A more successful early Roman Empire

[Eurofed]

Perfectgeneral, your reform ideas are certainly very interesting and vibe with some of my own. I agree that 1) & 4) a professional civil service and post service 2) separation of powers between Emperor and Senate and clear empire-wide representation of elites in the Senate 3) a stabler Imperial succession rule are both possible and necessarty to grant Rome more stability.

I also agree that Caesar's survival, brought by Brutus denouncing the plot in exchange for reforms, which created a Caesar-Ocatvain-Brutus deam team, is an excellent way to get such basic reforms implemented in the formative moment of the Empire.

Going more in detail, I think that

1) a professional civil service can be easily implemented as an extension/evolution of the concept of cursus honorum and an analogy to the professional military, and it becomes an extension of the latter. Later, with more extensive contact with China, we may have Rome borrow the idea of scholar competitive examinations for access to the civil service, which improves social mobility and the professionalism of the c.s., and also increases the domand for good widespread higher education in the Empire. The Library of Alexandria could indeed become the basis for a proto-university system, with letters of commendation from a body of respected scholar becoming the degree.

5) I think that most stable and feasible imperial succession system is letting the incumbent emperor nominate his sucessor through the adoption system, subject to approvation by the Senate. This does not entirely removes the risk of would-be despotic successors opportunistically hiding their true colors, but surely diminishes the risk that blatant idiots and madmen would seize the imperial throne through hereditary succession. At the same time, appointment of the successor by the incumbent diminishes the instability inherent in an elective monarchy, and approval by the senate and the power balances created by professional civil service and the elective nature of the Senate reduces the risk of military coups.

4) Likewise, an empire-wide mail service can be easily implemented, first as system of relay horseback professional post riders for use by the civil service and miliary, later its use could be expanded to civil mail by wealthy private citizens and Rome could develop optical telegraphs.

As it concerns 2) and 3), I think that most feasible reform for the Senate would be to let become the representative body for wealthy elites throughout the Empire in full. The local elites (the members of Senatorial and Equestrian orders) in every province elect a representative assembley, which approves the Emperor's nominee for Governor, issues local regulations, and elects the province's representatives in the Senate. The Senate ought to keep the sole right to change laws and taxes, although the Emperor keeps the control of the civil service and the military (a Senatorial equivalente of the Pretorian Guard should however be created as a bulwalk against coups), interprets existing laws by decrees, and keeps the spending power.

In addition to all of this, I think that some serious reform to favor the evolution of the empire towards a proto-capitalist economy (which improves the socio-political cohesion of the Empire, and lays the basis for industrialization in the very long term) is necessary.

Say a taxation and property rights reform that abolishes the limitations for members of the Senatorial Order to engage in finance and commerce, and creates lease and usufruct contracts for land development akin to sharecropping. Even more importantly, a tax reform that establishes property titles as the assessment basis; this encourages the wealthy elites away from absentee landholding and in intensive development of agriculture and related pursuits like pottery and brick-making, mining, quarrying, and forestry. Over time this also gradually encourages investment in trade and industry as a “secondary” source of income, such as factory tanneries, textile manufacture, pottery workshops and such as part of the landed estate, and trade as part of the sales and raw materials purchasing channels.

As it concerns techological advances, I wholly deem that mobile printing, horse collar, heavy plough, wheelbarrow, abacus, caliper, waterwheel & watermill, solid-treed saddle & stirrups, iron horseshoes, cranes are all discoveries that Rome could make its own, given a stable and steadily expanding state and economy, and would be greately beneficial. Other discoveries could be imported by India and China (papermaking, blast furnace & cast iron, seed drill, hand crank, positional numbers) when vassallization/conquest of Persia improves contacts with the East. More in general, I think this is a plausible TL template as it concerns the schedule of the ealry socioeconomic, cultural and technological development in a successful Rome.

 

[Eurofed]

By the way, I've made some adjustments to the maps proposed in the original post, since they did not properly show the border with Persia, in Nubia, and in Arabia. This size of the Romen Empire, I deem, may be easily achieved and stabilized by 100 CE.

I also retouched the second map, post-Roman conquest of Persia in 200-300 CE, to show that such expansion would necessarily be accompanied by conquest of eastern-southeastern Arabia, to secure control of the Persian Gulf sea lanes.

 

[Max Sinister]

Caesar had some big plans. He wanted to make war against the Parthians (probably for Carrhae), then march around the Black Sea and through Germania back to Gallia. So yes, if he survived...

 

[Eurofed]

For those interested, I'm still far, far from having devised any kind of structured TL for this PoD, but I've tried to reason out a plausible modern outcome in this and this ISOT threads.

 

[jkay]

You Need a Better Roman Constitution

I've been studying this question, and I say it's not completely impossible (it's been done a few times here), but not so easy, either. You'd have to find a way to get to a better ending constitution than the Roman Empire had, which was a covert absolute monarchy. You need at least one or two checks and balances.

Rome was unusually steadily successful at war for century after century, especially in its enterpreneurial and innovative Republican phase, where war-specialized innovation brought Rome to the lead in miltech and elections gave generally good leadership.

Under the Caesars' monarchic rule, both those advantages went away. The man who failed to conquer Germany was a chosen more for his buddyhood to Caesar than his ability to win a vote. By a century or two later, their neighbors had caught up with them in miltech; Roman turf went from quickly growing to slowly decaying; though the borders moved around and even very temporarily grew under Justinian, they overall shrank to nothing. Roman society similarly decayed, growing more static with the centuries. It ended with their second capital city, Constantinople, being taken by the Turks by better technology - cannon. The cannon were developed by a Christian engineer whom had come to save the city. But the emperor and his court lacked the basic wisdom to value an inventor and treat the cannonmaker decently, and off he went in fury to the much more reasonable Ottomansw, and it was bye-bye Roman Empire.

So, it can't be done with the kind of Roman Empire we had. You at least need some checks on the Emperor's power, a constitutional monarchy like Rome started with. Better still, IMHO, is to have the much-better, but vulnerable in Caesar's day, Republic-style constitution survive, especially if you want it expand much.

The Republic was amended unwisely to allow a more suitable number of men to serve by one Marius, opening up a hole for warlordism (Sulla). Julius Caesar conquered the Republic out of its warlord misery, whille nephew Octavian turned it to absolute monarchy with Republic-like fronting. The Caesars are probably bad material to work with to get a better Rome, since they OTL liked absolute power just fine.

IMHO, it gets pretty improbable to have the constitutional change, whatever it is, happen much after a century after the Octavian Caesar started the Emperor's absolute rule. Back then, there was a feeling that Romans were worse off than under the Republic, but nobody saw a way to get back. Later, people saw the absolute Empire as natural, and the interest in the Republic vanished.

 

[Nikephoros]

But the emperor and his court lacked the basic wisdom to value an inventor and treat the cannonmaker decently, and off he went in fury to the much more reasonable Ottomansw, and it was bye-bye Roman Empire.

Actually, the Emperor didn't have the money that Urban wanted. The Emperor didn't have to resources to support Urban, but the Ottomans did. That is what mattered, not ignorance.

 

[Eurofed]

IMO the classical Republic could not really be salvaged, since Marius' military reforms were direly necessary and as you point out, those opened the door to warlordism, that only the imperial regime checked. Moreover, the classical Roman Republic constitution was only really fit for a city-state, not for a Europe/Mediterranean-spanning empire, and had grown rather obsolete.

However, I'm fairly confident that a constitutional monarchy reform which creates an effective separation of powers between the legislative power vested in a Senate representative of the whole Empire, and the executive power vested in an Emperor with an appointment-elective succession is fairly feasible, and could be implemented by Caesar and Octavian (which were not necessarily eager to create a wholly absolute monarchy). Combined with reforms that create a balance to the professional army into a professional civil service, and favor proto-capitalist enterpreneurial spirit in the elites, I think you would have a rather stable constitution for the Roman Empire which favors steady socio-economic and cultural progress and miilitary expansion alike.

It is a legend that the Imperial regime stifled the Roman civilization and drove it to stagnation. Actually the early empire of 1st-2nd centuries was quite dynamic, socially, economically, and culturally. It was the 3rd century crisis that fatally crippled it. Get the civil wars and barbarian invasions out of the picture, and you remove the regression.

 

[Sargon]

It is a legend that the Imperial regime stifled the Roman civilization ad drove it to stagnation. Actually the early empire of 1st-2nd centuries was quite dynamic, socially, economically, and culturally. It was the 3rd century crisis that fatally crippled it. Get the civil wars and barbarian invasions out of the picture, and you remove the regression.

I'll agree that an Imperial regime is not necessarily going to stifle and stagnate the Empire. One only has to look at the period during the Macedonian Dynasty to see the Roman Empire reaching a new height of its power once more, militarily, economically and culturally. And that was WITH the OTL Third Century Crisis. So without a Third Century Crisis that is quite as bad...


Sargon

 

[El Zilcho]

I thought of another possible issue with a far off Vistula border (sorry for nit picking, this must really be getting at you now! ) is that the distance involved and Rome's limited geographical knowledge (they knew of the rivers existences, but what of its location?) of the area. While theoretically sailing supplies through the Baltic to the Vistula sounds simple, it isn't that easy. Britains could be supplied from the coasts of Gaul, and a quick "hop" across the Channel and you're in Blighty.

But for Gaul or Germania to the Vistula? That's much larger. Of course, Germanic and Batlic ports would spring up but that would not occur overnight and I think once Rome settles on a more logistically possible and easier to supply/maintain border on the Oder or Elbe, the Carpthians will suffice as a Northern limit. If you look at a map (I'm not being patronising, I swear) of Europe and the Empire, you'll see the Oder can link up with the Carpathians and the start of the Vistula nicely, forming a strong border closer to supplies than having to fully conquer the "Polish" interior. The Elbe too, the Sudetens aren't exactly as strong as the Carpthians but expansion to the Oder might help.

Of course, to balance my argument you could say once these "closer to home" regions are pacified, a quick push north and all those lands will be conquered. Well, why would Rome have an incentive to push so hard to conquer lands that to be honest would be very poor for a long time to come until they're cleared or fully Romanized. If you remove Teutoberg, you may remove the stigma associated with expanision, but you may not place a pushing factor strong enough to push for a full scale conquest of the Germania Magna interior.

I believe the Vistula may be the perfect border, but I don't think Rome would want to push so far (for the same reasons an Eastern Sarmatian campaign in future would be largely pointless and fruitless) any time soon once the Elbe or Oder has already been established as an easily resupplied border. And all this is assuming the golden age for Rome lasts for as long as we want it; we only need one rotten apple to ruin our plans.

-----

I'll quickly address the Caasar/Octavian/Brutus triumvirate theory with my opinion. To be perfetly honest I don't think Caesar is so much of a legendary figure as he's made out to be. Of course, the mans achievements are huge (Gaul anyone?) but he was an Alexander the Great by any means. If he was, he would have had larger successes in Germania and Britannia than he did. I'm not discounting his merit as a commander and ruler, but rather the fact that some people assume him to be a godly reformer/soldier/God all rolled into one!

I think a medium paced expansion under Augustus and the Julio-Claudian, Flavian (should the Year of 4 Emperors even occur or be butterflied away) and eventually Nerva-Antonine dynasties to bring Rome's border to Germania and if all goes well at least temporarily into Mesopotamia

Apologies for waffling.

 

[Eurofed]

Rome before Teutoburg was committed to conquer Germania pretty much as they had done for Gallia, they knew that from an ethnogeographical point, Germania Magna extended to the Vistula (see Tacitus), and once they have done this, conquering Dacia would be the logical extension. They may not have an exact geographical knowledge of the area beforehand, but once the legions go in, they will quickly realize the huge strategic value of the Vistula-Dniester line.

I still think you massively exaggerate the logistical difficulties of supplying the Vistula-Dniester line. It would entirely entail coastal navigation (something the Romans were entirely adept) in waters, the Baltic and the Black sea, and alognside coasts that the Roman Navy would entirely control. Frankly, the extra logistic effort in going from the Elbe/Danube mouths to the Vistula/Dniester ones does not seem so much exhausting. Yep, in no too long a time, ports would spring up alongside those coasts, but for the sake of supplying the legions, they are not so really indispensable from the start. And about the comparison with Britain, remember, the Romans supplied garrisons on the Hadrian Wall, which emans navigating the whole length of the British coast. Frankly, the effort involved in doing that, or supplying legions on the Vistula, seems wholly comparable.

Yup, the Oder may form a border that is much better than the Rhine or Elbe (frankly, the Elbe by itself does not give that much of a strategic advantage, it is still a rather extended border in Europe), but the effort involved to grab western Poland, militarly and logistically, is not that significant, and I expect Rome to go all the way to grab the optimal border, once they make the decision to get Dacia. The Romans typically chose to err on the side of extra land when it came to expansion.

Frankly, the comparison with Western Sarmatia does not hold. Samatia was much more "empty" and less valuable, demographically and economically, than Germania Magna. While Germania was rather more backward than the Mediterranean lands, it was not in a real worse shape than western Iberia, northern Gallia, or Britannia before the Roman conquest. And Rome managed to turn all of those in fairly valuable and settled lands in a relatively quick time.

The comment about Roman "golden Age" coming to an untimely end that cripples the conquest of Germania is wholly unreasonable. The Roman Empire did have some rotten apples in its prime (Caligula, Commodus, Nero, Vitellus come to mind) but none of them was ever enough to give the Empire anything more than a temporary and minor speed bump or setback before the real mess of the 3rd century crisis shows up. It is utterly unreasonable to expect that ITTL early Rome would get worse problems from occasional bad rulers than OTL. Moreover, the window necessary to conquer and settle Germania does not really need to be that big. Conquering Germania would not realistically take more effort than getting Gallia or Hiberia (20-40 years). The basic job of assimilation was done in a couple of generations, according to the examples of Gallia, Germania, Britannia, and Dacia, and Romanization was wholly done in a century or so. There is no good reason to expect that Germania would behave differently. This means that by early-mid 2nd century, Germania would be as Roman as the rest of the Empire.

A surviving Caesar would not be a goldly figure by any stripe, but certainly he held the military and political capacities for laying down a good constitutional monarchy political system for Rome, laying down the basis for the conquest of Germania and Mesopotamia, and pushing Parthia back, which his successors can easily build upon throughout the first century (as well as doing the mop-up work in Britannia, Nubia/Axum, and western Arabia). His OTL record is more than good enough to trust him on this.

 

[Nikephoros]

Rome before Teutoburg was committed to conquer Germania pretty much as they had done for Gallia, they knew that from an ethnogeographical point, Germania Magna extended to the Vistula (see Tacitus), and once they have done this, conquering Dacia would be the logical extension. They may not have an exact geographical knowledge of the area beforehand, but once the legions go in, they will quickly realize the huge strategic value of the Vistula-Dniester line.

No, they won't. In the early Roman empire, the Germanic tribes weren't considered a huge threat. The Romans aren't going to try and settle lands that they didn't have the technology to settle, just to take control of some annoying, but relatively harmless tribes. The German tribes had yet to solidify into a force that could challenge Rome on Roman territory.

I still think you massively exaggerate the logistical difficulties of supplying the Vistula-Dniester line. It would entirely entail coastal navigation (something the Romans were entirely adept) in waters, the Baltic and the Black sea, and alognside coasts that the Roman Navy would entirely control. Frankly, the extra logistic effort in going from the Elbe/Danube mouths to the Vistula/Dniester ones does not seem so much exhausting.

Yes, the Romans were very capable of coastal navigation. But in the Mediterranean. The kind of route you are suggesting is only viable (But just barely) IF they take the Rhone-Mosselle route with a short portage to the Rhine, and travel from out of the Rhine. Another route takes too long. But even traveling from the Rhine is extremely risky. Why? There is a little peninsula called Jutland. Now the Romans have to sail in the North Sea, which their ships weren't built to do. A channel transit to hold Britain is hard enough.

Yep, in no too long a time, ports would spring up alongside those coasts, but for the sake of supplying the legions, they are not so really indispensable from the start. And about the comparison with Britain, remember, the Romans supplied garrisons on the Hadrian Wall, which emans navigating the whole length of the British coast. Frankly, the effort involved in doing that, or supplying legions on the Vistula, seems wholly comparable.

Not necessarily. Even if they had to sail along the coast up to the wall (Which I don't think they had to, but for sake of discussion), it's still a shorter transit by a pretty good amount.

Yup, the Oder may form a border that is much better than the Rhine or Elbe (frankly, the Elbe by itself does not give that much of a strategic advantage, it is still a rather extended border in Europe), but the effort involved to grab western Poland, militarly and logistically, is not that significant, and I expect Rome to go all the way to grab the optimal border, once they make the decision to get Dacia. The Romans typically chose to err on the side of extra land when it came to expansion.

As I said before, the Romans were used to farming in the Mediterranean. Farming in Northern Europe is a different ballgame. If I was a Roman governor, I'd take my resources over an "optimal border".

Frankly, the comparison with Western Sarmatia does not hold. Samatia was much more "empty" and less valuable, demographically and economically, than Germania Magna. While Germania was rather more backward than the Mediterranean lands, it was not in a real worse shape than western Iberia, northern Gallia, or Britannia before the Roman conquest. And Rome managed to turn all of those in fairly valuable and settled lands in a relatively quick time.

But they were NEVER as valuable to Rome as her Mediterranean lands. I don't see the Romans using more resources on lands that economically are rather worthless, in comparison.

The comment about Roman "golden Age" coming to an untimely end that cripples the conquest of Germania is wholly unreasonable. The Roman Empire did have some rotten apples in its prime (Caligula, Commodus, Nero, Vitellus come to mind) but none of them was ever enough to give the Empire anything more than a temporary and minor speed bump or setback before the real mess of the 3rd century crisis shows up. It is utterly unreasonable to expect that ITTL early Rome would get worse problems from occasional bad rulers than OTL. Moreover, the window necessary to conquer and settle Germania does not really need to be that big.

Well, I'd say the Empire's troubles started a good deal before the 3rd century crisis. The "50 Bad Years" come to mind. The Sassanid rise only served to kick in that rotten (Politically rather than Economically. Even during the worst of the crisis, the resources to restore the E) corpse.

Conquering Germania would not realistically take more effort than getting Gallia or Hiberia (20-40 years). The basic job of assimilation was done in a couple of generations, according to the examples of Gallia, Germania, Britannia, and Dacia, and Romanization was wholly done in a century or so. There is no good reason to expect that Germania would behave differently. This means that by early-mid 2nd century, Germania would be as Roman as the rest of the Empire.

Gaul, Iberia, and Britain also didn't see Roman armies regularly trapse through up until the 3rd Century to put down tribes that are upsetting the balance of power. Gaul, Iberia, Britain, and Germania Inferior were all subjagated in 20-40 years. In Germania, it almost looks like the Romans were trying to impose Roman order.

A surviving Caesar would not be a goldly figure by any stripe, but certainly he held the military and political capacities for laying down a good constitutional monarchy political system for Rome, laying down the basis for the conquest of Germania and Mesopotamia, and pushing Parthia back, which his successors can easily build upon throughout the first century (as well as doing the mop-up work in Britannia, Nubia/Axum, and western Arabia). His OTL record is more than good enough to trust him on this.

I assume you are referring to Augustus, no? Because if you're referring to Julius, I'm gonna start laughing.

Augustus was a great administrator and reformer. Julius was not. Julius was more like Marius and Sulla than anyone else. A man that was brilliant at ceasing power, but much too interested in attaining power than stability.

 

[Eurofed]

The Romans aren't going to try and settle lands that they didn't have the technology to settle, just to take control of some annoying, but relatively harmless tribes.

Yet, before Teutoburg, they were trying to achieve just that. As for the technology, it is to be expected that Roman conquest brings swift discovery of the heavy plough and horse collar (Carolingian conquest did just that, in conditions far less favorable to cultural progress). With them, Germania become just as economically valuable as Gallia.

But even traveling from the Rhine is extremely risky. Why? There is a little peninsula called Jutland. Now the Romans have to sail in the North Sea, which their ships weren't built to do. A channel transit to hold Britain is hard enough.

Yet they did coastal navigation alongside the eastern coast of England. Doing that, or navigating alongside northern Gallia, Germania, and Cimbria/Jutland is technologically indistinguishable.

Not necessarily. Even if they had to sail along the coast up to the wall (Which I don't think they had to, but for sake of discussion), it's still a shorter transit by a pretty good amount.

The difference is not substantial, looking at any map of Europe.

As I said before, the Romans were used to farming in the Mediterranean. Farming in Northern Europe is a different ballgame. If I was a Roman governor, I'd take my resources over an "optimal border".

The Romans were not more technologically inept than the Caroliningians. The heavy plough and the horse collar pretty much nullify the difference, as far as farming techniques and economical value go.

But they were NEVER as valuable to Rome as her Mediterranean lands. I don't see the Romans using more resources on lands that economically are rather worthless, in comparison.

How economically worthless to Europe was High Middle Ages Germany ? That's the only appropriate comparison for a Romanized Germania.

Well, I'd say the Empire's troubles started a good deal before the 3rd century crisis. The "50 Bad Years" come to mind. The Sassanid rise only served to kick in that rotten (Politically rather than Economically. Even during the worst of the crisis, the resources to restore the E) corpse.

This is simply ridiculous and not worth a serious discussion. Rome was at its apex before 230 CE.

Gaul, Iberia, and Britain also didn't see Roman armies regularly trapse through up until the 3rd Century to put down tribes that are upsetting the balance of power. Gaul, Iberia, Britain, and Germania Inferior were all subjagated in 20-40 years. In Germania, it almost looks like the Romans were trying to impose Roman order.

This of course cavalierly ignores the huge differences in political and military stability between trying to exercise fragile indirect influence, and reaping the fruits of wholesale assimilation.

 

[Nikephoros]

Yet, before Teutoburg, they were trying to achieve just that. As for the technology, it is to be expected that Roman conquest brings swift discovery of the heavy plough and horse collar (Carolingian conquest did just that, in conditions far less favorable to cultural progress). With them, Germania become just as economically valuable as Gallia.

By WHY did Teutoburg stop that expansion? We know that Germanicus managed to take pacify the country later on. So what's so special about Teutoburg?

I'm also not sure about there being heavy ploughs and horse collars to discover. I'm pretty sure those came later. Do you have a source for them being used by early AD Germans? I'd like to see it.

Yet they did coastal navigation alongside the eastern coast of England. Doing that, or navigating alongside northern Gallia, Germania, and Cimbria/Jutland is technologically indistinguishable.

Technologically, yes. The ships might sail, and might stay afloat, but there is more to it than that. Have the crews been there? Can they learn the routes from someone? The Baltic wasn't the most traveled sea in the world.

The difference is not substantial, looking at any map of Europe.

In your opinion.

I think it is substantial enough. The Romans are also going through relatively unknown waters. They might know about Jutland, they might know about Scandinavia, they might know that there is a Baltic sea. But have they sailed the waters? I know the Greeks traded with Britain back in the BCE, but that was always a risky trip. You certainly would be leery of supplying an army by traveling through relatively unknown waters.

The Romans were not more technologically inept than the Caroliningians. The heavy plough and the horse collar pretty much nullify the difference, as far as farming techniques and economical value go.

I'm saying that the kind of setup that the Carolingians had was possibly more suited to that region of the world at that time. I don't deny the role of technology, I'm just saying that you can't write off societal factors

How economically worthless to Europe was High Middle Ages Germany ? That's the only appropriate comparison for a Romanized Germania.

Maybe it is the only appropriate comparison. I'm just not impressed with the development of pre-Rennaisance Europe.

This is simply ridiculous and not worth a serious discussion. Rome was at its apex before 230 CE.

It may be "ridiculous and not worth a serious discussion", but I'm gonna discuss it anyways.

Perhaps, but her stability was still being undermined by the political tension.

I made a mistake. I was thinking of something else. But Rome had 25 different emperors between 235 and 284. In my mind I had separated the period where Rome went from Emperor to Emperor from the period when Rome split in three. Which is what I meant. The political instability caused by over 20 years of civil war is what I was referring to when I said: "Rotten corpse"

This of course cavalierly ignores the huge differences in political and military stability between trying to exercise fragile indirect influence, and reaping the fruits of wholesale assimilation.

Hardly. It shows that the perhaps the Romans tried to organize Germania. Maybe they were trying assimilate Germania, but found the logistical difficulties insurmountable. Among possibly other reasons. The historical view was the Germanicus was the last person to lead a major excursion into Germania. It's only been recently that we've learned how long the Romans interfered.

I'm saying they aren't going to try to reap the fruits of wholesale assimilation, because indirect influence makes sense to them. Maybe not to us.

 

[Nikephoros]

Hey, if all else fails, we'll agree to disagree, okay

 

[Eurofed]

By WHY did Teutoburg stop that expansion? We know that Germanicus managed to take pacify the country later on. So what's so special about Teutoburg?

What's so special about Salamine ? Sometimes, one battle is all that it takes to break the expansion momentum in a given strategic vector for an empire.

I'm also not sure about there being heavy ploughs and horse collars to discover. I'm pretty sure those came later. Do you have a source for them being used by early AD Germans? I'd like to see it.

It seems I misexplained my point. The heavy plough and the horse collar were invented in the Dark Ages in Europe (although their development was several centuries earlier in China, it is most likely that for Europe it is was an independent discovery), when Northern Europe was first being heavily settled. If Dark Ages Europeans, in socioeconomic conditions far less favourable to technological development, were able to do so, when faced with the task of properly using the terrains of Northern Europe for extensive farming, it is only reasonable and likely to assume that the Romans, faced with the same task, would do so as well.

Technologically, yes. The ships might sail, and might stay afloat, but there is more to it than that. Have the crews been there? Can they learn the routes from someone? The Baltic wasn't the most traveled sea in the world.

I think it is substantial enough. The Romans are also going through relatively unknown waters. They might know about Jutland, they might know about Scandinavia, they might know that there is a Baltic sea. But have they sailed the waters? I know the Greeks traded with Britain back in the BCE, but that was always a risky trip. You certainly would be leery of supplying an army by traveling through relatively unknown waters.

And so ? You talk as if it is going to take centuries for Roman sailors to master the Baltic route. This is simply not the case. A few years' worth of exploration shall give them failry good basic proficiency with the route (even more so since, as you admit, they already know the basic geographic facts), and a few decades of experience shall tell them everything they ever need to know about sailing the Baltic.

I'm saying that the kind of setup that the Carolingians had was possibly more suited to that region of the world at that time. I don't deny the role of technology, I'm just saying that you can't write off societal factors

Feudalism was scarcely more favourable to intensive settlement and economic development than Roman economy. Please, you are simply begging for nitpicks here.

Maybe it is the only appropriate comparison. I'm just not impressed with the development of pre-Rennaisance Europe.

Hohenstaufen Germany, adjusted for technological and social differences, would still be a powerhouse in Roman terms. It was not on the same level as France or Italy, but close enough. A properly settled Germania would be just as valuable to the Roman Empire.

I made a mistake. I was thinking of something else. But Rome had 25 different emperors between 235 and 284. In my mind I had separated the period where Rome went from Emperor to Emperor from the period when Rome split in three. Which is what I meant. The political instability caused by over 20 years of civil war is what I was referring to when I said: "Rotten corpse"

When I talk about the 3rd century crisis, I include the whole period from 235 to 284. Before it, the empire was at its military, economic, cultural apex. The political instability that exploded later, although latent, was neglegible before 235.

Hardly. It shows that the perhaps the Romans tried to organize Germania. Maybe they were trying assimilate Germania, but found the logistical difficulties insurmountable. Among possibly other reasons.

Again, here you are begging for nitpicking excuses to set OTL into stone.

Hey, if all else fails, we'll agree to disagree, okay

Well, agreed.

 

[Aranfan]

I do not believe that Rome would ever be able to do more than make Persia a vassal/satellite, I think that full conquest would be nigh-impossible and Persia would break away fairly quickly in any case. I feel that attempts to assimilate Persia would be much less successful than elsewhere because of Persia's own powerful native cultural context (historically hostile to the Greeks, which formed a vital part of Rome's cultural context).


However, as I am unfamiliar with the details of both the time period and the area in general, I will bow out of the discussion.

 

[El Zilcho]

I think I'll also agree to disagree! The Oder is as practical as I think it gets.

Also, I was wondering, where do you make those maps you've posted at the beginning? I wanted to make one myself with the Oder or Elbe as the border but I'm not sure how.

 

[Valdemar II]

I agree with Nikephoros points. We have several significant problem, the lack of the heavy plough (which need a radical improvement in metal production to be made on large scale), the travel time, the poverty of Germania Magna and the terrain. The problem was that when Romans conquered a area, they toke over the existing system, in Germania the societal system was to primitive to that would succed, ironic if they had tried again in 200 they could very well have succed, but before Christ the germanic tribes was to decentralised for a takeover, unless they signifcant forces in the area, which would result in them not having them otherplaces. The reason the Roman didn't annex Germania Magda are for the same reason they didn't annex Sahara, worstless wasteland, populated by wortless barbarians.

 

[Nikephoros]

I agree with Nikephoros points. We have several significant problem, the lack of the heavy plough (which need a radical improvement in metal production to be made on large scale), the travel time, the poverty of Germania Magna and the terrain. The problem was that when Romans conquered a area, they toke over the existing system, in Germania the societal system was to primitive to that would succed, ironic if they had tried again in 200 they could very well have succed, but before Christ the germanic tribes was to decentralised for a takeover, unless they signifcant forces in the area, which would result in them not having them otherplaces. The reason the Roman didn't annex Germania Magda are for the same reason they didn't annex Sahara, worstless wasteland, populated by wortless barbarians.

Now, perhaps if the heavy plough was invented, the scenario might work (Not the Persian annexation though) But you can't just pull the heavy plough out of nowhere, even if it was invented independently, and I'm more than 100 percent sure that the horse collar was developed by the Chinese, and spread by people on the Steppes. I doubt it predates the Huns, and probably is best placed with the Avars.

As for the imposing themselves on the societal fabric of those they conquered, that is largely correct. As Lysandros Aikedes points out in Celtic threads, the Celts had pretty large settlements. The Germanic tribes in the days of Arminius were in many ways still moving into the area. Did German tribes federate? Yes they did, but only in response to outside threats and only if there was a strong leader like Arminius. Although I'm without my books, IIRC, the Roman invasion under Germanicus used one of Arminius's sons as a puppet to break up the confederation. Were there urban centers in Germania? Yes, but I suspect that they were only in a certain area, and paled in comparison to that of the Celts. But there certainly weren't any large groups that Rome could bring in, like say the Aedui.

Another thing to consider with that. The Celts were superior metalworkers, but the Germans weren't. Many of the weapons buried with Germanic chieftains were of Roman manufacture. Now, in say 200 AD, the Germanic tribes have made great strides in terms of Urbanization, but haven't come close to the Romans, and certainly not in terms of political organization, but by then the Roman Empire would be able to take control, but by then the Germans have started to get restless, and Rome had to fight wars on it's own soil against them.

I'm starting to think that the Roman incursions that often happened were in an attempt to bring the tribes into their fold, but every time the Legions left, the Roman installed rulers would be unable to hold their power.

As for supplying through the Vistula, I admit that it MIGHT be possible to make that route on a regular basis, but it is a long route, and I'm still very leery of that premise. The Elbe won't work, not sure of the Oder, but the Rhine is still the best river as far as navigability and location goes.

 

[Valdemar II]

The Oder are worse than the Elb, the Elb end in Czechia a few hundred kilometers from the Donau (the terrain between are at best very difficult), while the Oder stop on the other side of Carpathians. The Vistula-Dniester are the closest to usefulness of the Rhine-Donau, but the creation of that border could only be the result of several waves of Roman conquest, where inferior transporting routes have to be used. Not very likely and it would demand several generation of Emperors which could see that far out in the future the terrorium would become useful, not very likely.