Could Rome have annexed the entire Pannonian Basin after the Dacian Wars?

As the title asks. Wikipedia says, without citation, that 'the plain is a major agricultural area; it is sometimes said that these fields of rich loamy loess soil could feed the whole of Europe'. Could this lead to a population boom in the empire, especially after the increase in town size following the Dacian Wars? I'd assume that the Romans would use the Carpathians, or the rivers north of it, as a boundary, as well as annex the lowlands between the eastern Carpathians and the Danube too for geographical solidity. Is this plausible? What would it take to get the Romans to do so? I understand that the area was composed of tribes other than Dacians; could their involvement in the Dacian Wars prompt Rome to conquer them too?
 
As the title asks. Wikipedia says, without citation, that 'the plain is a major agricultural area; it is sometimes said that these fields of rich loamy loess soil could feed the whole of Europe'. Could this lead to a population boom in the empire, especially after the increase in town size following the Dacian Wars? I'd assume that the Romans would use the Carpathians, or the rivers north of it, as a boundary, as well as annex the lowlands between the eastern Carpathians and the Danube too for geographical solidity. Is this plausible? What would it take to get the Romans to do so? I understand that the area was composed of tribes other than Dacians; could their involvement in the Dacian Wars prompt Rome to conquer them too?

The Romans DID conquer the area. The province of Sarmatia had been created there by the last years of the Marcomannian Wars, but the death of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus's haste to make it back to Rome caused a final retreat from the newly conquered, still unruly area.
 
Okay, so, er, anyone else? How could the Pannonian Basin have been maintained, preferably without distorting the order of emperors by removing Commodus?
 
Okay, so, er, anyone else? How could the Pannonian Basin have been maintained, preferably without distorting the order of emperors by removing Commodus?

Giving Aurelius some extra years might help a lot I think.
The problem is that after Commodus, the Empire is likely going to suffer troubles of various kind, so that honlding onto a newly conquered and still unaderpopulated border region might be a low priority.
OTOH, is "Sarmatia" is kept (Severus reign might be enough to consolidate the gain) that would push the barbarians WAY further from the core regions of the empire, that in turn would better the military situation a bit.
Dacia wouldn't be an isolated salient and likely won't be abandoned in 270. The Goths might have a harder time to push through.
More important, the Danube has just changed from a borderline to a major internal communication line.
Some of the worse problems of the empire are alleviated. I doubt it would be enough to save Rome, but the frontier is more secure for a while.
 
Giving Aurelius some extra years might help a lot I think.
The Goths might have a harder time to push through.
More important, the Danube has just changed from a borderline to a major internal communication line.
Some of the worse problems of the empire are alleviated. I doubt it would be enough to save Rome, but the frontier is more secure for a while.

Maybe, or it just means more territory for the Goths to overrun. If they don't have to cross the Danube infiltrating the Empire would probably be easier, and if the Danube is a major waterway it could very well mean the process of crossing it could be easier and just mean the Romans surrender more territory quicker.

I'm not sure how having the Danube as an internal communication line would help, seeing as the Romans already had excellent commincation lines for the time and it gives them more territory that they need to communicate with.

The main problem is that the Roman Empire was already stretched pretty thin, hence the whole tetrarchy solution. Of course I could be conpletely wrong and the long term effect of having the entire Pannonian Basin in the Empire may have been far more positive, and maybe triggered someone to have made reforms similar to the tetrarchy in ambition but far more successful, leading to the coordination necessary to hold onto this territory.


Another extremely valuable territory similar to this would be Mesopotamia, another of Trajan's conquests.
 
Maybe, or it just means more territory for the Goths to overrun. If they don't have to cross the Danube infiltrating the Empire would probably be easier, and if the Danube is a major waterway it could very well mean the process of crossing it could be easier and just mean the Romans surrender more territory quicker.

I'm not sure how having the Danube as an internal communication line would help, seeing as the Romans already had excellent commincation lines for the time and it gives them more territory that they need to communicate with.

The main problem is that the Roman Empire was already stretched pretty thin, hence the whole tetrarchy solution. Of course I could be conpletely wrong and the long term effect of having the entire Pannonian Basin in the Empire may have been far more positive, and maybe triggered someone to have made reforms similar to the tetrarchy in ambition but far more successful, leading to the coordination necessary to hold onto this territory.


Another extremely valuable territory similar to this would be Mesopotamia, another of Trajan's conquests.

IMVHO, the Carpathians were a better frontier than the Danube, as in, more defensible and shorter.
In theory the Danube would provide a second line of defense, but Imperial Rome did not think that way. Army was deployed along the frontiers, period. Having to control a larger area might force a change in this, which would be positive. I am not sure that the Romans would be stretched thinner by control of the basin. Dacia was a salient and conquest would shorten the line a lot.
Of course, this without considering that if Aurelius conquests stick, Marcomannia would provide another stretched salient.
However, it can go several ways, either strengthening or weakening the Empire.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Okay, so, er, anyone else? How could the Pannonian Basin have been maintained, preferably without distorting the order of emperors by removing Commodus?

Well, you'd have to make a different Commodus.
Reconquest by Severus is always an option, but reconquests are not exactly "loved" by the Romans. The Romans weren't exactly sore losers, if they lost, they lost. They weren't into rematches.
Even if that happened, it would be mismanaged by Caracalla and Alexander Severus, and Aurelian would just cut it off with the rest of Dacia.
 
Top