The uchronía is an utopia in time and it is applied to something when, knowing that it did not exist, we suppose to exist.

In 1516 Thomas More (Thomas Morus in Latin), humanist, political, chancellor of Henry VIII of England, wrote in Latin his famous work on the ideal society De optimo reipublicae statu, deque nova insula Utopia (Of a republic's best state and of the new island Utopia), commonly known as Utopia.

The etymology of the word is confusing knowing it More, that it  may come from the Greek οὐτοπία (οὐ, no; τόπος, place = "no place, a place that does not exist or is not anywhere ') or εὐτοπία (εὐ, good; τόπος, location) = 'good place'. Both are consistent with the thinking of More, but the first that has been imposed in the general opinion.

Indeed, compared to the "utopia" as a good ideal place, there is the concept of "dystopia", from the Greek δυσ-(dys) "bad" and τόπος (topos) "place" to express the opposite of "utopia" with the meaning of "bad ideal location." It is coined in the late nineteenth century by Stuart Mill. In times of crisis and despair, like the present, this concept of "dystopia" is a very common scenario in literature, film etc. .. ". The works Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury, "1984" by George Orwell and"Brave New World " by Aldous Huxley, are considered the founders of the genre or sub-genre of dystopia.

Well, space and time are two coordinates, two mental and linguistic categories which are also parallel and  similar. Sooner or later it should emerge the parallel term referred to the time, uchronía (from Greek οὐ, ou, no,  and Κρόνος,  Kronos, time), no time, what is not in time.

The Spanish Royal Academy defines it as a logical reconstruction, applied to history, assuming events that did not occurred, but that would have happened.

The French philosopher Charles Bernard Renouvier used it the first in his work Uchronie (L'Utopie dans l'histoire), esquisse historique apocryphe du développement de la civilisation européenne tel qu'il n'a pas été, tel qu'il aurait pu être (1857) (Uchronia: Utopia in History. Apocryphal historical sketch of the development of European civilization as it has not been, as it could have been).

The uchronía is thus a kind of science fiction.

In Antiquity there were some examples that could be considered "uchronía" or assumptions of what might have been if things had happened differently.

So Herodotus (between 484 and 425 BC.) provides an example. VII 139, 2-3:

If the Athenians had been seized with fear of the danger which threatened them and had left their land,or again, without leaving their land, had stayed and given themselves up to Xerxes, none would have made any attempt by sea to oppose the king. If then none had opposed Xerxes by sea, it would have happened on the land somewhat thus:–even if many tunics of walls had been thrown across the Isthmus by the Peloponnesians, the Lacedemonians would have been deserted by their allies, not voluntarily but of necessity, since these would have been conquered city after city by the naval force of the Barbarian, and so they would have been left alone: and having been left alone and having displayed great deeds of valour, they would have met their death nobly. (Translated by  G. C. Macaulay)

Or Thucydides (460-396 BC?), who also offers another example in his History of the Peloponnesian War: Th. I , 74:

But if we had joined with the Persian, fearing (as others did) to have our territories wasted; or afterwards, as men lost, durst not have put ourselves into our galleys, you must not have fought with him by sea, because your fleet had been too small; but his affairs had1 succeeded as he would himself. (Translation by Thomas Hobbes)

But curiously and against the above examples, it is considered that the first example of Uchronia in the literature appears in Livy, though naturally it is not called so. This idea is led by  Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848), who wrote in Curiosities of Literature an article titled Of a history of events  that did not occur), in which he makes note that Livy, in Book IX, in a long digression, imagines  the impact that would have occurred if Alexander had invaded Italy and would have faced the Roman army.

Note: Due to the extension, I will offer all relevant texts in this article to the end.

Certainly the passage of Livy is the most extensive and detailed digression on what we consider a uchronía and therefore certainly it deserves consideration if not as the first example of uchronía in antiquity, as  the most relevant.

Livy in his work Ab urbe condita (From the founding of the city Rome), IX, 17-19 is  allowed to imagine what would have happened if Alexander the Great had led his army westward instead of east and would have faced the great Rome, whose history he sings in his work. Naturally, in his patriotic and nationalist imagination, Alexander had been defeated completly by the Romans. With this digression in his story, Livy placed after narrating the failure of Roman army forced to go through the "gallows Caudine" unarmed and naked, aims it, to raise the self-esteem of the Romans. Facing the success of the Macedonian, Livy opposed the collective superiority of the Roman people, the strength of its traditions against innovation of Alexander and the superiority of the republic against the monarchy. Consequently, "the Roman power had not been defeated by  the king (Alexander)".

Note: the great interesting text is provided at the end

We might even consider a germ of uchronía the reference that Tacitus makes to Germanicus, also comparing him with Alexander in his Annales, II 73, 3:

Had he had the sole control of affairs, had he possessed the power and title of a king, he would have attained military glory as much more easily as he had excelled Alexander in clemency, in self-restraint, and in all other virtues. (Translated by Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb)

quod si solus arbiter rerum, si iure et nomine regio fuisset, tanto promptius adsecuturum gloriam militiae quantum clementia, temperantia, ceteris bonis artibus praestitisset

The uchronía is a widely used resource, excessively used by writers, especially by authors of historical or pseudo-historical novel. Some people call this type of “alternate history”, "counterfactual history" (something like "story against the facts"), what continues to be a "contradictio in terminis", contradiction in terms: How it can be written history of that did not exist? Moreover, how much damage will make these easy imaginations to the real story, when they also do so novel, allegedly historical basis and with little knowledge of the sources and excessive and boundless imagination, that  some call creativity?

Finally there is to think that this counterfactual history is an interesting counterpoint to help understand the causes and consequences of the real story.

Moreover it could refine and deepen the concepts of uchronia and counterfactual history, but it does not significantly affect the objective of the article, which is nothing but confirm the presence of these concepts in the ancient world.

Famous examples of uchronia is to assume  the victory of Hannibal against the Romans in the famous Punic Wars; or the victory of the Spanish Armada against England.

Gibbon asked himself in the eighteenth century: what would have happened if the Sarracens  had defeated  Charles Martel at Poitiers in the year 773? And he answered half joking and half really that the Koran would be proclaimed  at the departments of Oxford before an audience of circumcised people.

What would have been the immediate past of Spain in the Civil War if they had won the defenders of the Republic? And in Europe if the Nazis had won and no allies?

Even Winston Churchill envisioned a different ending to the American Civil War (1861-1865) in his essay entitled "If Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg".

The examples are endless, there are thousands.

These exercises seem sterile, because, as E.H.Carr said, History is the record of what people did, not what I did not do.

But perhaps we should not be so demanding. Jorge Luis Borges was not a historian, but a poet and writer, but his poem Things that Might Have Been, History of Night, authorizes us to think about  a different world and  story that was.

Things that might have been

I think of things that weren't, but might have been.
The treatise on Saxon myths Bede never wrote.
The inconceivable work Dante might have had a glimpse of,
As soon as he’d corrected the Comedy’s last verse.
History without the afternoons of the Cross and the hemlock.
History without the face of Helen.
Man without the eyes that gave us the moon.
On Gettysburg’s three days, victory for the South.
The love we never shared.
The wide empire the Vikings chose not to found.
The world without the wheel or the rose.
The view John Donne held of Shakespeare.
The other horn of the Unicorn.
The fabled Irish bird that lights on two trees at once.
The child I never had.


Isaac D’israelí (1766-1848), Curiosities of Literature;  Of a history of events which have not happened.:

“Historians, for a particular purpose, have sometimes amused themselves with a detail of an event which did not happen. A history of this kind we find in the ninth book of Livy; and it forms a digression, where, with his delightful copiousness, he reasons on the probable consequences which would have ensued had Alexander the Great invaded Italy. Some Greek writers, to raise the Parthians to an equality with the Romans, had insinuated that the great name of this military monarch, who is said never to have lost a battle, would have intimidated the Romans, and would have checked their passion for universal dominion. The patriotic Livy, disdaining that the glory of his nation, which had never ceased from war for nearly eight hundred years, should be put in competition with the career of a young conqueror, which had scarcely lasted ten, enters into a parallel of “man with man, general with general, and victory with victory.” In the full charm of his imagination he brings Alexander down into Italy, he invests him with all his virtues, and “dusks their lustre” with all his defects. He arranges the Macedonian army, while he exultingly shows five Roman armies at that moment pursuing their conquests; and he cautiously counts the numerous allies who would have combined their forces; he even descends to compare the weapons and the modes of warfare of the Macedonians with those of the Romans. Livy, as if he had caught a momentary panic at the first success which had probably attended Alexander in his descent into Italy, brings forward the great commanders he would have had to encounter; he compares Alexander with each, and at length terminates his fears, and claims his triumph, by discovering that the Macedonians had but one Alexander, while the Romans had several. This beautiful digression in Livy is a model for the narrative of an event which never happened.”

Livy, IX, 17-19:

XVII. Nothing has ever been farther from my intention, since the commencement of this history, than to digress, more than necessity required, from the course of narration; and, by embellishing my work with variety, to seek pleasing resting-places, as it were, for my readers, and relaxation for my own mind: nevertheless, the mention of so great a king and commander, as it has often set my thoughts at work, in silent disquisitions, now calls forth a few reflections to public view; and disposes me to enquire, what would have been the consequence, respecting the affairs of the Romans, if they had happened to have been engaged in a war with Alexander. The circumstances of greatest moment seem to be, the number and bravery of the soldiers, the abilities of the commanders, and fortune, which exerts a powerful sway over all human concerns, and especially over those of war. Now these particulars, considered both separately and collectively, must clearly convince an observer, that not only other kings and nations, but that even Alexander himself, would have found the Roman empire invincible. And first, to begin with comparing the commanders. I do not, indeed, deny, that Alexander was a captain of consummate merit; but still his fame owes part of its lustre to his having been single in command, and to his dying young, while his affairs were advancing in improvement, and while he had not yet experienced a reverse of fortune.
I shall enumerate the Roman chiefs: not every one of every age, but those [250] only with whom, either as consuls or dictators, Alexander might have been engaged. Marcus Valerius Corvus, Caius Marcius Rutilus, Caius Sulpicius, Titus Manlius Torquatus, Quintus Publilius Philo, Lucius Papirius Cursor, Quintus Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, Lucius Volumnius, Manius Curius.
Then follow a number of very extraordinary men, had it so happened, that he had first engaged in war with Carthage, and had come into Italy at a more advanced period of life. Every one of these possessed powers of mind and a capacity equal with Alexander; add to this, that a regular system of military discipline had been transmitted from one to another, from the first rise of the city of Rome; a system now reduced into the form of an art, completely digested in a train of fixed and settled principles, deduced from the practice of the Kings;
Manlius Torquatus might, perhaps, have yielded to Alexander, had he met him in the field: and so might Valerius Corvus; men who were distinguished soldiers, before they became commanders. The same, too, might have been the case with the Decii, who, after devoting their persons, rushed upon the enemy, or of Papirius Cursor, though possessed of such powers, both of body and mind.
The councils of one youth, it is possible, might have baffled the wisdom of a whole senate, composed of such members, that he alone, who said it was an assembly of kings, conceived a just idea of it. But then there was little probability that he should, with more judgment than any one of those whom I have named, choose ground for an encampment, provide supplies, guard against stratagems, distinguish the season for fighting, form his line of battle, or strengthen [251] it properly with reserves.
He would have owned, that he was not dealing with Darius, who drew after him a train of women and eunuchs; saw nothing about him but gold and purple; was encumbered with the burthensome trappings of his state, and should be called his prey, rather than his antagonist; whom therefore he vanquished without loss of blood, and had no other merit, on the occasion, than that of showing a proper spirit in despising empty show. Italy would have appeared, to him, a country of a quite different nature from Asia, which he traversed in the guise of a reveller, at the head of a crew of drunkards, if he had seen the forests of Apulia, and the mountains of Lucania, with the vestiges of the disasters of his house, and where his uncle Alexander, king of Epirus, had been lately cut off.
XVIII. I am here speaking of Alexander, not yet intoxicated by prosperity, the seductions of which no man was less capable of withstanding. But, if a judgment is to be formed of him, from the tenour of his conduct, in the new state of his fortune, and from the new disposition, as I may say, which he put on after his successes, he would have entered Italy more like Darius, than Alexander; and would have brought thither an army who had forgotten Macedonia, and were degenerating into the manners of the Persians. It is painful, in speaking of so great a king, to recite his ostentatious pride in the frequent changes of his dress; his requiring that people should address him with adulation, prostrating themselves on the ground; a practice insupportable to the Macedonians, had they even been conquered, much more so when they were victorious; the shocking cruelty of his punishments; his murdering his friends in the midst of feasting and wine; with the folly of his fiction respecting his birth. What must have been the consequence, if his love of wine had daily increased? if his fierce and uncontroulable anger?
and, as I mention not any one circumstance [252] of which there is a doubt among writers, do we consider these as no disparagements to the qualifications of a commander? but then, as is frequently repeated by the silliest of the Greeks, who are fond of exalting the reputation, even of the Parthians, at the expence of the Roman name, it was to be apprehended that the Roman people would not have had resolution to face the splendour of Alexander’s name, who, however, in my opinion, was not known to them even by common fame; and while, in Athens, a state reduced to weakness by the Macedonian arms, which at the very time saw the ruins of Thebes smoking in its neighbourhood, men had spirit enough to declaim with freedom against him, as is manifest from the copies of their speeches, which have been preserved; is it to be supposed that out of such a number of Roman chiefs, no one would have freely uttered his sentiments.
How large soever the scale may be, on which our idea of this man’s greatness is formed, still it is the greatness of an individual, constituted by the successes of a little more than ten years; and those who give it pre-eminence on account, that the Roman people have been defeated, though not in any entire war, yet in several battles, whereas Alexander was never once unsuccessful in fight, do not consider, that they are comparing the actions of one man, and that a young man, with the course of action of a nation, which has been waging wars, now eight hundred years.

Can we wonder then, if fortune has varied more in such a long space, than in the short term of thirteen years? but why not compare the success of one man, with that of another? how many Roman commanders might I name, who never were beaten? in the annals of the magistrates, and the records, we may run over whole pages of consuls, and dictators, with whose bravery, and successes also, the Roman people never once had reason to be dissatisfied. And, what renders them more deserving of admiration than Alexander, or any king, [253] is, that some of these acted in the office of dictator, which lasted only ten, or it might be twenty days;
So that Alexander, unconquered, would have encountered unconquered commanders; and would have had stakes of equal consequence pledged on the issue. Nay, the hazard had been greater on his side; because the Macedonians would have had but one Alexander, who was not only liable, but fond of exposing himself, to casualties; the Romans would have had many equal to Alexander, both in renown, and in the greatness of their exploits; the life, or death, of any of whom would have affected only his own concerns, without any material consequence to the public.
XIX. It remains to compare the forces together, with respect to their numbers, the different kinds of troops, and their resources for procuring auxiliaries.
He would have crossed the sea with his veteran Macedonians, amounting to no more than thirty thousand infantry, and four thousand horse, these mostly Thessalians. This was the whole of his strength. Had he brought with him Persians and Indians, and those other nations, it would be dragging after him an incumbrance, rather than a support. Add to this, that the Romans being at home, would have had recruits at hand: Alexander waging war in a foreign country, would have found his army worn out with long service, as happened afterwards to Hannibal. As to arms, theirs were a buckler and long spears: those of the Romans, a shield, which covered the body more effectually, and a javelin, a much more forcible weapon than the spear, either in throwing or striking. The soldiers, on both sides, were used to steady combat, and to preserve their ranks. But the Macedonian phalanx was unapt for motion, and composed of similar parts throughout: the Roman line less compact, consisting of several various parts, was easily divided, as occasion required, and as easily conjoined. Then, what soldier is comparable to the Roman, in the throwing up of works? who better calculated to endure fatigue? Alexander, if overcome in one battle, could make no other effort. The Roman, whom Caudium, whom Cannæ, did not crush, what fight could crush? In truth, even should events have been favourable to him at first, he would have often wished for the Persians, the Indians, and the effeminate tribes of Asia, as opponents; and would have acknowledged, that his wars had been waged with women, as we are told was [255] said by Alexander, king of Epirus, after receiving his mortal wound, in relation to the battles fought in Asia by this very youth, and when compared with those in which himself had been engaged. Indeed, when I reflect, that, in the first Punic war, a contest was maintained by the Romans with the Carthaginians, at sea, for twenty-four years, I can scarcely suppose that the life of Alexander would have been long enough for the finishing of one war with either of those nations. And perhaps, as the Punic state was united to the Roman, by ancient treaties, and as similar apprehensions might arm against a common foe those two nations, the most potent of the time, he might have been overwhelmed in a Punic, and a Roman war, at once. The Romans have had experience of the boasted prowess of the Macedonians in arms, not indeed when they were led by Alexander, or when their power was at the height, but in the wars against Antiochus, Philip, and Perseus; and so far were they from sustaining any losses, that they incurred not even danger. Let not the truth give offence to any, nor our civil wars be brought into mention; never were we worsted by an enemy’s cavalry, never by their infantry, never in open fight, never on equal ground, much less when the ground was favourable. Our soldiers, heavy laden with arms, may reasonably fear a body of cavalry, or arrows; defiles of difficult passage, and places impassable to convoys. But they have defeated, and will defeat a thousand armies, more formidable than those of Alexander, and the Macedonians, provided that the same love of peace, and zeal to promote domestic harmony, which at present subsist among us, shall continue to prevail.
(Translator: George Baker  (1781 – 1851))

[17] Nihil minus quaesitum a principio huius operis uideri potest quam ut plus iusto ab rerum ordine declinarem uarietatibusque distinguendo opere et legentibus uelut deuerticula amoena et requiem animo meo quaererem; tamen tanti regis ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitus cogitationibus uolutaui animum, eas euocat in medium, ut quaerere libeat quinam euentus Romanis rebus, si cum Alexandro foret bellatum, futurus fuerit. Plurimum in bello pollere uidentur militum copia et uirtus, ingenia imperatorum, fortuna per omnia humana maxime in res bellicas potens; ea et singula intuenti et uniuersa sicut ab aliis regibus gentibusque, ita ab hoc quoque facile praestant inuictum Romanum imperium. Iam primum, ut ordiar ab ducibus comparandis, haud equidem abnuo egregium ducem fuisse Alexandrum; sed clariorem tamen eum facit quod unus fuit, quod adulescens in incremento rerum, nondum alteram fortunam expertus, decessit.
…. ….
recenseam duces Romanos, nec omnes omnium aetatium sed ipsos eos cum quibus consulibus aut dictatoribus Alexandro fuit bellandum, M. Valerium Coruum, C. Marcium Rutulum, C. Sulpicium, T. Manlium Torquatum, Q. Publilium Philonem, L. Papirium Cursorem, Q. Fabium Maximum, duos Decios, L. Volumnium, M". Curium? deinceps ingentes sequuntur uiri, si Punicum Romano praeuertisset bellum seniorque in Italiam traiecisset. Horum in quolibet cum indoles eadem quae in Alexandro erat animi ingeniique, tum disciplina militaris, iam inde ab initiis urbis tradita per manus, in artis perpetuis praeceptis ordinatae modum uenerat.
….    ….
Militaris opera pugnando obeunti Alexandro—nam ea quoque haud minus clarum eum faciunt—cessisset uidelicet in acie oblatus par Manlius Torquatus aut Valerius Coruus, insignes ante milites quam duces, cessissent Decii, deuotis corporibus in hostem ruentes, cessisset Papirius Cursor illo corporis robore, illo animi. Victus esset consiliis iuuenis unius, ne singulos nominem, senatus ille, quem qui ex regibus constare dixit unus ueram speciem Romani senatus cepit. Id uero erat periculum, ne sollertius quam quilibet unus ex his quos nominaui castris locum caperet, commeatus expediret, ab insidiis praecaueret, tempus pugnae deligeret, aciem instrueret, subsidiis firmaret. Non cum Dareo rem esse dixisset, quem mulierum ac spadonum agmen trahentem inter purpuram atque aurum oneratum fortunae apparatibus suae, praedam uerius quam hostem, nihil aliud quam bene ausus uana contemnere, incruentus deuicit. Longe alius Italiae quam Indiae, per quam temulento agmine comisabundus incessit, uisus illi habitus esset, saltus Apuliae ac montes Lucanos cernenti et uestigia recentia domesticae cladis, ubi auunculus eius nuper, Epiri rex Alexander, absumptus erat.
[18] Et loquimur de Alexandro nondum merso secundis rebus, quarum nemo intolerantior fuit. Qui si ex habitu nouae fortunae nouique, ut ita dicam, ingenii quod sibi uictor induerat spectetur, Dareo magis similis quam Alexandro in Italiam uenisset et exercitum Macedoniae oblitum degenerantemque iam in Persarum mores adduxisset. Referre in tanto rege piget superbam mutationem uestis et desideratas humi iacentium adulationes, etiam uictis Macedonibus graues nedum uictoribus, et foeda supplicia et inter uinum et epulas caedes amicorum et uanitatem ementiendae stirpis.
Quid si uini amor in dies fieret acrior? quid si trux ac praeferuida ira?—nec quicquam dubium inter scriptores refero—nullane haec damna imperatoriis uirtutibus ducimus? id uero periculum erat, quod leuissimi ex Graecis qui Parthorum quoque contra nomen Romanum gloriae fauent dictitare solent, ne maiestatem nominis Alexandri, quem ne fama quidem illis notum arbitror fuisse, sustinere non potuerit populus Romanus; et aduersus quem Athenis, in ciuitate fracta Macedonum armis, cernente tum maxime prope fumantes Thebarum ruinas, contionari libere ausi sunt homines, id quod ex monumentis orationum patet, aduersus eum nemo ex tot proceribus Romanis uocem liberam missurus fuerit.
………    …………
Quantalibet magnitudo hominis concipiatur animo; unius tamen ea magnitudo hominis erit collecta paulo plus decem annorum felicitate; quam qui eo extollunt quod populus Romanus etsi nullo bello multis tamen proeliis uictus sit, Alexandro nullius pugnae non secunda fortuna fuerit, non intellegunt se hominis res gestas, et eius iuuenis, cum populi iam octingentesimum bellantis annum rebus conferre. Miremur si, cum ex hac parte saecula plura numerentur quam ex illa anni, plus in tam longo spatio quam in aetate tredecim annorum fortuna uariauerit?
quin tu homines cum homine, [et] duces cum duce, fortunam cum fortuna confers? quot Romanos duces nominem quibus nunquam aduersa fortuna pugnae fuit? paginas in annalibus magistratuumque fastis percurrere licet consulum dictatorumque quorum nec uirtutis nec fortunae ullo die populum Romanum paenituit. Et quo sint mirabiliores quam Alexander aut quisquam rex,
Inuictus ergo Alexander cum inuictis ducibus bella gessisset et eadem fortunae pignora in discrimen detulisset; immo etiam eo plus periculi subisset quod Macedones unum Alexandrum habuissent, multis casibus non solum obnoxium sed etiam offerentem se, Romani multi fuissent Alexandro uel gloria uel rerum magnitudine pares, quorum suo quisque fato sine publico discrimine uiueret morereturque.
[19] Restat ut copiae copiis comparentur uel numero uel militum genere uel multitudine auxiliorum.
…       …
Ipse traiecisset mare cum ueteranis Macedonibus non plus triginta milibus hominum et quattuor milibus equitum, maxime Thessalorum; hoc enim roboris erat. Persas Indos aliasque si adiunxisset gentes, impedimentum maius quam auxilium traheret. Adde quod Romanis ad manum domi supplementum esset, Alexandro, quod postea Hannibali accidit, alieno in agro bellanti exercitus consenuisset. Arma clupeus sarisaeque illis; Romano scutum, maius corpori tegumentum, et pilum, haud paulo quam hasta uehementius ictu missuque telum. Statarius uterque miles, ordines seruans; sed illa phalanx immobilis et unius generis, Romana acies distinctior, ex pluribus partibus constans, facilis partienti, quacumque opus esset, facilis iungenti. Iam in opere quis par Romano miles? quis ad tolerandum laborem melior?
uno proelio uictus Alexander bello uictus esset: Romanum, quem Caudium, quem Cannae non fregerunt, quae fregisset acies? ne ille saepe, etiamsi prima prospere euenissent, Persas et Indos et imbellem Asiam quaesisset et cum feminis sibi bellum fuisse dixisset, quod Epiri regem Alexandrum mortifero uolnere ictum dixisse ferunt, sortem bellorum in Asia gestorum ab hoc ipso iuuene cum sua conferentem. Equidem cum per annos quattuor et uiginti primo Punico bello classibus certatum cum Poenis recordor, uix aetatem Alexandri suffecturam fuisse reor ad unum bellum.
Et forsitan, cum et foederibus uetustis iuncta res Punica Romanae esset et timor par aduersus communem hostem duas potentissimas armis uirisque urbes armaret, [et] simul Punico Romanoque obrutus bello esset. Non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed ne cum periculo quidem suo. Absit inuidia uerbo et ciuilia bella sileant: nunquam ab equite hoste, nunquam a pedite, nunquam aperta acie, nunquam aequis, utique nunquam nostris locis laborauimus: equitem, sagittas, saltus impeditos, auia commeatibus loca grauis armis miles timere potest. Mille acies grauiores quam Macedonum atque Alexandri auertit auertetque, modo sit perpetuus huius qua uiuimus pacis amor et ciuilis cura concordiae.—



This website uses cookies so that you have the best user experience. If you continue browsing you are giving your consent for the acceptance of the aforementioned cookies and the acceptance of our cookie policy , click the link for more information.

Aviso de cookies