3 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
Thanks for your detailed answer!
In fact I was asking this question while reading Fustel de Coulanges[1] and now I just finished the final chapter where he gives his theory about the rise of Rome!
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancient_City
He lists a couple of explanations for "why Rome and not another city":
1. From the start, Rome was a melting pot of Latins, Sabins, even some very old Greek cities, etc. So they didn't view themself as "pure Romans vs Others". When then needed alliance they could say to Sabins "hey, we have Sabins gods here too!", or with the Etruscan : "hey, we had Estruscans leaders here too!", etc. And doing so, Rome was much more open to expansion.
2. Maybe the more interesting theory: as the archaic religion was fading, people feel less patriotic and more attracted to political systems. It leads, all over Greece and Italy, for centuries, to turmoils between the aristocratic and the democratic class. If a city ruled by aristocrats was on the verge of being overthrown by the mob, the aristocrats wouldn't hesitate to ally (and even submit) themself to another aristocratic city if it allows them to remains in power. And the opposite was also true (tyran/king being with the mobs vs the aristocrats). Most famous example is democratic Athens vs aristocratic Sparta during the Peloponnese war.
In Rome, the Senat managed to keep power long enough to attract the foreign aristrocratic class. Fustel de Coulange theorizes that if the Etruscans cities didn't react when Rome capture Veiis, it was because Veiis was ruled by a democratic regim while the others were aristocratic. Same in Greece when Rome showed up: aristocratic cities team up with Rome while democratic/monarchy cities team up against Rome. For the same reason, many wealthy aristocratic families (he named them in his book) from the Sabins, Etruscans, Latins, etc… moved to Rome when they had political problems in their cities.
There's nothing here!