Italy

 

[Xen]

And Syracuse may have been an even better place natuarlly situated to rule the Mediteranean, just look at its local.

 

[Furius]

You know, Carthage had a democratic-like government before either Rome or Greece.
It occurs to me that if Rome never existed that it might be Eastern Civilisation that colonized the world as opposed to Western.

 

[Kryten]

I may be wrong, and no doubt someone will correct me if I am, but I think that Carthage was just a normal Oligarchy....ruled by a small select elite while the common people had little or no say in the affairs of state.
This is the opposite of Athenian Democracy, where the common people held ALL the voting power (because of their numbers), or the Republic of Rome, which was a balanced mixture of the oligarchial Senate, the dictatorial/Monarchial powers of the yearly elected consuls, and the democracy of the common people expressed via the Popular Assembly.

 

[Furius]

I thought I heard something about an elected council, I'll have to go see if I can find the book.

 

[Xen]

In theory carthage was a republic, but in practice, because only the members of rich merchent families were ever "elected" into anything it was an oligarchy

 

[Furius]

So... not much different from the Roman Republic?

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Furius
So... not much different from the Roman Republic?

Not quite. In 367BC, following the passing of the Licinio-Sextian Laws, plebeians could be elected to the office of Consul. This led to a 'nobility of office holders', consisting of both patricians & plebeians. Soon after, all the high offices of state were opened to the plebeians (Dictator in 356BC, Censor in 351BC, and Praetor in 337BC).
Plus of course the plebeians had their Tribunes as well....

"In the early period all the perquisites and prerogatives of government in Rome were controlled by the patricians, while the plebeians, who constituted the majority of the population, had to bear the burdens of taxation and military service. Following the rebellion of the plebeians in 494 BC, these conditions were partly remedied when the plebeians won the right to elect their own magistrates, called tribuni plebis, to represent their interests. Although originally there were only two peoples tribunes, by 450 BC there were ten.
The people's tribunes enjoyed three important privileges: the right to defend a member of the plebeians on any charge; the right to veto any measure proposed by the Roman Senate; and personal inviolability during their terms of office. These tribunes gradually extended political rights to all the people. Roman emperors also took the title of tribune thus acquiring the constitutional rights of tribunes and a popular image. The office itself gradually lost its importance, although it continued to exist until dissolution of the western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD."

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002.

I very much doubt that Carthage had anything similar.

 

[Xen]

nope, those same merchant families had more then enough wealth toake it the best finacial interest of the the lower incom citizens to keep them affulent in government affairs; in fact it was this wealth which enabled Carthage to get out of most scrapes, It was only the fact that Romes' reasons for inciting tribute at the end its wars with Carthage were not to pay for anything, but to have Carthage become subservent to Rome, but that leads to a whole other topic....

 

[amirsan]

Originally posted by XIII
Personally I think the non-existence of Rome is too significant an event for any meaningful what-if discussions...

I wouldn't think its such a big thing to not discuss the what if. I looked in the "What if" Book and it said what if world war 2 didn't happen, that is significant and they still disscuss it. It even has what if Jesus wasn't crusified and u must know that that is VERY significant to the world and many religions... just a note, not trying to start a debate or argument...

 

[Xen]

Religion is one thing, and a geo-political entity is another,Rome was just to big, and to important to be able to guess anything more in-depth then another empire would have taken its place

 

[amirsan]

What about China and Mongolia, they were probably twice the size...

 

[Xen]

depends on what era, and if you count roms many a client kingdoms, as places like nubia, and Armenia phased in and out if being roman cliants many a times, on avarge though, they were about equal