I don't know if this has already been asked, but what would that mean if the Romans won this battle? No Germanic languages spoken today? Larger area directly influenced by Roman culture?
Question :The implications of Romans winning the Battle of Teutoburg Forest
- Thread starter Timeline Junkie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- germanic peoples rome
Iirc the Elbe is narrower than the Rhine, so not as defensible. Its location is also more northerly, so it probably freezes over more often than the Rhine does.
Most likely the Romans lose it sometime in the 3C, like Dacia. Thereafter not much different from OTL.
I meant how do they win the battle is a complete reversal of the battle or a close victory
My more ostentatious ideas lead to a kind of cultural enlightenment of the Northern Roman Empire encompassing Britannia, Belgica and Germania which could become a third division of the Empire after the 3rd century, perhaps led by an Arthur/Artorius like figure based in Londinium which is usurped by Saxons who found an Romanesque empire spanning the North Sea and Baltic. Later Norsemen come to prominence and establish their own ruling dynasty (Lodbrok?).
My tamest, realistic prediction is Emperor Hadrian pulls the troops back in the early 2nd century and lets Germania go as a more sophisticated place than the Romans found it. Might be a unified client kingdom?
My tamest, realistic prediction is Emperor Hadrian pulls the troops back in the early 2nd century and lets Germania go as a more sophisticated place than the Romans found it. Might be a unified client kingdom?
Scaevola
Banned
At best the subjugation of some tribes, in line with what the Romans had in Scotland, with the Rhine serving as a natural Hadrian's Wall that (like Hadrian's Wall) sees more trade across it than fighting. The Roman-friendly states barely take some culture and act as a buffer and source of information for happenings farther afield. There may be an emperor or two who actually wants to driver the border farther, to the Elbe or so as you all are saying, but that would be abandoned fairly quickly. Germania was infamous for being either boglike or with ground too hard, much of it forested and fallow. Not necessarily a bad thing, but useless for a very underdeveloped border province which needs to justify its own existence as a province. Other shit poor areas of the empire like the upper Alps, some of Moesia, and much of the Anatolian plateau remained essential because of their central location: losing them to unfriendly tribes or brigands would be terrible for trade and security of actually rich, productive places. Germania serves no such purpose, it's just a burden with a poorly defensible border. Much better to spend men garrisoning the Rhine and colonists in Gaul trying to fill out and capitalize on that huge, very fertile province (1/3 of the empire's land mass at Caesar's death, still at least 1/5 at Augustus's death).
Edit: So basically not much change from OTL. Teutoburg is one of those overrated battles that stands large in the public eye but was in fact not too important in the grand scheme of things.
Edit: So basically not much change from OTL. Teutoburg is one of those overrated battles that stands large in the public eye but was in fact not too important in the grand scheme of things.
The most that what would change would be the mental attitude of the Romans towards the Germans. Germania agriculturally weak and couldn't feed the Roman Legions and if you can't feed the Legions how are they going to feed the future cities. Remember that during and full history of the Romans there was only one area/tribe in Germania that had any settlement larger than a hamlet, that was the Macromanni. You have to also remember that the Roman authority didn't stop at the Rhine it just continued informally just like Britannia, the Rhine back then was a high speed highway to ship supplies and goods on not a barrier.
Edit: Spelling
Edit: Spelling
Last edited:
No significant consequences. Germania was not developed enough to be worth conquering. Thats why it never was.
Rome, at least at this point, tended not to conquer territories that would be a net drain on the Roman Economy. Augustus himself said that in such cases conquest was to be shunned.
Rome, at least at this point, tended not to conquer territories that would be a net drain on the Roman Economy. Augustus himself said that in such cases conquest was to be shunned.
He really was the biggest hypocrite when it came to that though. He said more becuase Rome couldn’t afford more war at that time not because Rome has reached it limit, at the time of his death some soldiers along the Danube and Rhine hadn’t had some pay in a couple of times. Also some retirement bonuses were missing.