Could Emperor Tiberius have conquered Germania?

[Gukpard]

This short documentary shows the campaigns of Germanicus inside Germania after Teuteburg, and teached me very interesting things, like how the Romans even found the place of the battle and buried the roman soldiers, while taking back as much spoils they could and even recovered the eagle of one of the legions.

However as the documentary says after the battle of the Angrivarian wall, Emperor Tiberius decided that it was not worth conquering Germania and redeployed Germanicus to asia minor, where he died. Let's say that Tiberius decided to create a new defensive line and push further into Germania, and so he reinforced Germanicus even more and ordered him to push the Roman border to the Elbe, creating a natural defensive border just like they did on the OTL while securing the low countries. What could have changed?

 

[m0585]

If the empire was willing to put forth the money and resources towards the effort then I don't see why not. The problem is, Rome never saw it worth the effort after Varus' catastrophe.

 

[Mikestone8]

If the empire was willing to put forth the money and resources towards the effort then I don't see why not. The problem is, Rome never saw it worth the effort after Varus' catastrophe.

They were probably right.

The Elbe is situated somewhat further north than the Rhine so would probably freeze over more often, making it less effective as a barrier.

 

[Thoresby]

At this stage the tribes couldn't stop Rome if Rome really wanted to take over however it will be a poorer and weaker Rome. Gaul is still very Gallic and fairly un-Romanised so the balance of net drain to net gain provinces is worse and in the long run the Elbe is a less defensible border than the Rhine.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

He certainly could have, but then he wouldn't have been the Roman Emperor who accumulated 2,700,000,000 sesterces.

 

[Gukpard]

They were probably right.

The Elbe is situated somewhat further north than the Rhine so would probably freeze over more often, making it less effective as a barrier.

He certainly could have, but then he wouldn't have been the Roman Emperor who accumulated 2,700,000,000 sesterces.

All right, so he advances all the way into the elbe and builts a elbe barrier there, distantling the Rhine one. What happens on the long run? Could this delay the collapse of the Roman empire, sine the barbarians would now have to pass through both the Elbe and the Rhine and the tribes in between could be romanized in the 300 years before the invasion comes?

And when the time of troubles come in the third century, could the Gallic Empire also have control of Roman Germania?

And in the very future, the Frankish tribes that moved into modern day france and paved the way to both modern France and to the HRE came from the rhine, on this scenario however they would been under roman control as they habitated the lower and middle rhineland, could we have maybe other tribe like the Rugii or even a nordic tribe to move into Gallia?

 

[Mikestone8]

And when the time of troubles come in the third century, could the Gallic Empire also have control of Roman Germania?

Or just be abandoned as Dacia was.

 

[Gukpard]

Or just be abandoned as Dacia was.

Dacia wasn't as defensive as a elbe border could be for many reasons, like the lack of a river that could be used as a natural barrier. The romans retreated behind the danube and created a natural border that lasted for centuries and didn't crossed it even when they had the resources to for that reason. The Elbe is a river like the danube, it comes from northern Germany all the way into the Czech republic and so it could be as a natural border as the Danube was.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Is there any particular reason why the Weser couldn't have been used rather than the Elbe?

If the Romans take the Elbe, wouldn't they need the rest of their border to be on the Sudetens and Carpathians?

 

[Amateur]

What could have changed?

The Elbe River freezes far more often than the Rhine, and in some years the upper Elbe flow drops to a trickle relative to the Rhine.

Holding the Elbe River as the frontier would require a much, much greater investment of Roman resources, for they would have to build far more extensive fortifications than were needed along the Rhine and the new territory would be harder to subdue and police due to terrain. The territory added by moving the frontier east was heavily forested and of very limited economic value to the grain-and-grape-loving Romans, so the financing of the Elbe frontier fortifications and suppression of rebellions would come at the expense of activity elsewhere, such as Britain, Spain, or Armenia -- all areas of much greater economic importance to Rome.

 

[Gukpard]

Is there any particular reason why the Weser couldn't have been used rather than the Elbe?

If the Romans take the Elbe, wouldn't they need the rest of their border to be on the Sudetens and Carpathians?

The Elbe goes all the way close to Denmark until the sudeten, it is way longer than the Weser and could hold more territory under roman control.

Holding the Elbe River as the frontier would require a much, much greater investment of Roman resources, for they would have to build far more extensive fortifications than were needed along the Rhine and the new territory would be harder to subdue and police due to terrain. The territory added by moving the frontier east was heavily forested and of very limited economic value to the grain-and-grape-loving Romans, so the financing of the Elbe frontier fortifications and suppression of rebellions would come at the expense of activity elsewhere, such as Britain, Spain, or Armenia -- all areas of much greater economic importance to Rome.

At 16 AD the Roman empire was very close to their maximun extent borders, so this expense could be compensated, could it not?

 

[Amateur]

At 16 AD the Roman empire was very close to their maximun extent borders, so this expense could be compensated, could it not?

Actually, the maximum borders would include adding Britain, Dacia, Mesopotamia, Armnenia, Assyria, and Arabia Petraea. Which is a lot of extra territory.

The Roman Empire under Tiberius was expanding, but it could not expand everywhere at the same time. Devoting resources to conquering and holding Germania, a forested waste as far as the Romans were concerned, would come at the expense of Roman activity elsewhere such as sticking it to those pesky Parthians.

Could they have done it? Probably. Why would they do it? I would think continuing the conquest of Gaul by invading Gaulish Britain made a lot more sense, as happened a bit later OTL.