Romans win battle of teutoburg forest: What is the result.

[Falecius]

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.

The Vistula was where Augustus' planned to stop until reality bate.
Caledonia was largely abandoned because of political squabbles in Rome and imperial fiat. It was a strategic mistake in hindsight of course. Winning battles under Domitian could be as dangerous as losing them.



QUOTE=Mikestone8;6934422]So it wouldn't make much difference where the border was. The Barbs could roam around freely once they got past it.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but there would be a lot less of them, and a shorter border would be easier to defend.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes it would. The same germanic "tribes" that ravaged Gaul, were the ones that would have been conquered by Rome.

So instead you get a different set of invaders. There are always more tribes to the east until Rome's borders become unimaginably extended.

So what have you accomplished besides gaining a thinly populated yet rebellious oversized province?

 

[Mikestone8]

The Vistula was where Augustus' planned to stop until reality bate.

Well, I wouldn't mind a source for that, but even if it's true, does it really matter what Augustus nintended? As others have observed, he only had five years bto live.

Caledonia was largely abandoned because of political squabbles in Rome and imperial fiat. It was a strategic mistake in hindsight of course. Winning battles under Domitian could be as dangerous as losing them.

Is that any less likely to happen under the Caesars?

So it wouldn't make much difference where the border was. The Barbs could roam around freely once they got past it.

Sure, but there would be a lot less of them, and a shorter border would be easier to defend.

Not all that many less - only those in a narrow strip between Rhine and Elbe - and even quite a few of them might have fled eastward.

And any legions freed up by the slightly shorter line will almost certainly get used up in another eastward offensive (the Romans favourite option) so afaics it pretty much ends in a wash.

 

[Falecius]

Well, I wouldn't mind a source for that, but even if it's true, does it really matter what Augustus nintended? As others have observed, he only had five years bto live.



Is that any less likely to happen under the Caesars?







Not all that many less - only those in a narrow strip between Rhine and Elbe - and even quite a few of them might have fled eastward.

I have not the book with me, but I found the Vistula thing on Adam Ziolkowski's History of Rome. I don't know if it is available in English. According to the same book, under the Cesars and Vespasian the Roman generals had an unusual amount of leeway that ended after Agricola's governorship or slightly later. It looks like Calendonia was abandoned more or less on a whim, and the conquest never resumed because there was actually little point in it after the initial momentum was lost. Even if, TBF, Severus tried seriously and the attempt was only ended by his death. The strip between the Rhine and the Elbe is not that narrow-not by Roman standards. But it wasn't something that mattered at the time anyway.

My point, in which I follow Ziolkowski, is that Teutoburg (and the actual problems it showed) changed the logic of Roman expansion setting the pattern of limited conquests only done or undone on direct Imperial whim. Augustus' strategy was different before that and without such a crushing defeat, is likely to be followed by the immediate successors, until:
a) the Vistula is reached,
b) another crushing defeat is inflicted down the line,
c) some Emperor realizes how silly the idea is and decides for a go with the Parthians
d) or the Empire bankrupts itself in the attempt.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So instead you get a different set of invaders. There are always more tribes to the east until Rome's borders become unimaginably extended.

So what have you accomplished besides gaining a thinly populated yet rebellious oversized province?

1. The border would be shorter. There would be a lot more manpower to defend said border with. Also, as others have observed, over the course of a century or 2, through colonization and the settlement of veterans, Germania would become a Romanized province. Plus, if you lose the border at the Elbe, you still have the Rhine to fall back to.

2. Again, like mentioned before, the settlement of veterans in Germania and other colonization methods, would increase Germania's population and create a nicely romanized province within 100-200 years after Teutoburg.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

So instead you get a different set of invaders. There are always more tribes to the east until Rome's borders become unimaginably extended.

So what have you accomplished besides gaining a thinly populated yet rebellious oversized province?

Yet it wouldnt be rebellious forever. Germania is only as extended as Brittania and is almost certainly more valuable. The tribesmen there were already exposed and being influenced by Rome, and had a defeat not taken place it is probible that the idea of pushing back the fromtire to the vistula would be more appetising to an insecure ( like claudius) or ambtous emporer then a risky navel venture to brittania. The parallells between the two provinces are evident: Both had highly decentralised power amongst tribesmen that gradually changed to a central roman authority. Both rebelled constantly in the early years with varying levels of success and given time i believe that germaina would end up like brittania: a romanised and increasingly urbanised west and more rebellious east.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Also, remember, Germania was doing fine under Roman rule until Varrus came around. This is the man that taxed Syria into poverty (yes I know that is an exaggeration). Had someone half as stupid and greedy and Varrus been appointed governor, then the German chieftans under Roman rule would have remained content.

 

[Hörnla]

Also, remember, Germania was doing fine under Roman rule until Varrus came around. This is the man that taxed Syria into poverty (yes I know that is an exaggeration). Had someone half as stupid and greedy and Varrus been appointed governor, then the German chieftans under Roman rule would have remained content.

Germania experienced little Roman rule before Varus came. What they knew was military tourism (there are curiously few accounts of battles prior to 9AD) and the very slow beginning of settlement (Haltern-Aliso [?], Waldgirmes).

Varus, however, showed little sensitivity as to how the situation in Germania was special under so many aspects. Germania lacked the experience of having been thoroughly ********ed by the Roman Legions, but (its elite) was not yet experiencing the full prospects of Romanized life. The situation was deceiving.

 

[Elfwine]

Yet it wouldnt be rebellious forever. Germania is only as extended as Brittania and is almost certainly more valuable. The tribesmen there were already exposed and being influenced by Rome, and had a defeat not taken place it is probible that the idea of pushing back the fromtire to the vistula would be more appetising to an insecure ( like claudius) or ambtous emporer then a risky navel venture to brittania. The parallells between the two provinces are evident: Both had highly decentralised power amongst tribesmen that gradually changed to a central roman authority. Both rebelled constantly in the early years with varying levels of success and given time i believe that germaina would end up like brittania: a romanised and increasingly urbanised west and more rebellious east.

No, it's not as extended. It is considerably worse.

And almost certainly more valuable? At the time? No.

Brittania is considerably easier to bite off than Germania with considerably more obvious resources (tin) for the trouble.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Here's a thought. What if Drusus survives? Could this prevent Varrus from arriving?

Also, up until Teutoburg, it was Roman policy under the principate to continually expand.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Here's a thought. What if Drusus survives? Could this prevent Varrus from arriving?

Also, up until Teutoburg, it was Roman policy under the principate to continually expand.

He was definatly a better alternative.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

He was definatly a better alternative.

Well if Drusus survives, presumably the conquest and assimilation of Germania goes as planned and continues at a steady pace. Maybe when and if revolts happen, Drusus is a much better alternative to stop them. Tiberius is still sent to Illyria to quell the revolts.

And then if Drusus becomes emperor on Augustus's death..he did have republican sympathies...

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

Well if Drusus survives, presumably the conquest and assimilation of Germania goes as planned and continues at a steady pace. Maybe when and if revolts happen, Drusus is a much better alternative to stop them. Tiberius is still sent to Illyria to quell the revolts.

And then if Drusus becomes emperor on Augustus's death..he did have republican sympathies...

Bring back the republic? Hardly! Still, a good guy for assimilating northen barbarians...

 

[Hörnla]

No, it's not as extended. It is considerably worse.

Agreed! Also the civilitaory difference is far worse.

And almost certainly more valuable? At the time? No.

Also agreed. Britain is far more interesting due to the ore deposits. Germany is a blanc card.


However, piece by piece, Germania would IMHO actually not have been a problem for the Imperium. They stomached the Ager Decumatus almost effortlessly. If they had gone only for anything West/North of the Lippe and Weser in Augustus time, it would have been possible to handle. Arminius wouldn't have found that many allies when most Germans still wouldn't consider Rome their problem.

A generation later, they could go for the Main valley and the region North and South of it.

At the end of the century, a push for the Elbe-Saale-Bavarian Forest.

 

[Elfwine]

However, piece by piece, Germania would IMHO actually not have been a problem for the Imperium. They stomached the Ager Decumatus almost effortlessly. If they had gone only for anything West/North of the Lippe and Weser in Augustus time, it would have been possible to handle. Arminius wouldn't have found that many allies when most Germans still wouldn't consider Rome their problem.

A generation later, they could go for the Main valley and the region North and South of it.

At the end of the century, a push for the Elbe-Saale-Bavarian Forest.

Personally, I think Rome reached as far as there was any point in reaching, and attempts to go further would wind up as "why are we spending this much on something that isn't worth it?"

Arminius and his kind don't need to have the whole of Germania on their side to have enough to make it bloody and unprofitable.

 

[Mikestone8]

However, piece by piece, Germania would IMHO actually not have been a problem for the Imperium. They stomached the Ager Decumatus almost effortlessly. If they had gone only for anything West/North of the Lippe and Weser in Augustus time, it would have been possible to handle. Arminius wouldn't have found that many allies when most Germans still wouldn't consider Rome their problem.

A generation later, they could go for the Main valley and the region North and South of it.

At the end of the century, a push for the Elbe-Saale-Bavarian Forest.

Question is how permanent would it have been?

Afaics, Britain seems to be about the last conquest that really stuck. Various bits and bobs were acquired later, but iirc virtually all were lost again within a century or so. Germania's fate?

 

[Hörnla]

Personally, I think Rome reached as far as there was any point in reaching, and attempts to go further would wind up as "why are we spending this much on something that isn't worth it?"

Arminius and his kind don't need to have the whole of Germania on their side to have enough to make it bloody and unprofitable.

Germany was full of mining in the Middle-ages, also there is evidence that even in the short time of occupation, Romans already started mining East of the Rhine. So there was some potential to exploit.

Also, HOLDING a territory long term was usually not Rome's problem. Their way of dealing with rebellion was in almost all cases successful (murderous) enough to establish a graveyard-calm for generations afterwards and usually, just more Romanization.

A localised, and as to the POD, failing Arminius revolt would be a flash in the pan, and just like Vercingetorix or Boudicca, would probably not have spawned decades of Germcong-activity.

The expensive thing for Rome were borders. That is the problem with Britannia. It always needed three legions unless you conquer Caledonia. But there is no point in doing so as you still have to guard the coast against raiders from across the North Sea.

If the Roman border moves from the Rhine to the Weser/Bavarian forest (best of all not in one step), you move the border legions with the limes, perhaps keeping one in reserve somewhere central. Over time, the latter becomes less necessary. Generally, the cost of the army is its personnel. If they have to slay a Germanic tribe once or twice, that is not costly.
If you move the limes to the Elbe later on, or even to a short Limes across Schleswig-Holstein, you do Roman Britannia a huge favour.

To me, the crucial question is: how much of the external crisis points do you avoid by preventing some of the Germanic tribes from develop during the 2nd and 3rd century into the large-scale units which start to become a power factor?
What if, by AD 150, you have taken the Marcomanni out of the equasion, but also what is to become the Alamanni, the Saxons and the Franks? What if you can punish the Jutes at their doorsteps instead of building and manning the shore fortresses of late Roman Britannia?

Would we have a cascading effect of a slightly easier situation in Europe -> better showing in the East -> better ressources on Danube and so on and so on.

What if you later on have a lot more (as we all see not THAT vital) space to trade in order to get foederatii under, such as the Gothi and the Vandalii - and that while being generally more fit as an Empire?

#### ASB wet dream #####

Final limes running along Vistula - San - Dnestr, the Southern half of this limes would be easily suppliable by a logistical network based on Byzantium/Constantinoples.

However, just a few ideas...

 

[Hörnla]

Question is how permanent would it have been?

Afaics, Britain seems to be about the last conquest that really stuck. Various bits and bobs were acquired later, but iirc virtually all were lost again within a century or so. Germania's fate?

Dacia remained for good 150 years, that is 5-6 generations and spawned more linguistical legacy than Britannia. Same for the Ager Decumatus.

Mesopotamia was not viable due to Parthia not being removed from the game. Frankly, where the Romans should have fought always on their side of the line in the sand, it is the East. Everything not being the HINTERLAND of the Med- and Black-Sea coast was always a waste.

 

[Elfwine]

Germany was full of mining in the Middle-ages, also there is evidence that even in the short time of occupation, Romans already started mining East of the Rhine. So there was some potential to exploit.

What happened centuries later is not the problem. What is actually available at the time is the problem.

Also, HOLDING a territory long term was usually not Rome's problem. Their way of dealing with rebellion was in almost all cases successful (murderous) enough to establish a graveyard-calm for generations afterwards and usually, just more Romanization.

The problem is that Rome usually held territories actually worth the trouble. Germania isn't worth sending legions in to put down rebellion in over and over again.

A localised, and as to the POD, failing Arminius revolt would be a flash in the pan, and just like Vercingetorix or Boudicca, would probably not have spawned decades of Germcong-activity.

No, Roman rule being unwanted would spawn rulers having a problem with the Roman legions imposing Roman rule. "Germcong" isn't the problem, "no one likes to be conquered" is the problem.

The expensive thing for Rome were borders. That is the problem with Britannia. It always needed three legions unless you conquer Caledonia. But there is no point in doing so as you still have to guard the coast against raiders from across the North Sea.

And conquering and holding Caledonia itself would require some legions. The idea that holding the whole island - even ignoring North Sea raiders - means that you don't need any legions stationed there is bunk.

If the Roman border moves from the Rhine to the Weser/Bavarian forest (best of all not in one step), you move the border legions with the limes, perhaps keeping one in reserve somewhere central. Over time, the latter becomes less necessary. Generally, the cost of the army is its personnel. If they have to slay a Germanic tribe once or twice, that is not costly.
If you move the limes to the Elbe later on, or even to a short Limes across Schleswig-Holstein, you do Roman Britannia a huge favour. [/quote]

At huge expense.

To me, the crucial question is: how much of the external crisis points do you avoid by preventing some of the Germanic tribes from develop during the 2nd and 3rd century into the large-scale units which start to become a power factor?

What if, by AD 150, you have taken the Marcomanni out of the equasion, but also what is to become the Alamanni, the Saxons and the Franks? What if you can punish the Jutes at their doorsteps instead of building and manning the shore fortresses of late Roman Britannia?

Then you have tribes to the east and/or north as problems instead, plus vastly overextended territories.

And I find it funny that you think that the Romans should have fought defensively in the East where there was stuff worth taking but should have swallowed Germania which didn't (having areas that could see mining activity is not the same as having actual mining on a large enough scale to be worth it).

 

[SlyDessertFox]

What happened centuries later is not the problem. What is actually available at the time is the problem.

You forgot the part where he said there was evidence of Roman mining in the area tool...

The problem is that Rome usually held territories actually worth the trouble. Germania isn't worth sending legions in to put down rebellion in over and over again.

The policy of the principate was to continually expand. The only reason they stopped expanding into Germania was because they were soundly defeated at teutoburg, and Augustus and the Romans panicked with the thought of a massive Germanic invasion of Gaul, which of course, never happened. Marcus Aurelius wanted to expand in Dacia, to a more defensible border in the area. He couldn't though, because his entire life, he was fighting off German invasions from east of the Rhine. Had that area been pacified, we could see a much more defensible Dacian border as well, further stabilizing the borders.

No, Roman rule being unwanted would spawn rulers having a problem with the Roman legions imposing Roman rule. "Germcong" isn't the problem, "no one likes to be conquered" is the problem.

None of this happened in Britain. After Boudicca, there were no (that I know of) major rebellions in Britain. Germania would be the same. If the Romans can crush Ariminius's rebellion, then the leaders will come to the conclusion for the most part that resisting Rome is pointless. Once you get through the first generation that experienced the conquest, Germania between the Rhine and Elbe, would be pacified.



And conquering and holding Caledonia itself would require some legions. The idea that holding the whole island - even ignoring North Sea raiders - means that you don't need any legions stationed there is bunk.

If the Roman border moves from the Rhine to the Weser/Bavarian forest (best of all not in one step), you move the border legions with the limes, perhaps keeping one in reserve somewhere central. Over time, the latter becomes less necessary. Generally, the cost of the army is its personnel. If they have to slay a Germanic tribe once or twice, that is not costly.
If you move the limes to the Elbe later on, or even to a short Limes across Schleswig-Holstein, you do Roman Britannia a huge favour. [/quote]

Then you have tribes to the east and/or north as problems instead, plus vastly overextended territories.

The Elbe was a much better border than the Rhine. Plus, if the area between the Rhine and Elbe get overrun, then you have another river to defend, the Rhine.

And I find it funny that you think that the Romans should have fought defensively in the East where there was stuff worth taking but should have swallowed Germania which didn't (having areas that could see mining activity is not the same as having actual mining on a large enough scale to be worth it).

They should have fought defensively in the east because it was the smart thing to do. There was an empire in the east that could stand up to Rome fairly well. The Parthians, and then the Sassanids would retake any land taken from them by the Romans in subsequent wars, and then the Romans would take it back, etc. It went back and forth. Unless their intention was complete conquest of the Parthian Empire, land taken isn't going to be held for very long.