A more successful early Roman Empire

[ericams2786]

Thanks for your insight IMP CAES AVG, I'm not really sure how reform-minded Caesar actually was, but he did do quite a bit in OTL after the Civil War. In my book I actually have the emperorship divided between the emperor and his appointed interim emperor (a position that only exists when the emperor is away from Rome for an extended period of time, such as a military campaign and does not automatically inherit the emperorship unless deemed by the Senate). For Caesar's agenda, I actually have Octavius fill in as his interim emperor and he is the one during Caesar's numerous wars who impliments Caesar's transformation of Rome (along with the sympathetic supporters that swell the Senate before it is fully reorganized).

 

[IMP CAES AVG]

Ah yes? Rather like an amalgamation of the later imperial practice of awarding the title of Caesar along with other special powers to the emperor-designate and the late imperial evolution of Praetorian Prefecture into a sort of first minister and head of the bureaucracy and civil service. Interesting.

 

[Eurofed]

Thirdly, I would caution against seeing the Crisis of the Third Century solely as an imperial structural problem. While in a large part his is accurate, it was mainly due to the heavy pressure Rome was facing on the northern and eastern frontiers that the rapid succession of emperors occurred.

That was the point I was trying to push in my monster-post debate with Zzzyva.

 

[IndigoYeti]

Ask Julian the Apostate and let's give the man the break and the £$%& like Ambrose, Tertullian, and Cyril the kick in the teeth they deserved in some TLs.

Why the hate? Ambrose and Cyril were men who stood up for what they believed in. Tertullian though, was rather strict...

 

[Workable Goblin]

Why the hate? Ambrose and Cyril were men who stood up for what they believed in. Tertullian though, was rather strict...

Well (sorry for Godwining the thread), Hitler stood up for what he believed in, too. Just because someone stands up for what they believe in does not mean you need to like them, or at least not dislike them, if you believe that they are wrong or their beliefs are harmful.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Men like Ambrose, Cyril, and Tertullian were devoted to advancing the cause of their religion at the expense of the other traditions within the Empire, and against the personal objections of their practitioners. If the Romano-Hellenistic religion survived continuously through the centuries to the present, it would have developed a rich spectrum of different doctrines and philosophies. In trying to impose a single, alien creed of a mere few tens of thousands of people over that of millions that weren't even Christians, we would lose something of ancient European culture that we're barely able to retrieve in the present.

Centuries of Church officials imparting the tales of the ancient Israelites as homilies to people whom were not even their descendents, and yet actively condemning the same people whom still practice the Jewish faith down to their times. Just how profoundly.....sad is that?

Why shouldn't the Romans or any of the European, West Asian, and North African cultures have not retained its own creation myths, its own homilies, and stayed true to their own societal foundations without crediting those Biblical personages whom belonged to an entirely different civilization, and who have never set foot in their country?

Sorry about the rant there. Can't help myself.

 

[ericams2786]

I think that if the Roman Empire survived to the present day, the religious makeup of the empire would basically be a mixture of Celtic, Norse, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Egyptian mythology along with Zorastrianism, Judaism, maybe even a spread of Buddhism and Hinduism thoughout the west. I agree that different philosophies would emerge from this and I think it entirely possible that eventually a wave of agnosticism or even atheism would spread throughout the Empire. I see widespread religious tolerance throughout any surviving Roman Empire, in fact I think given what happened in OTL, its almost necessary.

 

[nandodick]

I think that if the Roman Empire survived to the present day, the religious makeup of the empire would basically be a mixture of Celtic, Norse, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Egyptian mythology along with Zorastrianism, Judaism, maybe even a spread of Buddhism and Hinduism thoughout the west. I agree that different philosophies would emerge from this and I think it entirely possible that eventually a wave of agnosticism or even atheism would spread throughout the Empire. I see widespread religious tolerance throughout any surviving Roman Empire, in fact I think given what happened in OTL, its almost necessary.

I´m not that sure that you can butterfly away Christianity so easyly. Main reason why Christiany overcame persecution and became the official religion in the Empire was that it became the religion of the imperial elite, not the other way around. When Constantine edicted tolerance to it in 313 it wasn´t the main religion yet. And certainly it wasn´t either by 380s. (10% of population is often offered as a round number of followers of Christianity at the time of Milan), so IMHO question remains open to the religious landscape of this Empire.

OTOH, I have to say that I shared the view of this Empire stretching way too far: Germania wasn't conquered by a reason, and not only because a failed campaign or a misled couple of legions in Teuteburg, it was woody, sparsely populated, hilly, fiercely independent, and it wasn-t pacified untill Charlemagne in the 800s. So it would take several legions to be mantained inside Germania Magna, besides those guarding to the new frontier, whether is Elbe, Oder or Vistula.

Same goes for Persia. It took 3 legions to put down a minor rebellion in Judea in 70 CE and 12 legions in 132; that in a area 50 times smaller than Persia and several times less populated.

I would advice for a Tigris line, and some minor buffer states eastwards, as Armenia in OTL.

 

[Eurofed]

Why the hate? Ambrose and Cyril were men who stood up for what they believed in. Tertullian though, was rather strict...

Cyril was the man that instigated and masterminded the mob lynching-assassination of scientist Hypathia. That was the most blatant show of the obscurantist-intolerant blanket that victorious Christianity was to draw on the late Roman world.

Ambrose strongarmed the Emperor Theodosius into not allowing religious tolerance to pagans and not punishing Christians mobs that assaulted Jews and pagans.

A surviving Roman Empire stands to gain massively if the ideology these leaders stood for never becomes the ruling one and slows dies a quiet death of marginalization in the fringes or is butterflied away at all, and pagan Roman tolerance endures.

 

[Eurofed]

I´m not that sure that you can butterfly away Christianity so easyly. Main reason why Christiany overcame persecution and became the official religion in the Empire was that it became the religion of the imperial elite, not the other way around. When Constantine edicted tolerance to it in 313 it wasn´t the main religion yet. And certainly it wasn´t either by 380s. (10% of population is often offered as a round number of followers of Christianity at the time of Milan), so IMHO question remains open to the religious landscape of this Empire.

Actually this is a reason why it should be easier to butterfly Christianity's ascent away.

OTOH, I have to say that I shared the view of this Empire stretching way too far: Germania wasn't conquered by a reason, and not only because a failed campaign or a misled couple of legions in Teuteburg, it was woody, sparsely populated, hilly, fiercely independent, and it wasn-t pacified untill Charlemagne in the 800s. So it would take several legions to be mantained inside Germania Magna, besides those guarding to the new frontier, whether is Elbe, Oder or Vistula.

If I make you a criticism, it seems like you think Germania is going to be way it was in 1st century CE for ever. The economic, cultural, and demographic effects of Romanization (especially with the early discovery of hevy plough and horse collar) shall be compelling within a few decades and overwhelming within a few centuries. Roman and its successor states never really did any effort to settle Germania between 1st and 8th centuries, so what happened since 800s and 1200s IOTL shall happen between 1st and 5th century ITTL, only faster and more effective since it not shall not by done by disorganized feudalism, but by a centralized state that can build roads, canals, cities, colonies, etc. In the long term, (say after 50-100 years), Germania Magna shall become just as economically-demographically developed and loyal to Rome as northern Gallia and shall not need not need garrisons to keep it pacified any more than Gallia, Iberia, or Britannia. Only the borders on the Vistula shall need heavy garrisoning, but that shall be one of the two main taks of the army.

 

[nandodick]

Actually this is a reason why it should be easier to butterfly Christianity's ascent away.

If I make you a criticism, it seems like you think Germania is going to be way it was in 1st century CE for ever. The economic, cultural, and demographic effects of Romanization (especially with the early discovery of hevy plough and horse collar) shall be compelling within a few decades and overwhelming within a few centuries. Roman and its successor states never really did any effort to settle Germania between 1st and 8th centuries, so what happened since 800s and 1200s IOTL shall happen between 1st and 5th century ITTL, only faster and more effective since it not shall not by done by disorganized feudalism, but by a centralized state that can build roads, canals, cities, colonies, etc. In the long term, (say after 50-100 years), Germania Magna shall become just as economically-demographically developed and loyal to Rome as northern Gallia and shall not need not need garrisons to keep it pacified any more than Gallia, Iberia, or Britannia. Only the borders on the Vistula shall need heavy garrisoning, but that shall be one of the two main taks of the army.

I can see your point in Christianity, what I'm saying is that explain the rise of Christianity as a response to the 5th century crisis alone (people becoming Christians because it gave them a sense of peace in a crumbling world) it can be a little simplistic. I´m not expert in Christianity so maybe someone who is can offer a more in-depth vision.
What I did mean about Christianity is that you have by the third or forth century a sizeable community, therefore it should be added to the list I commented.

About Germania (and Persia) what I'am saying is that both are huge, and both offer too many challenges to absortion, not that it´s impossible, only that is more hard that you seem to assume.

I would say, that you would have to pick one and resign to lose the other. You should work a timeline for the sake of clarity (and arguing).

You talk about the demographic, economic and cultural effects of Romanization, but romanization was a long long process that spared for centuries, not decades. What would be the population rate of growth in pre-sanitation Germania? 0.1% - 0.2 % ? Economic growth it can't be that high either, you don´t need to conquest Germania to secure a source of amber, and other commodities where available in Britannia, northern Gaul or places nearer to the imperial costumer's core, and Dacia has plenty ore and lead to offer aswell. And about cultural romanization, well it´s complex. Language and culture of 6th century Carthage was Punic, not Latin (7 hundred years after conquest), and even in Gaul, language of the masses was Gaulish by the time of the Franks, same goes in Hispania (Basque is still there) and in Britania didn´t prevail (besides some few words in Welsh), not to mention Noricum or Panonia. Then, it´s a long and frigile process.

And finally about loyalty: there were legions in Hispania, Gaul and Britannia. And rebellions sparked in Gaul and elsewere (seldomly?). If you want to add several new provinces to empire, my guest is that you will have to add several legions aswell to maintaining them loyal to Empire, then your new Vistula line will not necessaryly cut costs (or legions) to deploy elsewhere. At least not instantly at least not until roads, channels, cities and so are actually built and florish.

Persia, as it was said, is too far, too big, too populated and too hard to assimilate to be integrated into the Empire.

So again, IMHO, it´s Germania or Persia, and i would advice Germania.

 

[Eurofed]

I can see your point in Christianity, what I'm saying is that explain the rise of Christianity as a response to the 5th century crisis alone (people becoming Christians because it gave them a sense of peace in a crumbling world) it can be a little simplistic. I´m not expert in Christianity so maybe someone who is can offer a more in-depth vision. What I did mean about Christianity is that you have by the third or forth century a sizeable community, therefore it should be added to the list I commented.

Yup, but I wanted to point out that IMO the rise of Christianity was mainly due to the psychological relief and welfare system it provided to the urban population during the third AND fifth century crises, so if both are prevented or greately diminished, Christianity would likely remain a fringe ubran cult, as it was in the 2nd century.

About Germania (and Persia) what I'am saying is that both are huge, and both offer too many challenges to absortion, not that it´s impossible, only that is more hard that you seem to assume.

Rather more true for Germania than for Persia.

I would say, that you would have to pick one and resign to lose the other.

Likely true only for the first few centuries of life of a surviving Roman Empire, not for its whole premodern lifespan. Eventually Germania shall be fully developed and assimilated into the Empire.

You talk about the demographic, economic and cultural effects of Romanization, but romanization was a long long process that spared for centuries, not decades.

Yup, but it effects shall be cumulative.

What would be the population rate of growth in pre-sanitation Germania? 0.1% - 0.2 % ? Economic growth it can't be that high either,

I expect them to be similar (but substantially higher) to the ones during OTL settlement of Germany in 8th-13th centuries.

you don´t need to conquest Germania to secure a source of amber, and other commodities were available in Britannia, northern Gaul or places nearer to the imperial costumer's core, and Dacia has plenty ore and lead to offer aswell.

Conquest gives full access to amber, rather better than trade with independent tribes, such other commodities as iron would be useful even if other sources in Gallia, Britannia, and Dacia would exist, those provinces are not actually that much closer to the Mediterranean "core", and agriculturally Germania is not that bad if the heavy plough and horse collar are available.

And about cultural romanization, well it´s complex. Language and culture of 6th century Carthage was Punic, not Latin (7 hundred years after conquest), and even in Gaul, language of the masses was Gaulish by the time of the Franks, same goes in Hispania (Basque is still there) and in Britania didn´t prevail (besides some few words in Welsh), not to mention Noricum or Panonia. Then, it´s a long and frigile process.

Yet, by the evidence of history, Romance languages, not Celtic ones, did root in any former Roman territory that was not overrun by independent Germanic tribes. Therefore, Latin is expected to become the langauage of Romanized Europe pretty much everywhere.

And finally about loyalty: there were legions in Hispania, Gaul and Britannia. And rebellions sparked in Gaul and elsewere (seldomly?).

As others have pointed out, those rebellions were rogue generals setting up themselves as would-be usurpers for the Imperial throne, and those provinces as their starting base, not natives trying to cast off the Roman yoke.

If you want to add several new provinces to empire, my guest is that you will have to add several legions aswell to maintaining them loyal to Empire, then your new Vistula line will not necessaryly cut costs (or legions) to deploy elsewhere. At least not instantly at least not until roads, channels, cities and so are actually built and florish.

True at the start, but again, the effects of Romanization are cumulative as decades and centuries roll by.

Persia, as it was said, is too far, too big, too populated and too hard to assimilate to be integrated into the Empire.

So again, IMHO, it´s Germania or Persia, and i would advice Germania.

I agree that Germania has to be the preferential choice for so many reasons if the Empire has to survive and succeed, but I am skeptical that Persia would remain un-assimilable throughout the premodern history of the Empire, even after Germania would be fully assimilated.

 

[Weaver]

On reviewing this fascinating thread I see that no-one has mentioned the two big pandemics that crippled the Empire at two critical times, in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Justinian.

These were crucial to the eventual fall of the empire and imo must be taken to account in this TL.

Comments?

 

[ericams2786]

Weaver,

With regards to the two pandemics you mention and the comment about Christianity from Nandodick, I think that it is highly possible (at least with Christianity) to completely butterfly it away with the right POD and set of events. Given a completely different (or even just slightly different) history in Judea, Jesus may not even be born. More religious tolerance on the part of the Romans and slightly more local autonomy for Judea might also butterfly Christianity away. With an alternate expansion of the empire and an alternate set of events, the pandemics will probably happen differently than in OTL (they will probably still happen, but at different times and with different results).

As for Germania, I noticed a lot of back and forth about a Roman conquest of Germania and I wanted to comment on that. In my TL and book, I pick Caesar to conquer Germania. The reason behind this is practical from his standpoint (to better protect his earlier conquest in Gaul and to get revenge on several of the German tribes that interfered during his war in Gaul), but I believe also realistic for Caesar. The reason I picked Caesar for this conquest is because I believe given the chance, he would have tried to conquer Germania just for the pure thrill and glory of doing it, even if it didn't have much value at the time. Making the conquest happen later in the 1st or 2nd century might not be too viable, but having Caesar use his popularity, will, and love of military campaigns to conquer Germania, I think that works. As for Parthia, I think it is possible, even if not too probable. The war would be difficult, but Caesar could manipulate the various client states that made up the Parthian Empire and divide and conquer as in Gaul. I guess my reasoning behind thinking Caesar could pull it off is: #1 his ambition and martial ability #2 if Alexander the Great could invade a territory the size of the Persian Empire with no more than 40-50,000 men and conquer the area rather quickly, I have no reason to doubt Caesar could with double, maybe even triple the manpower and a border that is much closer to Parthia's heartland than Thrace was to Persia's. Now I realize that the Parthians (especially their cataphract cavalry) were probably a tougher cookie to crack than the Persian army and that Alexander's empire did not stay together long-term, but I think it is possible to have Caesar conquer the area, and even though there will be problems and revolts, to have the Empire hold onto the area and Romanize it eventually (especially with an official policy of colonization and road construction).

 

[Philip]

On reviewing this fascinating thread I see that no-one has mentioned the two big pandemics that crippled the Empire at two critical times, in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Justinian.

These were crucial to the eventual fall of the empire and imo must be taken to account in this TL.

These are critical. IIRC, the Plague of Justinian arrived in the Empire from the East via Alexandria. ISTR one theory that blames the success of Axum in southern Arabia (under Kaleb?) that opened trade with the East and imported the plague. If, as suggested for TTL, Rome conqueres Persia, the gates will be wide open for a plague to spread from east to west.

 

[Eurofed]

As it concerns the plagues, IMO it must be taken into account that they were only a component (and not the major one) in the multi-causal fall of the Roman Empire. If we remove most of the other causes, such as the pressure from independent unassimilated Germanics and Arabs, and political instability causing frequent civil wars, in all likelihood they cause a temporary arrest and recoverable setback, lasting some decades, in the development of the Roman world, much like the Black Death to later European civilization. This is equally true for a Marcus Aurelius plague that is followed by no or a much diminished 3rd century crisis, and for a Justinian plague that is preceded by no 5th century crisis (and collapse in the East), only a relatively minor border trouble with the Huns, and followed by no Arab onslaught.

 

[nyjoz]

I think a more successful Roman Empire certainly could expand and hold onto territories in Parthia/Persia and even as far as India. I see a lot of people saying that Parthia is too big for Rome to digest, but that is only based off the fact that Parthia was Rome's one true rival in OTL. I feel that a Rome that continued successfully expanding could overcome the obstacles of conquering Iran just like they eventually overcame Carthage, Gaul, Greece and the East. In fact, if you compare with the Punic Wars. the conquest of Parthia would seem an almost minor border war. The reasons Rome stopped general expansion under Augustus was because her armies had suffered numerous setbacks in Germania and Tuetoberg and in the East and Carhae. This convinced Augustus to establish a permanent border in Europe and created the mindset that Parthia could not be destroyed. If these events are butterflyed away in this POD then Rome could maintain its classic momentum and sweep the Parthians like any other enemy they've faced.

Truly ambitious Roman generals, specifically Julius Caesar and Trajan believed that the conquest of Parthia was inevitable. Caesar planned a campaign to the east before he was assassinated. When Trajan's campaign reached the Persian Gulf and he saw all the ships sailing to and from India, he lamented that he was too old and could not conquer to India like Alexander. If gifted generals like Caesar and Trajan thought of the conquest of Parthia as any other military obstacle then I see no reason why a successful Roman Empire could not continue it eastern expansion. In those days, successful expansion was a very profitable venture for the victorious empire. Continuous expansion into the Iranian plateau then India and Central Asia would keep the Empire's plunder economy healthy, perhaps prolonging the empire's life.

On expansion into Sarmatia, I believe this would happen at a much slower pace, more akin to colonization than outright military conquest and administration. The low populations and poor economic incentives make expansion into Sarmatia less attractive than into South Asia. Thus I could see our Roman Empire fortifying the Dniester-Vistula border to free up troops for continuous eastern expansion. The settlement and eventual annexation of Sarmatia would come much later after overpopulation causes enough Roman immigration to these regions.

 

[El Zilcho]

Hey, I'm new here and I'm not sure if bumping this is right but I've got a question;

What is the general consensus on the most easily achievable, long term border that can help Rome the most? An Elbe-Danube line? Or an Elbe-Sudeten-Carpthian-Dnister? Or even a (possibly more far fetched plan) Oder or Vistula line?

I personally believe Rome would stick to the Elbe as this was there original plan for a Germanic province border. However, whose to say they wouldn't push it to the Oder or Vistula (as shown in the first post?) I believe that would be a bit of a stretch, but what do you think?

Thanks.

 

[Eurofed]

What is the general consensus on the most easily achievable, long term border that can help Rome the most? An Elbe-Danube line? Or an Elbe-Sudeten-Carpthian-Dnister? Or even a (possibly more far fetched plan) Oder or Vistula line?

Vistula-Carpathian-Dniester is surely the long-term border that can help Rome the most: it is the shortest natural one, very easily defensible, hance it frees up the greatest military resources if achieved, and it puts the most of valuable lands and independent barbarian tribes under its aegis to be assimilated as new resources instead of future threats. Simply put, the more of Germania Rome assimilates, the better in the long term.

I personally believe Rome would stick to the Elbe as this was there original plan for a Germanic province border.

It was the plan for the expansion cycle that was cut short by the Teutoburg disaster. However, there is no good reason to assume that it would be the final border they would seek. Rome was engaged to conquer "Germania", and from their viewpoint, it stretched all the way to the Vistula, not the Elbe, from an ethnogeographical PoV. It would not have been the first time that Rome break down its ongoing conquest of an etnogeographical unity in successive phases over multiple decades: see Gallia or Hispania.

However, whose to say they wouldn't push it to the Oder or Vistula (as shown in the first post?) I believe that would be a bit of a stretch, but what do you think?

No Stretch. If you remove the Teutoburg disaster, and the chilling effect it had on the northward expansionistic moment of Rome, conquering all of Germania over an handful of decades during the apex of Roman strength in the 1st-2nd centuries would not be any more stressful than the conquests of Gallia, Hispania, or Britannia. Of course, the optimal moment to do it is in the early 1st century, so best to use a PoD that removes Teutoburg, or even Caesar's assassination.

 

[El Zilcho]

While the Vistula/Dnister is naturally the strongest border, wouldn't such a distant border stretch resources and supply lines? I mean, large, heavily garrisoned borders would need a lot of supplies especially in winter at least. I thought that although it could be supplied by sea and river, it would still be much more impractical than an Elbe border, which is quite near and requires only shorter roads to reach, supply and restock.