Concerning Rome Survives TL's

[Sandmannius]

In a "Rome survives" timeline must we or will we always inevitably see Germania, Parthia, Arabia, Scotland and Ireland getting conquered by the Roman Empire?

Also just finished this map of the Roman Empire in the first century AD, I'm sure it has some minor border inaccuracies, but it fits the bill for me. Am just postin' it here for fun.

 

[TapReflex]

I beleive this topic has been touched upon.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I find that to be an utter cliche thus my disdain for most Roman TLs. Parthia is simply too difficult for the Romans to outright conquer or even vassalise for too long. They could always keep it weakened to not be much of a threat but that isn't really the same thing, is it. Arabia is worthless save for the south and even then it's too far away to administrate. ​

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

I could disagree, Maybe if rome was spared from plauges it would have survived to modern day, or better yet have the byzantines win the battle of Yarmouk.

Also as for the map, you left the borders of the Kallingrad Oblast

 

[Sandmannius]

Also as for the map, you left the borders of the Kallingrad Oblast

You mean that little piece of land inbetween the rivers somewhere in the Baltic?

 

[SavoyTruffle]

This is why almost any Rome survives TLs is an auto Rome-wank.

 

[DuQuense]

Also just finished this map of the Roman Empire in the first century AD

In the first century-- Rome reached north to the Antonina Wall, well north of the Hadrian Wall shown on your map.

In a "Rome survives" timeline must we or will we always inevitably see Germania,

A Rome Survives TL, almost implys a continued expansion, both for the Resources, and the necessary depth to absorb the Wandertang.

 

[Eurofed]

In the first century-- Rome reached north to the Antonina Wall, well north of the Hadrian Wall shown on your map.

A Rome Survives TL, almost implys a continued expansion, both for the Resources, and the necessary depth to absorb the Wandertang.

True. Although if Rome conquers Germania Magna early in its history, it absorbs so much of the Germanic-Slavic tribes' population pool that the later Migration Period won't happen at all, or at least be so nerfed as to be unrecognizable.

To answer the OP, no, the conquest of Ireland, Scotland, Arabia, and Persia is far from being a necessary factor or consequence of Rome's survival. However the early conquest of all of Germania and Mesopotamia (as opposed to Persia) makes the survival of Rome easier to accomplish by a degree of magnitude. Conversely, if Rome survives and remains strong, conquest of Germany, like the Frankish/Holy Roman Empire did IOTL, becomes more and more likely the more the area becomes more settled and more valuable over time, all the way to inevitable. Arabia was a valuable land that is not too difficult to conquer for a strong Rome before the rise of Islam, so the same reasoning applies to a lesser degree. As for Scotland, all that it takes is some emperor to (rightfully) decide that the one-time effort of conquest is cheaper in the end that the ongoing expense of maintaining the Wall. The land which is easier to justify remaining unconquered for a long time is Ireland, although if Rome remains strong and keeps Britain, sooner or later it's going to go and conquer it, too.

 

[Eurofed]

Arabia is worthless save for the south and even then it's too far away to administrate. ​

Yeah, because to sail the Red Sea from Egypt to Yemen is so troublesome...

Parthia is simply too difficult for the Romans to outright conquer or even vassalise for too long.
​

The Caliphate had little trouble, and surely they were no better than Rome.

They could always keep it weakened to not be much of a threat but that isn't really the same thing,

Which basically requires Rome to hold Mesopotamia, quite doable,​

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Yeah, because to sail the Red Sea from Egypt to Yemen is so troublesome...

And if it was so easy, they never did make the attempt.

 

[Eurofed]

And if it was so easy, they never did make the attempt.

No country ever made optimal foreign policy and strategic choices IOTL, and that is valid for Rome, too. Given what we know of Rome's capabilities and local logistics, it does not seem plausible that they would face significantly greater difficulties to control Arabia Felix than Arabia Petrea. If anything, it admittedly becomes rather more likely that they get interested in conquering Arabia only after they get a more defensible border and more strategic depth by conquering Mesopotamia, if not vassallizing Persia.

 

[Rex Romanum]

The Caliphate had little trouble, and surely they were no better than Rome.

I personally think that Rome need to do three of the things below in order to hold Persia:

1. Increase religious tolerance.
This was one of the keys for the success of the Caliphate in OTL. If Rome persecuted Zoroastrians in Persia just like what they did to Christians in Europe, I can imagine she would have to face countless rebellions and Zoroastrian insurgencies.

2. Reform the army.
Increase the proportion of cavalry, archers, and maybe cavalry archers, relative to the infantry. Otherwise we would always see some Roman cities and towns sacked by nomadic invasions, and some Roman legionnaires encircled and slaughtered by Central Asian nomads each year.

3. Move (or build another one) the capital further east.
This will help the Emperor to take care of the problems in eastern provinces, either rebellious generals or outside invaders. (because, as we already know, in Antiquity it took MUCH longer time to travel by land than through the sea)

Now the question is, could Rome do all of those things...?

 

[stevep]

Rex Romanum, Eurofed

I would say a lasting conquest of Persia would be beyond Rome's capacity without either major technology change and/or as RR says a movement of the centre of rule eastwards, probably further than Constantinople. [As per point 3 below]. After all the Caliphate, as well as facing an exhausted dynasty and bringing a new religion which is what in the long run took over Persia, is based in Damascus and then later Baghdad, which are much closer to the Persian heartlands.

Point 1) is only a problem if and after Christianity or a similar religion takes over the empire. Before that religion only mattered to the Romans if it caused unrest [either because it was the focus for rebellion or involved things like human sacrifice or serious disorder].

Point 2) I would agree with as well. The nature of the terrain and the neighbouring people would mean the legions in the SE [and also in any NE expansion beyond the German forests] would have to have more mounted and missile units to compete with the locals.

Steve

I personally think that Rome need to do three of the things below in order to hold Persia:

1. Increase religious tolerance.
This was one of the keys for the success of the Caliphate in OTL. If Rome persecuted Zoroastrians in Persia just like what they did to Christians in Europe, I can imagine she would have to face countless rebellions and Zoroastrian insurgencies.

2. Reform the army.
Increase the proportion of cavalry, archers, and maybe cavalry archers, relative to the infantry. Otherwise we would always see some Roman cities and towns sacked by nomadic invasions, and some Roman legionnaires encircled and slaughtered by Central Asian nomads each year.

3. Move (or build another one) the capital further east.
This will help the Emperor to take care of the problems in eastern provinces, either rebellious generals or outside invaders. (because, as we already know, in Antiquity it took MUCH longer time to travel by land than through the sea)

Now the question is, could Rome do all of those things...?

 

[Sandmannius]

In the first century-- Rome reached north to the Antonina Wall, well north of the Hadrian Wall shown on your map.

This map is set in 69 AD, the Antonine Wall was build in 142 AD, did the Empire's borders already extent to there back in the sixties?

Also, any more nitpick comments would be much appreciated, I want to improve this map.

Also, thank you everybody for your input.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The Caliphate had little trouble, and surely they were no better than Rome.



[/LEFT]

The Caliphate was a near eastern state that was frequently engulfed by ferocious civil war- furthermore, it was beginning to break up after barely a century, and never regained power over the whole House of Islam. The comparison to Imperial Rome is one that is not valid.

 

[Malta]

Indeed the conquest of Persia is beyond Rome's reach, what they would have to do is not only build up expensive and extensive logistical structures and equipment across much of Mesopotamia but also keep a very large portion of their military in Persia, which would be in open revolt for sometime. If Rome enacted on such a campaign then their border somewhere else would crumble.

Later Europeans never got far into the Middle East like the Romans did until the modern age.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The reason I'm always sceptical about Germania/Persia conquests is the simple fact that Rome was an Empire based first and foremost around the Mediterranean Sea, not the European continent. All of Rome's conquests down to about 80BC were of areas immediately bordering the Mediterranean, and, Gaul aside, the conquests of Illyria, Pannonia and the eastern Balkans were chiefly a search for a more defensible frontier. Roman expansion stopped at the Rhine because the Rhine can be supplied from the Mediterranean- similarly, it stopped in northern Iraq and the Armenian highlands because these were about as far away from the Mediterranean and Black Seas as Roman logistics could manage.

Conversely, I do think that this makes the conquest of at least the Arabian coastlines, and perhaps the Crimea in its entirety, a strong possibility for a Romano-wank: both of these areas can be easily tied into the Imperial centre through shipping. Caledonia and Hibernia are also not quite out of the question for this reason, though unlike Arabia and like Germania, they suffered the significant disadvantage of lacking anything that the Roman Empire, which was an agricultural state that relied on tax, particuarly wanted.

 

[MNP]

Well let me join the group thinking Roman Parthia is extremely unlikely.

The Caliphate was a near eastern state that was frequently engulfed by ferocious civil war- furthermore, it was beginning to break up after barely a century, and never regained power over the whole House of Islam. The comparison to Imperial Rome is one that is not valid.

More than that, unlike the Byzantines the Sassanids were in total chaos until like a year before the Arabs attacked and you had significant military forces defecting. Also the Abbasids got their initial support FROM Persia and then later Ma'mun had his Tahirid allies. It's that one saying by the Arabs (I am paraphrasing): The Persians got along without us for a thousand years but we can't get along without them for a day. The Abbasids and (a little bit) the Umayyads were a lot closer to essentially a Persian conquest of the Middle East with Islam instead of Zoroastrianism than anything else though that is a definite generalization.

Anyhow I myself am kicking around a Rome-Survives TL over at the other place... but it's based on a 5th century PoD so it's going to be far from a Rome wank.

 

[Rex Romanum]

Later Europeans never got far into the Middle East like the Romans did until the modern age.

Hmm, many people always forgetting our friend Alex and his fellow Macedonians...
Like I said before, Rome only need to build a cavalry-based army in order to maintain control over Persia's eastern provinces. And about building a logistical base in Mesopotamia...sure, why not? That won't be quite a stretch for a Mediterranean state that have been able to resupplying Britain for many centuries.
(although I'll note that Alex, who didn't have any base in Syria or Mesopotamia, didn't face serious problem about logistics...yet he is able to extend his borders up to Indus and Oxus...)

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Hmm, many people always forgetting our friend Alex and his fellow Macedonians...
Like I said before, Rome only need to build a cavalry-based army in order to maintain control over Persia's eastern provinces. And about building a logistical base in Mesopotamia...sure, why not? That won't be quite a stretch for a Mediterranean state that have been able to resupplying Britain for many centuries.
(although I'll note that Alex, who didn't have any base in Syria or Mesopotamia, didn't face serious problem about logistics...yet he is able to extend his borders up to Indus and Oxus...)

But Alexander was never effectively able to project his power east of the Zagros: witness his long drawn out campaigns out there after Gaugumela. Alexander's Empire was Mesopotamian based, not Mediterranean. Furthermore, look how long his state lasted after the man himself died. Again, it's a comparison that does not work.