Persia or Germania...which one is the most important for Rome...?

Wasn't the muslims enjoying such early success more due to absolutely amazing timing on their part than anything else?
Rome and Persia had juts been beating the shit out of each other for the past 26 years (longer even albeit with some lengthy peaces) in between. The Arabs overran an utterly exhausted empire. Its almost as if god really was on their side their timing was so spot on.
 
I'm not too sure, an assimilated Germania may be valuable, it seems to me that Germanic invasions had more of a negative impact than the Roman-Persian Wars, though then again assimilate Germania and most of Europe and you still have a fervent Arab invasion once the Persians and Romans have tired each other out.
 
Alright everyone, to simplify things up, here I have 3 scenarios:
1. Rome successfully assimilate Germania up to Vistula-Dniester line, they supply the Vistula border through North Sea and Dniester border through Black Sea, heavy plough is invented and intensively used, Germania turned into huge population base, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards were all butterflied away. However, Rome kept Euphrates as a frontier agains Parthians/Sassanids.
2. Rome annexed and succesfully hold Mesopotamia and Armenia, Persia proper divided into numerous kingdoms that either allied or hostile to Rome and keep fighting each other. Rome kept Rhine and Danube as her northern frontiers, though.
3. Rome did all of those things.

So, of course it is Rome numb. 3 that have higher chance of survival. But how about Rome numb. 1 and 2...?
 

Tellus

Banned
1 is better than 2, IMO.

It creates a much stronger Roman core. In these times, distances mattered alot, and Persia is much further away than forests of Germania. #1 is likely to create more sentiment of "being Romans" where it matters, removing the threat of a Hun invasion. With Germania secure, where could the army that destroys the Empire comes from?

#1 is really likely to fall only because of internal factors. It will also create much more serious successor states - in fact, it might be sufficient to ensure a legally-viable successor state survive WELL past the fall of Byzantium.

I dont see such longevity in #2. That scenario would strengthen Byzantium once Rome fell, sure, but Rome would fall nonetheless.
 
1 is better than 2, IMO.

It creates a much stronger Roman core. In these times, distances mattered alot, and Persia is much further away than forests of Germania.
Actually not.
Do'nt be misled by modern maps: in roman times to go from italy to germany you had to go through gaul.
Also there were not decent roads nor well-trodden merchant routes there.
On the other hand, communications with Persia were many and economically viable

removing the threat of a Hun invasion. With Germania secure, where could the army that destroys the Empire comes from?
From the same place where they come in OTL.
Trans danubian steppes.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Actually not.
Do'nt be misled by modern maps: in roman times to go from italy to germany you had to go through gaul.
Also there were not decent roads nor well-trodden merchant routes there.

In time, they would be surely built and developed in abundance. We are talking about the centuries-long, long-term outcome for Rome.

From the same place where they come in OTL.
Trans danubian steppes.

Without all the Germanic tribes to act as vassal and spearhead manpower, they are much less of a threat.
 
> lack of decent roads
In time, they would be surely built and developed in abundance. We are talking about the centuries-long, long-term outcome for Rome.
Actually that is a two-fold problem
You need roads (or at least-well defined merchant routes) to have a penetration of roman values in Germania Libera and thus making it a valuable piece of the empire (from the economical point of view).
On the other hand, you need a serious economic motivation (usually the presence of would-be-buyers of goods, i.e. a romanized community) to actually make the effort of building roads.
Also please take in account that a romanized germany would provide far less recruits to the Roman Army that OTL Germania Libera.


> Huns not coming from Germany
Without all the Germanic tribes to act as vassal and spearhead manpower, they are much less of a threat.
IIRC the only tribe coming from germany was the Franks Ripuarii (or Salii ? I am not sure; one was with attila, the other with the romans).
Eastern Goths, while being an ethnically germanic tribe, were not in germany at all (While Western Goths fought not with Attila, but against him).
Alani were Caucasus-based, while Gepids were Dacia-based.
Also, according to the memorial of Prisco embassy, there were plenty of romans (landless, fugitive slaves, indebted, ruined by taxation, or just brigands ) who aligned with him.
Even in well-romanized Gallia he found allies (Bagaudes).
 
IIRC the only tribe coming from germany was the Franks Ripuarii (or Salii ? I am not sure; one was with attila, the other with the romans).

Ripuarian Franks fought for Attila, Salians for Rome.

Eastern Goths, while being an ethnically germanic tribe, were not in germany at all (While Western Goths fought not with Attila, but against him).
Alani were Caucasus-based, while Gepids were Dacia-based.


If McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Ancient History is to be believed, Goths and Gepids were still on the Baltic in AD9, well east of the Elbe I don't know how definite our information is, but some of the tribes could even have been still in Scandinavia.
 
Hmm, I guess you're correct. But there's no way you could say even 4th Century Rome was as strong as the earlier Empire. The use of unruly Germanic mercenaries was really one of the biggest short term causes of Rome's collapse, but one thing I don't really remember the reason for is why did Rome have to rely so much on Barbarian man power? I think I read the reason before but can't recall it. Another thing; why had the legionairres of the 5th Century's equipment declined so much? When I see some reconstructions of finds from that era the soldiers equipment seems to have decayed loads in quality.

The use of Germanic mercenaries within the legions of the fourth and fifth centuries was really no different to the use of non citizen troops within the earlier empire, a very common practise, so they can't really be blamed for any "decline" by the fourth century. The main reason for a decline in citizen legions was the massive ramping up of taxes from the central state in response to the Persian threat- IIRC, taxes across the Empire went up by something like a third, which tied peasants to their land to a great extent, and did much to squash the traditional urban life that had flourished in the first and second centuries. Essentially, the fourth century looked different to the second pretty much entirely because of the Sassanids.

Regarding equipment of the fifth century, there's a pretty simpe reason for this- a continually collapsing taxation base to fund the army. The loss of first Britain, then Spain, and finally and most importantly, Africa, robbed the Western Roman state of a massive amount of manpower. Furthermore, the sustained revolt of Constantine of Britain in the early fifth century took away many of the empire's prize troops, who were then destroyed in the following reestablishment of control from Ravenna. The cash strapped Empire of the 420s and 430s then promoted the rather less well equipped garrison troops, the Limitanei into proper Comitatenses field armies, to save money. This is why you see something of a decline in Roman arms and equipment in the West in the fifth century.

It should be noted though, that this process did not happen in the East, despite an equal use of barbarian mercenaries, that would continue right up to 1453. The soldiers on Justinian's famous Ravenna mosaic look well armed and fed, and Justinian and his successors were still operating "proper" legionary armies, albeit with much more cavalry support than in the West, until the massive civil wars and Persian conflicts of 608-628 performed a similar function in the East that the conflicts and invasions of the 410s-430s had done in the West. Even then, once the Eastern Empire recovered in the later eighth and ninth centuries, it was once more able to field an impressively heavily armoured professional army, that was able to comprehensively restore Constantinople's hegemony from Italy to the Caucasus. See here for some tenth century Roman soldiers.

Two main reasons: population and economic decline.

As I've stated above, the economy of the fourth and earlier fifth century was enjoying a sustained boom, thanks to the introduction of the new coinage by Constantine, the Solidus (Nomismata in the East). The populace was also recovering strongly from the plagues of the third century, and would continue growing at an impressive rate until 542 put a stop to all that. These explanations might seem superficially attractive, but on closer inspection, fall apart quite quickly.
 
why had the legionaires of the 5th Century's equipment declined so much? When I see some reconstructions of finds from that era the soldiers equipment seems to have decayed loads in quality.

Afraid this is a common misconception.
Allow me to state this clearly: military equipment in late roman empire was better than the one of early roman empire/republic.

- Cavalry equipment was better all around; I don't think I have to explain why.
- composite bow (and compulsory bow practice) was introduced, giving the soldiers an effective throwing weapon
- Lorica Hamata was substituted by pressed linen tunic. Strange as it may seem, this was an improvement in protection capabilities. You must not think to an ancient sword as a lasersabre cutting through steel and stone, but rather as a badly-sharpened cutlass which was often used as a club. If the blows you have to protect against are blowing rather than cutting in nature, then a pressed linen tunic is a better protection than a iron armour. And it is much lighter, too.
I agree that Lorica Hamata and Segmentata is more "stylish" and "cool" to see, but it is worse.
- Gladius was substituted by the longer Spatha. This, too, was an improvement, caused by an improvement on forging techniques. Gladius had to have a short wide blade, so that it would not break down. In late empire times, improved forging techniques allowed to make longer weapons that would not break down.
As any soldier will confirm you, a longer weapon is better.
- Hasta was introduced for all soldiers
- war machines (onagri, ballistae, carroballistae, scorpiones) were much more improved and were not only siege engines, but weapons to be deployed in the field, too.
- the smaller (500-1000 men) units of the later empire were much more effective than the enormous phalanxes (4000 + 5000 auxilia) of the early one (shorted chain of command)
 
Errr, no one else want to answer my questions, yet...?

So here I have a question, did Rome need to conquer both of Germania (up to Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester line) and Persia (either up to Zagros mountains or Oxus/Indus rivers) to ensure her survival, or she only need to conquer just one of them...?

1. Rome successfully assimilate Germania up to Vistula-Dniester line, they supply the Vistula border through North Sea and Dniester border through Black Sea, heavy plough is invented and intensively used, Germania turned into huge population base, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards were all butterflied away. However, Rome kept Euphrates as a frontier agains Parthians/Sassanids.
2. Rome annexed and succesfully hold Mesopotamia and Armenia, Persia proper divided into numerous kingdoms that either allied or hostile to Rome and keep fighting each other. Rome kept Rhine and Danube as her northern frontiers, though.
3. Rome did all of those things.

So, of course it is Rome numb. 3 that have higher chance of survival. But how about Rome numb. 1 and 2...?
 
As I've already explained, Rome needed to do neither to survive- indeed, conquering Germania and Persia will likely lead to the Empire fracturing into numerous warring states within a century or two at most.
 
I agree with Basileus, the only other thing you might want to do is not have trajan expand the empire so much in the east.
 
Rome successfully assimilate Germania up to Vistula-Dniester line, they supply the Vistula border through North Sea and Dniester border through Black Sea, heavy plough is invented and intensively used, Germania turned into huge population base, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards were all butterflied away.
You might remove these individuals, but you transfer sail technology along with ploughes to Scandinavia sooner than on OTL and so get earlier Vikings. am not saying that they are any worse than the Anglo-Saxon-Jute riffraff that invaded Britain on OTL, but the are not any better either.
 
Errr, why?
Wouldn't it brought wealths and glories to the Empire...?
Afterall, there is Carrhae to avenge...

Wealth and glory does not equal long term stability, indeed, short term glory leads to overstretch and collapse- see Nazi Germany for the best example of this. Carrhae in any case was "avenged" by Augustus who bought back the legionary eagles- there was no score to settle after this.
 
Top