Concerning Rome Survives TL's

[Falecius]

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

They did around 18 BC and they failed.

 

[Eurofed]

All of the areas you mention were based on fairly strong local monarchies and a system of towns and large villages. They had reasonably sophisticated trade networks too, and connections to the Roman world through them. First century Germania did not.

The difference with first century Britannia is not that significant, and conversely, Germanic tribes were not as primitive as Tacitus (or you) made them seem.

Germania did, of course, develop once in contact with the Empire, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, but a conquest then seems unlikely with the Roman state effectively working flat out to contain the Sassanid threat.

The developments that Germania made through border contact with Rome in a few centuries would be quicker and more efficient, by an order of magnitude, once Germania is directly annexed to the Roman Empire.

How will this happen? Who will do the building? Who will "settle down" tribes? Which Romans would be at all interested in settling in Germania?

What Hornla said. Germania Magna would be developed the same way that OTL Rhenish Germania was, if at a more gradual pace. The tribes themselves would settle down, once got into full exposition to Med civilization. Discharged veterans, and colonists eager to get their own land grants, would be interested.

Well yes, they could, but how many major Roman power centres were located on the Atlantic coasts of Europe to supervise these fleets?

After the conquest of Northern Europe, they would develop.

How long are ships going to take to sail all around the coast of northern Europe to deliver orders from the Imperial centre?

After a while, Roman roads would be built. Ships are more important for supplies and trade, in the long term.

The Romans never did have a particuarly "strong presence" in Britain: it was the only region of the West that was never Latinised at a local level, it required four legions for defence and keeping down revolts, and even then, was prone to revolt on a regular basis.

The lack of Latinization is questionable, those legions were mainly required to defend the Caledonian border (and the decision to keep a border at the Wall rather than annex Caledonia was a poor one, since in the long term, the annexation would have freed up some of those legions), and those rebellions were essenetially incursions by the northern barbarians, or the usual civil war stuff, not British unrest against the Roman yoke.

But why would such a decision be made in the first place? A conquered Germania is going to be Britain writ large.

Caesar planned it, Augustus attempted it for 20 years. Apparently Roman leaders were more ambitious about Germania, at least for a while, than you give them credit for.

In a world with neither elites, nor towns, there is simply nowhere for Romanisation to begin.

Germanic tribes were not utterly lacking in social stratification as you make them sound, and more would develop from full contact with Roman culture brought by conquest, and same exposure would drive the development of towns. As Hornla said, look at places like Cologne, Trier, or Xanten.

...ask Julius Caesar. The guy changed everything. It is his historical accomplishment to have thoroughly linked Northwestern Europe to the Antique World.

If Octavian had succeeded in conquering Magna Germania, the same would have applied to Central Europe (regard his other acquisitions in the Alpine/Danube region).

Exactly.

This is an understanding of international relations the Romans were quite familiar with.

Yep.

The concept of the "Adoptive Empire", created out of sheer despair by Nerva, could have been fine for a far longer time than three generations (not bad by modern standards either), had there have been a way to enforce and acknowledge such an adoption (e.g. through the Senate or the Priesthood), akin to the US amendment, IIRC, which doesn't allow a president to work without a vice-president. Such a procedure would have ruled out the historical and most other Commoduses.

Then Diocletian tried again with the 2.0 version of the concept, this time written in law but again only working in theory. Allowed him a damn fine retirement, though.

Indeed. This could have been a decent basis to start enforcing a more stable succession method. Although, of course, the key to ending the civil wars for good was to develop a social counterbalance to the professional military. I root for either the development of a Chinese-style professional civil service (which was not terribly different from what the Romans had, or later developed in the Byzantine Empire) or stronger representation of the provincial elites in the Senate, with some genuine power-sharing between the Emperor and the Senate.

However, if a somewhat more stable imperial succession and assimilation of Central Europe can extend the lifespan and health of the Empire in the first place, Rome is bound to keep evolving towards a protocapitalist market economy, and that social conterbalance shall develop spontaneously in the form of urban trading elites and middle classes.

I would like to add E), to institutionalize centres of higher learning which should not only encompass the classical virtues of education such as rhetorics and philosophy, but also allow for a professionalisation of the theory of engineering, shipbuilding, manufacturing, military doctrine and equipment, administration, architecture.

This is not a progess one IMPERATOR can achieve at his will, but would need a long-term committment and acceptance of society (also in the form of stipendiae for the gifted, but less wealthy). But imagine maybe 10 or 12 such centres throughout the empire! What a possibility for slow but steady technological progress! What a mass of professional cadres in all fields!

Very true, this is pretty important, too, and indeed it would take some time and effort. I only remark that just economic and social developments, the rise of a university system is very likely to happen largely spontaneously if Rome endures.

I think we may henceforth agree that a combination of these points would be fundamental to ensure the long-term success of Rome:

A) more stable succession mechanism (such as a strenghtening of the "Adoptive Empire")
B) social counterbalance to the professional military and the landed elites (a Senate that represents the various provinces and main cities and shares some power with the Emperor, a professional civil service, stronger urban trading elites and middle classes)
C) conquest of Germania Magna to the Vistula-Dniester border
D) conquest of Mesopotamia to the Zagros Border
E) istitutionalize centers of higher learning to create a university system with courses encompassing a broad range of subjects.

Errr....the same Roman specialists who inflated settlements into towns in Northern Europe in a way that one could say they built them from scratch?

The German tribes will settle down themselves. They are comparable mobile, but not purely nomadic. They are not genetically hindered from taking the opportunities contact with the Med-civilization allows them.

I would say, within Magna Germania, the network of cities would initially have to be looser than in other places. There are hardly places where cities like Col. Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (Cologne, 20,000 inhabitants) or Aug. Treverorum (Trier, 80,000 inhabitants) are imaginable for the first centuries.

There would be a handful of Col. Ulpia Trajana (Xanten, 10,000 inhabitants)- sized cities as seats of provincial administration, but rather characteristical would be small places for merchants and tradesmen with few small typically Roman installations (a moderate bath, a cosy forum, a theatre unlike the one in Xanten or Trier, but rather like the African one in "Gladiator"), with maybe 2-3,000 inhabitants.

What is far more important is the network of roads to be built.

Fine points. And it would not take forever for the Romans to build that network of roads, they were no slackers and very good at that kind of infrstructure development.

Good point. Ask Augustus who pursued such a policy for 20 years and IMHO would have continued to do so, would he not have been a very old man when 9AD came.

You argumentation on the process of Romanization is altogether valid. But along with Tacitus you probably exaggerate the beloved isolation of people living in Germania.

Also, there must have been stratification in society already in the 1st century - where else would someone like Arminius have come from? As elsewhere, Rome also in Germania relied on pro-Roman factions for support (ultimately failing in this case); but there were people who favoured Roman contact and who would have been willing to be agents of Romanization.

Exactly.

On the conquest in the 3rd/4th century - scenario. Why not? If we take into account a Roman Empire which made internal progress in order to avoid or mitigate the 3rd century crisis (at least not making everything worse by a breakdown of succession-systems), one could imagine a decision to break the crisis by a return to expansion. Or if the crisis is avoided, Rome just simply could do it. Even around OTL 235AD, Roman forces got engaged in a battle near the Harz mountain which is rather closer to Berlin than to Cologne.

Nonetheless, I still find a Roman conquest of Germania in the 1st century to be the most natural PoD, since it builds on OTL momentum that would be unbroken if Teutoburg is avoided, and it gives more time for Rome to own and develop Germania and make it demographically and economically profitable.

6 is easy. I would estimate 11.

On the other hand, reduce the legions on the Rhine from 5 to 2, the Pannonian legions from 4 to 2, re-distribute the 6 Legions in Moesia and Dacia in order to man the border on the Dnjestr and to control "Dacia Magna" (the whole region between Dnjestr, Danube and Carpathes).

This already gives you 5 Legions to control the area between Rhine and Vistula. 5 are IMHO for a long time only sufficient for the area between Rhine and Elbe/Moldau. For the rest I would estimate and additional 6, so your count suits again. For most of the "Pax Romana", this would mean a rise from 28 to 34 legions. In the longer run, this number could be slightly reduced again.

Now that means a rise by 25%. This is a lot, but not wholly out of order for the rise and fall of number of regions during the first two centuries AD.

More or less correct, even if it is a cautious estimate errs on the side of safety, but extra legions within Germania to pacify it would not be necessary forever. If we take Britannia and the other Roman conquests in Europe as a comparison, lasting pacification and essential Romanization would be done in 2-3 generations, 3-4 if we want to err on the side of safety. Afterwards, strong military presence would only be needed to man the Vistula-Dniester border, and rather less legions than 34 would be necessary for that. The rest could be used elsewhere, such as in the Middle East. I.e. if Rome annexes Germania Magna under Augustus and Tiberius, leftover military power freed by the Romanization of Central Europe would be available in the early 2nd century under Trajan and Hadrian to make Trajan's victories over Parthia even more decisive, so that Mesopotamia and the Zagros border are kept and optimally Persia is vassallized.

I'm not sure whether in this scheme, the military force to conquer Britannia would still be available in the mid-late first century, but even if it has to be delayed, to conquer Britannia was nowhere as essential to the long-term welfare of Rome as to conquer Germania. If Rome remains strong, it can be easily grabbed later.

In the end, again, I point out that the task is imaginable to be solved, but there is not much probability for it to happen for the reasons Giorgios to
ferverntly pointed out. To make Rome more durable,
it is far more important to make changes in its society than to expand it further (because, come on, it is pretty big already). If Rome would have
conquered Germania Magna and still would have fallen, we would debate now whether a Limes on the Volga River would have saved it, maybe.

I agree that internal reforms were pretty important, but I disgree about the latter point. A Roman Germania makes a fall of Rome much, much less probable, since many less unassimilated barbarians would be around in Europe to multiply the effects of an internal crisis by external military pressure, and even worse, turn a temporary dynastic crisis into permanent political and cultural fragmentation by invasion and demographic changes.

The funny thing, though, is, when I imagine Rome even more wealthy, internally more stable and a bit more technologically progressive (I am not talking
gunpowder or railroads here, but stirrups, better agricultural methods e.g.)

I agree about the need for more internal stability, but the early Roman empire was already quite wealthy and technologically progressive on its OTL own, the technological dynamism much more present than cliches credit it for. If the death spiral is avoided, it was more or less headed for a stead and fairly brisk progression from Early Antiquity to a mix of High-Late Middle Ages Europe (without the feudalism and manorialism) and Muslim Golden Age (without the monotheism), and from there to Early Modernity.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The difference with first century Britannia is not that significant, and conversely, Germanic tribes were not as primitive as Tacitus (or you) made them seem.

Yes, they were. In the first century, they did not even have villages. This is not just the view of Tacitus and myself, it is fully backed up by modern archaeology. First century Germania was a very, very backward place.

The developments that Germania made through border contact with Rome in a few centuries would be quicker and more efficient, by an order of magnitude, once Germania is directly annexed to the Roman Empire.

You're still to explain how this comes about. It doesn't happen by magic you know: do explain where Romanisation begins in a world lacking any sort of permanent settlement or local elite. You might as well be arguing for a Roman conquest of the Sahara Desert.

What Hornla said. Germania Magna would be developed the same way that OTL Rhenish Germania was, if at a more gradual pace. The tribes themselves would settle down, once got into full exposition to Med civilization. Discharged veterans, and colonists eager to get their own land grants, would be interested.

Rhenish Germania was largely part of the La Tene Celtic culture, and thus was studded with oppida fortresses and monarchs. "Rhenish Germania" is in any case an absurd term- the area was always recognised to be a part of Gaul.

After the conquest of Northern Europe, they would develop.

How and why?

After a while, Roman roads would be built. Ships are more important for supplies and trade, in the long term.

You're presupposing everything will go exactly the way you want it to in your last two points. Explain to me why the Romans would want to take and hold Germania, and how they would go about developing it before you start vaguelly stating "this would happen".

The lack of Latinization is questionable, those legions were mainly required to defend the Caledonian border (and the decision to keep a border at the Wall rather than annex Caledonia was a poor one, since in the long term, the annexation would have freed up some of those legions), and those rebellions were essenetially incursions by the northern barbarians, or the usual civil war stuff, not British unrest against the Roman yoke.

The lack of Latinization is not questionable really: Welsh is a Celtic, not a Latinate language. Spanish and French are Latinate languages.

I would disagree about the "British unrest" thing. Not because British local elites sought any kind of independence from the Roman Empire, but nonetheless, there was unrest, since Britain was such an isolated and backward provinces. Local elites felt cut off from the centre of Imperial power in northern Italy, and therefore would frequently proclaim an Emperor of their own in the hope of redressing the balance. In Germania, which will be even more backward than Britain, this problem will happen again, and again, and again.

Caesar planned it, Augustus attempted it for 20 years. Apparently Roman leaders were more ambitious about Germania, at least for a while, than you give them credit for.

And they were a lot more fallible and realistic than you give them credit for. Even if Augustus conquers Germania (something that could be done fairly easily IMHO) it will be given up pretty quickly due to the instability of the province and its potential to throw up numerous revolts. Much better to have an independent Germania into which the Romans can go on glory hunting expeditions every twenty years or so, than having to pacify a restless province, that, in terms of Romanisation, is like building a palace upon sinking sand.

Germanic tribes were not utterly lacking in social stratification as you make them sound, and more would develop from full contact with Roman culture brought by conquest, and same exposure would drive the development of towns. As Hornla said, look at places like Cologne, Trier, or Xanten.

Not utterly, no, but in comparison to every other area the Romans conquered they were miles behind in the first and second centuries. Your citation of Cologne, Trier and Xanten are invalid anyway- these were in Romano-Celtic Gaul, not Germanic Germania.

 

[I Blame Communism]

(and the decision to keep a border at the Wall rather than annex Caledonia was a poor one, since in the long term, the annexation would have freed up some of those legions)

They could dish our lot whenever they felt like it (and did on occasion), but as BG keeps saying about Germania, there was nothing in Caledonia to annex.

Scotland has big mountains, terribly acidic soils, and not many people. We have a third of Britain's area and a tenth of the people today; how many people do you think were kicking around then? Not enough to support a civilisation which had anything in it to annex.

What would your Romans do? March to Edinburgh, stroll up the Mile, and lower the saltire on the castle? Let's abandon our modern notions of "annexation". Scotland was basically in the same situation as Papua New Guinnea.

As a matter of fact, the Romans did try to push the border to the firths of Forth and Clyde a couple of times - and promptly realised that it wasn't worth the bother.

 

[Hörnla]

The difference with first century Britannia is not that significant, and conversely, Germanic tribes were not as primitive as Tacitus (or you) made them seem.

Exactly. One should always bear in mind that Tacitus had an ideological agenda of its own, i.e. to present the Romans an absolutely contrary mirror image of noble, unspoiled savants.

The developments that Germania made through border contact with Rome in a few centuries would be quicker and more efficient, by an order of magnitude, once Germania is directly annexed to the Roman Empire.

Without expecting wonders, I would agree to that.

After the conquest of Northern Europe, they would develop.

I wouldn't expect wonders there, either. Having a closer look at the map, the projected border rather gives me the impression that a Dnjestr-Vistula Limes would be supplied mainly via the Black Sea and would thus be much more in contact with "the East" of the Roman Empire than OTLs border on the Rhine.

What remains to be accomplished are the Naval control of the North Sea and of the Baltic Sea. So there would probably still be the Classis Britannica (mainly in Gesoriacum).

There is even the possibility of an antique "Nord-Ostsee-Kanal", maybe in connection with a "Danish Limes". The Vikings were able to cross the Isthmus near Haithabu and successful channel projects had been undertaken since the 14th century. It would not need to be longer than the Fossa Corbulonis between Rhine and Mass.

However, such a place in Schleswig-Holstein would be ideal for such a Baltic fleet.

After a while, Roman roads would be built.

Quite instantly actually. Roman roads were pivotal for their military doctrine and also an excellent mean to keep the soldiers busy.

... can extend the lifespan and health of the Empire in the first
place, Rome is bound to keep evolving towards a protocapitalist market economy, and that social conterbalance shall develop spontaneously in the form of urban
trading elites and middle classes.

IMHO, urban life in the IMPERIUM ROMANUM already showed characteristics which make it easy to mistake it for such a society. That's why many of us so easily identify
with the Roman cause.

the rise of a university system is very likely to happen largely spontaneously if Rome endures.

I am not so optimistic on that one. The step towards a higher and valued evaluation with practical applications and experimental thought coming out of it is a large one.
Not only, but especially if Christianity as we know it somewhen becomes the ruling faith in later times. So, I am sure it needs a genius in power to advocate and establish such a system
in the first centuries AD.

Nonetheless, I still find a Roman conquest of Germania in the 1st century to be the most natural PoD, since it builds on OTL momentum that would be
unbroken if Teutoburg is avoided, and it gives more time for Rome to own and develop Germania and make it demographically and economically profitable.

True. But I wouldn't rule out other timelines. A different 9AD would be a headstart, of course. Still, under any circumstances, I deem scenarios where the Dnjestr-Vistula-
line is reached around 200AD or even a lot later more realistic. That region is quite a chunk and it would, under any circumstances, be difficult for the Romans to
incorporate.

extra legions within Germania to pacify it would not be necessary forever.

This is especially the case if we assume a gradual conquest at a slow pace, as I would deem more realistic.




---

Yes, they were. In the first century, they did not even have villages. This is not just the view of Tacitus and myself, it is fully backed up by modern archaeology. First century Germania was a very, very backward place.

Well, it was backwards, but not that primitive. The more modern archaeology finds out about Northern Europe, the more
multi-faceted the picture becomes to me. Concerning villages, there is the question of definition. The lack of stone-relics
is not helpful at all.
What I found quotes an usual settlement-site of 200 persons resp. 10 "households" (which weren't 4 persons at the time).
A very small village, but albeit. If there was a development towards such closer-knit societies which hadn't started by 9AD,
it started soon afterwards. However, any Roman influence would quicken these developments and expand the affected regions.

In the case of gradual conquest, there would also be enough regions rather belonging to the La-Tene-cultures to be incorported at first before the Romans venture
out into the Prussian steppe... Southern Germany, today's Czech Republic, and then there is Dacia.

You're still to explain how this comes about. It doesn't happen by magic you know: do explain where Romanisation begins in a world lacking any sort of permanent settlement or local elite. You might as well be arguing for a Roman conquest of the Sahara Desert.

You compare apples with pears.

I would like to point to the site of Waldgirmes. The post 9-AD-destroyed city start-up recently backed up Cassius Dio's
claim that the Romans had begun to establish cities in Germania Magna by the time of Varus defeat. At that point of time,
the will to do so was apparently there. Less impressively than Waldgirmes, also the site of Haltern showed hints that by 9AD
the place had started to change from a purely military installation into a site with a growing civilian sector. There are
also conflicting readings on the site of Kneblingshausen.
I also refer to the site of Bentumersiel on the river Ems. This site of a Roman castrum was apparently already a trading-place
by the time of the temporary Roman conquest with a non-farming population and existed for centuries after, possibly until the 5th century AD.

I do not expect urban wonders in Germania Magna. Just the effects of rising trade and direct Roman investment in the form of
Legions stationed.

I do not expect a 12/13th-century wave of citybuilding in a Roman Germania - maybe after a long, long time. Just enough to
hold the place together. As I said, a city of the size of CUT (Xanten) per province...plus smaller Roman settlements at
important crossroads or river-crossings, next to long-term garrisons, here and there a Colonia for veterans and as an administrative center.
As in medieval times, a lot of the inhabitants might be "Ackerbürger" - farming citizens. Maybe we see predominantly wooden Roman towns.

Londinium, e.g., reached a population height of 45-60,000 people in the 2nd century. There was probably no prior
settlement of importance before the invasion one century earlier (plus the new city got thorougly destroyed
by Boudicca in between). Many other places in NW-Europe developed far beyond their "non-Roman" potential after the
conquest.

The lack of Latinization is not questionable really: Welsh is a Celtic, not a Latinate language. Spanish and French are Latinate languages.

Welsh (as Cymreag) is
not wholly representative for the province of Britannia. Today's Wales was virtually untouched by Roman civilization.

Urban Britan was hardest hit by the great migration; those parts of the province's society which were Latinized were
virtually wiped out. That's why English is a Germanic language now.

Besides, France was 95 to 140 years longer under Roman rule than Britain. Spain....even longer.

. Not because British local elites sought any kind of independence from the Roman Empire, but nonetheless, there was unrest, since Britain was such an isolated and backward provinces. Local elites felt cut off from the centre of Imperial power in northern Italy, and therefore would frequently proclaim an Emperor of their own in the hope of redressing the balance. In Germania, which will be even more backward than Britain, this problem will happen again, and again, and again.

The problem of those proclamations is IMHO rather driven from within the military and by the ambitions of certain commanders.
Please give an example where an usurper who sought to go to Rome did so in order to placate the "local elites" wish to
have access to imperial influence.
Ex-post connections between the region of an emperor's origin and the seat of power are only natural and not restricted to
Britannia and other remote places.
The solution is not a restriction of expansion, but to solve the structural problems in the legitimacy of the government
which allow soliders to usurp power that frequently.

If insurrections which happen in order to keep a distant province functional and able to defend itself while being out of Rome's
focus occur in Germania instead of Gaul, I do not see a major problem. The major factor in allowing insurrections is the number of garrisons, however, IMHO.

Even if Augustus conquers Germania (something that could be done fairly easily IMHO)

Conquest in the sense of having an army crossing undefeated is easy- but invites giving up the place again.
The more step-by-step and long-term the scenario becomes, the more workable becomes conquest as well as holding the place.

It is a bit like the moon.

it will be given up pretty quickly due to the instability of the province and its potential to throw up numerous revolts.

The same reason why Iudaea was given up?

Much better to have an independent Germania into which the Romans can go on glory hunting expeditions every twenty years or so, than having to pacify a restless province,

Even if it would play out that way - not that much of a difference.

I should quote ATL's imperator Germanicus: "It is the Roman destiny to allow all of mankind to live under the rational and just rule of Roman civilization. This includes the forests, hills and valleys of Germania Magna, strange as they may seem to us. We Romans don't chose to go there and ignite the light of Romanitas because it is easy, but because it is difficult."

Your citation of Cologne, Trier and Xanten are invalid anyway- these were in Romano-Celtic Gaul, not Germanic Germania.

Your point fully concerning Aug.Treverorum

The first settlers in the sites becoming CCAA and CUT were displaced Germans from the right side of the Rhine, Ubians respectively Sugambrians.

Turned out they were able to become Romano-Germanic.