Romans in Germania - effects on later migrations?

I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but the search doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

If the Roman Empire fully conquers Germania up to about the Elbe, with intermittent control to the Oder, what effect would this have on the later 'barbarian' migrations into the empire and where they end up?

I don't know that much about this, but I'm guessing the German tribes would be assimilated/enslaved by the Romans, effectively removing them from the scene when the migrations happen. Without the German tribes, the Slavs are then free to move further west into Germany and possibly Gaul, making a predominantly Slavic Europe. Am I right, or is there something I'm missing. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Why not Britannia and Germania. That's possible IMHO but you'd need some changes. First of all why the hell would the Romans want to go into Germania. They got their butts kicked when Varus tried. You'd need a POD that involves an early invention of the heavy plough which makes Germania all the more attractive.

Anyway, the border will be a lot shorter but Rome will also have more legions to defend it with. They'll be able to withstand the Huns and such much better and the Sarmatians won't be much of a threat. There will however be a lot of legions on that border and expect military coups to be frequent. Instead of falling apart I could see Rome go through a cycle of falling apart and reuniting whenever some general starts a civil war to become Caesar.

here's a nice map:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2114299&postcount=40
 
Last edited:
Bump, any suggestions?

Hideously complicated. The problem is that a Roman conquest of Germania will have major repercussions for Germanic ethnogenesis. Especially if you posit an early (Augustan or Tiberian) date, it will butterfly away almost all the Germanic tribes we know. There may be a more strongly Celtic identity in the Southwestern parts of the province and much more emphasis on clustering communities around cities. Gewrman kingship might not come into existence the way it did. The tribes east of the Elbe would, of course, stay in contact with those west of it, and what will come of that is anyone's guess.

It just isn't a terribly clear-cut scenario, at least until the Huns arrive. If they do. we may not see gothic migrations to eastern Europe, which could change that part, too. Argh.
 
What is that, an ISOT?:rolleyes:

(its Germania, there was no Germany back then!)
This always bugged me. There was no "Germany" until the 1500s, when the word German first came into common use among the English. There has never even been a state that officially calls itself "Germany" in any language but English (which is not the official language of Germany.

For the purpose of these WIs, Germany = Germania. Germany is just an English term for the land inhabited by the Germans that subsequently came to signify the unified German state. Germania was exactly the same thing, therefore they mean roughly the same thing.

By this same logic, calling the Holy Roman Empire as such is wrong before c. 1200, because the title did not exist then. Before it was the "Roman Empire" or the "Holy Empire." So saying that Otto the Great founded the Holy Roman Empire is wrong because it was not called exactly that in contemporary language (which is all moot anyway, because modern English did not exist at the time).
 

Susano

Banned
For the purpose of these WIs, Germany = Germania. Germany is just an English term for the land inhabited by the Germans that subsequently came to signify the unified German state. Germania was exactly the same thing, therefore they mean roughly the same thing.
There were no Germans at that time, either, only Germanics!
Germany came about in 843, same time as France with the same event (Treaty of Verdun), and started to call itself German (that is, Deutsch) beginning with the 10th century. Its as friggen anachronistic as calling Gaul France, or calling Asia Minor Turkey!

By this same logic, calling the Holy Roman Empire as such is wrong before c. 1200, because the title did not exist then. Before it was the "Roman Empire" or the "Holy Empire." So saying that Otto the Great founded the Holy Roman Empire is wrong because it was not called exactly that in contemporary language (which is all moot anyway, because modern English did not exist at the time).
Its a helpful distinguihser from the Roman Empire proper.
 
So, say Arminius gets an arrow to the face sometime before Teutoberg, and the resisting tribes of Germania never mange to pull off a united front. How far would/could Augustus push past the Rhine? How long before the Roman hit their stopping point in Northern expansion?

Simon ;)
 
There were no Germans at that time, either, only Germanics!
Germany came about in 843, same time as France with the same event (Treaty of Verdun), and started to call itself German (that is, Deutsch) beginning with the 10th century. Its as friggen anachronistic as calling Gaul France, or calling Asia Minor Turkey!

You're arguing semantics. In English, ancient Germania can be called Germany and the ancient Germanic peoples can be called Germans. It's less confusing not to, but it isn't wrong.
 

General Zod

Banned
So, say Arminius gets an arrow to the face sometime before Teutoberg, and the resisting tribes of Germania never mange to pull off a united front. How far would/could Augustus push past the Rhine? How long before the Roman hit their stopping point in Northern expansion?

The Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester line looks like the best stopping point for Roman expansion, at least until they have fully Romanized and developed Germania. See a TL here.
 
This is a topic thats been done to death...

The rivers of northern Europe make for many 'natural borders' that would allow for an expansion from west to east for Roman armies. However, the land wouldn't be that profitable before the plow allowed the large increase in cultivatable land that allows the area to pay for itself - and if it can't pay for itself, why go to the trouble of subduing and keeping the lands (unless a seer tells an emperor that the hordes will come from the North East in a few decades/centuries, and he does it for the defensive gain... not liely).

Now, if you get around that, where do the barbarians go? Only other place: they go south (into the Balkans, as they did in OTL) and South east into the Caucauses and Mesopotamian plain. The first is a problem for Rome, because these are rich lands that allow the funding of the armies that ensures the Roman borders. The second is a benefit, as the hordes would be pressuring rivals to the Romans, meaning they might be able to reduce their defenisve armies in the Levant-Aremenia zone... since the loss of revenue from the Balkans/Greece is one resaon the Romans weren't able to fully defend the Rhine frontier in OTL, you've defacto redirected the barbarians to Persia, so all in all it may be a very good thing for Rome...
 
Which tribes would be Romanized and which would not be?

I was under the impression the Goths came from much farther east, so we're not getting rid of them.

The Chatti and other tribes from between the Rhine and Oder, however, are going to get obliterated or assimilated.
 
Theodoric the Great was a goth but very romanised. Many invading tribes will romanise for a higher and richer culture absorbs smaller one's rather than the other way.
 

General Zod

Banned
The rivers of northern Europe make for many 'natural borders' that would allow for an expansion from west to east for Roman armies. However, the land wouldn't be that profitable before the plow allowed the large increase in cultivatable land that allows the area to pay for itself - and if it can't pay for itself, why go to the trouble of subduing and keeping the lands (unless a seer tells an emperor that the hordes will come from the North East in a few decades/centuries, and he does it for the defensive gain... not liely).

This difficulty can be easily avoided since the Romans were already going to conquer Germany anyway under Augustus and Tiberius. If the conquest is successful, they are going to discover the heavy plow in no short order, it was done during the Ealry Middle Ages after Carolingian conquest, in conditons rather less conductive to technoloigcal innovation than Rome at its zenith.

Now, if you get around that, where do the barbarians go? Only other place: they go south (into the Balkans, as they did in OTL) and South east into the Caucauses and Mesopotamian plain. The first is a problem for Rome, because these are rich lands that allow the funding of the armies that ensures the Roman borders. The second is a benefit, as the hordes would be pressuring rivals to the Romans, meaning they might be able to reduce their defenisve armies in the Levant-Aremenia zone... since the loss of revenue from the Balkans/Greece is one resaon the Romans weren't able to fully defend the Rhine frontier in OTL, you've defacto redirected the barbarians to Persia, so all in all it may be a very good thing for Rome...

The vast majority of the German population in conquered Germania between the Rhine and the Vistula is going to stay and become Romanized. It happened so in Gallia, Dacia, and Hiberia. This only leaves the unconquered populations that lived in Scandinavia and Russia to make up the barbarian hordes, and really puts a serious dent in their numbers.
 
Top