Roman Conquest of Germania or Parthia More Feasible?

[hasdrubal barca]

Roman Conquest of Germania or Parthia More Feasible?

Interested in your thoughts on this matter and which of the two is the more feasible to conquer and hold. If you think its ASB for Rome to fully conquer either then Germania up to Elbe, also including Macromanni and southern Germania vs capturing Mesopotamia and Western Parthian territories up to Zargos??

Also whats a good pod or series of PODs to accomplish this? What era do you think it was possible to achieve? When do you think Germania and Parthia were at their weakest? When was Roman at its strongest? Some additional thoughts below:

No Teutoburg Forest Julio-Claudians have greater success and interest?

Longer lived and more successful Marcus Aurelius:
"The campaigning season of 175 brought a renewed assault on the Sarmatians. Marcus was now determined to make their territory and that of the Macromanni and Quadi into a province. He is in fact credited with the wish to exterminate the Sarmatians utterly. It is not quite clear how literally this statement should be taken. But the territory of the Marcomanni was already partially occupied by the African legion III Augusta and it may well be that Julius Pompilius Piso was occupying parts of the Sarmatian lands. But the campaign can barely have been under way when, in early spring, news was brought that Avidius Cassius had raised the standard of rebellion and had been recognized as emperor in most of the eastern provinces. "
Marcus Aurelius by Anthony Birley

For Parthia potential of Crassus, Caesar, Mark Antony, Trajan, Hadrian, Early Severan Dynasty, Macrinus. Also if you wish role over into Sassanid period include Alexander Severus, Crisis Emperors such as Gordian III or Julian the Apostate.

 

[wtw]

Germania, in the end the Germans got really lucky. They were no different from the Celts.

 

[Red Orm]

Germania, in the end the Germans got really lucky. They were no different from the Celts.

Well sure, the Germans themselves weren't so different in their tactics, but the Romans aren't just hypothetically conquering Germans. They're conquering Germany.

Germany was a land of huge, dark, forests and swamps, of many many hundreds of square miles never tilled before, a land more suited to growing pigs and grazing cattle than farming, which is something that the Romans just weren't up to. It isn't that they'd be bad at it or lack the capacity, it's just that it isn't profitable enough to justify expansion. It costs more than it's worth. The Romans already have Illyria and Spain for silver and gold, the Baleares for tin, iron kind of all over, and Britain was famous for coal (as well as more tin). There was literally nothing in Germania really worth taking, except for ensuring the peacefulness of the tribes and (and I think this is more likely) making the ruling family look good after there were no more decent but easy-to-defeat enemies around.

Parthia is also ASB. Not ASB to raid, even down to Chaldea, but to actually hold is ASB.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

The long-term difficulty of conquering either Germania or Parthia is overrated. Persia has been conquered more times than almost every other region of the world. Only extremely contentious regions like the Levant, north Mesopotamia, and the Pontic Steppe have changed hands more frequently than Persia.

Germania, compared to Rome, has a far weaker ability to mobilize state power, and isn't particularly more forested or hilly than Illyria which Rome took early on and held for centuries, or Cantabria which is both mountainous and forested, and was not only conquered but permanently Romanized to this day.

The real difficulty is to motivate the Romans to actually expend the effort to take Germania and Parthia, to do it during the existence of Parthian Empire (as opposed to the Sassanids or an alternate dynasty), and to prevent the new territory from breaking off due to the instability of the Roman political system.

If Dacia were never conquered by the Romans, it would provide a barrier between the Roman Empire and the Hunnic/East Germanic "barbarians", increasing the longevity of the united Roman Empire. Historically, through centuries of conflict and political evolution, the Eastern Roman Empire survived into the era of the three-field crop rotation, western hereditary despotism, effective western heavy cavalry, and the stirrup. If both the Western and the Eastern Empire remained intact into this era, which is certainly possible without the Goths, I could see the Romans conquering Persia in a similar timeframe to the Caliphate (which had to mobilize a cavalry army across both the Arabian Desert and Mesopotamia, instead of just Mesopotamia), and conquering Germania in a similar timeframe to the sparse feudal army of Charlemagne (which was inferior to the Arab army and the Roman army).

That's Roman, but it's hundreds of years after the Principate and the Parthian era.

 

[Red Orm]

The long-term difficulty of conquering either Germania or Parthia is overrated. Persia has been conquered more times than almost every other region of the world. Only extremely contentious regions like the Levant, north Mesopotamia, and the Pontic Steppe have changed hands more frequently than Persia.

Germania, compared to Rome, has a far weaker ability to mobilize state power, and isn't particularly more forested or hilly than Illyria which Rome took early on and held for centuries, or Cantabria which is both mountainous and forested, and was not only conquered but permanently Romanized to this day.

But those aren't the only issue. Persia was pretty much exclusively conquered by nomadic or semi-nomadic armies out of rough, inhospitable lands who ended up replacing the entire nobility and within two or three generations max adopting their subjects' language and culture. The Romans never had the kind of demographic mechanism for that kind of takeover, and a Roman would sooner kill himself than settle down in Persia and let his grandchildren speak Persian, wear beards, and dress in Persian robes.

A wild Illyria leaves Dalmatia exposed to the Illyrian tribes, and open to the piracy which plagued the Adriatic. A wild Cantabria leaves the rest of Spain but mostly what I'll call Aragon for simplicity open to the raids which plagued all of Spain before Rome's final takeover of it in the AD 1st century or so. Neither of these are good analogues for Germania, which was wild and had mostly never been tilled (as opposed to Illyria, which was home to some of the first bronzeworking in Europe). Germania also had little of value that the Romans could see. Very poor iron with their methods, no coal to speak of, etc., whereas in Illyria and Spain one only had to kill a few slaves digging to get to all the silver and gold you'd ever want. And for coal, look no farther than Britannia, where you could literally scoop coal from the ground. Why bother with Germania when you can take Britannia? Also, Germany has a natural, easily defensible border with the Roman Empire (the Rhine), which Illyria and Cantabria didn't have with Dalmatia and Hispania Tarraconensis.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

But those aren't the only issue. Persia was pretty much exclusively conquered by nomadic or semi-nomadic armies out of rough, inhospitable lands who ended up replacing the entire nobility and within two or three generations max adopting their subjects' language and culture. The Romans never had the kind of demographic mechanism for that kind of takeover, and a Roman would sooner kill himself than settle down in Persia and let his grandchildren speak Persian, wear beards, and dress in Persian robes.

The pagan Romans sure. The Romans through most of the Christian era would have cared less about the language aspect.

The Parthians actually used Aramaic and Greek as their official languages, so it's not impossible for Persia to adopt another language as its elite language. It wasn't until the Sassanid era, the first age of Iranian proto-nationalism, that Persian became a really influential dialect.

A wild Illyria leaves Dalmatia exposed to the Illyrian tribes, and open to the piracy which plagued the Adriatic. A wild Cantabria leaves the rest of Spain but mostly what I'll call Aragon for simplicity open to the raids which plagued all of Spain before Rome's final takeover of it in the AD 1st century or so. Neither of these are good analogues for Germania, which was wild and had mostly never been tilled (as opposed to Illyria, which was home to some of the first bronzeworking in Europe). Germania also had little of value that the Romans could see. Very poor iron with their methods, no coal to speak of, etc., whereas in Illyria and Spain one only had to kill a few slaves digging to get to all the silver and gold you'd ever want. And for coal, look no farther than Britannia, where you could literally scoop coal from the ground. Why bother with Germania when you can take Britannia? Also, Germany has a natural, easily defensible border with the Roman Empire (the Rhine), which Illyria and Cantabria didn't have with Dalmatia and Hispania Tarraconensis.

Well that's why I said the later, Christian Romans would have been more able to conquer Germania, because by that time, three-field crop rotation makes Germania much more profitable to conquer.

However Augustus did have an interest in conquering Germania. Without the genius of Arminius and the hubris of Varus to foil Roman efforts, the initial expeditions may have evolved into a successful grand strategy.

 

[Red Orm]

The pagan Romans sure. The Romans through most of the Christian era would have cared less about the language aspect.

The Parthians actually used Aramaic and Greek as their official languages, so it's not impossible for Persia to adopt another language as its elite language. It wasn't until the Sassanid era, the first age of Iranian proto-nationalism, that Persian became a really influential dialect.

Well that's why I said the later, Christian Romans would have been more able to conquer Germania, because by that time, three-field crop rotation makes Germania much more profitable to conquer.

However Augustus did have an interest in conquering Germania. Without the genius of Arminius and the hubris of Varus to foil Roman efforts, the initial expeditions may have evolved into a successful grand strategy.

Why do you say that? The only other language in the world that the Romans regarded as civilized was Greek, and Greek isn't the spoken language in Persia.

They used Aramaic and Greek as languages of administration, just as some Roman governors issued proclamations in Latin and in the local vernacular, whatever it may have been. That doesn't change the fact that the language of the people is Persian in Persia's case, and that any Romans that settle there as lords in the long term, as would be required for a typical nomad-style conquest of Persia, would eventually end up speaking Persian. In Mesopotamia and Syria yeah, they'd speak Aramaic, but in Persia they'd end up speaking Persian.

But if you have three field crop rotation, why not conquer a super fertile area like Pannonia first?

Like I said, could've just been a seemingly easy but menacing (people still remembered Gaius Marius saving the day against the Cimbri et alia with fear) enemy to defeat. I really don't know what Augustus's deal with the Germans was, without an iron plow or crop rotation there's really no economic incentive.

 

[wtw]

Well sure, the Germans themselves weren't so different in their tactics, but the Romans aren't just hypothetically conquering Germans. They're conquering Germany.

Germany was a land of huge, dark, forests and swamps, of many many hundreds of square miles never tilled before, a land more suited to growing pigs and grazing cattle than farming, which is something that the Romans just weren't up to. It isn't that they'd be bad at it or lack the capacity, it's just that it isn't profitable enough to justify expansion. It costs more than it's worth. The Romans already have Illyria and Spain for silver and gold, the Baleares for tin, iron kind of all over, and Britain was famous for coal (as well as more tin). There was literally nothing in Germania really worth taking, except for ensuring the peacefulness of the tribes and (and I think this is more likely) making the ruling family look good after there were no more decent but easy-to-defeat enemies around.

Parthia is also ASB. Not ASB to raid, even down to Chaldea, but to actually hold is ASB.

not unlike France, the UK and Iberia. Also slaves, timber and farm land were considered taking by Romans for a long time

 

[DominusNovus]

The transportation costs and times from central Italy to the Zagros range were far higher than into Germania. Whatever the many downsides of holding Germania were, it had a sizable river network that largely flowed into the Rhine, Danube, or Elbe. Two of those rivers were already in Roman control. The third empties out to the North Sea not too far from Roman territory.

 

[Red Orm]

@DominusNovus, very true in any case. Reminded me of a map you guys will probably love if you haven't seen it already.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Yeah holding Persia would be much harder than initially conquering it. The capital would need to be in Constantinople or Antioch.

The map is from orbis.stanford.edu by the way.

 

[DominusNovus]

Orbis is exactly what I was basing my assumptions on. It is indispensable when discussing the pre-industrial mediterranean.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Saving this map for every time the perennial "Rome conquers more territory" debate comes up.

The borders of the Roman Empire are really pretty damn natural. And conquering more land isn't a panacea, just in case anyone's thinking it. If it was, Alexander of Macedon would have built an empire lasting a thousand years.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Wouldn't a line along the Elbe be short then OTL border? It might require less soldiers at the front though more territory to occupy being the downside. Drusus' campaigns make it seem plausible at least.

 

[Gloss]

Wouldn't a line along the Elbe be short then OTL border? It might require less soldiers at the front though more territory to occupy being the downside. Drusus' campaigns make it seem plausible at least.

I was thinking about a border from the Elbe, through the Polish-Czech border(semi mountainous), through the Carpathian and then connecting to the Danubian delta.

How is Pannonia for farms at the time?

 

[James XI]

Germanic was very doable, it was just a matter of the juice being worth the squeeze. And, as importantly, enough consecutive Emperors believing it was. But the Roman model works okay in Germany, in much the same way it did in Britain, which was also fragmented, heavily forested and martial.

In Parthia, though I do believe it's doable and I also think much more beneficial, I think it's further from Rome's comfort zone and the model needs to be tweaked. Caesar and later Antony showed that good enough commanders were aware of the need and how to address it (Antony's campaign relied much more heavily on skirmishers/light cavalry and planned to stick to advances along more suitable terrain...was not undone militarily,but by political betrayal, ie Armenia)...but it would have required extended periods of significant military skill to pull off/sustain, and that's harder to get than the extended will that Germania required.

 

[Practical Lobster]

The big problem I foresee with the border at the Elbe/Dacia is that every time you push the frontier further away, you end up with a more and more distinct frontier mentality. The troops stationed at the rough edges of the Empire will be even further from home and the camp-towns they establish will diverge from the culture of the central society even faster. Generals who want to claim the Imperial throne will ultimately be father from anyone who can stop them from accumulating momentum.

Plus at least when it comes to Dacia, you're destroying any buffer between Rome and the steppe. In the long run, Rome will have to come to terms with that if they want to keep the border out there.

These problems wouldn't be immediately apparent, I think. The Roman world could easily expand early on in its history with the right impetus. But I think what's really gonna get you are the structural flaws accumulating over time.

 

[wtw]

I was thinking about a border from the Elbe, through the Polish-Czech border(semi mountainous), through the Carpathian and then connecting to the Danubian delta.

How is Pannonia for farms at the time?

I don't see the Carpathians and the Elbe river stopping the Romans, they will figure out where Crimea is and move accordingly. The Vistula might be a better boundary.

 

[Gloss]

I don't see the Carpathians and the Elbe river stopping the Romans, they will figure out where Crimea is and move accordingly. The Vistula might be a better boundary.

But is too much land, I would guess they would first pacify, build up and settle all of Pannonia, pacify Germany and build some infrastructure and only then move. Vistula+Dnieper is a strong border, let me draw a map quickly:

Spoiler

That´s unlikely though, need better farming techniques and transport system, eventually the northern plain should be as painful to control.

 

[wtw]

But is too much land, I would guess they would first pacify, build up and settle all of Pannonia, pacify Germany and build some infrastructure and only then move. Vistula+Dnieper is a strong border, let me draw a map quickly:

Spoiler

That´s unlikely though, need better farming techniques and transport system, eventually the northern plain should be as painful to control.

Oh I agree 100%, I think if you have a Roman Empire that defeats the Germans it will reach that far and even take Denmark as well. I think it would go as far as the European Steppe before it stopped. Rome does not like flat open terrain like that. I think it would be like the Arabian and Sahara Desert for them, an impassible boundary. Nomads would constantly attack it, but it would delay their approach to the Med cities and that would be the point. It would not be fun for anyone. Eventually by the time Rome falls the empire's influence would be massive on Europe.