If Roman Military Campaign Always Failed... - Historum

**plutoboyz** · January 3rd, 2010, 03:08 AM

What would happen if all of their campaign always failed and they never become a big Empire? They never conquer always defeated in any battle. Only a small kingdom named Rome. Who will become a superpower in Europe? Greek, Celt, Carthage or other?

**Labienus** · January 3rd, 2010, 05:46 PM

Carthage or Gaul. Gaul was really becoming strong, it only lacked unity.

**Salah** · January 4th, 2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labienus

Carthage or Gaul. Gaul was really becoming strong, it only lacked unity.

I see Carthage becomign a superpower, and Pyrrhus of Epirus conquering at least part of Italy - perhaps resulting in a great war between Carthage and Macedon, and maybe even a resurgent Hellenistic Empire.

I don't think the Gauls would have done much, their lack of unity held them back too much. With how aggressive the Germans were becoming in the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC, I foresee them crossing the Rhine and perhaps making Gaul the first province of their own empire. Except that, they weren't united either. Either way, northern and western Europe would have stayed basically tribal for a heck of a lot longer without Rome.

sylla1 · January 4th, 2010, 10:06 AM

Gaul was not a nation, but a crude linguistic group that encompassed literally hundreds of quite different nations and tribes.

The answer of the opening question here must obviously depend on when exactly would the Roman army supposedly have failed its "campaign"; e.g. after the battle of the Allia or at Zama.

In any case, I think that Rome as the almost perfect warrior state was one of a kind ever; arguably no alternative power would have become the superpower that Rome actually was.

**Sargon of Akkad** · January 4th, 2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salah ad-Din

I see Carthage becomign a superpower, and Pyrrhus of Epirus conquering at least part of Italy - perhaps resulting in a great war between Carthage and Macedon, and maybe even a resurgent Hellenistic Empire.

I don't think the Gauls would have done much, their lack of unity held them back too much. With how aggressive the Germans were becoming in the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC, I foresee them crossing the Rhine and perhaps making Gaul the first province of their own empire. Except that, they weren't united either. Either way, northern and western Europe would have stayed basically tribal for a heck of a lot longer with Rome.

I think that if it wasn't for the Romans, Pyrrhus would have pretty-much gone where he pleased. He was victorious in just about every battle he fought, and if it wasn't for the determined opposition from Rome, he'd have basically walked over Italy. He had little trouble throwing Carthage off Sicily, little trouble conquering Macedon and the only people to really give him serious resistance (other than Rome) were the Spartans, and they were fighting for their lives.

Eumenes · January 4th, 2010, 12:09 PM

Seleucids might have been able to pull something together. Their two best rulers after Seleucus I, Antiochus III and Antiochus IV were both foiled by Rome.

Antiochus III was on the verge of taking Macedon and Greece before he was bested by the Romans. He'd already campaigned successfully against the Ptolemies, Parthia, Bactria, and Armenia.

Antiochus IV was only stopped from overrunning Egypt by Roman intervention.