Maximinius Thrax and Germania Magna

Maximinus Thrax and Germania Magna

Maximinus Thrax conducted large-scale operations deep in Germania Magna, and planned for the eventual annexation of the entire region. If he had lived longer, could he have pulled it of? If yes, what would the consequenses be for the Roman Empire?
 
Last edited:
IIRC, Maximinus Thrax wanted to conquer all Germanic land up to the Baltic Coast. I don't know if he had the Vistula-Dniester line in mind (Eurofed?).
 
Last edited:
No idea what eastern border he had in mind, but keep in mind that Germania Magna wouldn't exactly have been a rich province, since the plough for heavy soils wasn't invented yet. Thus, the conquest might've been too costly.
 
No idea what eastern border he had in mind, but keep in mind that Germania Magna wouldn't exactly have been a rich province, since the plough for heavy soils wasn't invented yet. Thus, the conquest might've been too costly.

Depends.

Certainly, without the heavy plough, the province would never be profitable. The more land he conquered, the higher the costs would be - which by itself might be a reason for Roman downfall in this ATL. If the Romans somehow manage to hold Germania Magna up to the Elbe, and maybe OTL Hungary and Bohemia up to the Carpatian mountains, a sideeffect might be that the migration period might be avoided or have a lesser extend on a larger Roman Empire which already integrated a large Germanic population.

Nevertheless, I'd say the most plausible outcome of this would be that the Roman Empire collapses due to overextension, with Thrax being held responsible, even if no migration period happens. To certainly avoid migration, the Romans would have to conquer all lands of the Eastern Germanic tribes early and romanize them before the Huns arrive - and that's ASB.
 
To certainly avoid migration, the Romans would have to conquer all lands of the Eastern Germanic tribes early and romanize them before the Huns arrive - and that's ASB.

And even that wouldn't guarantee it, since the Slavs and Balts would now be adjacent to the Empire, and under that stimulus would soon be prodded into building up larger political units. This is why I suggested North Africa as the place to expand, since the Sahara provides a natural limit within a not impossible distance, as to some extent does the East. Europe doesn't.
 

Eurofed

Banned
And even that wouldn't guarantee it, since the Slavs and Balts would now be adjacent to the Empire, and under that stimulus would soon be prodded into building up larger political units. This is why I suggested North Africa as the place to expand, since the Sahara provides a natural limit within a not impossible distance, as to some extent does the East. Europe doesn't.

The issue is, without the substantial population of the Germanic tribes that accomplished a lasting partial replacement of the European ruiling elites, and are added to the Roman Empire instead, it is highly questionable that unRomanized Slav-Balt barbarian tribes would have had the demographic base to stage the migration period, Huns or not. Without the migration period, the Roman civilization may suffer a period of political fragmentation, but it is highly unlikely that it would have been permanent. In all likelihood, Rome enter a China-like dynastic cycle where the relatively intact parts of the Empire later accomplish reunification (let's say that ITTL the ATL equivalent of the Justinian reconquest is fully successful).

No idea what eastern border he had in mind, but keep in mind that Germania Magna wouldn't exactly have been a rich province, since the plough for heavy soils wasn't invented yet. Thus, the conquest might've been too costly.

It is quite possible and even likely that the heavy plough is invented by Romans because of the conquest of Germania.

Certainly, without the heavy plough, the province would never be profitable. The more land he conquered, the higher the costs would be - which by itself might be a reason for Roman downfall in this ATL. If the Romans somehow manage to hold Germania Magna up to the Elbe, and maybe OTL Hungary and Bohemia up to the Carpatian mountains, a sideeffect might be that the migration period might be avoided or have a lesser extend on a larger Roman Empire which already integrated a large Germanic population.

Nevertheless, I'd say the most plausible outcome of this would be that the Roman Empire collapses due to overextension, with Thrax being held responsible, even if no migration period happens. To certainly avoid migration, the Romans would have to conquer all lands of the Eastern Germanic tribes early and romanize them before the Huns arrive - and that's ASB.

Assuming that the heavy plough is invented soon after the conquest, and so Germania turns profitable, as I expect, there would be no "overextension" whatsoever for Rome by holding Germania. The Vistula-Dniester border is much shorter and easier to defend than the OTL one, and Rome typically assimilated lands of comparable socio-economic and cultural level as Germania (e.g. Britannia, Dacia) in a couple generations. If the PoD butterflies the third century crisis away, and Germania is hence conquered in the early third century, the Huns are not due for another century and half. By that time, Germania would be as Romanized as Gallia.
 
Last edited:
Depends.

Certainly, without the heavy plough, the province would never be profitable. The more land he conquered, the higher the costs would be - which by itself might be a reason for Roman downfall in this ATL. If the Romans somehow manage to hold Germania Magna up to the Elbe, and maybe OTL Hungary and Bohemia up to the Carpatian mountains, a sideeffect might be that the migration period might be avoided or have a lesser extend on a larger Roman Empire which already integrated a large Germanic population.

Nevertheless, I'd say the most plausible outcome of this would be that the Roman Empire collapses due to overextension, with Thrax being held responsible, even if no migration period happens.


Why should it collapse?

Far more likely is that the Legions get fed up with fruitless roaming in the wilderness (I doubt they'll be patient enough to wait a century or two for somebody to invent the heavy plough) whereupon Thrax comes to a sticky end. Between the death of Septimius Severus and the accession of Diocletian, the typical reighn was only around five years, and there's no obvious reason for Thrax to be an exception. OTL he couldn't even fight his way to Rome, never mind go on a career of conquest.

As for Germania, it goes the way of most places that don't promise a quick sesterce - it gets abandoned. Keep in mind that no Teutoburg is required for this. Quite afew places were abandoned without one.
 
I love his name! Maximinius Thrax! Sounds like quite a character :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes, quite a character. He was probably a giant with acromegaly and a hot temper. But the stories about his size (height: 259 cm) and strength (crumbling tufaceous stone) may have been very exagerrated. :)
 
Last edited:
I found this on the Internet. If the heavy plough suggested in this text is pre-3rd Century, it raises the question if it hypothetically would have been possible to use it on the Germanic soil after a conquest by Maximinus Thrax...

"The drought crust plays an important role for agriculture. It was found extending up to 30 cm deep, while drought fissures carried sherds up to 1,50 m deep. The fields are usually ploughed before the first rains at the end of October, but the simple wooden plough, reported by Schumacher (1889) for the traditional Arabs, is hardly able to break the crust. Such a plough only opens the surface of the soil, breaking capillarity and storing moisture in the underground. In general it was thought that this ancient plough design is of advantage in semi-arid areas. But if the drought crust is not fully broken, it dissolves only slowly under the first rains and most of the water runs off (Lucke 2002). Long fields observed in ancient land use systems in Israel could point to the usage of the heavy plough, which is usually expected only in the northern part of the Roman empire (Kuhnen 1989). If the heavy plough was in use in he Decapolis, this would explain why there are no field divisions in the Decapolis region which refer to the classical rectangular system of the simple wooden plough (Lucke 2002, 2003a)."
http://atlas-conferences.com/cgi-bin/abstract/camu-06
 
His first name is pretty odd too - maxi mini us ... Does it mean big little one?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I think the correct spelling is Maximinus. I misspelled it in a previous post.
I don't know what the 'minus' part of his name means (if anything). Maybe some of our latin experts on the board can help us to sort that out? :)
 
Top