No Teutoburg

How would germanic history and the fate of rome been affected by one single event that brought a psychological effect on them similar to 9/11 in america?
 
I really don't see the Romans holding on to northwestern Germany. It would be too expensive, and too poorly-suited for villa agriculture. For comparison, the Romans conquered, or almost conquered, Caledonia twice, and abandoned it both times.
 
Rome didn't need to conquer the barbarians, just civilize them to the point where they were if not allies then could build a stable government apparatus much like Rome.
 
Rome didn't need to conquer the barbarians, just civilize them to the point where they were if not allies then could build a stable government apparatus much like Rome.

And they could conscript troops to fight in the Roman army, and they could procure slaves to work for Roman patricians... look at the role of the client states in the Roman system in our time line.
 
The Romans really didn't need those lands- like Britain, they were consistently a drain on Imperial coffers, required excessive military spending, and didn't provide any resources. Even Dacia, which was conquered significantly later, provided resource for the Empire. Of course, logic never had much to do with Roman warfare, so it's entirely likely that they would keep them, if it didn't become too difficult.

But to prevent Teutoburg, you need a governor with more tact than Varus- he consistently treated Germany like a long held province such as Asia, and attempted to exploit it in classic Roman Governor style.

Additionally, after about Tiberius, the likelihood of the governor of that province revolting is significantly increased by the number of troops required to hold it- another factor in not keeping/not conquering it.
 
It's unlikely they see a point in holding it directly for long, but without the shadow of Teutoberg, you're likely to see more interaction across the Rhine. The result of this will be a faster urbanization of the Germans there. There is a point in the urbanization process and in the development of agriculture, that would allow Germania to produce significant surpluses where it would make sense for the Romans to annex it, but how soon that happens before all hell starts breaking loose in the 4th century is a question for someone more knowledgeable than me.
 
Not much would have changed, most likely. The Romans would have almost certainly made further inroads to Germania. They may have even been able to hold the low countries for the while, as the Batavi and Frisii who inhabited the area were Roman client states. However, the problems with conquering Germania extend beyond just one catastrophic battle. The land was swampy in many places, it was thick with forests from which the Germanics frequently waged guerilla warfare, and it likely would've been just too much work to hold for an extended period, given how violently opposed the Germanics were to Roman rule.
 
Not much would have changed, most likely. The Romans would have almost certainly made further inroads to Germania. They may have even been able to hold the low countries for the while, as the Batavi and Frisii who inhabited the area were Roman client states. However, the problems with conquering Germania extend beyond just one catastrophic battle. The land was swampy in many places, it was thick with forests from which the Germanics frequently waged guerilla warfare, and it likely would've been just too much work to hold for an extended period, given how violently opposed the Germanics were to Roman rule.

Originally, there wasn't that much violent opposition to Roman rule. The Germans let the Romans march in, and didn't kick up too much of a fuss until Varus treated the province like a longheld, established province, and kicked the hornets nest.

I believe it's the Roman system, and more specifically, Varus's fault that the Romans lost Germania. It's not that they can't defeat the Germans, because they tended to enjoy doing that, but that it's like punching jello at this stage in the Germanic development- destroying a kingdom only causes another to form, which was bound to happen anyway.

The Roman system wasn't particularly good at conquering territory that was not at least mildly centralized. The Gauls had reasonably large (for the time) cities, moderate levels of infrastructure, and they were still a hassle to conquer.
 
The Romans really didn't need those lands- like Britain, they were consistently a drain on Imperial coffers, required excessive military spending, and didn't provide any resources. Even Dacia, which was conquered significantly later, provided resource for the Empire. Of course, logic never had much to do with Roman warfare, so it's entirely likely that they would keep them, if it didn't become too difficult.

Silver and lead aren't important? Those were two motivators for the invasion in the first place.
 
Silver and lead aren't important? Those were two motivators for the invasion in the first place.

I don't believe those were the motivators, or at least the full incentive to go out and conquer Britain. Claudius needed some sort of military success under his reign to cement his power, and Britain presented itself. Caesar had failed at it, which meant good press for Claudius if he succeeded, and it was remote from the Roman world.
 
I don't believe those were the motivators, or at least the full incentive to go out and conquer Britain. Claudius needed some sort of military success under his reign to cement his power, and Britain presented itself. Caesar had failed at it, which meant good press for Claudius if he succeeded, and it was remote from the Roman world.

Again, he also needed more silver and lead, for coins and pipes respectively. Claudius didn't just chase for prestige; IIRC he was a fairly intelligent and thoughtful emperor.
 
Again, he also needed more silver and lead, for coins and pipes respectively. Claudius didn't just chase for prestige; IIRC he was a fairly intelligent and thoughtful emperor.

He was a decent emperor, but it wasn't "prestige chasing" for the sake of prestige chasing. He needed some measure of military success to prevent the Senate from hounding him- which it did nonetheless.

There are better places nearby to conquer for resources. Iberia always had more, and Dacia would have made more sense- Britain always required too much military commitment, what with Caledonian incursions and all.
 
Top