Roman Empire Timeline Cliches To Avoid

If its not Christianity - its Sol Invictus in terms of religion, or else, nothing changes in the Greco-Roman Pantheon if Rome sticks with it. The Britons who persisted with their traditional Pantheon, the ever-changing nature of the Olympian Pantheon over the course of Greek and Roman history was something that affected almost every facet of Roman societal life. The fact that it gets glossed over is sad.
*sad noises from Neo-Orphic Dionysus Zagreus*
 
I think the silver-lining of Zagros Mountains is denial of Mesopotamia to Persia. Even if the province doesn’t become profitable, you can be sure that the Persians ain’t getting it’s population and wealth to use it against you either.People tend to forget that.
It's certainly a thing if it can be held.
 
(but it should be remembered that Augustus wanted to invade Denmark with a lot of preparations already begun after having made peace with northern Germany between 10 and 16 AD also to defend the territory in Frisia from incursions by the Cimbri
Plans were being made to invade the Marcomannic Kingdom in Bohemia before the outbreak of the Great Illyrian War (which I think is seriously underrated in importance fwiw), but I have never heard of Augustus having plans to invade Denmark.

I think the silver-lining of Zagros Mountains is denial of Mesopotamia to Persia. Even if the province doesn’t become profitable, you can be sure that the Persians ain’t getting it’s population and wealth to use it against you either.People tend to forget that.
Mountains typically make terrible borders. Your border is, essentially, the Mesopotamian plain. I guess it's not completely indefensible, but it's pretty difficult to defend and would require immense resources.
 
Plans were being made to invade the Marcomannic Kingdom in Bohemia before the outbreak of the Great Illyrian War (which I think is seriously underrated in importance fwiw), but I have never heard of Augustus having plans to invade Denmark.


Mountains typically make terrible borders. Your border is, essentially, the Mesopotamian plain. I guess it's not completely indefensible, but it's pretty difficult to defend and would require immense resources.
We've gone through it many times. You just need to fortify the passes like how they did it in China. Rivers are far more permeable since they can be passed at multiple points as long as you have the boats.Sometimes you don't even need it if you can ford it.
 
Last edited:

NedStark

Kicked
We've gone through it many times. You just need to fortify the passes like how they did it in China. Rivers are far more permeable since they can be passed at multiple points as long as you have the boats.Sometimes you don't even need it if you can ford it.
Thinking about the idea of a Roman Republic not expanding northwards outside of Italy and deciding to fortify the fuck out of the Alps, possibly building an Alpine Wall.

But then, there wouldn't be a Roman Empire ITTL.
 
Last edited:
We've gone through it many times. You just need to fortify the passes like how they did it in China. Rivers are far more permeable since they can be passed at multiple points as long as you have the boats.Sometimes you don't even need it if you can ford it.
Or like in the case of the Rhine it froze over completely in late December 406 and the Barbarian hordes just could walk across while at the same time the Roman Classis Germanica could no longer patrol the river border with their lusoria, thus making the massive barbarian invasions of 406/407 possible.
 
As someone who doesn’t like wanking already brilliant historical figures, I think giving guys who weren’t Augustus but had some sort of interesting quirk to them and were given the short straw of history (like Alexander Severus) would be nice to see once in a while.
 
"Rome can conquer anything/everything!" has sort of already come up but I still feel it needs to be addressed, cos it comes off as beefing the Roman's way too much and also basically crapping on everyone else, including their biggest rivals, acting like the Romans didn't crush and absorb them solely cos of some internal struggles rather than anyone else actually being powerful or competent.
 
The Britannia was worthless and the empire would be infinitely better off with Germania / Mesopotamia instead trope, this logic ignores the fact that Rome managed to hold Britannia for twice as long as say Dacia, why would the Romans spend 4 Centuries holding worthless land that was nothing more than a rebel sink, prestige? The Romans knew when to cut their loses hence why Britain was abandoned when it was and not earlier nor was it held when it was a lost cause, Britain provided the Empire with more than it cost or else why would they have held it surely an emperor would look at the balance sheet and say 'gee time to cut back on that Britannia times are tough' if it was really as worthless as some people think (and yet the underdeveloped woodlands of Germania are preferable to some).
 
The Britannia was worthless and the empire would be infinitely better off with Germania / Mesopotamia instead trope, this logic ignores the fact that Rome managed to hold Britannia for twice as long as say Dacia, why would the Romans spend 4 Centuries holding worthless land that was nothing more than a rebel sink, prestige? The Romans knew when to cut their loses hence why Britain was abandoned when it was and not earlier nor was it held when it was a lost cause, Britain provided the Empire with more than it cost or else why would they have held it surely an emperor would look at the balance sheet and say 'gee time to cut back on that Britannia times are tough' if it was really as worthless as some people think (and yet the underdeveloped woodlands of Germania are preferable to some).
Until the Germanic, Irish and Pictish raids became too unbearable for Britain, the Roman Empire's tin trade was dominated by Britain. Britain was very valuable for the Romans. In 410 AD it had become a question of economics or consolidation and the Romans chose consolidation as a growing desperate measure.
 
surely an emperor would look at the balance sheet and say 'gee time to cut back on that Britannia times are tough'
People back then did not have this much information. Besides, in pre-industrial societies, land most often paid for itself, so long as it wasn't restive within the border itself.
 
People back then did not have this much information. Besides, in pre-industrial societies, land most often paid for itself, so long as it wasn't restive within the border itself.
I wouldn't say entirely that the Romans lacked such information-Diocletian was able to create what essentially amounted to a highly detailed imperial budget in order to reorganize the taxation system. Rather, I think it's more accurate to say the Romans didn't really think about their empire in this kind of coldly calculating way.

The Britannia was worthless and the empire would be infinitely better off with Germania / Mesopotamia instead trope, this logic ignores the fact that Rome managed to hold Britannia for twice as long as say Dacia, why would the Romans spend 4 Centuries holding worthless land that was nothing more than a rebel sink, prestige? The Romans knew when to cut their loses hence why Britain was abandoned when it was and not earlier nor was it held when it was a lost cause, Britain provided the Empire with more than it cost or else why would they have held it surely an emperor would look at the balance sheet and say 'gee time to cut back on that Britannia times are tough' if it was really as worthless as some people think (and yet the underdeveloped woodlands of Germania are preferable to some).
I don't disagree with this, but it does imply that there was some grand strategy to Roman foreign policy that is not backed up by the sources. Britain was, as you said, far from worthless but once conquered I'm not sure its economic value was a particular concern regarding "should we abandon it or not." Rome only abandons conquered territories in times of absolute desperation or necessity, such as Aurelian with Dacia, or Britain in the 5th century when it simply was not possible for Rome to project its power there anymore. Exceptions can be made for recent conquests that had not yet solidified (Germania and Mesopotamia under Augustus and Trajan) but they sort of prove the rule.

Re: that lack of cold calculation, I think its safe to say that Augustus'd intent in Germania was some kind of permanent conquest, even if it was not as intentional as "the Elbe is going to be Rome's frontier." The planned campaign against the Marcomanni that was aborted when the Great Illyrian revolt broke out does have the trappings of mopping up remaining threats to consolidate control. And the choice of Varrus, a guy more known for his civilian administrative capabilities than for being a frontier military man, suggests the intention of establishing some permanent form of Roman provincial administrative control.
 
The way I see it, the Germania problem is an actual problem. It's not about "the woodlands of Germania" and it's not about what Germania provides to the Empire it's about what it prevents. Where were the people who destroyed Rome coming from? That's what it comes down to. You pacify Germania you eliminate the biggest external threat to Rome. As far as their internal threats, that largely came down to not having a stable succession. To me, the best Rome timeline is Augustus having a son. That does two things. The first thing it does, if played right, is establishes hereditary succession as opposed to the chaos and civil war basically whenever an Emperor dies. The second thing it does, Augustus needs to find a way to get the Senate to accept his son. How does that happen? His son needs a military victory. Germania is the perfect place for the military victory that allows him to succeed his father. Admittedly this requires this guy to be extremely competent, but Rome had that many times. Augustus himself was extremely competent. Caesar was extremely competent. Thirdly, on Christianity, I think the rise of Christianity, while it may happen differently, or later, was inevitable. It was happening before Constantine, and basically the only way to stop it was to persecute Christians in a way that really only happened under Diocletian. Any timeline with a POD after the birth of Christ and where St. Paul exists is going to lead to Christianity as a majority religion (yes I understand my idea technically has a POD before the birth of Christ but I don't see how that POD changes the birth of Christ). Yes, the Romans were reluctant to execute Jesus, but as long as they held Judea, they'd still basically be forced to, no matter who was in charge for the Romans.
 
The way I see it, the Germania problem is an actual problem. It's not about "the woodlands of Germania" and it's not about what Germania provides to the Empire it's about what it prevents. Where were the people who destroyed Rome coming from? That's what it comes down to. You pacify Germania you eliminate the biggest external threat to Rome.

But who's to say that if Germania was conquered, there wouldn't be invaders coming from even farther away? You might end up with the Slavs playing the role the Germans did.
 
Where were the people who destroyed Rome coming from?
Generally not between the Rhine and the Elbe. The most active and dangerous part of the Roman frontier up until the 5th century had been the Danube not the Rhine. Neither the Alemanni nor the Franks were particularly dangerous to the empire, even in the 5th century. The Vandals, Goths, Suevi, did not originate from the Rhine frontier.
But who's to say that if Germania was conquered, there wouldn't be invaders coming from even farther away? You might end up with the Slavs playing the role the Germans did.
The counterargument to this would be it provides more defense in depth. But regardless I think this is not the most helpful way of looking at Rome's relationship with Germania.
 
Generally not between the Rhine and the Elbe. The most active and dangerous part of the Roman frontier up until the 5th century had been the Danube not the Rhine. Neither the Alemanni nor the Franks were particularly dangerous to the empire, even in the 5th century. The Vandals, Goths, Suevi, did not originate from the Rhine frontier.

Looking at this, I wonder if "the Danube frontier is not a major concern" is a proper cliche here.
 
But who's to say that if Germania was conquered, there wouldn't be invaders coming from even farther away? You might end up with the Slavs playing the role the Germans did.
They woulnt necessarily be arriving in the same numbers as the germans and Rome could handle them better than they did the germans regardless

However I think you're ultimately right that the romans wouldnt be avoiding threats even if we take out those two of the equation

Huns, arabs, turks, all nomadic groups Rome would have to deal with one way or another wheter they romanised Germania or not, but doing so would might at least buy them time(if we assume the germans they fought were all from the Rhine which, as pointed out above, they werent) at the cost of making Rome even more overextended
Never seen "what if rome went up to the yenisey river" before.
Why stop there, go big or go Rome!
Expand all the way to the Shinano river!
 
a bit recondite, but I've never seen a Rome TL explore the possibilities of the naval dimension of warfare (heck, most writers seem to forget that cavalry surged in importance in the Late Empire, but that probably goes with the whole "Byzantium doesn't exist" thang)
 
Top