Saving Rome - is Germania enough?

[DuQuense]

IIRC the Romans were not just moving east [Rhine] into Germany but North from along the Danube as well. they would have ended in OTL's Poland.

In the 300's when the Empire splits in TTL, Whe will get three Romes East, West, & North, [Rhine to Bug Rivers north of the Alps]

 

[Revolutionary Todyo]

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.

Intresting. Though I think Celtic culture is seen as mournful due to the fact that untill the 19th-early 20th century it was generally repressed wherever it went.

Now if Germania develops Roman influenced nations that treat Scandanavia the way the English treated Ireland and Scotland then that would work.

 

[Typo]

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...

The population of the Empire at its height was 65-70 million.

Germany in 1914 had approximately 65 million people, It is highly highly doubtful that in the first century the population of Germania would have exceeded 5-6 million.

 

[Typo]

Does it? Why wouldn't the frontier armies just became Sarmatian/Slavic/whatever, instead of Germanic?

The reason for "barbarization of the army" is because Barbarians simply made better soldiers and were more commonly available than Roman citizens who tried to avoid service, not because the Germans were genetically better at soldiering. So yes, I can see that happening.

 

[Mikestone8]

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...

Whoops, missed that.

I suspect it's ASB, though. After all, despite repeated incursions, they never even managed to conquer Caledonia - and the area this envisages is Caledonia multiplied by ten or twenty, presumably ending at a "Hadrian's Wall" from the Baltic to the Black Sea! It sounds prohibitively expensive, especially when the legions could be more profitably employed to attack somewhere like Parthia, where the natives were worth robbing.

 

[mikegold]

Whoops, missed that.

I suspect it's ASB, though. After all, despite repeated incursions, they never even managed to conquer Caledonia - and the area this envisages is Caledonia multiplied by ten or twenty, presumably ending at a "Hadrian's Wall" from the Baltic to the Black Sea! It sounds prohibitively expensive, especially when the legions could be more profitably employed to attack somewhere like Parthia, where the natives were worth robbing.

Even Caledonia can be conquered with the right POD IMHO - most obvious being an extension of the original conquest, or Septimus Severus lives a little longer.

Germania was actually held up to the Elbe for decades prior to the Teutoberger Wald. Pacifying this area and extending it toward the Vistula in Augustus' reign is not inconceivable. Alternately, Claudius could decide to take this region instead of Britannia (arguably, this would have been the better choice); or Trajan could live longer and head in that direction (though I suspect the latter POD requires no Kitos War).

Rome needs some sort of frontier in Europe because Europe has no logical "endpoint" to the East. Historically, by far Rome's most important frontier was the Rhine-Danube (though they considered this to be three frontiers). Hadrian's Wall was needed in Britain because there was no similar natural frontier. The Vistula-Dniester line is actually shorter than the Rhine-Danube, and the distance between the headwaters of the two is also less. Once Germania and Dacia are actually pacified, this is a more defensible frontier; arguably the best in Europe.

Not sure that will make the difference in the end, but it helps.

Another thought... if the Empire does split something like OTL, who gets the new provinces? Dacia to the ERE and Germania to the WRE? because, that would give the WRE a very short border, something they badly need. Or does the WRE get Dacia as well? Probably not... that would make them too dangerous to the ERE!

So a side benefit here may be that the wealthier and more structurally sound ERE has to do more of the heavy lifting.

 

[Mikestone8]

Another thought... if the Empire does split something like OTL, who gets the new provinces? Dacia to the ERE and Germania to the WRE? because, that would give the WRE a very short border, something they badly need. Or does the WRE get Dacia as well? Probably not... that would make them too dangerous to the ERE!.

Most likely the Barbarians get them back.

They are a huge distance from the Empire's Mediterranean base, far harder to supply than the Rhine Frontier, which is just up the Rhone. So when the going gets tough they'll be the first places to be written off.

Personally, I think Teutoburg is a bit overrated. At the equivalent battle in Caledonia, Mons Graupius, Agricola won a smashing victory, but it made no difference because the area just wasn't worth the expense. And the Romans did sucessfully invade Germany even after Teutoburg, but again with no lasting consequences. The legions were getting into areas where the rewards of victory were too low and the cost too high.

Note that the Empire's frontiers weren't the real problem. The Goths didn't get across the Danube by force, but because Valens, for whatever reason, chose to let them in. And those Barbs who crossed the Rhine in 406 would have been seen off without any trouble had the Roman Army not been down in Italy, partly to cope with said Goths and partly in pursuit of Stilicho's designs on the Eastern Empire.

And as previously noted, if a shorter eastern frontier does release any legions for duty elsewhere, they'll most likely be squandered on additional forays across the Euphrates, so in the end it will be swings and roundabouts.

 

[AgentOrange]

Personally, I think Teutoburg is a bit overrated. At the equivalent battle in Caledonia, Mons Graupius, Agricola won a smashing victory, but it made no difference because the area just wasn't worth the expense. And the Romans did sucessfully invade Germany even after Teutoburg, but again with no lasting consequences. The legions were getting into areas where the rewards of victory were too low and the cost too high.

Could the cost problem be negated by granting massive land estates in Germania to legionaires that volunteer to a campaign there. And by massive I mean at least triple what the legionaires usually got. That would get some folks eager to go there, even if there won't be as much loot.

 

[Mikestone8]

Could the cost problem be negated by granting massive land estates in Germania to legionaires that volunteer to a campaign there. And by massive I mean at least triple what the legionaires usually got. That would get some folks eager to go there, even if there won't be as much loot.

Possible, but why would they do that for Germany when they didn't do it (at least as far as I know) for anywhere else? As their post-Teutoburg policy shows, they didn't value it that much. Mainly they wanted their captured standards back, as a point of honour. The country itself wasn't that high a priority.

Incidentally, it seems to me that if you're really wanting to strengthen Rome, the best place to do it might be Africa. If they can conquer present day Morocco and northern Algeria, they have a secure border on the largely uninhabited Sahara Desert - unlike Europe where basically however far they go there'll always be another tribe of Barbs behind the last one. If those areas can be conquered and assimilated, they could supply valuable military manpower. Later on it was chiely Moroccan manpower that conquered Spain and held it for several centuries against Christian reconquest. As usual, though, the short term profit wasn't great enough for anyone to bother.

 

[Tyr]

I'd agree with more concentration on Africa rather than Europe.
The Red Sea (both sides) was rather civilized, if Rome could expand their influence with the semites down there it would be a lot more valuable than European forest. Even directly. Indirectly it'll bring them more into contact with India which...would be very profitable.

 

[Mikestone8]

I'd agree with more concentration on Africa rather than Europe.
The Red Sea (both sides) was rather civilized, if Rome could expand their influence with the semites down there it would be a lot more valuable than European forest. Even directly. Indirectly it'll bring them more into contact with India which...would be very profitable.

Istr there was an expedition (also in Augustus' day) to the present-day Yemen, under some chap called Aelius Gallus. Again unsuccessful though

 

[Revolutionary Todyo]

I've always loved the idea of Rome in India. Going through the Red Sea to the Indian ocean would be a good way to avoid the treacherous terrain of Persia and those bloody catraphacts.

 

[aktarian]

The crisis of mid 4th century onward were caused by roman diplomacy in previous centuries. Rather than simply sitting behind Rhine-Danube line they were active on the "barbarian" sides of it. Granting money, trading, employing troops, disrupting alliances and so on. This wealth transformed Germanic tribes from simple, small tribes to "peoples", that is big, organized societies able to field large(ish) armies. Push the line east and this happens on Vistula not Rhine and Dniester not Danube.

Plus, as was pointed out several times, Germania simply wasn't worth it, not in first century AD. No cities to tax, no riches to plunder, no people to enslave. Gaul and Dacia were so they were taken.

Plus don't forget that Persia was a going concern and that 4th century crisis (namely Goths crossing Danube in force) started off with Rome being engaged in war with Persia. If you have war with Persia flaring on regular basis this will force Rome to shift forces there, leaving european borders less dended, creating conditions for attacks. Sure, both may be beaten off eventually but it will always be a price to pay and eventually combined effects will bring troubles for Rome.

 

[Eurofed]

My reasoned expectation on this subject is that the annexation of northern Europe, all the way to the msot favorable Vistula-Dniester border, would have not by itself prevented the political instability of the Roman Empire, but it would have prevented or greatly lessened the severity of the fourth century crisis, and in any case stopped it from causing permanent political distintegration of Europe into nation-states.

With the Romanization of the Germanic tribes, the Slav-Balt-Scythian barbarian peoples would in all likelihood have lacked the demographic base to establish a lasting conquest and permanent substitution of ruling elites in the Romasphere. Even if the Empire had temporarily broken out, it is quite likely that it would have entered a China-like dynastic cycle, and sooner or later the relatively intact parts of the Empire would have reunified it (say the *Justinian reconquest is fully successful ITTL), and in the worst case the Huns would have just managed to put a dynasty of their own on the Imperial throne for a while, with Rome assimilating its conquerors rather than the other way around.

It remains however quite possible that the WRE-ERE division could have become permanent, owing to the Latin-Greek cultural divide fueling it.

IMO, the all-important steps to prevent the downfall of Rome were, in rough order of importance:

1) Conquering Germania.
2) A more stable political constitution.
3) Conquering Mesopotamia.
4) Balancing the power of the landowners and of the professional army with other components of the ruling elites.

 

[Orko]

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...

That would mean that the population of Germania+Dacia is atleast 60 million.

 

[aktarian]

With the Romanization of the Germanic tribes, the Slav-Balt-Scythian barbarian peoples would in all likelihood have lacked the demographic base to establish a lasting conquest and permanent substitution of ruling elites in the Romasphere.

How so? In OTL agricultural improvements crossed Rhine and Danube, increasing population of Germanic tribes. Why wouldn't they cross Vistula and Dniester, specially as Romans would face more or less same situation, only elsewhere? They would still have to keep people on the barbarian side in order, there would be trading, there would be all sorts of contact.

 

[Shogun]

My reasoned expectation on this subject is that the annexation of northern Europe, all the way to the msot favorable Vistula-Dniester border, would have not by itself prevented the political instability of the Roman Empire, but it would have prevented or greatly lessened the severity of the fourth century crisis, and in any case stopped it from causing permanent political distintegration of Europe into nation-states.

With the Romanization of the Germanic tribes, the Slav-Balt-Scythian barbarian peoples would in all likelihood have lacked the demographic base to establish a lasting conquest and permanent substitution of ruling elites in the Romasphere. Even if the Empire had temporarily broken out, it is quite likely that it would have entered a China-like dynastic cycle, and sooner or later the relatively intact parts of the Empire would have reunified it (say the *Justinian reconquest is fully successful ITTL), and in the worst case the Huns would have just managed to put a dynasty of their own on the Imperial throne for a while, with Rome assimilating its conquerors rather than the other way around.

It remains however quite possible that the WRE-ERE division could have become permanent, owing to the Latin-Greek cultural divide fueling it.

IMO, the all-important steps to prevent the downfall of Rome were, in rough order of importance:

1) Conquering Germania
2) A more stable political constitution
3) Conquering Parthia
4) Balancing the power of the landowners and of the professional army with other components of the ruling elites.

Agree with all of the above, except I don't see why Rome needs to conquer Parthia/Persia when it could just as easily defang the looming threat of another empire by conquering and consolidating its hold on Mesopotamia -certainly a relatively easier task. To me, it seems that would be enough to ensure that Parthia/Persia is no longer a major military threat to the integrity of the empire. With Mesopotamia securely in Roman hands, the outright conquest of the Persian hinterlands would be desirable, but no longer necessary.

 

[Stephen]

How are you going to stop Romans loosing their will to fight.

 

[mikegold]

Agree with all of the above, except I don't see why Rome needs to conquer Parthia/Persia when it could just as easily defang the looming threat of another empire by conquering and consolidating its hold on Mesopotamia -certainly a relatively easier task. To me, it seems that would be enough to ensure that Parthia/Persia is no longer a major military threat to the integrity of the empire. With Mesopotamia securely in Roman hands, the outright conquest of the Persian hinterlands would be desirable, but no longer necessary.

As time goes on, I'm less and less sure conquest of the Iranian plateau and Central Asia is even desirable (ie, Indus and Oxus or Jaxartes border). North Asia was an open sore for succeeding Persian dynasties almost until modern times. The Zagros is both a shorter border, and has the advantage of leaving Persia as a natural buffer, too weak to threaten Rome but powerful enough to stop most barbarians. If it ever falls to, say, Huns, Turks, or Mongols, the Romans at least have significant advance warning and friendly refugees who have learned from fighting them.

Incidentally, it seems to me that if you're really wanting to strengthen Rome, the best place to do it might be Africa. If they can conquer present day Morocco and northern Algeria, they have a secure border on the largely uninhabited Sahara Desert - unlike Europe where basically however far they go there'll always be another tribe of Barbs behind the last one. If those areas can be conquered and assimilated, they could supply valuable military manpower. Later on it was chiely Moroccan manpower that conquered Spain and held it for several centuries against Christian reconquest. As usual, though, the short term profit wasn't great enough for anyone to bother.

As far as this, Mikestone8, I'm not really sure what you mean... Rome had Mauretania and Numidia, which is northern Morocco and Algeria. They were bounded on the south by the Atlas and the Sahara. Threats to Rome from the southwest were few and far between; and the region was finally conquered by Vandals, not Berbers. Northwest Africa didn't revert to Berber rule till things went to heck elsewhere.

With the Romanization of the Germanic tribes, the Slav-Balt-Scythian barbarian peoples would in all likelihood have lacked the demographic base to establish a lasting conquest and permanent substitution of ruling elites in the Romasphere.

Eurofed, why do you think this? The very fact that Germania and Dacia would likely become Romanized and productive will move the line of civilization up to the frontier.

Europe east of this line supports a large population today... there's no permanent barrier to significant settlement, like the Sahara or Arctic Circle. Germany was heavily wooded in Caesar's time and for centuries after, so I don't think forests, steppe or swamps in the region would be any more of a barrier.

Is there some other feature I'm not thinking of that will stop the Slavic, Baltic, Ugric and Iranic tribes from developing the way the Germanic tribes did? This is probably the key factor in determining whether Germania and Dacia really make the difference or not.

 

[Eurofed]

Agree with all of the above, except I don't see why Rome needs to conquer Parthia/Persia when it could just as easily defang the looming threat of another empire by conquering and consolidating its hold on Mesopotamia -certainly a relatively easier task. To me, it seems that would be enough to ensure that Parthia/Persia is no longer a major military threat to the integrity of the empire. With Mesopotamia securely in Roman hands, the outright conquest of the Persian hinterlands would be desirable, but no longer necessary.

You are of course quite right, I should have said conquering Mesopotamia. Although owning Persia would be quite valuable to Rome, both by itself and because it gives total control of trade routes to India and China, it was not essential. Owning Mesopotamia, however, it is key to cripple the Parthian/Sassanid threat for good while enriching Rome considerably in the process. It is quite true that the Zagros border would have been quite good for Rome.