Question: Is there any reason for a Roman Denmark

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
If Romans had expanded their borders to the Oder or Vistula river would there be any reason for them to conquer Jutland and maybe Funen and other islands? If there is a reason what is it? Also, would it pay off?
 
From what I've just googled, apparently the country once had lots of salt mining. Other than oil (which wouldn't have a real use back then), I can't think of other resources... anyone else? Anything else that makes Denmark stand out?
 
Roman takeover of Germania is really, really, really implausible.
Even admitting that they'll be able to maintain a coastal control up to Jutland (Oder and Vistula being out of reasonable reach), it would have been hard would it be only to maintain exchange and develop enough infrastructures in Jutland (after having develloped these on German coast).

For salt, it wouldn't have been incitative enough, as Romans beneficied from closer, more develloped, with more infrastructure salt ressources (Gaul and Rethia, essentially)

Eventually, even if there were ressources worthy of attention (slaves, amber, mostly), it was more simple to buy it from Germans, ensuring a continual trade that was benefitial for Roman (Romano-Syrians in Germania) traders, critically compared to the huge cost that investments would have make necessary.
 
True, Gauls had a good salt production, and even nowaday - the famous Garrandes salt...

And what is now Austria, Halstat(?), who may have been roman and exploited back then... maybe.
 
Roman takeover of Germania is really, really, really implausible.
Even admitting that they'll be able to maintain a coastal control up to Jutland (Oder and Vistula being out of reasonable reach), it would have been hard would it be only to maintain exchange and develop enough infrastructures in Jutland (after having develloped these on German coast).

For salt, it wouldn't have been incitative enough, as Romans beneficied from closer, more develloped, with more infrastructure salt ressources (Gaul and Rethia, essentially)

Eventually, even if there were ressources worthy of attention (slaves, amber, mostly), it was more simple to buy it from Germans, ensuring a continual trade that was benefitial for Roman (Romano-Syrians in Germania) traders, critically compared to the huge cost that investments would have make necessary.

This.
If the conquest of Germania could have been considered a money pit, an attempted conquest of Denmark would just be underlining the obvious.
 
Last edited:

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
This is not a question about the plausibility of a Roman Germania. I think that if the Romans won Teutoburg or it never happened the Romans would have continued to expand into Germania later stopping at Oder or Vistula. My question is if there is reason to expand into OTL Denmark.
 
This is not a question about the plausibility of a Roman Germania. I think that if the Romans won Teutoburg or it never happened the Romans would have continued to expand into Germania later stopping at Oder or Vistula. My question is if there is reason to expand into OTL Denmark.

A continued expansion by the Romans into Germania after the Teutoburger Wald is not a foregone conclusion. Most likely, it would have been a temporary expansion, at best. Continued resistance could have blunted an advance well before the Oder. Advancing to the Vistula is a fantasy.

And in answer to your question, since OTL there is no credible reason to expand into Denmark: You would need such a compelling reason (like rumors of the Danes literally shitting gold) to create a plausible POD, that the difficulty frankly boggles the mind.

LSCatilina ably summed up the difficulty for plausibility, earlier.
 
This is not a question about the plausibility of a Roman Germania. I think that if the Romans won Teutoburg or it never happened the Romans would have continued to expand into Germania later stopping at Oder or Vistula. My question is if there is reason to expand into OTL Denmark.

The question is related : as we're dealing with plausibility there to see how Romans could be interested in Jutland in first place, meaning knowing HOW they reach it is important for answering your question.

And, no. Romans didn't have illimitate troops, ressources, motivations to go up to Oder, far less Vistula : Germania was underdevelloped meaning that roads, infrastructures, urban entities, coherant political entitieseverything that allowed the devellopment of Roman power elsewhere* didn't exist in first place.

So, in a realistic way (plausibility being important on the forum), Romans could have reached Danemark by holding North Sea coast as they did on Batavian coast : past that, Jutland provided very few motivation as the main part of Germania : no infrastructures, no ressources that Romans couldn't take from trade in a less expensive way.
It would be treated like it was OTL : a barbarian land not worth the effort to takeover, and at best, you'll have appearance of a germanic league, thanks to contact with Romans as western Germanic leagues appeared along Rhine IOTL, taking over North Sea coast during the IIIth climatic crisis (it could have limited consequences on Western Europe invasions period, of course).

*At the partial exception of northern Britain admittedly, but there's a reason why it wasn't really romanized, and why Romans never took over Caledonia.
 
Maybe if Drusus lives longer and continues exploration of the Baltic coast, Roman rule could be expanded along the coast from Gaul through Frisia all the way to Jutland..
 
If the Romans avoid a Teutogurger Wald scenario and retain hold of Germania Magna to the Elbe, it's probably at least 100 years before the province is profitable enough that an expansion past it could be seriously considered.

That is right around the time of Trajan's annexation of Dacia and Mesopotamia, so conceivably an ambitious emperor might attempt a conquest over the Elbe and towards the Oder. If so, the decision to either build a wall at the Jutland peninsula or an outright conquest is of it are equally plausible. However, just like future emperors abandoned Trajan's conquests, I think any prolonged holding between the Elbe and Oder is very doubtful.

Even if for some reason it was held onto, I'd expect Roman authority to collapse once Rome entered the next period of prolonged political crisis. It's hard to see anything past the Elbe be retained during anything like the Crisis of the Third Century. At some point consolidation is inevitable.

Denmark really didn't have significant resources to justify the expense of developing the area. It's main advantage is that it controls access to the North and Baltic Seas which was not important in the Roman era. There is neither trade to dominate, nor any naval threat to stop.
 

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
And, no. Romans didn't have illimitate troops, ressources, motivations to go up to Oder, far less Vistula : Germania was underdevelloped meaning that roads, infrastructures, urban entities, coherant political entitieseverything that allowed the devellopment of Roman power elsewhere* didn't exist in first place.

Germania had some resources that would be useful to the Romans. Main motivations would be shortening the border and eliminating barbarian threats. As long as Dacia is conquered, the border would shorten, giving them more soldiers for putting down uprisings. The Romans could build roads, infrastructure ect.

It would be treated like it was OTL : a barbarian land not worth the effort to takeover, and at best, you'll have appearance of a germanic league,

Thank you for answering.
 
I still believe that Rome could have taken some bits of what is now germanic speaking (or slavic) lands in theory, not very far mind you.. Like Thuringia. Had there been ressources worth of it.
 
Germania had some resources that would be useful to the Romans
It would necessit several things.
1) Romans knowing about these ressources
2) These not being avaible more easily either by trade or within territories already controlled by Rome
3) Presence and/or creation of infrastructures
4) Being worthile enough to justify investement in time and ressources (at some point, it's only the case for luxury products, meaning amber or furs)

Main motivations would be shortening the border and eliminating barbarian threats.
Romans did have a really particular sense of geography : for centuries, Romans pictured Gaul atlantic coast being faced North. So, don't think of a geostrategical point (admitting Romans did adopted one) with a modern map.

Romans, when searching for borders, searched for defensible ones : Rhine, Danube were good borders as hard to cross. Random point on Germanic plain or forest on the other hand...

As for Barbarian threat, which one exactly? Before the IIIth century crisis, regular raids/campaigns at worst, exchanges usually were enough to keep order on the border.

Admitting that Romans didn't understood that, however far they would advance, they would still face hostile people, they wouldn't have seen in Germans an actual factual threat for their domination : at "best" as a great annoyment that should be watched in case of someone willing to pull a Cimbri and Teutoni.

They did for Gaul (and more because of historical traumatism and paranoïd propaganda), or Dacia (that admittedly formed relativly unified ensemble), but Germans? Look at what Tacitus accounted for, and you'll have an idea of how the average Roman tought : poor devils living in dark swamps or forests.

Eventually, the simplest and easiest explanation, will of conquest, demonstrating Roman dominance, would be probably the most plausible motivation and not only because the others wouldn't work well. It was an actual drive for Romans, critically with emperors in need of legitimacy as it happened for Brittania.

The Romans could build roads, infrastructure ect.
They rarely did it out of nowhere, and essentially in mediterranean features.
Remember that mediterranean climate (and agricultural region) limit was more north than today, and that Dacians or Gauls had already develloped their own regions before Romans (both politically, and regarding infrastructures).

In Germania, almost everything had to be done from scratch : think of northern Brittania devellopment, that is really limited compared to western continental's.

---

As it was suggested : a good contact possibility between Jutland (I assumed, maybe wrongly, you wanted a contact with modern OTL Danemark and not the ancient Danes Germans) would be trough Frisian coast, and save you expeditions/conquest and all in Germania Magna.
 
Last edited:

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
If the Romans avoid a Teutogurger Wald scenario and retain hold of Germania Magna to the Elbe, it's probably at least 100 years before the province is profitable enough that an expansion past it could be seriously considered.

Yes. In this ATL the Romans did not necessarily continue expanding immediately, it may have been a while after Teutoburg didn't happen or had been won and it may have been another 100 years to expand to the Vistula. How long it takes does not matter much to me, what matters more to me is how plausible taking Denmark is and what reasons to do so.This scenario can be a long/forever lived Rome.

That is right around the time of Trajan's annexation of Dacia and Mesopotamia, so conceivably an ambitious emperor might attempt a conquest over the Elbe and towards the Oder. If so, the decision to either build a wall at the Jutland peninsula or an outright conquest is of it are equally plausible. However, just like future emperors abandoned Trajan's conquests, I think any prolonged holding between the Elbe and Oder is very doubtful.

I have considered Claudius expanding further into Germania instead of Britain a possibility, but Britain was far more valuable than Germania, so it probably wouldn't change it. I don't think Hadrian would abandon Germania unless it seemed about to revolt, but even if it did he might have tried to stabilize it instead. Abandoning Germania without a very good reason would most likely be seen a bad decision. Hadrian kept Dacia in OTL. Germania is closer to Italy than Britain, Britain is also separated by water from the mainland, but Rome held on to Britain for centuries.

Denmark really didn't have significant resources to justify the expense of developing the area. It's main advantage is that it controls access to the North and Baltic Seas which was not important in the Roman era. There is neither trade to dominate, nor any naval threat to stop.

Agreed, I did not think Rome would gain much from Denmark or be thought of as worth it, but I wanted to know if there was any reason to and what benefits would come from it.
 
Last edited:
Top