Basically this: what if the Roman Empire had successfully annexed the german lands between the Rhine and Elba rivers? What could this impact in the future barbarian invasions, like the huns? Could this prevent the collapse of the empire for a few centuries, at least? And the economical and cultural changes?
WI: Romans frontier in the Elba river
- Thread starter John I of Brazil
- Start date
Elbe river as a new Rhine is often mentioned when it comes to a bigger Roman Germania, but I'm not sure it holds much water beyond a cartographic convenience. Romans progression in Germania was less geographically defined than in Gaul, primarily because Gaul's geography was pretty much defined already by its inhabitants (or, rather, its political/intellectual elites) while Germania was more of a borderless ensemble, whom ends where with already conceptualized territories and stretching Gods knew there in the East.
In short, while Rhine was seen as a natural border for Gaul since centuries at this point, Elbe had no real symbolic role that Romans could base themselves on.
It doesn't help that "worthwhile" Germania was mostly Rhineland and Danubian regions (very roughly West of Weser river and south of Bohemia), in connection with recently conquered provinces, with the whole of Germania being significantly underpopulated compared to Gaul, Britain and maybe even Raethia, in no small part due to the quick decline of regional ensembles since the same Roman conquests (basically, by removing their traditional partners, they removed the rug under the feet of already weakened Celto-Germanic polities and allowed trough intervention a quick Germanic takeover). Eventually, it meant that Romans less progressed trough big shows of strength on already partly incorporated regions (at least economically) as in Celtic Gaul; but trough careful progression, more diffuse militarily and more case-by-case.
Eventually, Germania had little to offer to Romans : Barbarians were generally importing grain and metal from Rome, agriculture being hard at best due to the heavy soils of the region (Rhineland and southern Germany being much more workable trough what already existed in Roman Britain and northern Gaul) and most mines and mettalurgy being a medieval development. I definitely think that a Roman Germania would be conquerable and could have been, but more as a politically motivated conquest ("Rome scores another astonishing conquest, we rule! Now let's get back to business, this region is far too depressing to live there.Let's...let's just put garrisons") with amber and salt to show off.
Rather than an Elbe border, then, I'd rather see a series of fortifications set on geographical features as Romans pulled in Dacia/Moesia, Pannonia and of course northern Britain (which is admittedly the biggest, longest lived, and the only one in stone) that I think would follow relatively easily Weser and/or Main. Of course, we'd would be talking of an importantly militarized province, as was Roman Britain, less bacause of it being a border region (even if it would necessarily play a role there) but because on the dependence of provincial stability on the army.
See, Roman progression in Germania was different from what happened up to the Rhine and Danube, as peoples there were already importantly integrated to Roman economics and geopolitics. Caesar's campaigns were as much shows of strength than actual war. Germans on the other hand, were a relatively unknown factor in spite of really limited Caesarian's campaigns there, and weren't part of Rome's sphere. So, Romans had to do in one effort the double job doing that and integrating coalitions into their dominion. It was doable, if risky as IOTL points, but then again would have looked a lot to what Roman Britain was with significant areas of de facto native autonomy and relatively lesser romanization of institutions.
Basically, a Decumate Fields extended to North Sea up to Austria.
Culturally, it's hard to really propose something definitive : but I think we'd not be talking about a classical romanization, and more a peripheral one like in Britain. As I said above, I really think about a militarized province with cities, theaters/amphitheaters, municipes and all the rap, but that wouldn't convey a huge material upvehal in culture beyond these, with a pretty much clear dependence on Rome's subsides with more peripheral and rural areas virtually escaping being included within. You might have a similar change due to economical regionalism than in Late Imperial Britain where a more popular romanisation kicked in, altough less centered on cities than in rise of local landed elites IIRC. Depending how things unfolds, this could either die in the crib as IOTL, or blossom into some peripheral Romanity soon to be associated with politic autonomisation due to Barbarians.
So, expect something like a mix of Northern Gaul and Britain, with the possibility of Latin speakers but with a distinct Romanity (if largely tied to Romania).
About them...We have to remember there that the constitution of Barbarian peoples was directly due and tied to Roman presence, interaction or even intervention in Barbaricum. Peoples as Franks, Goths, etc. were "by-products" of the roman limes and formed out of various peoples (Germanics, or even provincial Romans) : a different limes both in nature and emplacement would necessarily have consequences on Barbaricum's ethnogenesis (although, evidently, much more on Germania proper than in Danube). Which groups would come to dominate, which coalitions would form is anybody's guess (although I think groups issued from Marcommani and Vandali would have fair chances).
But it would probably have consequence further in Barbaricum : Rome did intervened as far as modern Poland by trade, subsides and as well military presence (such as advisors) as the recent archeological discovery does point in Sillesia. I don't doubt that Vistula's peoples and human groups (which played a decisive role into formation of peoples such as Goths, Heruli, etc.) would maybe have a more important (if relatively superficial still) tie with Romania ITTL. As for consequences, sky's not the limit but big enough to modify eastern European's ethnogenesis in the IIIrd century.
It's likely indeed, would it be due to climatic causes, that Barbaricum's migrations would still come to be IOTL, and still directed to the big super-power with all the cash and prestige, but things are not bound to happen as IOTL from there. While I don't see Germanic/Scythic Barbarians being more of a threat (or less of a threat) they were IOTL (meaning mostly contingent opportunistic raiders, which were imaginable enough with as long you didn't had to fight Persians or get civil wars, which is basically Late Empire for you).
I tend to think that ITTL coalitions and alliance forming along Roman Germania could be more gradually and more easily (relatively speaking) due to the geographical situation of this Roman Germania (limes were always porous, but this complex fortification network would be particularly so); allowing Romans to piece-up their control more gradually to laeti or foedi in the region. Basically, we're back at the Decumate Fields's comparison except that Rome could less abandon it outright and attempt to turn the region into a federative network with relatively loyal and integrated Barbarians (sort of like Frankish foedus in Toxandria).
It might mean that TTL Roman Germania might be wholly abandoned (altough being significantly more materially influenced by Rome than IOTL Agri Decumates), especially during a main crisis, but with the right set of PoDs you might get something more gradual than IOTL : if it happens, northern parts would probably be first to go due to the damages they recieved IOTL with climatic changes (Roman Frisia was never really going to prosper in the forseeable future of the PoD) and serves as a mix between foedus and enlongated Saxon Shore IMO.
EDIT : Here's a rough, really speculative and totally personal approximation of what TTL Roman Germania could looks like in the Ist century AD (with borders of IOTL Roman Germania in red).
Marcomanni were already in rough Roman clientele, and it's probable that Elbe's people might be too : that's a fairly important point by the way : while Roman control and provincialization would be made on really various lines inside their province(s) there with largely autonomous peoples within their limes IOTL, they would rely a lot on clientelized and allies peoples outside the limes even if well defined, meaning it wouldn't be clear to determine where Roman control stops and where it relies more on influence inside the limes, and where material evidence of which peoples are provincialized or not is besides limes and vallum's remains.
It's not inconceivable as well that someone would pull an Agricola and attempt to turn this influence or geographical sphere into part of provincial ensemble (say campaigning and holding up to Holstein and intervening directly in Jutland) but as it happens to Agricola's, I'm not really sure what would compel Romans to hold it definitely when influence and clientelism works enough already for a lesser cost. Safe cheap prestige score, followedby light salad quiet abandonment.
)
In short, while Rhine was seen as a natural border for Gaul since centuries at this point, Elbe had no real symbolic role that Romans could base themselves on.
It doesn't help that "worthwhile" Germania was mostly Rhineland and Danubian regions (very roughly West of Weser river and south of Bohemia), in connection with recently conquered provinces, with the whole of Germania being significantly underpopulated compared to Gaul, Britain and maybe even Raethia, in no small part due to the quick decline of regional ensembles since the same Roman conquests (basically, by removing their traditional partners, they removed the rug under the feet of already weakened Celto-Germanic polities and allowed trough intervention a quick Germanic takeover). Eventually, it meant that Romans less progressed trough big shows of strength on already partly incorporated regions (at least economically) as in Celtic Gaul; but trough careful progression, more diffuse militarily and more case-by-case.
Eventually, Germania had little to offer to Romans : Barbarians were generally importing grain and metal from Rome, agriculture being hard at best due to the heavy soils of the region (Rhineland and southern Germany being much more workable trough what already existed in Roman Britain and northern Gaul) and most mines and mettalurgy being a medieval development. I definitely think that a Roman Germania would be conquerable and could have been, but more as a politically motivated conquest ("Rome scores another astonishing conquest, we rule! Now let's get back to business, this region is far too depressing to live there.Let's...let's just put garrisons") with amber and salt to show off.
Rather than an Elbe border, then, I'd rather see a series of fortifications set on geographical features as Romans pulled in Dacia/Moesia, Pannonia and of course northern Britain (which is admittedly the biggest, longest lived, and the only one in stone) that I think would follow relatively easily Weser and/or Main. Of course, we'd would be talking of an importantly militarized province, as was Roman Britain, less bacause of it being a border region (even if it would necessarily play a role there) but because on the dependence of provincial stability on the army.
See, Roman progression in Germania was different from what happened up to the Rhine and Danube, as peoples there were already importantly integrated to Roman economics and geopolitics. Caesar's campaigns were as much shows of strength than actual war. Germans on the other hand, were a relatively unknown factor in spite of really limited Caesarian's campaigns there, and weren't part of Rome's sphere. So, Romans had to do in one effort the double job doing that and integrating coalitions into their dominion. It was doable, if risky as IOTL points, but then again would have looked a lot to what Roman Britain was with significant areas of de facto native autonomy and relatively lesser romanization of institutions.
Basically, a Decumate Fields extended to North Sea up to Austria.
Culturally, it's hard to really propose something definitive : but I think we'd not be talking about a classical romanization, and more a peripheral one like in Britain. As I said above, I really think about a militarized province with cities, theaters/amphitheaters, municipes and all the rap, but that wouldn't convey a huge material upvehal in culture beyond these, with a pretty much clear dependence on Rome's subsides with more peripheral and rural areas virtually escaping being included within. You might have a similar change due to economical regionalism than in Late Imperial Britain where a more popular romanisation kicked in, altough less centered on cities than in rise of local landed elites IIRC. Depending how things unfolds, this could either die in the crib as IOTL, or blossom into some peripheral Romanity soon to be associated with politic autonomisation due to Barbarians.
So, expect something like a mix of Northern Gaul and Britain, with the possibility of Latin speakers but with a distinct Romanity (if largely tied to Romania).
About them...We have to remember there that the constitution of Barbarian peoples was directly due and tied to Roman presence, interaction or even intervention in Barbaricum. Peoples as Franks, Goths, etc. were "by-products" of the roman limes and formed out of various peoples (Germanics, or even provincial Romans) : a different limes both in nature and emplacement would necessarily have consequences on Barbaricum's ethnogenesis (although, evidently, much more on Germania proper than in Danube). Which groups would come to dominate, which coalitions would form is anybody's guess (although I think groups issued from Marcommani and Vandali would have fair chances).
But it would probably have consequence further in Barbaricum : Rome did intervened as far as modern Poland by trade, subsides and as well military presence (such as advisors) as the recent archeological discovery does point in Sillesia. I don't doubt that Vistula's peoples and human groups (which played a decisive role into formation of peoples such as Goths, Heruli, etc.) would maybe have a more important (if relatively superficial still) tie with Romania ITTL. As for consequences, sky's not the limit but big enough to modify eastern European's ethnogenesis in the IIIrd century.
It's likely indeed, would it be due to climatic causes, that Barbaricum's migrations would still come to be IOTL, and still directed to the big super-power with all the cash and prestige, but things are not bound to happen as IOTL from there. While I don't see Germanic/Scythic Barbarians being more of a threat (or less of a threat) they were IOTL (meaning mostly contingent opportunistic raiders, which were imaginable enough with as long you didn't had to fight Persians or get civil wars, which is basically Late Empire for you).
I tend to think that ITTL coalitions and alliance forming along Roman Germania could be more gradually and more easily (relatively speaking) due to the geographical situation of this Roman Germania (limes were always porous, but this complex fortification network would be particularly so); allowing Romans to piece-up their control more gradually to laeti or foedi in the region. Basically, we're back at the Decumate Fields's comparison except that Rome could less abandon it outright and attempt to turn the region into a federative network with relatively loyal and integrated Barbarians (sort of like Frankish foedus in Toxandria).
It might mean that TTL Roman Germania might be wholly abandoned (altough being significantly more materially influenced by Rome than IOTL Agri Decumates), especially during a main crisis, but with the right set of PoDs you might get something more gradual than IOTL : if it happens, northern parts would probably be first to go due to the damages they recieved IOTL with climatic changes (Roman Frisia was never really going to prosper in the forseeable future of the PoD) and serves as a mix between foedus and enlongated Saxon Shore IMO.
EDIT : Here's a rough, really speculative and totally personal approximation of what TTL Roman Germania could looks like in the Ist century AD (with borders of IOTL Roman Germania in red).
Marcomanni were already in rough Roman clientele, and it's probable that Elbe's people might be too : that's a fairly important point by the way : while Roman control and provincialization would be made on really various lines inside their province(s) there with largely autonomous peoples within their limes IOTL, they would rely a lot on clientelized and allies peoples outside the limes even if well defined, meaning it wouldn't be clear to determine where Roman control stops and where it relies more on influence inside the limes, and where material evidence of which peoples are provincialized or not is besides limes and vallum's remains.
It's not inconceivable as well that someone would pull an Agricola and attempt to turn this influence or geographical sphere into part of provincial ensemble (say campaigning and holding up to Holstein and intervening directly in Jutland) but as it happens to Agricola's, I'm not really sure what would compel Romans to hold it definitely when influence and clientelism works enough already for a lesser cost. Safe cheap prestige score, followed
)
Last edited:
It's at this point that I will refer you to my ongoing TL where this happens 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ory-of-rome-under-the-julian-emperors.445291/
Shameless self-plug aside, I agree broadly with @LSCatilina. Not so much that it's impossible for Rome to conquer Germania by this point, merely that it would have to be very deliberate and it would require a level of escalation that would certainly encourage numerous Teutoburg-style uprisings. Germania in this context would be similar to Britain was IOTL (with a significant legionary occupation, even deep inside the border as deterrent from continual revolt). Perhaps by the 2nd century things will have quieted down, but any Roman governors in Germania would have to be extremely careful in their management of the Germanic peoples. The Rhine was settled on as a border not so much because it was militarily defensible, but rather because it made it easy to garrison the adjacent bases by river transport, and I'm not sure that the Elbe offers the same advantages
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ory-of-rome-under-the-julian-emperors.445291/Shameless self-plug aside, I agree broadly with @LSCatilina. Not so much that it's impossible for Rome to conquer Germania by this point, merely that it would have to be very deliberate and it would require a level of escalation that would certainly encourage numerous Teutoburg-style uprisings. Germania in this context would be similar to Britain was IOTL (with a significant legionary occupation, even deep inside the border as deterrent from continual revolt). Perhaps by the 2nd century things will have quieted down, but any Roman governors in Germania would have to be extremely careful in their management of the Germanic peoples. The Rhine was settled on as a border not so much because it was militarily defensible, but rather because it made it easy to garrison the adjacent bases by river transport, and I'm not sure that the Elbe offers the same advantages
Yeah Germania would be even less profitable than roman britan was and even harder to defend. No way that the Romans take look at Germania and decide "yeah this is a worthwhile investment of our resources".
If Claudius and subsequent emperors had put the same amount of resources in attaining Germania as they did trying to attain Britannia, the western empire could very well have survived. Possibly up to the present day. Rome would need to last until someone eventually figured out heavy plough (ceding large parts of Germania to barbarians during the migrations) and then boom northern Europe turns into an agricultural powerhouse. The imperial capital in the West moves to some city along the Rhine. Rome aeterna.
I would argue that the Elbe would be easier to garrison then the Rhine due to it's position further east but not much further north and the ease with which the Romans can create a road link between the Elbe and the Danube in Bohemia, which would also make it easier to reinforce the northern or middle empire in the event that a barbarian invasion breaches the frontier and defeats the local army (ala Adrianople). This combining of the European frontiers of the Empire would also make it easier for the Emperors to maintain control of the local legions, instead of staying in the middle Empire and risking the Rhine or traveling to Trier and risking revolt on the Danube, the Emperors could manage the frontiers from Bohemia, where the rivers meet, and oversee both armies while keeping lines of communication to the east open via the Danube and roads to the Adriatic. The Emperors would also have control of the bulk of the Roman army and be in a good position to gather additional forces from the northern empire in the event of a flare up with the Persians or a rare revolt by the eastern legions.
I'm working on a map for my TL (shameless plug) here, once I get home from work I'll post it here to help demonstrate my thinking.
Edit: Got lucky, I had a copy of the map on my One Drive, please keep in mind that it's a work in progress of roads and legion deployments.
Last edited:
But limes weren't conceived as "hard" borders to garrison, and rather borders to watch over with garrisons serving as posts between sections. Hence the necessity of borders that are easy to patrol and Rhine provided with more ground for that than Elbe : first, you already have a significant road network in Gaulish Rhineland which didn't existed in Germania, and Romans basically expended on this. They would have to create it from scratch, while still busy with controlling the land in a way they didn't had to deal with in Gaul or Noricum. It's doable, but the benefit or an arbitrarily chosen Elbe line (which was really far from having the same symbolic role than Rhine) over and advanced line of valli isn't obvious to say the least.
On the other hand, Elbe doesn't seems to have been wonderfully navigable then, which contrasts with Rhine on this regard and its large use by Romans boats.
You'd argue that basing the limes on smaller waters bodies and disparate geographical features have similar issues, which is true (although these are less problematic as tied to Rhine and existing structures being closer and still in use) but at the very least it doesn't make an Elbe-based border particularly obvious and worthwhile again : it's true that, as arbitrary lines goes it was fine enough, but it didn't had a real practical purpose or even predetermined symbolical role to speak of.
I'd even think that, would someone pull an Agricola on TTL Germania, they would probably ignore Elbe and by-pass it, using the rough basin as a border (either behind or beyond it) as long Rome isn't ready to invest massively into a militarized province to not only garrison it, but create (again, out of scratch, something that Romans didn't had to deal with before in their northern provinces) a road network and logistical structures to ensure this important militarization is sustainable.
And I think we'll agree that Rome didn't cared much for resource sinkholes.
Last edited:
Do we have any info on how often the Elbe freezes over? It is more northerly than the Rhine so I should guess more frequently.
After all, the Rhine frontier held perfectly well until that happened. If the Elbe freezes over more regularly, then it's a good deal harder to defend.
After all, the Rhine frontier held perfectly well until that happened. If the Elbe freezes over more regularly, then it's a good deal harder to defend.
Last edited:
There's also @Hecatee 's TL
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hadrians-consolidation-reboot.388488/
IMO, if you want to advance in Germany, you probably need working canals, which probably means an early invention of pound locks.
So much Roman logistics travelled by water, and if you have to sail around Spain, through the Channel, across the North Sea to get to your German river mouths before heading upstream, well that makes holding Germany tough.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hadrians-consolidation-reboot.388488/
IMO, if you want to advance in Germany, you probably need working canals, which probably means an early invention of pound locks.
So much Roman logistics travelled by water, and if you have to sail around Spain, through the Channel, across the North Sea to get to your German river mouths before heading upstream, well that makes holding Germany tough.
If you can get a Rhone-Rhine-Danube canal system, and find the ores, especially silver, in the Erzgebirge to pay for it all, that makes a slow settlement and development in Germany possible, even likely, imo.
Or you could just sail from the mouth of the Rhine up and around the Jutland, no need to take the longest possible route
Not for a message / supplies going to or from Rome.Or you could just sail from the mouth of the Rhine up and around the Jutland, no need to take the longest possible route
You'd probably take the route from the Elbe to the Rhine then follow the river until you could cut across to the Rhone. I'd guess that the fastest way would be to follow the Elbe up to whichever port got you closest to the Main, then take that until it joins up with the Rhine, then follow that river until you can cut across to the Rhone.
I played around a bit in ORBIS to get a sense for travel times and what the fastest routes would be. Due to the nature of the model it can only calculate for locations on the Rhine, but if we go by the those figures (it is just a model, but a good one and I don't know of a better tool for Roman travel times/costs) then the fastest route from the cities on the Rhine to Rome is either the Rhine-Rhone route or Rhine-transapline depending on the form of land travel you use. The same holds true up until you get into the very upper reaches of the Rhine. When I used locations in Rhaetia the fastest route was following the Danube to an eastern transalpine route. The cheapest route was using a central transalpine path, oddly enough. From that I think it's reasonable to extrapolate that travel between Rome and an Elbe frontier is going to be Elbe-Main-Rhine-Rhone/transalpine for most of it's length and Danube-transalpine for those parts closest to the Danube.
I'd guess that bulk supplies would tend to come the long way around through the river mouths, but I'm not sure how much of that the legions would really need to bring in from Rome vs acquiring from the local population or much closer provinces. Seems like a waste to bring grain in from Rome when you could just ship it from Gaul/southern Britannia.
Here's the link to ORBIS btw if anyone else wants to play around with it/sacrifice a few hours of their life: http://orbis.stanford.edu