Borders of Would-Be Roman Provinces.

It is a popular Roman what-if if Germania Magna, Marcomannia, and Sarmartia became Roman provinces. The predecent was definately there.

What would their specific borders be, though? Especially in relation to the other would-be provinces, since, for example, anyone vaguely interested in this already knows 'Elbe was the eastern border of Germania'. I'd like to know the OTHER borders. Sarmartia, especially.

I feel like I've asked this before, but checking my posts, I can't find it lately, so I'll ask again....
 
I imagine a Roman frontier in Sarmatia would follow the major rivers in the area - the Dniester, Bug, Dnieper and maybe even the Don - in an east-west direction. It would be harder to determine how far the Romans would advance northwards, as its basically just empty steppe, with no real landmarks. The Pripyat marshlands might be useful for this, although they are quite far west.

In the northern Caucasus area the Romans might reach as far as the Volga, but this is just speculation... In my opinion the Romans never had any incentive to conquer Sarmatia (if such a thing were even possible!), and either way they would have been severely stretched to muster the necessary military resources for such a campaign.

It would have required a dramatic weakening of frontier defences in other much more important parts of the Empire, not something I can see the Romans doing unless they were totally secure in their position in the Near East.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
To understand what borders would-be provinces would have, we need to explore why the borders were picked.

The border I can best explain is the Rhine frontier. Despite popular myth, Teutoberger Wald did not stop Roman expansion into Germania. Roman armies often raided deep within German lands. The reason the Rhine was picked as a border was two-fold:

1. Germania was not populated/developed enough to make Roman pacification of the area worthwhile. Roman control over Germany was more cost effective if the Romans gave incentives for various tribes to keep the peace and attack other tribes, by Rome's guidance of course. The Rhine pretty much served as a dividing line between the relatively developed Gauls, and the relatively backwards Germans. (Of course crossover occured.)

2. The nature of Roman logistics. Until Constantine, Roman armies were concentrated on the border regions. The best way to supply these armies (Trust me, they consumed LARGE amounts of supplies) was by ship. Sailing around Hispania and Gaul was too risky and slow. The Rhine had two things going for it: One, it was relatively calm. Roman ships could sail at ease. Two, the river could be reached from the Mediterranean. Not directly of course, but it was only a relatively short portage from the Rhone and Moselle rivers (someone who knows European rivers better might be able to correct me on what rivers is what, but I'm sure they could see where I am coming from.) to the Rhine.

Without these considerations, it is almost impossible to know where the borders in other areas could be.
 
To understand what borders would-be provinces would have, we need to explore why the borders were picked.
1. Germania was not populated/developed enough to make Roman pacification of the area worthwhile. Roman control over Germany was more cost effective if the Romans gave incentives for various tribes to keep the peace and attack other tribes, by Rome's guidance of course. The Rhine pretty much served as a dividing line between the relatively developed Gauls, and the relatively backwards Germans. (Of course crossover occured.)
The same approach was also used in southern Scotland and before annexation of the kingdoms in parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The advantage of it is that there is no cost to the Romans for enforcing the Pax. The disadvantages are a) the locals may have their own agenda and b) they may not do the "job properly" and the Romans have to can in anyway.

On actual borders find a point where occupation would be more trouble than it is worth then draw a line the other side of it. ;)
 
Especially in relation to the other would-be provinces, since, for example, anyone vaguely interested in this already knows 'Elbe was the eastern border of Germania'.

The Elbe was only as far as the Romans reached. Ancient Germany extended to the Vistula. Sarmatia was to the east, and I believe the eponymous province established by Marcus Aurelius was between the Danube Bend and Dacia. His Marcomannia was probably between the Danube and the Sudetes.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
The same approach was also used in southern Scotland and before annexation of the kingdoms in parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The advantage of it is that there is no cost to the Romans for enforcing the Pax. The disadvantages are a) the locals may have their own agenda and b) they may not do the "job properly" and the Romans have to can in anyway.

and that is exactly what happened in Germany beyond the Rhine. Didn't entirely work though, which is why Rome often sent in armies.

On actual borders find a point where occupation would be more trouble than it is worth then draw a line the other side of it. ;)

Too true, and that is what the Romans did on the Rhine. If anyone wants to know why Germania wasn't developed enough, I won't say it in this thread (Unless I have to.)

People always try to look for better borders for Rome. But they only consider the borders based on their length, not the other prevailing factors. (For instance, there was a part of the Roman Empire in Germania past the Rhine, but it was abandoned, and that border was actually a decent deal shorter than the border that Rome had before and afterwards.)

Some rivers just aren't good for what the Romans did logistically, and to reach them would not be worth it. Germania was too poor (and the Elbe was worthless for supplying the Legions with supplies), the Steppes were well, the Steppes, etc.
 
Yes, Marcus Aurelius had wanted to move the border to the Erzgebirge, the Sudeten mountains and the Carpathians. So all of modern Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Transsylvania would've become Roman.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Yes, Marcus Aurelius had wanted to move the border to the Erzgebirge, the Sudeten mountains and the Carpathians. So all of modern Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Transsylvania would've become Roman.

But if I remember correctly, he also gave up the territory on the Rhine that I am referring to. At any rate the Romans had an ideal on what they wanted the borders to be, but internal and external forces limited that drive.
 
(For instance, there was a part of the Roman Empire in Germania past the Rhine, but it was abandoned, and that border was actually a decent deal shorter than the border that Rome had before and afterwards.)

The Agri Decumates?

But if I remember correctly, he also gave up the territory on the Rhine that I am referring to.

If you mean the Agri Decumates they were abandoned in the 3rd century AD.

At any rate the Romans had an ideal on what they wanted the borders to be, but internal and external forces limited that drive.

Any idea what that ideal was?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The Elbe was only as far as the Romans reached. Ancient Germany extended to the Vistula. Sarmatia was to the east, and I believe the eponymous province established by Marcus Aurelius was between the Danube Bend and Dacia. His Marcomannia was probably between the Danube and the Sudetes.

Marcomannia is usual described as Bohemia.
 
Top