Drusus Lives

Ok, I've one another historic survival that I would like to present to you all. What if Nero Claudius Drusus (Germanicus' father and the Roman conqueror of Germania) had survived, or better yet avoided his fall from his horse in 9 BC. He was brother of Tiberius but more importantly closer in the succession than Tiberius; so had Drusus not died so untimely, he would not only have possibly had a much firmer grip on Rome's tenuous province of Germania, but also most likely have succeeded Augustus after his death. So I'm wondering, what effects do you think Drusus would have had had he survived?

I for one believe his excellent military talents would have been very useful in Germania during (if the revolt happened at all) Arminius rebellion. Not to mention without the sometime less experienced command of Varus, the disaster that altered Rome's destiny would not occur. Then of course without Drusus' death, conquest of Bohemia under Tiberius could occur quicker (with Drusus alive, no replacement will be needed in Germania). This could mean that the Marcomanni are defeated before the Illyrian revolt if we look at this most optimistically.

And should Drusus succeed Augustus, you could be left with an expansionist Roman Empire, led by a well known, charismatic and hugely popular soldier-emperor, one fit for new conquests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Claudius_Drusus_Germanicus

So, any opinions? Thanks for your time.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Well, before Eurofed comes into the thread;)

Drusus would definitely handle Arminius a lot better, but IMO, Teutoberger Wald is overrated anyways.

It only really became the definative "The Romans stopped expansion in Germania" theory during the rise of German Nationalism (Though I'm sure Gibbon goes into great detail about it.)

Drusus lives?

Arminius's revolt is never launched/fails for starters. A more lively Emperor than Tiberius assumes the throne (Although I suspect that Tiberius might be at fault, but I don't have anything to back that.)
 
Teutoberg as a battle itself was a pretty spectacular defeat, but it was never something the Roman's couldn't recover from. I think the issue with the battle lies with Augustus' fragile mental state (at least after it). His stubborn refusal to even attempt to regain what was lost, was why the battle or rather its effects on Augustus played such a large role. Augustus' will stipulated that no war be made with the Germanic tribes, and so once Tiberius had followed it (as you say; great fault with his successors), the Rhine was steadfast established.

It wasn't something black and white, but I'm pretty sure Drusus could really "rescue" the situation, had he not taken an unfortunate fall.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Teutoberg as a battle itself was a pretty spectacular defeat, but it was never something the Roman's couldn't recover from. I think the issue with the battle lies with Augustus' fragile mental state (at least after it). His stubborn refusal to even attempt to regain what was lost, was why the battle or rather its effects on Augustus played such a large role. Augustus' will stipulated that no war be made with the Germanic tribes, and so once Tiberius had followed it (as you say; great fault with his successors), the Rhine was steadfast established.

It wasn't something black and white, but I'm pretty sure Drusus could really "rescue" the situation, had he not taken an unfortunate fall.

Yeah, but Germanicus did send 8 legions into Germania, so there's that to consider.

I'd prefer to keep this discussion close to the POD, and not venture off into the time that it would take to reach Eurofed's Vistula river boundary.
 
Haha maybe I should make this more clear. I'm totally against a Vistula Border (logistics, logistics) and much prefer Elbe, and if I'm stretching a Viadua. But yeah, stick to the topic.

It seems a waste that a military leader who appeared to have great potential died in just a simple (and a little comedic) fashion. He had beaten all the tribes but couldn't battle against gravity and his horse. :D His family did however produce an Emperor (Claudius, ironically the family idiot) and I'm sure had Drusus succeeded as Emperor, Germanicus too would have made quite an heir, perhaps cementing an even stronger dynasty?
 
Haha maybe I should make this more clear. I'm totally against a Vistula Border (logistics, logistics) and much prefer Elbe, and if I'm stretching a Viadua. But yeah, stick to the topic.

It seems a waste that a military leader who appeared to have great potential died in just a simple (and a little comedic) fashion. He had beaten all the tribes but couldn't battle against gravity and his horse. :D His family did however produce an Emperor (Claudius, ironically the family idiot) and I'm sure had Drusus succeeded as Emperor, Germanicus too would have made quite an heir, perhaps cementing an even stronger dynasty?

Don't forget Caligula <shudders>, who was the son of Germanicus and Agrippina (and Claudius' nephew)...
 
Oh darn, Caligula is going to be an issue. Arguably he was influenced greatly in his mental state by the violence he experienced as a child, with many of his relatives dying in gruesome ways (he came close to that too) during Tiberius' reign of terror in his later days of paranoia. So by bypassing that we may end up with a better rule. Of course, I emphasise the "may"
 

Vivisfugue

Banned
I've been on an I, Claudius binge lately (both the miniseries and Graves' book), so the Julio-Claudian family tree is fresh in mind. Caligula had two older brothers, Drusus and Nero (not the Emperor of the same name) who were exiled/murdered by Tiberius, so in a Drusus-survives scenario (with Tiberius in eclipse) Caligula might have ended up a relatively obscure Roman profligate (think Roger Clinton or Billy Carter) rather than the last word in laurel-crowned insanity.
 
Well there we go! The question is, were Drusus and Nero good heirs? Unfortunately killed young but without Tiberius I'm assuming that they wouldn't be so disastrous. And better yet, Nero would remain a fashionable name in those days! :p
 
Okay, assuming Drusus living means Rome has stable provinces in Germania and Bohemia, that Drusus instead of Tiberius is the second First Citizen, that Germanicus doesn't die in 19 and is the third First Citizen and the fourth is a good, wise Nero son of Germanicus.

But what do we figure Rome is like in the 2nd Century? Do Julio-Claudians continue a dynasty? Do we have basically the same thing as in OTL, or do we maybe end up with something less stable?
 
I would like to point out that Germanicus would quite likely have died in 19 anyway, assuming that the Armenian problem cropped up in this TTL. Despite having a more lively Emperor than Tiberius and a more stable Rhine border the Empeor, assuming he follows Augustus' later tradition would still give power to subisdiary General's and Germanicus would have been the obvious choice.

Though Suetonius points to Tiberius and Lidia as the cause of Germanicus' death via poisoning or some such and points to their absence from his OTL funeral as proof, the usefullness of Suetonius and Tacitus in their portrayal of Tiberius is suspect throughout and as such it would be quite possible, if not more likely that Germanicus died of a fever or natural disease thus Germanicus' sons would be heir.

What the years following Drusus reign as princeps hinge on is if Caligula was mad by nature or by nuture. If it is the former then it is quite possible his madness could result in a similar situation to real life with the killing off of his siblings but if it is the latter it is quite possible for more stable rule.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Haha maybe I should make this more clear. I'm totally against a Vistula Border (logistics, logistics) and much prefer Elbe, and if I'm stretching a Viadua.

Speaking in a general sense, it never fails to amuse/annoy me that on this board there are so many people that invoke "logistics" like an immutable physical law that only gets changed in geological times, when in real life, roads, railroads, and (air)ports get built, canals dug, sealanes mapped, etc all the time. Must be the Greys to build all that infrastructure stuff, because we humans are notoriously wholly incapable of using technology to bypass logistical difficulties, and are stuck with using the same travel and settlement patterns we used in the Neolithic.

:p:rolleyes:
 
Speaking in a general sense, it never fails to amuse/annoy me that on this board there are so many people that invoke "logistics" like an immutable physical law that only gets changed in geological times, when in real life, roads, railroads, and (air)ports get built, canals dug, sealanes mapped, etc all the time. Must be the Greys to build all that infrastructure stuff, because we humans are notoriously wholly incapable of using technology to bypass logistical difficulties, and are stuck with using the same travel and settlement patterns we used in the Neolithic.

:p:rolleyes:
Well, it's probably partly a reaction to people who completely ignore logistics and want the Romans to attack China from supply bases in ?Anatolia?

But, certainly, in this case the Romans would take Europe in chunks, so they don't have a logistics chain stretching all the way back to Rome - which they didn't any way.

From Gaul to the Rhine. THen to the Elbe. Civilize that area, make farms etc., then move to the Oder, pause, then to the Vistula. No horrible logistics involved anywhere.

Administering an empire that big would be tough. Getting goods to market would be tough. Invasion, probably not so tough if you do it right.
 
Top