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

There is no such thing as "sending", as most legions would be situated close to the border and ready. That's why I argue that a step-by-step approach is the only viable thing in Germania. Once a region has undergone sufficient Romanisation, it is safe to put the border - and the troops - further away.
Hispania was a source constant trouble during the Republic. During the Principate, one legion stood there. Completely idle.


But it took a heck of a long time to reach that condition.

The Romans acquired the Mediterranan coast of Spain during the war with Hannibal, c200BC. The conquest wasn't complete until Augustus' time. Subduing the place had taken a full two centuries. Don't knoow if Germany would have taken that long, but it might.
 
I Apologie. It wasn't my Intention to Be brusque, I just had a hard Time to catch up with an interesting Thread. Especially your comments, among others, are certainly enlightening and entertaining.

I think your replies were brutally honest and much needed-i fear my and Elfwins arguing has taken over every single thread i've started, with each thread devolving into a relitivly polite rant against each others point.
And you are right; Rome COULD take over and control at least a large part of " Germaina" ( by the way, what are the bounderies of germaia exactly? it seems a very disingenuous term.) The political system was in place to control and influencce to their own ends.
 
I think Hornla makes a lot of good points that make it plausible that a Roman Germania could be held in the short term and developed enough that the Romans would not abandon it - at least until a Crisis of the Third Century situation, and possibly not until later.

Regardless of whether it made economic sense to colonize the region in the first place, it did happen and Varus was sent to prepare provincial administration. There is a clear Roman intent to hold onto their conquests in Germany. If we accept the POD - and it is very plausible to reverse the outcome of the battle and keep Roman legions in Germany - then there is little reason to believe that Rome will abandon it simply because there was a failed revolt that killed off most of the population likely to revolt which therefore has left the region populated mainly by collaborators.

The resources available in Germany are sufficient for the Romans to develop in the short term unlike the Sahara. There is a native population to provide labor. Adequate water supplies. Good agricultural land where even wine can be grown. Metallurgical deposits that were being mined even by the early medieval period or earlier. We can expect those to be exploited fairly quickly - within a few decades.

Roman Germania may never be one of the richer provinces, but it'll probably be developed enough that before the end of the first century it'll be kept. The Romans had to keep sending in legions there anyway so why not keep it as income generating area and at least keep something out of it?

What this means in the long term, who knows? If things had gone different IOTL even with Germania lost, the Western Empire could have survived in various forms. Would the extra dept of a Germania allowed that? It's at least plausible even if no one can say it's definite.

It will be vulnerable, but I think the earliest it could be lost or abandoned would be during an equivalent of the Crisis of the Third Century or the nomadic invasions of the Visigoths or Attila. By that time, the Empire's economic and political trouble could make Emperors decide that even with the loss of prestige, it would make sense to abandon it. I don't think the confidant and flourishing empire of the first or second centuries would consider it. Even after it loss, extensive Romanization could very well survive - I'd much rather settle a Visigoth equivalent in Germania rather than south of the Danube or west of the Rhine.
 
I think Hornla makes a lot of good points that make it plausible that a Roman Germania could be held in the short term and developed enough that the Romans would not abandon it - at least until a Crisis of the Third Century situation, and possibly not until later.

Regardless of whether it made economic sense to colonize the region in the first place, it did happen and Varus was sent to prepare provincial administration. There is a clear Roman intent to hold onto their conquests in Germany. If we accept the POD - and it is very plausible to reverse the outcome of the battle and keep Roman legions in Germany - then there is little reason to believe that Rome will abandon it simply because there was a failed revolt that killed off most of the population likely to revolt which therefore has left the region populated mainly by collaborators.

Except that one revolt has hardly secured the entire area for good. It might secure an extension of OTL's post-Teutoburg borders, but nothing like the amount added on Eurofed's maps here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=132268
or mentioned here
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=170090

Roman Germania may never be one of the richer provinces, but it'll probably be developed enough that before the end of the first century it'll be kept. The Romans had to keep sending in legions there anyway so why not keep it as income generating area and at least keep something out of it?
Because it isn't an income generating area. It may produce income in the sense of a few mines or the like, but the costs of holding the area vs. the revenues of holding the area . . . are not favorable.
 
I think your replies were brutally honest and much needed-i fear my and Elfwins arguing has taken over every single thread i've started, with each thread devolving into a relitivly polite rant against each others point.

Thank you. In another context, I would have argued more balanced, but the other side had already found a loud and articulate advocate. The core of many counter-points against expansion into Germania is valid anyways, but not absolutely so.

The next time I devote most of a webpage to this thread subject I will try to get my points a bit more in order...

( by the way, what are the bounderies of germaia exactly? it seems a very disingenuous term.) .

Ah, that is the problem which troubles us Germans from since then until recently... At that period of time, it would either have been any place where Germanic tribes settled (quite a geographically large area and to a certain extent also a fluid definition as the one or other batch of Germans always seemed to take a like in moving elsewhere) - or whatever the Romans defined Germania to be.

BTW, there has been an attempt by the university of Berlin to attribute Ptolemys data to existing locations in recent years. A fascinating result, were it not to be taken with a waggonload of ice. You move on thin ice there.
 
But it took a heck of a long time to reach that condition.
The Romans acquired the Mediterranan coast of Spain during the war with Hannibal, c200BC. The conquest wasn't complete until Augustus' time. Subduing the place had taken a full two centuries. Don't knoow if Germany would have taken that long, but it might.

I am fully aware of that, and I agree, but the difference is that the would be a bunch of legions in Germania anyways as it is, as others remarked, no peninsula; either concentrated on Rhine and Danube, or deployed in a more active fashion.

The point I tried to make is that even a population which was very hard to subdue grew that accustomed to Roman rule that it could (from a military point of view) be almost left alone.
 
Thank you. In another context, I would have argued more balanced, but the other side had already found a loud and articulate advocate. The core of many counter-points against expansion into Germania is valid anyways, but not absolutely so.

The next time I devote most of a webpage to this thread subject I will try to get my points a bit more in order...



Ah, that is the problem which troubles us Germans from since then until recently... At that period of time, it would either have been any place where Germanic tribes settled (quite a geographically large area and to a certain extent also a fluid definition as the one or other batch of Germans always seemed to take a like in moving elsewhere) - or whatever the Romans defined Germania to be.

BTW, there has been an attempt by the university of Berlin to attribute Ptolemys data to existing locations in recent years. A fascinating result, were it not to be taken with a waggonload of ice. You move on thin ice there.

Thank you. Actuallly i find are rant- offs quite interesting.
 
Top