Mind you, in those scenarios, it is generally though of the whole. But would picking some parts of the south (or western limes, etc) possible, and profitable? It's what I asked.
Romans win battle of teutoburg forest: What is the result.
- Thread starter Archon of Thessaly
- Start date
Mind you, in those scenarios, it is generally though of the whole. But would picking some parts of the south (or western limes, etc) possible, and profitable? It's what I asked.
Yet if Germania remained relitivly peacful? Later generations of emporers would eventually realise the full potential of the region for recruits,timber e.c.t
You also forget that exploitation of the region was not the romans main aim anyway-pacifying the region, stopping raids and establishing buffer states was. Exploitation was a nice little side objective.
Note that plundering the easily taken riches of a future province was a motor for the expension of the Republic, then Empire... I was told Caesar got rich from the Gauls, and financed his ambition on it...
But establishing buffer states is very much not the same thing as actually annexing the territory, so I'm not sure what you're saying here.
The problem is really that Germainia in the foreseeable future, has nothing the Romans want. It has no urban centeres to speak of, it's agricultural production was poor compared to the rest of the empire, it's infrastructure is close to non-exsistant. There are no known big veins of useful ores, and the small ones are underdeveloped, the population although recently pacified, has a history of violence, and new unpacified barbarians are moving into the region all the time to start wars and plunder, the manpower pool is unreliable at best, and there is basically nothing to tax.
Any roman governor will likeley see a posting in Germania as a punishment, and it will take several Legions to garrison effectively. This only excacerbates the issue of barracks emperors during the periods of civil war that frequently plagued the Empire. Not to mention the sheer amount of resources that will be needed to make holding the place a reasonable proposition.
It is a black hole that eats money and manpower and spits out disgruntled men with armies who would march on Rome should the situation arise. I'd expect the Romans to give up on Germania after about a century or so, much the same way they did in Dacia which was both more defensible and more developed.
BTW Arminius' Confederation had none of the Tribes which plagued Rome during the 5th century, the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Saxons are still out there, with no allegiance to rome and moving inexoribly closer to the Empire's Borders. So the Barbarian Invasions of the Western Empire are still on schedule.
Also victory in Germania will only embolden Rome, which is likely to go to war against Parthia next. War against Parthia is a fight that, historically speaking, Rome doesn't win all that often. I could see Varus, drunk on victory, marching against Parthia and shattering the Legions there. Lest we forget the Parthians were an adversary that could beat Rome consistently in a straight fight. If Rome fights Parthia next and loses, they'll have to pull men from the newly acquired Germanian Province to reconsitute the Legions, after all that's about all Germania is good for anyway. Thus you still have barbarians in the Legions.
Honestly Rome is overstreched as it is, and taking Germania will excacerbate that problem as well. In the long run, a Roman Germania is bad for the empire in a myriad of ways.
Any roman governor will likeley see a posting in Germania as a punishment, and it will take several Legions to garrison effectively. This only excacerbates the issue of barracks emperors during the periods of civil war that frequently plagued the Empire. Not to mention the sheer amount of resources that will be needed to make holding the place a reasonable proposition.
It is a black hole that eats money and manpower and spits out disgruntled men with armies who would march on Rome should the situation arise. I'd expect the Romans to give up on Germania after about a century or so, much the same way they did in Dacia which was both more defensible and more developed.
BTW Arminius' Confederation had none of the Tribes which plagued Rome during the 5th century, the Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Saxons are still out there, with no allegiance to rome and moving inexoribly closer to the Empire's Borders. So the Barbarian Invasions of the Western Empire are still on schedule.
Also victory in Germania will only embolden Rome, which is likely to go to war against Parthia next. War against Parthia is a fight that, historically speaking, Rome doesn't win all that often. I could see Varus, drunk on victory, marching against Parthia and shattering the Legions there. Lest we forget the Parthians were an adversary that could beat Rome consistently in a straight fight. If Rome fights Parthia next and loses, they'll have to pull men from the newly acquired Germanian Province to reconsitute the Legions, after all that's about all Germania is good for anyway. Thus you still have barbarians in the Legions.
Honestly Rome is overstreched as it is, and taking Germania will excacerbate that problem as well. In the long run, a Roman Germania is bad for the empire in a myriad of ways.
That's what they did IOTL. The Romans kept the Rhineland, the Agri Decumates, and the territory south of the Danube. They also clientised large areas (of still unclear extent) east of the Limes. And they even named the Rhine provinces "Germania". (Of course, that was a bit sour grapes since these were traditionally considered part of Gaul, but still).
I don't think they could have plausibly taken more without taking close to all, though the Marcomannic Wars might have provided a POD with the decision to make conquered Marcomannia a province. The problem really is that there is not enough incentive to go and conquer Germania for its wealth, and not enough glory in conquering parts of it. From a pragmatic POV, a policy of creating client states wqas the optimum solution as far as everybody could tell. You can't expect them to plan 300 years into the future.
this is interesting, because, IIRC, the battle cost the Romans a big chunk of their standing army. So, if this doesn't happen and Rome keeps all those troops and at the same time isn't trying to conquer Germania, what will Rome do next?
Except the Franks would be Roman citizens ITTL.
In hindsight, sticking to a border on the Elbe if not the Vistula would have been the right thing to do. But of course, nobody could consider things that way at time.
The deep raids were caused by general weakness of the Roman State at the time and by the trend to deploy most of troops on the border lines, at when they weren't busy in civil wars. Past the border, the Romans usually had not much of a force to stop invaders, at least before Diocletian.
They lost three legions out of 28. That's quite a huge blow, though not a catastrophic one. They'd likely keep them there, maybe try for another go at Marcomannia (one had been just cancelled because of the Illyrian revolt in 6 AD), and not do much else in the short term.
In time, I can see attempts to push further. Augustus' grand strategy was getting all the way to the Vistula. Teutoburg made him and his successors to reconsider this. If defeat is avoided and Germania Magna kept to the Elbe, someone would try to go beyond that as early as local infrastructure and economy allows it, until some blow of equivalent telling power forces a rethinking.
Rome in the first centuries BC and AD was pretty much expansionist for expansion's own sake, at least in principle. She would remain that way until something forces a change.
By the way, the point of massive expansion into Europe was really avoiding embarrassing problems with the Parthians. However, the Parthians lost every war they fought with the Romans from Augustus' time onwards, though it was caused largely by the lessons learned by the Romans in previous defeats, so that they kept their war objectives limited.
Yes it would. The same germanic "tribes" that ravaged Gaul, were the ones that would have been conquered by Rome.
What if Germanicus became emperor, or Claudius allowed him to reconquer what was lost? Germanicus did want to do this. If he somehow becomes emperor or Claudius allows him to go through with his conquest of Germania instead of just the small scale raid he did in OTL, then thats your Germanic conquest.
Legions were already lost by that point. It made the whole proposition much more difficult in many ways. BTW, you probably mean Tiberius.
The conquest and settlement of Germania would be a pretty major undertaking, requiring a healthy number of legions and auxiliaries. Given the province's sparse population, it would - in theory at least - make for a perfect retirement location for Roman soldiers, who could then be settled in cleared forestland and around strategic forts and urban centers. Drawn from all over the empire these soldiers, with their wives and slaves, would intermingle with the native population and lay the foundation for a properly Romanized, cosmopolitan Germania one or two centuries later. The needs and luxuries of these veterans would favor commerce and bring wealth to the region, as would the clearing and cultivation of the land.
Canals linking the Rhine, Elbe, Lake Constance, Danube, etc, could also facilitate communication with Rome, the Mediterranean and Black Sea (good source of mercenaries, slaves, grain, etc).
Canals linking the Rhine, Elbe, Lake Constance, Danube, etc, could also facilitate communication with Rome, the Mediterranean and Black Sea (good source of mercenaries, slaves, grain, etc).
We are talking about Augustus here. The last thing he wants is any more successful conquests. Most likely, he'll just keep trying to figure out what to do with (and increasingly, about) his legions and make them build more stuff.
You miss my point.
If Franks could cross the whole width of Gaul to get at Spain, then Saxons (or whoever) could easily cross the whole width of Germania to get at Gaul. It wouldn't be that much of a protection.
And the Vistula would be utter ASB anyway.
Going that far means absorbing huge areas of largely valueless territory, too thinly populated to sustain a Roman-type economy. Note that OTL a far smaller area like Caledonia (and later even the tiny slice of it between Hadrian's Wall and the Forth) was considered too much trouble, despite Agricola having won his "Teutoburg" at Mons Graupius.
So it wouldn't make much difference where the border was. The Barbs could roam around freely once they got past it.
So basically similar methods to what the Romans used on other frontiers?
While Augustus lives, probably not very much. He's s got a defensible border, and that's all he wants.
After him, on OTL form the legions probably head east, for yet another Parthian campaign Some Emperor (Tiberius or whoever replaces him) conquers Mesopotamia for a season, and some later one abandons it as too burdensome. Plus ca change - -.