Saving Rome - is Germania enough?

mikegold

Question to Rome experts.

It's been proposed - notably by a scenario in What If? - that Rome conquering Germany (say by a more successful general replacing Varus at the Teutoberger Wald) would be enough, alone, to save the Empire.

That is - the Vistula-Dniester line is far shorter than the Rhine-Danube. Germania and Dacia are themselves rich, and soon to be latinized, provinces. When the migration era arrives, I suppose the theory is that the Huns, Iranic, Slavic and other peoples who will invade instead of the Germanic people won't have the numbers or technology to be quite as destructive; plus, Rome and Byzantium are further back from this frontier.

So, establish the Vistula-Dniester border, but not all the other reforms Rome saviors on the border constantly create (gunpowder, reduced slavery, conquering Persia and so on), unless you think they're natural add-ons to this one POD.

I don't see the Crisis of the third Century butterflied; Rome did that to herself, though there is no Gothic frontier (will another people successfully invade in their place?) and the Sassanids are still going to seize the opportunity to strike.

But the final collapse of the Empire, starting with the Visigothic settlement in Moesia under Valens and escalating with Adrianople, that's all highly dependent on the Germanic peoples, at least the way it occurred OTL.

So, what do you think? Surviving Empire, or at least Latinate survivor states that enter a Warring States period before restoring Roman unity? Or will Slavic/other barbarians overwhelm the Empire and just create different successor states, a la the "Coronation of the Hun" TL?
 
Space Oddity

Space Oddity

Possibly, but the fact remains that internal instability was always the Empire's greatest weakness. Having more land doesn't help with that.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
Yeah, I think "more lands" means "more armies" which also means "more opportunity for usurpers"...
However, the conquest of Germania also means no barbarization of the army...
Then my choice is: warring states, and then unity, then warring states again, then unity again, and so on...
 

Saepe Fidelis

Well if we take the POD that Augustus doesn't 'ban' expansion after the Teuterburger Disaster, then maybe some of Rome's problems could be gotten rid of early on. Remember, the 3rd century crisis was in part precipitated by the Marcomannic Wars fought by Marcus Aurelius, so a larger Rome could butterfly the worst of it away.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
mikegold said:
Does it? Why wouldn't the frontier armies just became Sarmatian/Slavic/whatever, instead of Germanic?
Click to expand...

AFAIK the barbarization of the Roman army was largely because of the mass hiring of Germanic mercenaries, which caused by plagues, diseases, etc...
With the conquest of Germanic people, the population of Roman Empire would nearly doubled (including slaves), moreover with the shortened border, the amount of legions required to guard European frontier would much reduced, thus the Empire wouldn't need any mercenaries...
 

Mikestone8

Codae said:
But, since the alternate border is shorter, it requires fewer armies as frontier garrison, which may counteract this.
Click to expand...


Won't that be cancelled out by more frequent attemps to conquer Parthia/Persia? That was always Rome's chief interest, being where the richest plunder was.

Possible butterfly. If Rome and Persia wear each other out by more frequent wars, maybe the Arab invasions come earlier, before the emergence of Islam. Perhaps it's an Arab ruler who legalises Christianity in the eastern Provinces.
 

Mikestone8

Rex Romanum said:
With the conquest of Germanic people, the population of Roman Empire would nearly doubled (including slaves)
Click to expand...

Huh?

The area between Rhine and Elbe is approximately half the size of Gaul. If the area of the present Czech Republic is also conquered, that brings it up to about two-thirds of Gaul. Unless it is incredibly densely settled, that doesn't come anywhere near doubling the Empire's population.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
Mikestone8 said:
Huh?

The area between Rhine and Elbe is approximately half the size of Gaul. If the area of the present Czech Republic is also conquered, that brings it up to about two-thirds of Gaul. Unless it is incredibly densely settled, that doesn't come anywhere near doubling the Empire's population.
Click to expand...

Errr, the OP says that the conquered area is up to Vistula-Dniester line which (including Dacia) contains a significant amount of tribes and towns...
Alright, if not become doubled, maybe increased by one and a half...
 

Flame

Banned
Your question has probably been answered by now, but your asking if the Roman conquering Germania would affect or halt the eastern Germanic immigrations of the third-sixth century AD?
 
Filo

Filo

I think that a conquest of Germania will bring to a slavization and/or magiarization of the empire.
As said above was the internal disorganization and civl wars that made empire weak.
 

mikegold

Flame said:
Your question has probably been answered by now, but your asking if the Roman conquering Germania would affect or halt the eastern Germanic immigrations of the third-sixth century AD?
Click to expand...

Well, I think most of the Eastern Germanic peoples will be conquered/Romanized in the scenario outlined, and the remainder assimilated into Iranic/Slavic/Baltic/Ugric peoples whose homelands are not occupied.

My question is rather, would the migration of these peoples alone - plus the Huns and other Asian nomads - be enough to bring down the Empire?

There's been some interesting discussion along these lines in this thread. One side question I'm wondering about, is will there be a population/technology explosion in Eastern Europe in the 2nd-5th Centuries CE, as there was in Germania OTL? That could give the Easterns the population and power to bring down the Empire anyway.

Because really, most of the Empire's decline was internal.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
Todyo1798 said:
Well if you get the angry tribes on your side, and can avoid being killed in a frontier raid.
Click to expand...

What I mean was, throughout Roman Empire's history, most (if not all) of the Empire's usurpers was originated as a popular and victorious generals at the frontier...
Backwater provinces (like Britannia) were also common places for usurpers and rebellions to popping-up...
The obvious reason for this, of course, because that two places are too far compared to internal provinces...
 

mikegold

Interesting thought - the Germanic remnant in Scandinavia might be compared to the OTL Celtic remnant in Hibernia/Caldedonia. Depending on events, the Germans might be similarly thought of as sort of a mournful, remnant people on the fringes of civilization.
 

Revolutionary Todyo

Banned
Rex Romanum said:
What I mean was, throughout Roman Empire's history, most (if not all) of the Empire's usurpers was originated as a popular and victorious generals at the frontier...
Backwater provinces (like Britannia) were also common places for usurpers and rebellions to popping-up...
The obvious reason for this, of course, because that two places are too far compared to internal provinces...
Click to expand...

However now the frontier will be even more deadly then usual, it will be harder for a general to be "victorious". Anyway I was of the opinion that a backwater province would be more likely to get angry and pwn their governer. Thus removing him as a threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top