Arduumresgestasscriber Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 Supposing you were leading the revolting side circa 90 BC. You could A) Attack other areas that are still allies to Rome and force them to join the insurgency Lay siege to Rome's fortresses C) ??? Which one would you choose and why? I have some problem figuring out what would be the best decision for the Italia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 I wouldn't lead any revolting side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 D.) Surrender, because Rome is way to hardcore to be beaten. If I had to lead the traitors, I would have marched directly on the city. Cut off the head and the body will fall. It would be a long shot, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 Given that the revolt concerned a desire to be represented in Rome, it would make little sense to attack Rome itself. The best policy would be to eject Roman legions from Italian land, to deprive Rome of its provincial taxes/auxilia/infrastructure, and (most importantly) to cut off Roman access to Ostia. In 90, there was no way that Rome could have supported its population and army for very long without relying on its provinces, and the provinces could have used this dependence to strategic advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arduumresgestasscriber Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Given that the revolt concerned a desire to be represented in Rome, it would make little sense to attack Rome itself. The best policy would be to eject Roman legions from Italian land, to deprive Rome of its provincial taxes/auxilia/infrastructure, and (most importantly) to cut off Roman access to Ostia. In 90, there was no way that Rome could have supported its population and army for very long without relying on its provinces, and the provinces could have used this dependence to strategic advantage. It appears Marius was able to use this strategy of blockading off supplies to Rome to great effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted May 17, 2008 Report Share Posted May 17, 2008 Since Rome depended on military power, then success on the battlefield is the key. If you can dominate the roman legions they have no defence, and might afterward be willing to be subjugated. Besieging roman towns is pointless because the romans would simply trap you there - a fate Hannibal was wary enough to avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.