AHC: Romans conquer Mesopotamia and all of Germania

Eurofed

Banned
With a hindsight it does. Looking from early 1st century AD not so much. Unlike Gaul Gemania wasn't developed so taking it wouldn't yield much return, not until money (and colonists) would be sunk in to improve economy. If you look at history of roman conquests you'll notice they were taking over cultures with developed economy,where once victorious they could absord already developed economy, tax it and have a good starting point to bring it roman levels. Germania simply wasn't that.

There were some exceptions to this, such as Dacia and Britannia. Moreover, Romanized Germania is not going to stay undeveloped wilderness forever. Over time, it is going to grow into a rather profitable area for the empire. If you want to look at an handy long-term comparison, what a Roman Germania could easily grow into with some centuries of development, take High Middle Ages Germany, only without feudalism.
 
With a hindsight it does. Looking from early 1st century AD not so much. Unlike Gaul Gemania wasn't developed so taking it wouldn't yield much return, not until money (and colonists) would be sunk in to improve economy. If you look at history of roman conquests you'll notice they were taking over cultures with developed economy,where once victorious they could absord already developed economy, tax it and have a good starting point to bring it roman levels. Germania simply wasn't that.

As for kink, how much knowledge did omans have of geography of central europe. Now it's easy to look at a map of roman empire on european landmass and see where rivers are and imagine straight, short lines. But could Octavian do same?

Actually Octavian cared about conquering Germany. He would have get that done, too, with no Teutoburg Disaster.
What you said about the roman conquests is not completely true, and especially wasn't under Octavian. He poured resources in "cheap" conquest of "underdeveloped" areas like Moesia, Raetia and Illyrian highland, probably in order to give the empire greater geographical coherence, let alone prestige. Those areas, essentially the entire right bank of the Danube, have been one the (relatively) easiest conquests of Roman history, but development came only later. Also, it could be noteworthy that only a tiny fraction of the areas conquered under August is Romance-speaking nowadays (while it was a little larger in Middle Ages). OTOH, Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Dacia are mostly romance (and in Spain, Vasconia was subdued under Augustus), and Dalmatia was.
 
There were some exceptions to this, such as Dacia and Britannia.

well, Dacia was moving toward developed area, which is probably why it was taken. Britannia, well, even romans admited conquest was partially motivated by hunger for glory.

Moreover, Romanized Germania is not going to stay undeveloped wilderness forever. Over time, it is going to grow into a rather profitable area for the empire. If you want to look at an handy long-term comparison, what a Roman Germania could easily grow into with some centuries of development, take High Middle Ages Germany, only without feudalism.

True. However as I pointed out in our earlier debate that is hindsight. Heavy plough, population increase etc were results of long term development. Romans had no way of knowing what will happen in few centuries. So looking at Germania in early 1st century it didn't make much sense to take itand made more sense to halt at the end of more civilized world, that is more developed Gaul rather than push into piss poor Germania in serious, conquering manner.
 
Dacia had gold mines, and was in the process of political unification. So the Romans took it.

Germania was divided, and stay like that after the Romans got rid of Marbod and Arminius. Nontheless, they HAD tried hard to conquer it before Arminius (and Marbod) "stopped" them.
Political division made conquest easier militarily, but tougher politically and harder and longer to stabilize.
 
Actually Octavian cared about conquering Germany. He would have get that done, too, with no Teutoburg Disaster.
What you said about the roman conquests is not completely true, and especially wasn't under Octavian. He poured resources in "cheap" conquest of "underdeveloped" areas like Moesia, Raetia and Illyrian highland, probably in order to give the empire greater geographical coherence, let alone prestige. Those areas, essentially the entire right bank of the Danube, have been one the (relatively) easiest conquests of Roman history, but development came only later. Also, it could be noteworthy that only a tiny fraction of the areas conquered under August is Romance-speaking nowadays (while it was a little larger in Middle Ages). OTOH, Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Dacia are mostly romance (and in Spain, Vasconia was subdued under Augustus), and Dalmatia was.

Those areas were close to Italy so taking them gave Rome some breathing space there.also I'd think that being close to rome draw them into their orbit.
 
The only way for the roman's to win at teutoberg is if something happenned to the ambusher's or if the Roman's had some knowledge beforehand.

That's actually easy to carry out -in OTL, Varus was warned by Segestes (a relative of Arminius) about Arminius' plot, but he waved it off, refusing to believe that of an auxiliary officer who, up until then, had proved himself a loyal friend of Rome.
 
The problem with Germania (not all original comments):

You need more governors, generals, colonists, roads, legions, bathhouses, and everything else. The expenses are steep and the reward would be very, very, very long term - which may be all to the good in an abstract sort of way, but the money is needed now. And its not as if the Empire was running out of ways to spend money.

And even after you develop it, its rather far from the center. Which means one way or another local officials gain considerable power - which is not good for keeping it loyal to Rome. Which brings up:

Anything with more generals and legions further from Rome is likely to see sooner or latter the usual phenomenon with successful Roman generals.

And of course this is all assuming the German rebellions are put down every time and that no one does a Hadrian and says that this hunk of territory is more trouble than its worth.

Not sure if Mesopotamia is as bad or not - but it certainly has the same issues with gaining a place that won't exactly want to be Roman, and is much closer to an enemy capable of taking advantage of that.
 
Last edited:
OTOH the impact and consequences of the 3rd century crisis (and of the 5th century one) are going to be much lesser if there is a non-existent Germanic barbarian threat and a crippled Sassanid one.

Pushing forward the boundary of the Empire doesn't lessen the barbarian threat. I recall that the Germanic tribes were being pushed on to the Roman Empire by invaders from central Asia. There was population pressure/competition for resources pushing these invaders out of central Asia. So the Romans would have had to cope with barbarians somewhere along the line. Of course they might have more Germans to fight on their side (and they did in OTL depend a lot on German mercenaries).
 
Pushing forward the boundary of the Empire doesn't lessen the barbarian threat. I recall that the Germanic tribes were being pushed on to the Roman Empire by invaders from central Asia. There was population pressure/competition for resources pushing these invaders out of central Asia. So the Romans would have had to cope with barbarians somewhere along the line. Of course they might have more Germans to fight on their side (and they did in OTL depend a lot on German mercenaries).

It's important to note that the Empire fell to smaller Germanic forces than traditionally believed.

Adding more territory doesn't necessarily increase the cohesion of the Empire.
 
If anything it probably weakens it.

I'm not equipped to really go as far as to say that, but I can see the potential issues.

I just don't find the idea of a Roman Magna Germania and a Roman Mesopotamia to be terribly interesting. But my tastes in AH have always been seeing groups with little prominence in OTL rise, whether that means balkanization or not.
 
I'm not equipped to really go as far as to say that, but I can see the potential issues.

I just don't find the idea of a Roman Magna Germania and a Roman Mesopotamia to be terribly interesting. But my tastes in AH have always been seeing groups with little prominence in OTL rise, whether that means balkanization or not.

I'll put it this way, it doesn't decrease the basic issues, and gives them more places to be problematic. What's not to worry about?
 
Top