Yes, that is true. Given that, Russia did not have many firearms when you screwed over Kazan and Astrakhan.
How does the Western Empire do with an Elbe-Danube frontier?
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
Yes, that is true. Given that, Russia did not have many firearms when you screwed over Kazan and Astrakhan.
FrozenMix
Banned
I think you are overstating the Illyrian Revolt. The reason that Roman writers gave it so much attention is the same reason why they gave so much attention to the Alemanni raiding Italy in 259 AD. It is because the events of the revolt for a time put Rome itself at threat due to an Illyrian Army raiding the Po Valley and threatening to march on Rome.
When this happened, there was not a single legion in Italia, all were at the frontiers of the Danube, Rhine, or posted somewhere else in the empire, but Italy itself, with unwalled cities, was defenseless. This caused Augustus to have to raise new legions on short notice of both eligible men in Italy, which was easy to do, but the need of the time required him to free slaves and levy them into the new legions, which was not a step done by Rome since the time of Hannibal. This is why the comparisons were made. Upper class Roman writers, seeing the slaves take up arms, were reminded of the time of Hannibal in Italy.
The revolt itself did not last all that long, maybe 3 years, and was substantially less bloody than that of the various Jewish ones, or most of the wars of the period.
The war itself did mean that Varus did not have the full force he would and should have had, as legions were forced to be diverted into Illyria, but the Romans in that war spent about a half year suffering defeats at the hands of numerically superior rebels before starting to win some battles and then for two years, chasing down guerrillas and irregulars in the Pannonian swamps and highlands.
Rome could and did punish those who fought against them in Germania. Germanicus killed a shit ton of them on his campaign to restore Roman honor, which was very important at the time to avenge considering the tributary relationship of Rome and its clients.
The reason they didn't keep plugging away at trying to conquer and administer Germania was because at the time, its cost, which might not even be that bad depending on how successful the Romans are, and I think they would be pretty successful, would not justify the conquest either financially in terms of slaves and plunder, of which there would be little in terms of coin and as for slaves, they had too many of them anyways, and strategically, it did not occur to the Romans that moving up the frontier to the Elbe would be wise.
Of course, there is also the matter of logistics, something I feel is underrated. The Romans could supply themselves quite well on the Rhine by shipping goods from the Mediterranean up the Rhone to Lugdunum and then shipping overland at a shorter distance. With an Elbe frontier, this becomes a lot harder to do.
Logistics via land with oxcarts was a big issue, but we should not overrate logistics up to the Elbe. Drusus did it, and Germanicus, too. Actually most grain came probably from Gallia. Land-transport was pretty short from the Rhone to the Mosel. Or from the Maas to the Rhine; later using a channel. Also a channel from Rhone to Mosel was planned but failed. Once the romans are used to the North Sea, which did not happen until 16 AD, supply via Ems, Weser and Lippe would be feasible without much additional costs.
I doubt, the romans ever controlled Germania Magna up to the Elbe. The Langobardi at the lower reaches of the Elbe were just amici. Varus probably never went there as a governor. And the Hermunduri at the upper reaches of Main and Elbe were pretty independent, too. And finally the region east of the upper reaches of the Rhine, which later became the Agri Decumates were fully uncontrolled at all. Illegal gallic settlers probably started their immigration into southern Germania these times. So Varus' provincia east of the Rhine, was most probably just the area from the Main to the North Sea and from the Rhine to the Weser. Of course, without the Illyrian Revolt and a succesful campaign of Tiberius against Marbod in Bohemia, the situation would be fully different.
Looking to the initial question of the OP, I guess, that after the conquest of Britannia, the romans lost the military power at the Rhine border, in order to seriously conquer and hold Germania Magna. But if Caligula or Claudius decides to conquer it, instead of Britannia, it might happen. Latest theoretical point of time is Septimus Severus imho, because afterwards the consolidation of the german tribes into mighty confederations is too much progressed.
I prefer the time of Caligula and Claudius. The romans had some conflicts with the Chatti anyways these times and some opportunities to deal with the Hermunduri during their civil war. So they could start with the South up to the Lippe in a first stage. At the same time the Chauci at the North Sea started to raid. Corbulo already defeated them, but Claudius called him back. So I prefer a step by step approach, and at the very end, you may get legions at the Elbe.
But the mother of all question still is: WHY? Claudius needs a convincing victory? Doing what Augustus, Tiberius and Germanicus were not able to do?
Well, let the romans recognize, what black coal means for their industry and they never leave the Lippe and Ruhr area again. On the other hand, Belgica and the Saarland is full of coal too. Was'nt it Belgium where people learned in the 12th century, that these black stones burn greatly?
Last edited:
GdwnsnHo
Banned
If they figure that out, then Britannia just went from a comparably poor backwater to quite a valuable province - probably worth its legions!
Britannia had not just too many legions, but also a ridcoulous high amount of auxilia. I never understood why. The Hadrian Wall is way too short, and the Picts are way too weak, in order to justify such a huge force. German pirates did not exist before the 3rd century and also the Irish have been most probably not the big threat. So why did the romans deploy one of the biggest forces of the empire to this small island?
Perhaps the Brits themselves have been more riotous, than the sources tell us? And this even after Boudica!
GdwnsnHo
Banned
How does that old song go again? Britons never shall be slaves?
(Seriously, verses 3 and 4 of rule Britannia are all about throwing off foreign oppression, whether or not that is based on a history, or just an innate feeling)
Hell, you could argue that even nowadays the British vehemently dislike being told what to do - it isn't like we've been the most co-operative members of the EU
Though, Irish pirates were an absolute bugger - don't discount the expense in defending against constant low-level piracy, not worth the money to eliminate, but permanently stunts growth.
Maybe.
But you did not get my point. I did not mean the revolt itself or short-term immediate consequences of the revolt.
I meant the lessons taught and learned after this revolt.
lesson #1
Even a territory considered to be fully pacified for a good hundred years might explode into a fierce rebellion. (here I mean Gaul, but there are a lot of other provinces which fit the pattern)
lesson #2
A revolt has bigger chances to start when you try to squeeze a little bit more than usual from the province for some imperial invasion effort (like additional auxiliaries from Illyria) and when there are a little bit fewer than usual imperial forces in this province.
lesson #3
Quite insignificant Illyrian revolt took an all-imperial effort to suppress it; it bled white the Roman armies in Illyria/Pannonia; it resulted into the insufficient thin manpower in other parts of Empire (which lead to annihilation of the army of Varrus in the Teutoburg forest).
The bigger revolt in other bigger province(s) will have worse consequences which might shatter all the Roman statehood.
lesson #4
Forget about conquering anything else for at least a generation or two.
And especially forget about conquering anything big like Germany.
Or you might end up having half of the Roman Empire in the flames of revolts.
Last edited:
I am so glad someone brought The Great Illyrian Revolt up. As I mentioned in previous threads on this, it can not be underestimated. By the time of Teutoburg, the Romans quite literally had almost nobody to replace those 3 lost legions. Augustus had gone to buying and freeing slaves to serve in the army. The Romans panicked and abandoned everything, because they had nobody to replace the losses at the time. The success of the revolt early on also gave the German tribes the reason to believe that the Romans could be beaten.
Also, something else I wanted to touch on. There's a pattern to Roman conquests. The generation that grows up after the conquest, not fighting the Romans and experiencing defeat at their hands, usually revolts. We saw this in Britain, in Spain, in Illyria, in Germany, in Gaul to a lesser extent...so if you can survive that first generation, stuff should calm down.
This is why the romans usually waited at least one generation until they started the provincialization. Gallia was conquered until 53 BC and provincialised either 27 BC or 16 BC. So for 26-37 years Gallia was just a military district called Gallia Comata.
Germania Magna was conquered by Drusus and Tiberius until 6 BC. And Varus had to start provincialisation already in 6 AD. This are just 12 years later.
Way too early. Just recently from 1-4 AD there was a revolt called bellum immensum. And just 2 years later Varus had to start provincialisation? Why? One explanation of historians is the Illyrian Revolt. It was that costly, that the romans needed the taxes from Germania to cover at least parts of the costs onsite. Additionally there was a big fire in Rome 6AD which made finances not better.
With a succesful campaign against Marobodius, Tiberius and Saturninus are with 12 legions at the upper reaches of the Elbe in 9 AD. Arminius is brave, but not fully nuts. Or vice versa, if the romans decide to not attack Marobodius and look for a political solution for the time beeing, the illyrian revolt will perhaps never happen. Because the romans have not to overstretch taxation in Illyria in order to supply that many legions.
Last edited:
...surely you have to be joking.
Russian regular infantry was armed with arquebousses since the late 1400s, and by the time they conquered Kazan firearms are on the ordinance list for gentry cavalry as well.
Russian cannon is first mentioned in chronicles in 1380s, and by the late 1500s Russia is actually exporting guns sporadically.
I have no idea what gives you the impression that the Muscovite state was a late adopted of powder arms; it was not. Cannon were certainly key in being able to maintain forts on the steppes and in Siberia; history proves it was hard before then.
----
FWIW, to get back on topic: Germany of the time, to my limited knowledge, simply lacked the tax and population base to be able to police itself without drawing on on resources from elsewhere, just like Britain but without the easy mining, and much larger.
Last edited:
FWIW Britain was probably the least Romanised of the Western provinces (less urbanised, Latin not very widely spoken as a first language), so there might well have been a bigger threat of rebellion than in other provinces.
Ariminius was also heavily influence by the Illyrian Revolt. To him it showed that Rome could be beaten, and probably allowed him to make up his mind. Since personal ambition likely played a large role in his decision much more than "freedom from the Romans" did (he could not advance his career much further than he already did as a Roman, and given his ambitions, that was likely not high enough) he'll likely come to the conclusion that he'll be better served remaining loyal to Rome in this scenario.
I agree to your assessment of Arminius' motivation.
And there is a 2nd important factor. The pro-roman german nobles, who have been not that weak. With 12 legions in Bohemia, pretty close to the land of the Cherusci, they have at least 12 good arguments against Arminius' crazy plan. And if the romans do not attack Marobodius, and no illyrian revolt, there are probably about 8 legions at the Rhine. Again 8 good arguments.
Plus, without the costly war in Illyria the romans have more money to pump into Germania for military and civil infrastructure and less need to let their publicani (private roman tax farmers) exploit the germans. Heck they could have used one of their other, more moderate systems of taxation without any publicani. Again strengthening the pro-roman faction of the germanic tribes.
PS: I found no hint that the romans ever used publicani in Magna Germania. But if it comes to exploitation and revolts, publicani are the best way to go.
And there is a 2nd important factor. The pro-roman german nobles, who have been not that weak. With 12 legions in Bohemia, pretty close to the land of the Cherusci, they have at least 12 good arguments against Arminius' crazy plan. And if the romans do not attack Marobodius, and no illyrian revolt, there are probably about 8 legions at the Rhine. Again 8 good arguments.
Plus, without the costly war in Illyria the romans have more money to pump into Germania for military and civil infrastructure and less need to let their publicani (private roman tax farmers) exploit the germans. Heck they could have used one of their other, more moderate systems of taxation without any publicani. Again strengthening the pro-roman faction of the germanic tribes.
PS: I found no hint that the romans ever used publicani in Magna Germania. But if it comes to exploitation and revolts, publicani are the best way to go.
Last edited: