(another ancient hist post) Was there any possibility that the tremendous dsiaster experienced by Rome at the Teutoburger Wald in 9AD, could've been avoided or at least mitigated ? Say, if a military incompetent like Varus hadn't been appointed to command the legions sent into Germania to deal with Hermann/Arminius and the Cheruscii, and so the legions weren't marched into the depths of the forest for easy ambush and annihilation by the Germans ? How would the Roman Empire's stability as a whole, including with continued expansion northwards and eastwards, have been affected without the Teutoberger Wald catastrophe ?
WI no Teutoberger Wald ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Melvin Loh said:
Swear to God, I think I got aroused reading this post.
Don't worry, I was kidding (for the most part
).Well, if you want an optimistic outlook, check out my Roman Timeline. More conservatively, this could help out the Romans. It would shorten the frontier (assuming the Elbe is held as a solid frontier). The only really valuable trade item in the region was, as far as I know, amber (and even that was further out), though there were a few tribes that were somewhat wealthy (the Marcomanni, for example).
The blow of theTeutoburger Wald battle was mostly psychological and political, not military (losing three legions hurts, but during the Civil Wars these casualties would simply have been taken and replaced). A better policy, better generalship, better counterintelligence, or simply more luck could have averted it. I keep wondering how much morale and psychology played a role in the defeat - the Romans have a record, in similar situations, of fighting like cats in a bag, and here they were simply slaughtered. Was it facing their own troops that did it, or might they have stood the night if the cavalry had held out?
There's an ATL in 'What If?' that expands on this question, assuming that Roman rule and civilisation stretches throughout the Germanic world. That would make Germany into another version of Gaul, heavily Romanised and prosperous. I am not sure it would happen - the role the Germanic threat played in the Romanisation of Gaul would have to be taken into account - but if it did, I don't think things would stop there. Northern Europe might not look hospitable to Romans, but I'm pretty sure Gauls, Illyrians, Britons, Thracians and Dacians would not see a problem with seeking opportunities there. Contrary to widespread opinion the Romans (or rather the Gauls) could work heavy soils, so the valleys of Germany might be turned into prime farmland dotted with villas. Also, there are considerable silver, iron, and coal deposits to exploit. In short, it might create another Romance country on the map of Europe, placing the cultural border somewhere east of the Elbe (though North Germany is likely to be somewhat left out in the cold)
A question that keeps bugging me: the Romans would have loved the shallow, sheltered, nearly tideless Baltic. Would they have gone exploring and trading? Maybe the natural harbour of Old Lübeck would be developed into a jumping-off point for cutting out the middleman in the amber trade. And the import of reindeer for the Colosseum
One thing is for sure: the Germans would have made great recruits for the auxiliaries.
There's an ATL in 'What If?' that expands on this question, assuming that Roman rule and civilisation stretches throughout the Germanic world. That would make Germany into another version of Gaul, heavily Romanised and prosperous. I am not sure it would happen - the role the Germanic threat played in the Romanisation of Gaul would have to be taken into account - but if it did, I don't think things would stop there. Northern Europe might not look hospitable to Romans, but I'm pretty sure Gauls, Illyrians, Britons, Thracians and Dacians would not see a problem with seeking opportunities there. Contrary to widespread opinion the Romans (or rather the Gauls) could work heavy soils, so the valleys of Germany might be turned into prime farmland dotted with villas. Also, there are considerable silver, iron, and coal deposits to exploit. In short, it might create another Romance country on the map of Europe, placing the cultural border somewhere east of the Elbe (though North Germany is likely to be somewhat left out in the cold)
A question that keeps bugging me: the Romans would have loved the shallow, sheltered, nearly tideless Baltic. Would they have gone exploring and trading? Maybe the natural harbour of Old Lübeck would be developed into a jumping-off point for cutting out the middleman in the amber trade. And the import of reindeer for the Colosseum
One thing is for sure: the Germans would have made great recruits for the auxiliaries.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
If the Romans could work heavy soils why didn't they? As I understand it Mediterranean civilization as far back as the Greeks was based on wheat, the grape and the olive. You can grow wheat in Germany (tho I don't think you get as many crops) and grapes too (but again, I don't think quite as much,) but not olives.
I sort of agree with Carlton Bach, Teutoberger was a convenient reason for Rome to put on the stops. Any further would have pushed her into areas beyond her expertise and given her a longer border to defend
OTOH recent discoveries place a large Roman settlement in the area. It was established and prosperous, so it wasn't like their settlements were failing/
I sort of agree with Carlton Bach, Teutoberger was a convenient reason for Rome to put on the stops. Any further would have pushed her into areas beyond her expertise and given her a longer border to defend
OTOH recent discoveries place a large Roman settlement in the area. It was established and prosperous, so it wasn't like their settlements were failing/
Actually, pushing the border forward to the Elbe would shorten the border. Here's a crude depiction:NapoleonXIV said:
OTL: |____
TTL: |__
It would mean that less of the Danube would have to be defended. You could get a similar situation by pushing forward to the Oder.
Dunash said:
a) it did not. The Romans had mastered neither indirect-fire explosive incendiary shells nor tracer arrows, nor would they allow a general to participate in a commando raid
b) Marcus Aurelius did fight along the Danube, both against the Sarmatians and the Marcomanns, who might well have been meant by those proto-Vikings playing headball. He was succeeded by his son Commodus who was kind of a nutjob, but that's about all that's correct. Well, that and the shields. The shields were good.
NapoleonXIV said:
They did. they didn't have quite the optimised mix of strains that Medieval Europe developed, but there were extensive Roman farms on both sides of the Rhine. Recent inscriptions even show imperial property in 'Free Germany'! I guess the techniques they used were capital-intensive, which led to their decline post-450s
Straha
Banned
DominusNovus said:
Swear to God, I think I got aroused reading this post.
Don't worry, I was kidding (for the most part
Well, if you want an optimistic outlook, check out my Roman Timeline. More conservatively, this could help out the Romans. It would shorten the frontier (assuming the Elbe is held as a solid frontier). The only really valuable trade item in the region was, as far as I know, amber (and even that was further out), though there were a few tribes that were somewhat wealthy (the Marcomanni, for example).
wealthy tribes=taxes
that equation is something the romans ogt
Faeelin said:
Celtic Britain probably supported a population equivalent to that of the sixteenth century. When the Romans held it, British grain was exported to Gaul in huge quantities. In Gaul and Germany, a ceramics, glass and metalworking industry was developed that entirely replaced Italian products on the local market and occasionally exported stuff to Italy. The emperor Nero (IIRC) allegedly had to pass a law limiting vine-growing in Gaul as Italian vineyards were being squeezed out of the market.
I don't think Gaul or Britain were ever as profitable as, say, Egypt or Africa, but I doubt they were a drain on resources. Not even with the huge military establishment in place (Germany and Britain at one point absorbed almost 50% of Rome's entire army - just to secure them).