NIK PARMEN
Banned
Let's say that Varus turns the tide and wins that battle. What's next?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest 9 AD:A Roman Victory
- Thread starter NIK PARMEN
- Start date
What they get to the saftey of the encampment? I wouldn't call that a victory
He needs to kill or capture Arminius, and then the rebellion dies on its arse. Augustus Caesar will crackdown more on the Germanic tribes, executing supposed ringleaders, while taking more hostages from the other chieftain families.
Actually, this deserves admission to the inner circle of classical cliche PoDs.
Seriously, I think there is a lot of potential in this event.
Before the battle, the Romans already thought they had pacified all of what they called Germany, i.e. the territory between Rhine and Elbe; only Armin has proven them wrong.
Losening the focus from that particular battle, if the Romans do not face any substantial resistance, this area is incorporated into the Empire. This leads to completely new decadence and migration patterns later on.
It may even make Rome a bit stronger, as Germany has the potential to become a second Gallia, very useful and very closely linked to the Italian center.
Seriously, I think there is a lot of potential in this event.
Before the battle, the Romans already thought they had pacified all of what they called Germany, i.e. the territory between Rhine and Elbe; only Armin has proven them wrong.
Losening the focus from that particular battle, if the Romans do not face any substantial resistance, this area is incorporated into the Empire. This leads to completely new decadence and migration patterns later on.
It may even make Rome a bit stronger, as Germany has the potential to become a second Gallia, very useful and very closely linked to the Italian center.
Eurofed
Banned
It radically changes the history of Rome, Europe, and the world. Roman momentum to annex Germania is not broken, at a moment when the Empire is at the apex of its strength.
Over the next few decades, Rome gradually conquers and assimilates Germania Magna, Bohemia, and Dacia, and stabilizes its European border on the Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester line, which is the best natural border that Rome may get in Europe, and much, much more defensible than Rhine-Danube. Conquest of Germania relatively quickly leads to discovery of those technological innovations (heavy plough, horse collar) that allow full development of those lands. Gradual settlement and assimilation of native Germanics and colonization by Roman veterans and colonists occurs, and over a few centuries, Germania becomes as developed and Romanized as Gallia or Hispania. Rome gets another important source of soldiers and taxes, the independent barbarian population in Europe has been massively cut down to the Norse and the scarce Sarmatian tribes, and they no longer have the manpower to enact the conquest of the Empire. Provided the Empire is in any good shape, the Huns are repulsed, or otherwise at most they can put a Hunnish dynasty on the throne.
In the ATL equivalent of the Trajan expansion period, Rome has the extra resources to inflict a crushing defeat on the Parthians that allows them to conquer and keep Mesopotamia, seizing the richest province of the Parhian empire, another very good natural border on the Zagros, and quite possibly vassalizing Persia. This substantially diminishes the threat from the Parthians and later the Sassanids. Later annexation of Persia is not a given, but provided the Empire is butterflied into avoiding the 3rd century crisis, wholly likely. Extra minor conquests made quite likely by the extra resources include: Caledonia, Cimbia, Hibernia, Nubia.
In one fell swoop of a PoD, Rome turns at least 35-50% of the causes for its downfall into additional resources (and it has all but butterflied away the 5th century crisis). If it has to reach lasting success, it still has to get a second PoD or a butterfly that ensures those political and socio-economical reforms that were needed to avoid the recurring civil wars, before the 3rd century crisis hits in all its OTL severity. If this may be ensured, Rome is almost guaranteed to be on the path to millennial superpower success.
To be entirely frank, the effects of the battle of Teutoberg forest are drastically overrated, and are largely a product of the cult of the battle that arose through the mythology of 19th century German nationalism. If most definitely did not end Roman aspirations to conquer Germania – Germanicus Julius Caesar conducted operations in Germania from 9 to 16 AD, and as the recent evidence discovered at Kalefeld shows, Roman armies operated deep in Magna Germania up until the mid-third century. Both Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax considered annexing Germania, and advances in the northern frontier were conducted under Domitian, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus.
In fact, it is quite probable that a conquest of Germania would have been more feasible in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries, by the time of which Germanic societies had achieved a level of sophistication and urbanization (in large part due to Romanization) that would have made a continued occupation both more feasible and worthwhile.
In fact, it is quite probable that a conquest of Germania would have been more feasible in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries, by the time of which Germanic societies had achieved a level of sophistication and urbanization (in large part due to Romanization) that would have made a continued occupation both more feasible and worthwhile.
Last edited:
Nikephoros
Banned
Even if Varus wins, I still think that Germany will remain independent. Germanicus didn't annex them, and he had a very successful campaign. Even if they do annex Germania, they still won't take Sarmatia (besides what little they took IOTL) or Persia.
Jaded_Railman
Banned
If only the Roman Empire hadn't spent the 2nd and early part of the 3rd centuries trying its damnedest not to fall apart at the seams, eh?
Then we'll see Pax Romana on the banks of Vistula and Dniester.
And Slavs as separate entity will be separated from Germans much earlier and more painfully.
That's exactly, with German land at the fold of the Roman Empire, the Huns would have a difficulty to invade Roman Empire due to the additional Roman manpower from Germania. Maybe Roman Empire can survive today if they get the German land.
Eurofed
Banned
Teutoburg was a substantial (and in hindsight, critical) break in the Roman momentum, which to that point had been towards gradual but total annexation of Germania. If that had been a victory, ATL equivalent of Germanicus' victories shall be yet another substantial stepping stone towards that goal.
Not in the same century, no. But annexation and pacification of Germania in early 1st century frees up the resources to conquer and hold Mesopotamia (and optimally, vassallize Persia) in the early 2nd century. And if the changes butterfly away the 3rd century crisis (this is sure for the 5th century crisis, which to a very large degree was driven by the barbarian invasions), Rome shall have the resources to annex Persia in the 3rd-4rd centuries at the latest (the Empire is most likely to expand towards Persia rather than Sarmatia first, as the former is more precious economically and easier to conquer). As it concerns Sarmatia, if the Roman Empire follows this path and remains strong and vital, its eventual expansion in Sarmatia is quite possible, but likely would happen beyond its OTL lifespan, from the 5th century onwards (quite possibly as a reaction to the Hun threat).
Indeed.
And Slavs as separate entity will be separated from Germans much earlier and more painfully.
Well, according to scholar opinion, a significant part of the early Slavs were settled between the Oder and the Vistula in Roman times, so they would end up Romanized like the Germanics. Otherwise, you point is correct. However, it is also quite possible that a successful Rome would eventually expand in Sarmatia in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Age, once it is done with Persia.
Mostly wrong. Roman strength was at its apex in the 2nd century, and the 3rd century crisis only really hit in the middle of the namesake century.
Well, in order to ensure its long-term success, Rome would need a second political PoD or butterfly to have the reforms implemented that would nullify the 3rd century crisis. But turning the barbarian problem (which was a critical part of the 5th century crisis) into an abundant source of new manpower and taxes, not to mention a much more defensible border, surely improves the perspectives of the Empire a lot. And provided this happens, the Huns by themselves, with a vital, stronger Empire, and without the Germanic onslaught, in all likelihood end up being nothing more than a decades-long big frontier headache for Rome (and a good opportunity to devise new tactics to fight the steppe nomads).
Last edited:
Jaded_Railman
Banned
You are, of course, entirely correct. I had a brainfart and my mind substituted '2nd and 3rd century' for 'the 200's and 300's AD'.
I'm afraid I disagree. As I've stated previously, the Teutoberg battle did not have a substantial, long term effect on Roman expansionism. It did, of course, temporarily halt the drive of Augustan expansionism into northern and central Europe, and quite possibly created something of a short-term halt to Roman expansionist momentum across the entire Empire, but those effects were long gone by the time of Domitian and Trajan. Ultimately, its effect was not that decisive. The Romans were operating deep in Germania Magna as late as the mid-3rd century, and several more attempted annexations were made. I think the problem has more to do with the tribal and non-urbanized nature of Germanic society then with Roman resources and expansionist momentum. That is not to entirely discount the possibility of the Roman annexation of Germania Magna, but I belive that a continued drive into central Europe would be improbable.
The problem with the conquest and annexation of Parthian and later Persian territories was never one of resources. The Parthian Empire’s far smaller population base relative to the Roman Empire meant that it could never field armies numerically equal to Rome. The problem was that the Romans never designed an effective military system for combating the Parthians and other Iranian states. That is not to say that the Roman military machine was inferior (in fact, it has several marked advantages) but simply that the Romans never developed a successful military formula against them. Consequently all the Roman victories against the Parthian and Sassanian Empires were due to simple numerical superiority, which resulted in bloody stalemate battles at which the Romans usually won. It is possible and quite likely that the Romans could conquer and hold Mesopotamia (which they did after all, to a large extent), but not conquer the entirety of the Parthian Empire and the Iranian plateau by the 3rd century.
I think I've had this discussion with you before, but you're looking at the problem with the view of hindsight. From the point of view of the Roman general of the period, there is absolutely no advantage in conquering vast tracts of Sarmatia; the land is empty, and lacks large communities to be pilfered for slaves (ie Gaul), or major metal resources (ie Britain), or large cities to be ransacked for gold and glory (ie Greece, Syria, North Africa).
The same problem applies for Germany. With hindsight, yes, the Empire would have been far better off if it had managed to avoid the overstretch caused by the Rhine-Danube-Euphrates line, but at the time to contemporary Romans, this axis seemed to be a pretty good frontier; it largely divided the wealthier barbarians (mostly Celts) from the poorer ones (mostly Germanics, with some Celts in Britain). In addition to this, I'll repeat the point I always use in these discussions; THE RHINE IS PERFECT FOR SUPPLYING FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN VIA THE MOSELLE! This is an advantage you simply don't get from other, more defensible lines, such as the Vistula-Dneister one, which involves sailing up through the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, or, even worse, round Scandinavia.
That's not to see I would entirely rule out a Roman conquest of Germany. But the sheer fact that Roman expansion continued long after Varus' defeat (see Britain and Dacia for probably the best examples) seems to me to suggest that there was a general lack of will from the generals and Emperors of the first and second centuries to go on relatively profitless Germanic adventures, while in the third and fourth centuries, Emperors were largely preoccupied with either the Sassanids, civil wars, or consolidating the Christian Church. Real Roman expansion against Germanic powers doesn't come again until the sixth century, by which time, they are well and truly Romanised and established in former Roman territory.
Honestly, Mesopotamia alone is probably worth alot by itself than attempting to subjugate the lengh and breadth of modern Iran. At least, if they could have controlled and held a strip of the Persian Gulf, and thats IF the spate of rebellions throughout the Levantine provinces, which occured in 115 CE when Trajan had control of Ctesiphon, never happened, then they would have been in business. I can't help but think that Rome would have had closer commercial ties with China via Persian Gulf sea lanes if it wasn't for the various security-related obstacles against it.
Well, as concerns your Vistula border, is there any evidence that that would have happened or was even phantasized?
I am partial to conservative prognoses. Afaik the Emperor thought around 10 BC that an Elbe border would be achievable, and that is both relatively straight and therefore easy to defend; it also allows for supply from the well developped region South of the Danube.
I think this scenario is worth considering.
It also leaves the entry to Jutland as well as the Baltic coast outside the Empire; even though the Romans were smart shipwrights, there would always be others who focus on the Baltic more than the Romans - especially as there would be no other goal in keeping ships on the Baltic than defense.
Btw, I do not think this would prevent the Germanic migrations or invasions by Central Asian peoples, but it could delay them; like without Caesar a smaller variant of the migration period would have started in his time.
I am partial to conservative prognoses. Afaik the Emperor thought around 10 BC that an Elbe border would be achievable, and that is both relatively straight and therefore easy to defend; it also allows for supply from the well developped region South of the Danube.
I think this scenario is worth considering.
It also leaves the entry to Jutland as well as the Baltic coast outside the Empire; even though the Romans were smart shipwrights, there would always be others who focus on the Baltic more than the Romans - especially as there would be no other goal in keeping ships on the Baltic than defense.
Btw, I do not think this would prevent the Germanic migrations or invasions by Central Asian peoples, but it could delay them; like without Caesar a smaller variant of the migration period would have started in his time.
Eurofed
Banned
BG, your point is correct as it concerns Sarmatia during the OTL timespan of the Roman Empire. However, please be mindful that IMO Roman expansion in Sarmatia (besides annexing the coastal Bosporan kingdom, which was a vassal state IOTL and hence would be a quick and easy territorial gain ITTL) would occur beyond that timespan, in the Early Middle Ages, as the result of population growth in the Empire seeking new virgin lands to colonize. Colonization of Sarmatia would be gradual and piecemeal, focusing on the most valuable areas like the good farming land of Ukraine and the amber deposits of the Baltic coast.
Nonetheless, Germania included valuable resources (amber, iron). Moreover, once properly settled and the necessary agricultural techniques (heavy plough, horse collar) devised, it was going to be not any less economically valuable for farming than Gallia and Hispania. So the annexation was not going to be an economic loss, in addition to the considerable strategic benefits. Last but not least, early Roman leaders did plan to annex it with an operation of the same scale as Gallia or Britannia. The comparison between Germania and Sarmatia does not stand, even in Roman times, the former was much more populated (slaves !), with rather greater economic potential, and easier to conquer, develop, and defend for Rome than the latter.
I think you are far too enamored of your Rhine-Moselle line.
In the end, it is not going to be anywhere as fundamental as you imply. Romans were perfectly able to run efficient supply lines by coastal navigation in the Atlantic ocean, English Channel, and North Sea, otherwise, they could not have supported themselves in Britannia for centuries. Since with these borders they shall have full control of nothern Gallia, Germania, Cimbria, and Dacia, I really don't see the problem in sailing along their coasts to reach and navigate the Elbe, Oder, Vistula, and Dniester, and run trade and military supply lines along those coasts and rivers. After some centuries, indeed, the Empire is very likely going to build a canal system to supplement the road network, which shall join the big rivers of the northern European plain to bypass sea navigation, with huge trade and strategic benefits. But even before that, really, coastal navigation is not a big deal. Or rather, Varus' defeat made them change their minds about the feasibility of conquering Germania. It would have been greately different if Germania had been conquered in a relatively unbroken and quick string of victories in early 1st century that matched the earlier conquest of Gallia. As I said above, the longer they keep it, the less Germania shall look "profitless" to Rome.
Very true.
First, Romans identified the region between the Oder and the Vistula, Germania Magna, as part of Germania. So if they undergo the conquest of Germania in earnest, they would likely try to conquer it as well. Second, it was a kind of ethnic border between Germanic and Slavic peoples that Romans recognized. Last but not least, when Rome undergoes the conquest of Dacia as well, the Vistula shall look as the obvious optimal natural border to connect Roman possessions in Germania and Dacia.
The Elbe is better than the Rhine, but the Vistula is better than the Elbe. The momentum of Roman conquest in Germania was broken halfway, assuming that the point they planned in 10 BC was going to be the final border and not a temporary midpoint in an ongoing process is unwise. From what we know, they planned to conquer "Germania", which in their assessment, ended on the Vistula. However, given the size of the region, they in all evidence planned to go at it in sensible stages.
All the more reason why they would not stop at the Elbe. Controlling those coasts would be rather useful to them for trade and military reasons.
Bah. The Scandinavian proto-Goths and proto-Norse in the first two centuries CE are still very few and far between, their population boom is several centuries in the future, in this period they shall be a trivial concern.
As Germania becomes settled, this shall be wholly untrue, there shall be a lot of trade going around. Baltic amber, anyone ?
Last edited:
Who talked about Norsemen? At that time, as is supposed, dwelt some people akin to the later Goths ... not to easy, either.
Eurofed
Banned
Yup, the ancestors of the Goths. I stand corrected. However, my main point stands as well. Taken by themselves, the remaining unassimilated Germanic tribes in Scandinavia (and the Slavic-Finnish-Iranian tribes in Sarmatia) are demographic and military featherweights in comparison to this Rome. Notwithstanding the once-in-a-few-centuries major breakout by steppe nomads, assimilating continental Europe to the Vistula-Dniester line totally defangs barbarians as a serious threat. The Scandinavians need many centuries of growth before they may become even a serious nuisance as the Norse.
Last edited: