How does the Western Empire do with an Elbe-Danube frontier?

Rome pushes its Rhine frontier eastward until they're at the Elbe, shortening the western edges of its European frontier significantly. The Empire is later divided on roughly historical lines, somewhere along the Danube.

Is the Western Empire better off, having more territory and a shorter frontier to protect? Enough so to hold out for longer?
 
It may be more of a burden than anything. We're talking of a border that include poorly developped territory : even with imperial focus, the situation would look a lot as Britain in the same time, meaning poorly romanized and structured province (while you can count on many regional differences : along Rhine and Danube critically, but Elbe basin was certainly not as wealthy as they were before the conquest).

There's as well the question of road network : even if the border is geographically shorter, Rome would have to create out of nowhere (at the difference of Gaul where roman roads were based on pre-existing networks) structures to allow efficient strategical and operational distribution.

I'd see no great boost of population from taking over western Germania and if Rome keeps its strategic priorities as IOTL, it would mean that once passed the Elbe, Barbarians would have a free ticket for the whole of Germany, Gaul and possibly Spain.

It's doable, but it would cost a lot of ressources and increase fiscal and monetary pressure significantly : I'm not sure that it wouldn't be gradually abandoned as Dacia was during the IIIrd century.

A less ambitious system of limes/river reaching the Weser/Main (roughly the former FRG) may be more interesting, especially if the Rhine is tought as a second line of defense, and not that more expensive than turning the whole of Germania below Elbe as something reliable for defense and needed income. The region was rich, close enough from roman centers, and if you manage to limit the IIIrd century crisis, Romans could hold it more easily. At worst, it would be used as a bigger Agri Decumates and won't be that problematic.
 
Last edited:
Rome pushes its Rhine frontier eastward until they're at the Elbe, shortening the western edges of its European frontier significantly. The Empire is later divided on roughly historical lines, somewhere along the Danube.

Is the Western Empire better off, having more territory and a shorter frontier to protect? Enough so to hold out for longer?

Probably not because it has angered more tribes in its subjugations of the tribes between the Rhine and Elbe. So while it may be better off on defending some tribes probably not with the majority of them.
 
I think a lot depends on whether this is done around the time of Augustus, that of Septimius Severus or even somehow that of Constantine
 
What Catilina says, if anything it would be a burden.
I would see a more successful and richer empire having an Elbe border but that would be an effect, not a cause.
 
Probably not because it has angered more tribes in its subjugations of the tribes between the Rhine and Elbe. So while it may be better off on defending some tribes probably not with the majority of them.

Why would those tribes from the 1st century have any bearing on the tribes of the 5th? Further, they were already angered by Roman incursions there when the Empire did try to push the border to the Elbe, so whats the difference?
 
They had "secured" their border through annual subsidies to tribes on the border who would fight each other to receive these subsidies. They effectivly controlled a few miles farther than their border and these areas out side of it were so agriculturally under developed it was easier to just bribe some tribes on the border than actually asserting control
 

Faeelin

Banned
It may be more of a burden than anything. We're talking of a border that include poorly developped territory : even with imperial focus, the situation would look a lot as Britain in the same time, meaning poorly romanized and structured province (while you can count on many regional differences : along Rhine and Danube critically, but Elbe basin was certainly not as wealthy as they were before the conquest).

This is true for Northern Germany, but a couple of thoughts. First, Bohemia and Southern Germany are very different from Northern Germany. In particular, this Roman Empire will have Bohemia's silver mines (and maybe Saxony's).

Second, the Roman legions would be farther from Rome than in OTL's first and second centuries. I'm not sure if this results in a more stable empire, but it does mean the threat of the legions marching on Rome is somewhat reduced.

Third, although the region is poorer, the overall border is shorter; so you can reduce the number of troops (or have more troops per square kilometer) than OTL.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Honestly, I think this would work better strategically as a result of conquering Dacia upto and into the Carpathians. Moving up into S.Germany could be useful if resources are found there (i.e. Gold, Silver, etc) making going into S.Germany far more worthwhile, which could then be used to justify a Elbe-Carpathian frontier, and then to justify building it by the long term savings.

So potential discoverable opportunities include "The Ore Mountains", having more control over the Amber Road, lumber EVERYWHERE, silver mines in the Harz mountains, the key would be what would be known about - of which we can only be sure of the Amber Road (and lumber). If delegates can go to the tribes and learn, then they may find out more.

It does give the Empire a drastically shorter border, and a huge amount of land to give to soldiers, so that can solve problems on its own - perhaps even preventing the need to split the Empire in two.

It does have issues however!

Fortifying the Elbe would only work if infrastructure was set up right from the Danube and possibly the Rhine over to the Elbe. Pulling a Julius Caesar-esque divide and conquer to at least ensure all the local tribes are friendly and tributaries. Whilst we have created a safe Rhine & Danube mass transport system where towns can sit on both sides and send goods by river (which makes Constantinople even more important IMO) which helps to transport resources where they are needed, the initial costs are large, and won't see a drastic return until the number of troops to fortify the new frontier AND the troops to keep the area under control, are less than the number of troops on the old frontier, taking into account trade income perhaps. In addition, you have to take all the Marcomanni territory, which this frontier cuts right through, which means you'd likely need to make the frontier deviate from the rivers to the mountains there.

Impacts

Any initial economic developments in the area would likely be to serve some local tribal economies, or to provide for the military based on the borders. Any additional investment would likely be an early form of central planning, and would require a talented governor to pull off.

Now if any success is made in urbanising the region, or any region, to the point that large areas become depopulated, we now have an interesting circumstance. Not only do we have space in Gaul that could be given as tributary territory, but much more space in the Rhine-Elbe gap and the Danube-Carpathian gap as there are a number of denser population areas. So if as IOTL tribes start getting pushed up against the Roman frontier, there is much more space to settle foederati, and a series of older (and rebuild-able) defensive fortifications to fall back upon if things go horribly wrong, losing substantial strategic depth, but still protecting the wealthiest core of the Empire.

Furthermore, in a good case scenario - any successful urbanisation could move out the the Oder, or best case Visula frontier - but that I can't see for a VERY long time.

Back to the main question

So in terms of the Western Empires survival, if done at the right time - it didn't even exist as the Empire stays whole / the "Western Empire" has a whole "Northern Empire" as a buffer state. In addition, half the tribes/tribelands that the Huns scared west, are already being the Roman frontier, which is now vastly larger and able to support those chased, making the Huns a significantly weaker force.
 
First, Bohemia and Southern Germany are very different from Northern Germany. In particular, this Roman Empire will have Bohemia's silver mines (and maybe Saxony's).
I partially concur (hence why I think a less ambitious conquest would be better overall as I posted above) but from what I gathered (we'd need a specialist there), Bohemian and Saxony mines weren't as accessibles for large scale uses than their counterparts in Romania, and when they were, all infrastructures were to be built.

I think agrarian ressources of Rheinish and Danubian basin would be more favourable points, as having the potential to feed on the armies instead of relying on always threatenable (especially with ongoing economic crisis) supply lines.

Second, the Roman legions would be farther from Rome than in OTL's first and second centuries. I'm not sure if this results in a more stable empire, but it does mean the threat of the legions marching on Rome is somewhat reduced.
I don't really think so. IOTL, the Rheinish legions played only a minor role in military coups (the only exemple I can think of is Vitellius and that's not that of decisive) compared to Danubian armies, for exemple.

When they did so, they usually not managed to reach Rome anyway, hence the whole so-called "Gallic Empire" for instance.
At best, you'd increase their capabilities to scede by adding distance.

Without military presence on the Rhine furthermore, you'd increase the reliance of Gallo-Roman nobility on private forces with time. If you think Bagaudae were bad, it's not going to be better as it would clash with proto-manioralism.

Not to dismiss the potential opportunities of a different border, but I don't think it would be that of a best situation overall. Again, it's why I proposed a Weser/Main border instead.

Third, although the region is poorer, the overall border is shorter; so you can reduce the number of troops (or have more troops per square kilometer) than OTL.
I tried to adress the point of geographical distance : it doesn't help if infrastructures aren't there : roman military relied a lot on a road network to be able to be dispatched quickly. You'd have to build it out of nowhere in a province that doesn't have the capacities to fund it (conquest and plunder of Gaul managed to do so with profit, especially given the road network was already there only to be adapted).

There's also the problem of defense-in-depth in Roman geostrategy : without army on the Rhine (that alone would mean a far less developped Rhineland, more akin to IOTL Northern Gaul), the "Elbian" (i'm not sure that's a word) legions would have even more land to cover to stop whoever managed to break the border (as it was the case IOTL when Barbarians crossed or by-passed the Rhine border).

Eventually that would either mean less men but more depradations, or more men to have enough men keeping the border AND to chase off raiding parties and/or outright invasions.
 
Armies march on their stomachs.

Here's the thing about Roman limes: there's usually a few hundred miles of good cropland and a people who had some kind of hillfort or town structure for extracting the food that land could produce. Each legion is about 10,000 mouths that aren't farming. You need some good cropland to provide that.

Germany until the end of the Late Antique doesn't really have that. You have villages, a lot of stock raising, no hill forts, no proto-towns not all that many paths and roads. It's hard to get a surplus to feed enough legions out of Germany in the 1st Century. And there's a reason the OTL Roman limes follows the areas that had culture with the opidda and farmers to drag enough produce out of the land to support the limes.

Ironically enough, the Germany that can vomit out hordes of barbarians in the Fourth and Fifth centuries is a product of several centuries of trade with limes and silver flowing out so cattle can flow in. Move the frontier and there's the logistical question of moving food across half of Germany, to hold territory that produces a fair amount of cows and not all that much else. And of course, at the end of the day, you've just moved the line where you're going to have a lot of much better armed barbarians a few centuries latter that much further.
 
If the Romans won the Battle of Teutoberg decisively(not going to happen I know) or better,with Varus not marching through the forest altogether,an Elbe-Danube frontier could have easily been established.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Not to dismiss the potential opportunities of a different border, but I don't think it would be that of a best situation overall. Again, it's why I proposed a Weser/Main border instead.

See, that would be a good border if coming from the West, perhaps a western intermediary border - and doesn't require the conquest of Dacia to really be safe (at least IMO). So perhaps a more likely scenario then eating it all in one go - but could still hypothetically lead to it if proven worthwhile. What major resources do they grab in moving the frontier there instead?


I tried to adress the point of geographical distance : it doesn't help if infrastructures aren't there : roman military relied a lot on a road network to be able to be dispatched quickly. You'd have to build it out of nowhere in a province that doesn't have the capacities to fund it (conquest and plunder of Gaul managed to do so with profit, especially given the road network was already there only to be adapted).

There's also the problem of defense-in-depth in Roman geostrategy : without army on the Rhine (that alone would mean a far less developped Rhineland, more akin to IOTL Northern Gaul), the "Elbian" (i'm not sure that's a word) legions would have even more land to cover to stop whoever managed to break the border (as it was the case IOTL when Barbarians crossed or by-passed the Rhine border).

Eventually that would either mean less men but more depradations, or more men to have enough men keeping the border AND to chase off raiding parties and/or outright invasions.

I'm not entirely convinced - yes a Roman force would have further to travel to reach Rome/any target, but so does the invading force. In fact the added strategic depth of Germany would mean that the army could regroup, and attack the invaders whilst still in lower-value territory.

In addition, I think with a secure Rhine, you could certainly develop it nearly as well (if not better) if it was able to be a completely secure transport line. I'm not sure of how much it was used for logistics IOTL, but if it was safe for civilian use, you could well see the Rhineland just as developed as OTL. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced the Rhineland couldn't still have some military purpose if it was used to house "Reserve/Deployable" Legions for the north. It could act as a second layer of defense in their strategy, just not as heavy, or costly as OTL. But primarily it could be used to support a whole new legion (or multiple) that could be housed along the Rhine, and shipped into the North Sea if needed.

Armies march on their stomachs.

Here's the thing about Roman limes: there's usually a few hundred miles of good cropland and a people who had some kind of hillfort or town structure for extracting the food that land could produce. Each legion is about 10,000 mouths that aren't farming. You need some good cropland to provide that.

Germany until the end of the Late Antique doesn't really have that. You have villages, a lot of stock raising, no hill forts, no proto-towns not all that many paths and roads. It's hard to get a surplus to feed enough legions out of Germany in the 1st Century. And there's a reason the OTL Roman limes follows the areas that had culture with the opidda and farmers to drag enough produce out of the land to support the limes.

Ironically enough, the Germany that can vomit out hordes of barbarians in the Fourth and Fifth centuries is a product of several centuries of trade with limes and silver flowing out so cattle can flow in. Move the frontier and there's the logistical question of moving food across half of Germany, to hold territory that produces a fair amount of cows and not all that much else. And of course, at the end of the day, you've just moved the line where you're going to have a lot of much better armed barbarians a few centuries latter that much further.

But then you also have all that land to vomit silver into and cattle out of, inside the territories - and if these people consider are subservient to the Empire (a key requirement before even building a Elbian limes) then they can develop the area and provide the support - with further Roman interest to speed up the process, and potentially find resources. Yes, the resources are key, but I don't think you'd see the limes considered unless there are resources to extract - so which there is silver, lumber, the amber road, etc, etc. Not just cattle (though that would be useful to feed soldiers). You are overlooking that yes, there would be a different group of well-armed border barbarians, but also far fewer barbarians overall, and vastly more "Romans". With a shorter border. Yes costly, but not impossible.

The idea of moving east slowly from Rhine, to Weir, to Main, to Elbe, to the Carpathians doesn't seem that strange, it seems safer IMO than just changing how soldiers were paid - that slow steady expansion would pay for the men, and encompass more resources/manpower, and develop small pockets of land as they go. The Rhine-Weir gap would be a steep learning curve in settlement, but after that they've got the experience and can learn from it.
 
What major resources do they grab in moving the frontier there instead?
Most importantly, agrarian ressources. Grain import was one of the big thing of German/Roman trade and would be interesting enough even not regarding the need of a close production of military consumption.

I'm not entirely convinced - yes a Roman force would have further to travel to reach Rome/any target, but so does the invading force. In fact the added strategic depth of Germany would mean that the army could regroup, and attack the invaders whilst still in lower-value territory.
The problem of Roman army regarding raiding parties or invasions was far less their ability to regroup than doing so in time, being really dependent on given structures while Barbarians were less (most notably for not having these) while still beneficing from them.
It was often enough of defeating an army for a raiding party to go free around.

In addition, I think with a secure Rhine, you could certainly develop it nearly as well (if not better) if it was able to be a completely secure transport line.
I don't think so. That the Rhine was a military focus greatly helped its development IOTL, as, for exemple, great cities originated from military forts (Trier or Koln).
Remove this focus and the necessity to structure the region along, and you'll have a far less develloped Rhineland.

(I would point, while we are talking about ressources, that mineral ressources of this part of Germany, wasn't really easy to get. Upper Harz veins of silver are almost vertical, for instance, and were really exploited historically during the Middle-Ages for this reason. As for others, it's to be noted Germans seems to have imported mettalurgic products, from Gauls at first then Romans as well. It could point that the mining possibilities in Germania be more limited than you think)

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced the Rhineland couldn't still have some military purpose if it was used to house "Reserve/Deployable" Legions for the north.
Even counting German ressources (whom consumtion would itself require building infrastructures, and that won't come cheap), building out of blue an Elbe border region with all the cost it implies (forts, roads, pays, etc.) AND doing the same along the Rhine? I'm not sure you'd find enough gold in all Romania to really do both in the same time while other borders would still need them.

At the best, you'd see the private/semi-private armies I mentioned above, but that would be a huge factor of political unstability.

No mention it would require a real change in the geostrategical conception of the Romans. While I could see it with a Main border, would it be because it would be close enough to Rhine to serve as a first line (rather than main one), that's definitely more far-fetched for Elbe.

You are overlooking that yes, there would be a different group of well-armed border barbarians, but also far fewer barbarians overall, and vastly more "Romans". With a shorter border. Yes costly, but not impossible.
Demographically, the conquest of "Elbian" Germania would make little difference, as it was really under-populated. Think Britannia scale.
Western Germanic leagues and people never were a demographic threat to the Empire but military : there's little doubt their Scandinavian, Baltic and Proto-Slavic replacement would be similar on this regard.

2 millions less "outer" Barbarians, for more "Romans" (even being overly optimistic, you won't have 2 millions Romans just because you conquered the territory) aren't going to weight much.

As for romanisation, I don't need to say that it was all but a borg-like process producing Romans from a same prototype. The provincial creolisation depended a lot from the infrastructures and devellopment, partially explaining why Gaul was eventually more influenced by romanisation than Britain.
Germania, even by pulling all ressources avaible, would at best look as the latter.

Epidemics of the IIIrd century would still most probably happen, with the same issue regarding manpower, so eventually you'd have to deal with same priorities.

The Rhine-Weir gap would be a steep learning curve in settlement, but after that they've got the experience and can learn from it.
That's assuming Romans never tried to expand. They did. Agri Decumates, Dacia, Ad Moesia, Marcommani wars, Iazges, etc.
What they got from experience was that it was not worth it, that they had enough ressources but overstreching their presence would be a bad move overall.

See that there's always a good reason for things happened like they did historically : it's not just because they didn't think of it, it's because they tried again and again, and didn't managed to do so.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Most importantly, agrarian ressources. Grain import was one of the big thing of German/Roman trade and would be interesting enough even not regarding the need of a close production of military consumption.

Well, that is certainly nice.

The problem of Roman army regarding raiding parties or invasions was far less their ability to regroup than doing so in time, being really dependent on given structures while Barbarians were less (most notably for not having these) while still beneficing from them.
It was often enough of defeating an army for a raiding party to go free around.

Ah, right - I hadn't fully considered that. But wasn't that how the late empire defended itself? Frontline limitanei with field comitatus I didn't realize that it was the general pattern.

I don't think so. That the Rhine was a military focus greatly helped its development IOTL, as, for exemple, great cities originated from military forts (Trier or Koln).
Remove this focus and the necessity to structure the region along, and you'll have a far less develloped Rhineland.

I always thought Trier was originally a town all of its own? (Treverorum?) though I don't know much about Koln.

(I would point, while we are talking about ressources, that mineral ressources of this part of Germany, wasn't really easy to get. Upper Harz veins of silver are almost vertical, for instance, and were really exploited historically during the Middle-Ages for this reason. As for others, it's to be noted Germans seems to have imported mettalurgic products, from Gauls at first then Romans as well. It could point that the mining possibilities in Germania be more limited than you think)

Damn. I think that is all I can say for this.

Even counting German ressources (whom consumtion would itself require building infrastructures, and that won't come cheap), building out of blue an Elbe border region with all the cost it implies (forts, roads, pays, etc.) AND doing the same along the Rhine? I'm not sure you'd find enough gold in all Romania to really do both in the same time while other borders would still need them.

I think wires are crossed here - I wasn't thinking about full scale fortifications, but essentially enough for a fast-response garrison for a legion. Not building the Rhine border afresh - I was making the assumption that those borders would already have been built, and apart from maintenance costs, left manned by a skeleton guard, with that fast-response legion able to occupy them if desperately needed. Jesus, building two frontiers at the same time (one inner and one outer) is daft, certainly not what I meant to communicate, to be honest, I'll concede that maybe the fast response legion isn't as useful as I'd hope, but it'd be a "Free Hand" North of the alps.

No mention it would require a real change in the geostrategical conception of the Romans. While I could see it with a Main border, would it be because it would be close enough to Rhine to serve as a first line (rather than main one), that's definitely more far-fetched for Elbe.
Yeah, my thoughts were that the Rhine could be repaired/reoccupied if the Elbe was completely lost - as in, we've given up on Germania for now kind of loss. Not two active frontiers.

Demographically, the conquest of "Elbian" Germania would make little difference, as it was really under-populated. Think Britannia scale.
Western Germanic leagues and people never were a demographic threat to the Empire but military : there's little doubt their Scandinavian, Baltic and Proto-Slavic replacement would be similar on this regard.

2 millions less "outer" Barbarians, for more "Romans" (even being overly optimistic, you won't have 2 millions Romans just because you conquered the territory) aren't going to weight much.

As for romanisation, I don't need to say that it was all but a borg-like process producing Romans from a same prototype. The provincial creolisation depended a lot from the infrastructures and devellopment, partially explaining why Gaul was eventually more influenced by romanisation than Britain.
Germania, even by pulling all ressources avaible, would at best look as the latter.

Epidemics of the IIIrd century would still most probably happen, with the same issue regarding manpower, so eventually you'd have to deal with same priorities.

Fair enough I suppose. I wouldn't really disagree with that, but it does mean that those who'd invade Britannia may have to deal with Romans closer to home, which could make Britannia safer (a side point at best).

That's assuming Romans never tried to expand. They did. Agri Decumates, Dacia, Ad Moesia, Marcommani wars, Iazges, etc.
What they got from experience was that it was not worth it, that they had enough ressources but overstreching their presence would be a bad move overall.

See that there's always a good reason for things happened like they did historically : it's not just because they didn't think of it, it's because they tried again and again, and didn't managed to do so.

See, the common theme with those from my memory is that none of them would

a) Shorten the Border - the Marcomanni Wars, Iazges and Dacia together would have been needed.

b) Had a suitable frontier (like the Rhine). Agri Decumates doesn't seem to follow any natural path, but instead "What works".

I mean, Gaul would have been a disaster without the Rhine as a suitable boundary. If Rome hadn't conquered Belgica, it would have been a horrifying threat for Gaul, or if you did the same with Aquitaine, it'd be impossible to defend that in any practical way. The main point being that they sucked it up, took the swamps that were half of Belgica, and took the crap with the great! When trying to expand across the Danube, there was more interest in only holding the good stuff, and not recognizing that they'd need to muster enough forces to take it all in one go. To do the same with the Rhine would be equally disasterous, hence why I like your Weser-Main border, as it forms a natural border, and takes the good with the bad (and it seems there is a lot of bad). Perhaps I'm too married to the idea of natural borders - but Rome wouldn't have been able to control Hispania or Provence safely in the way they did without conquering Gaul to the Rhine eventually, or eastward if they couldn't fortify the Danube, or secure the Med without controlling the Atlas and the Sahara coastline. - hence the long-term borders they maintained.

Though I'll happily concede each and every difficulty - I just don't think a long-long-multi-emperor long term expansion slowly river-to-river through Germania is impossible, nor would complete control over the lands between the Danube and the Carpathians. But every time the Romans tried, they either made their border length even larger (and more difficult to protect), didn't ensure comparable natural borders to what they previously had. (I mean come on, their borders were magnificent) and as such suffered defending it. Or conquered JUST the nice stuff, but not the crap that was needed to secure it. (I.e. Dacia, or Mesopotamia - though Mesopotamia would always have been difficult).

Perhaps they never had the opportunity, and if that is the case, then that is the case, I am arguing on a highly abstract level here.

In my opinion, their best expansion chances really were:

1) The Main, then the Weser as you've suggested - each conquest is smaller than the Carpathian Basin, it creates a new set of (shorter) natural borders to maintain - and can rely on the infrastructure on the Rhine to begin supporting it once the roads are established (a difficulty that a empowered Tributary would likely be able do the heavy lifting.

2) The Carpathian Basin in its entirety (no small task), but there are plenty of resources for the taking there. I also include upto the Prut (or at a push Dneister) rivers in this goal - its essentially an eastern alps defensively.

3) Then the Marcomanni, if the resources are worth it for here, then take it - it provides a bit of depth for the Carpathian Basin, but it does lengthen the border slightly - not a huge fan of it on is own.

4) Elbe, Vistula - these two (in that order) are the longest term, and most difficult, and therefore, the least likely IMO - but both shorten the borders that 1,2 or 3 create, and retain natural borders to boot. Probably not possible for a long time, or in the best circumstances, or until the area develops significantly - which probably applies to all the conquests if you want to avoid nation building.

But yeah, more than 2 cents, but I thought I'd respond :)
 

Faeelin

Banned
Remove this focus and the necessity to structure the region along, and you'll have a far less develloped Rhineland.

Less developed, probably, but I don't think far less developed. It is a fertile agricultural region along a major river. It'll do fine.

(I would point, while we are talking about ressources, that mineral ressources of this part of Germany, wasn't really easy to get. Upper Harz veins of silver are almost vertical, for instance, and were really exploited historically during the Middle-Ages for this reason. As for others, it's to be noted Germans seems to have imported mettalurgic products, from Gauls at first then Romans as well. It could point that the mining possibilities in Germania be more limited than you think)

I'm going to disagree with this. Romans were experienced with deep vein mining (see, for instance, http://www.unc.edu/~duncan/personal/roman_mining/deep-vein_mining.htm). That preliterate, preurban societies didn't mine these sources doesn't mean they weren't available to Roman technology.

2 millions less "outer" Barbarians, for more "Romans" (even being overly optimistic, you won't have 2 millions Romans just because you conquered the territory) aren't going to weight much.

Hrm. Well, Roman Britain's population increased, so I don't think that Germania would stay the same either.
 
Ah, right - I hadn't fully considered that. But wasn't that how the late empire defended itself? Frontline limitanei with field comitatus I didn't realize that it was the general pattern.
It eventually did, while it depended a lot of the region concerned.

I always thought Trier was originally a town all of its own? (Treverorum?) though I don't know much about Koln.
Augusta Trevorum was a town, and one of the larger in Gaul eventually. But it was built around a camp. With Koln/Cologne (Colonia), Xanten (Castra Vetera/Colonia Ulpa), you have the 3 main cities of the region.

But the importance of these towns were directly tied being military centers, and the region a border.

I'll concede that maybe the fast response legion isn't as useful as I'd hope, but it'd be a "Free Hand" North of the alps.
Oh, that is most certainly doable. It was more or less the case with the Seventh Legion.

Yeah, my thoughts were that the Rhine could be repaired/reoccupied if the Elbe was completely lost - as in, we've given up on Germania for now kind of loss. Not two active frontiers.
Well, it would certainly be an option, but without the historical focus it recieved...It would be clearly less efficient than historically, and it wasn't exactly the Great Wall of China even then.
Most of the work on Rhine border was made after Germania was definitively considered uninteresting, so if the said conquest is made in the Ist century, it would be less about repaired than building most of it.

Now, with the aformentioned expanded Wesser border (yes, I repeat myself, I know), Rhine would be close enough to still be part of an imperial focus and would work far better as a withdrawal position.

Fair enough I suppose. I wouldn't really disagree with that, but it does mean that those who'd invade Britannia may have to deal with Romans closer to home, which could make Britannia safer (a side point at best).
Most invasions prior the Vth century involved Gaelic and Pictish peoples, unfortunatly :eek:. (That's the point where you probably mentally shout "Oh come on!")
Now, obviously, Saxon piracy would be less of a problem, but I'm not certain Scandinavians wouldn't take their place.

See, the common theme with those from my memory is that none of them would

a) Shorten the Border - the Marcomanni Wars, Iazges and Dacia together would have been needed.
But again, shortening geographically the border wouldn't have meant a secure border.
Ad Moesia, for exemple, was constantly under pressure of Roxolani and Free Dacians. Ever tried to build fortifications and roads under unfriendly fire? Me neither, but they did try, didn't managed to and called it a day. It was simply less costly to turn Iazyges and Roxolani into clients dedicated to protect the border.

Marcomannic Wars. Well, again Marcus Aurelius did tried to create provinces of Sarmatica and Marcomania, at least according Historia Augusta that is admittedly to be taken cautiously (while I don't see clear reason to doubt this precise claim).
But the same problem happened : constant war doesn't give near enough stability to not only conquer but structure the territory. Romans fought for 20 years, reaching modern Slovakia, trying to get rid of constant revolts, raids (basically, the Marcomanic Wars were initialy about Sarmatians, but Marcomani used the distraction to raid Romania. Romans eventually tried to lead a conquest war on two fronts. When one was defeated, the other attacked when it was not a roman usurper that rebelled).

Eventually, it was too costly keeping in control northern danubian territories, and shortening geographically the border was simply not worth that effort.

That's the problem : at some point, they couldn't advance without outstretching your forces, and despite what they wanted, they had an hard time keeping it, let alone turning the region suitable for their needs.

b) Had a suitable frontier (like the Rhine). Agri Decumates doesn't seem to follow any natural path, but instead "What works".
They tried to go gradually using when they could natural paths (Main or hillfoots), because it actually shortened not only the border, but allowed to build roads and infrastructures to react and dispatch more easily troops by not using the obvious natural path of Alps and mountainous passes, which is more the point than "let's reach this river because it would look more cool".

I'd stress it again like a broken juke-box : what was relevant was less the border than the capacity of roman troops to intervene more quickly.

I mean, Gaul would have been a disaster without the Rhine as a suitable boundary.
I'm far less sure : while it wouldn't have been as convenient than Rhine, the West/East orientation of most great gallic rivers provided usable borders. Most obvious is Loire river, at the point it became a some of a symbolic border.

The absence of great obvious border in Narbonensis (except Cevennes, admittedly), didn't prevented the province to be where Teutoni were eventually defeated, while Italian natural borders didn't do much good on this regard.
I'll give you that's a border case, but remember that the road network in independent Gaul was already present (and was a factor for Caesarian armies quick progression). A border along a different natural features (and again, they did before and after the roman conquest, formed political borders) could have been reached without being catastrophic thanks to that.

Caesar goal was less geostrategic, than conquering whatever he could (at least half of the Gallic Wars is about strategical opportunism), creating a cohesive geographical unit out of blue with what he took.

Or conquered JUST the nice stuff, but not the crap that was needed to secure it. (I.e. Dacia, or Mesopotamia - though Mesopotamia would always have been difficult).
Dacia is a bad example, giving they really backed the limits on Carpathian foothills and placing their valli on natural features.

(Mesopotamia is a bit weird, but have to be understood in the context of annexation of Roman and Persian client states, that still heavily based themselves on Tigris and Euphrates, with these being porous anyway)

Perhaps they never had the opportunity, and if that is the case, then that is the case, I am arguing on a highly abstract level here.
They had the opportunities, but it would require more than military successes, it would require both a paradigm change and a PoD that would allow a lesser pressure on peoples living in modernday southern Germany.

1) The Main, then the Weser as you've suggested - each conquest is smaller than the Carpathian Basin, it creates a new set of (shorter) natural borders to maintain - and can rely on the infrastructure on the Rhine to begin supporting it once the roads are established
I was less thinking using Main and Weser as natural borders, than using them as support for structures such as valli, for a more flexible border

2) The Carpathian Basin in its entirety (no small task), but there are plenty of resources for the taking there.
Most of them being located in the historical province of Dacia, hence why they didn't go too much further and abandoned the eastern part (that and Roxolani pressure).

Keeping it longer would be doable, as much as keeping "moesian" Dacia, especially getting rid of most of Parthian Wars, IMO.

For the rest, giving the two hardly butterfliable events of the Third (such as epidemics and climatic change), with inflation growing up (and even with ressources cashing up, going to be a big problem sooner or later), I'm not sure there is time or possibility before a crisis. Maybe later, but that's a bit besides what the OP ask for.

But yeah, more than 2 cents, but I thought I'd respond :)
Well, there's mines :D
 

Hecatee

Donor
Lots of good stuff already said here, so I won't repeat it all, just add my 2 cents :

- depending on when the conquest happens (before the conquest of Britannia ? After Trajan ? Later ?), conditions will be very different and one may see very different choices. Let's speculate about an invasion either under Augustus with no Teutoburg or at any time before Claudius : we might see the conquest of Britannia set back, thus freeing a lot of resources then made available for the new territories. We'll see a number of cities founded by the roman power (similar to what happened in northern Gaul) and maybe more forceful displacements of germanic populations to dismantle tribal solidarities and/or diminish the elite's power (because I don't think the Romans would be able to use the germanic elites as they did the Gauls').
If we're looking at a conquest around OTL's Marcus Aurelius, you'd have to butterfly away the great plague of the era in order to give the Romans the necessary resources (especially as Britannia will be a drain on manpower in this scenario), and possibly a better geographical knowledge of Germania than OTL's (for I'm not sure they were completely aware of the geography, which might have had an impact on their decision making process). On the other hand they'd probably have an easier time integrating the elites. A pre-trajanic but post-claudian annexation (under Domitian, with Agricola ?) would probably not benefit from such a factor, that's why I don't really take it into account here.

Any later attempt would probably enter ASB territory seing the lack of coherence of the central power and, from Constantine onward, the power of the tribes as evidenced by the Alemanic operations in the time of Julian II.

- About what the area could bring to the Romans, don't forget other resources such as lead, which we know was extracted for the Romans from trans-Rhine areas.

- About how colonization would work, I think the Romans would use as many rivers as possible, with many fortified logistical bases that would serve as proto-cities and one or two larger settlements in the interior (like Trier which, built on the Moselle river, was a rear-area logistical and political center which supported the Rhine cities such as Köln, something best seen during the period it became a capital for the Empire), plus of course the various fortress on the border itself (the Köln city model).

Roads would at first be built by the legions between the various logistical centers which no river connects, then alongside the river network, progressively making a dense network with potential fortresses at critical inland control points.

This would take about 20 years to achieve, with probably one or two major revolts inbetween. Then we'd be in a situation similar in many ways to OTL's northern England, but with potentially more Roman settlers and a faster urban development thanks to river trade.
 
Lots of good stuff already said here, so I won't repeat it all, just add my 2 cents :

- depending on when the conquest happens (before the conquest of Britannia ? After Trajan ? Later ?), conditions will be very different and one may see very different choices. Let's speculate about an invasion either under Augustus with no Teutoburg or at any time before Claudius : we might see the conquest of Britannia set back, thus freeing a lot of resources then made available for the new territories. We'll see a number of cities founded by the roman power (similar to what happened in northern Gaul) and maybe more forceful displacements of germanic populations to dismantle tribal solidarities and/or diminish the elite's power (because I don't think the Romans would be able to use the germanic elites as they did the Gauls').
If we're looking at a conquest around OTL's Marcus Aurelius, you'd have to butterfly away the great plague of the era in order to give the Romans the necessary resources (especially as Britannia will be a drain on manpower in this scenario), and possibly a better geographical knowledge of Germania than OTL's (for I'm not sure they were completely aware of the geography, which might have had an impact on their decision making process). On the other hand they'd probably have an easier time integrating the elites. A pre-trajanic but post-claudian annexation (under Domitian, with Agricola ?) would probably not benefit from such a factor, that's why I don't really take it into account here.

Any later attempt would probably enter ASB territory seing the lack of coherence of the central power and, from Constantine onward, the power of the tribes as evidenced by the Alemanic operations in the time of Julian II.

- About what the area could bring to the Romans, don't forget other resources such as lead, which we know was extracted for the Romans from trans-Rhine areas.

- About how colonization would work, I think the Romans would use as many rivers as possible, with many fortified logistical bases that would serve as proto-cities and one or two larger settlements in the interior (like Trier which, built on the Moselle river, was a rear-area logistical and political center which supported the Rhine cities such as Köln, something best seen during the period it became a capital for the Empire), plus of course the various fortress on the border itself (the Köln city model).

Roads would at first be built by the legions between the various logistical centers which no river connects, then alongside the river network, progressively making a dense network with potential fortresses at critical inland control points.

This would take about 20 years to achieve, with probably one or two major revolts inbetween. Then we'd be in a situation similar in many ways to OTL's northern England, but with potentially more Roman settlers and a faster urban development thanks to river trade.
Yes. This.

The Elbe is not that far in, especially in the north. It flows into the North Sea, after all, not the Baltic.

And once the Romans have the Erzgebirge (ore mountains), they'll realize the value there. OK, it may take a while, but mines will be built, and it will become a rich area, even if the metals have to be shipped down the Danube to the Black Sea to Constantinople.

It might take a century or so for the Rhine-Elbe hinterland to get fully cultivated and develop a Roman/Romanized population. But once it does, it can serve as a springboard for the next jump, e.g. to the Oder.

You'd also see Rhone-Rhine-Danube canals to expedite transport and shipping. The famous map of travel times will change massively if you don't have to go to the mouth of the Rhine and head south, but rather can travel on canals....
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
You'd also see Rhone-Rhine-Danube canals to expedite transport and shipping. The famous map of travel times will change massively if you don't have to go to the mouth of the Rhine and head south, but rather can travel on canals....

I like all the ideas - but I'm not sure this is even possible at this time period - is it? I mean, those are hefty canals. Valuable as all hell, but difficult to build as I understand.
 
Top