That peoples who were aprtov volkerwanderung started outside roman territory (Rhine OTL) and then went on to create their own succesor states. In TTL Goths start outside Rome as well and would be somewhat equivalent to Franks.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, ITTL Goths would remain unassimilated by Romans, thanks to their origin in Scandinavia. If they still migrate to Sarmatia, but they do not try and invade Rome, and Slavs ancestral hom in Eastern Germania and they end up Romanized, it could yield the interesting cultural result of a Latinized Germania and a Germanic or partially-Germanic Russia/Ukraine. The irony is delicious.
OK, pushing war with Persia to 2nd century is possible so two new territories are not added atthe same time. but that still leaves Germania as a drain on resurces. ven if you have heavy plough coming along early after conquest 1 century will still not be enough to turn Germania (specailly bigger version) into profitable. Breaking even-maybe.
I think you are too pessimistic. With the heavy plough, a population boom would start, and German agriculture would turn fairly profitable, even for Roman standards. And there were other resources that could exploited, iron and amber. Anyway, even by conservative estimates, breaking even in a century, turning fairly profitable in a couple centuries, turning quite profitable in 3-4 centuries. It would still change the economic and demographic balance of the empire substantially, even more so with holding Mesopotamia at the other end. Not to mention that the heavy plough shall also make northern Gaul and Britannia, too, much more profitable and have their own population boom. It's adding another leg to the coffers and manpower pools of the Empire.
However "states" that invented it had to do with fewer resources, fewer territory and territory that overall needed development. ith rome it's a qustion of new tech being developed so a (relatively) small part, new province on the border could be exploited to their full potential. While not impossible why push for it when existing tech is enough to expoit otherprovinces, provinces that are already develoepd and can be taxed accordingly?
The heavy plough is not a technology that requires substantial effort or financial support by a centralized state or Roman resources outside Germania. The local landowners can easily come up with it on their own, if they happen to have some talented inventors, and they would be highly motivated, since it would make their own land holdings much more profitable. If any Roman landholder in Germania comes up with it, it is bound to spread like wildfire, relatively speaking, and Roman culture was from from adverse to technological innovation, especially when, as in this case, you cannot otherwise solve the problem by throwing more slaves at it. The clichè that smaller states are bound to be better cultural innovators is a fallacy. Technologies that can be developed in one's basement, and yield a substantial financial reward have a high probability of happening.
OK, if you do it a while afterconquest of Germania i can see it. i was somehow under impression you are advocating attacking Persia quickly after conquest of Germania.
Happy to have that misunderstanding clarified.
While I do not hold getting Persia and Germania in quick succession wholly impossible for Rome, it would require the Roman best case scenario that Eric2786 is writing in his masterpiece TL: Caesar survives and reforms the Roman constitution for optimal stability, he puts his military genius to the task of conquering Germania and Parthia (if Alexander could do it in one fell sweep, so does Caesar), and Rome spares the time and resources it wasted in the post-Caesar civil wars for external conquest instead. True, it would yield overextension, but a manageable one if Rome then settles down for a lengthy consolidation phase.
I would point out that in Eric's TL, the heavy plough is discovered two decades after conquest of Germania, and Rome engages on a robust colonization policy of conquered territories, which accelerates assimilation of Persia and development of Gallia and Germania. But then again, Eric's TL is a best case scenario where Rome not only survives and conquers Germania and Persia, but becomes a multicontinental superstate hyperpower.
If we add Rome a second independent PoD by which it conquers Germania AND loses its political instability, truly there is little that the Empire has not the potential to achieve, Persia and the non-Germanic barbarians would be little more than roadkill.
What we are discussing here is a lesser-magnitude best case, where Rome assimilates Germania and Mesopotamia and hence avoids downfall. To do so, we may stick to the more conservative PoD of the conquest of Germania-Dacia to the Vistula-Dniester border under Augustus and Tiberius, with the plausible butterflies of the heavy plough being invented within a generation of conquest, Rome spending a century developing northern Europe, besting Parthia under Trajan like OTL, and keeping Mesopotamia and the Zagros border under Hadrian (for semplicity, hereby ignoring the butterflies of northern conquests on imperial succession, since we may easily come with a Trajan equivalent if with a different name and face). If Roman political instability is not cured, it is quite unlikely that Rome would have the resources to assimilate all the stuff within its OTL timespan that it does in Eric's TL, but enduring in those borders till modern times like a monolithic political-cultural entity like China becomes quite feasible.
Of course, if this Rome endures beyond its OTL timespan, it is plausible that it would eventually take steps to address its own political instability, at least limiting it to Chinese levels, and it may be assumed that it would be at least as culturally and technologically dynamic as China and the Muslim world, quite possibly as OTL Europe (again, small=more dynamic is a fallacy, and at the least the lack of the Dark Ages socio-economic regression in Europe would be a balancing factor). Northern Europe would eventually become as developed as OTL Middle Ages Europe (without the regression to manorialism) and Rome is not really likely to become as inward-looking and isolationist (not to mention that eventually Rome and China are bound to come into steady contact, and the cultural exchange is bound to have substantial effects), so they would strive for additional expansion (most likely Persia and India, and when they discover the Americas, Rome is going to be as eager to colonize it as OTL Europe).
Well, here we disagree. While I see Germania developing i don't see introduction of heavy plough just becasue it would make germani more profitable.
See my point above. The heavy plough is a basement technology with a strong financial return which local Roman landonwers in Germania may come up on their own, and those technologies just need one or a few talented inventors to take root.
I do see development with existing tech (which happened anyway) but that doesn't turn Germania into super-profitable province. you still need to bring population numbers up and develop economy (cities or at least markets) to be able to tax it.
Humor me or agree to disagree, and assume that the heavy plough is developed within a few decades of Roman conquest. Which timetable for development of Germania would then you see plausible, assuming a mix of Roman colonization, infrastructure building, and local population boom ?
Well, there was trade with Rome after contact was made,trade etc. And Rome still had to pour resources there to develop it
True, although according to sources I'm aware of, developing Britannia was far from a substantial resource strain for Rome.
you are right, I was a bit hasty about claiming "soon". 50 years does sound right for startof conquest as per OTL attempts)
Yup. If one looks to the pattern of Rome conquests, a couple generations seems to be a fairly comfortable amount to make an area basically pacified and suited for long-term Roman rule. There does not seem to be a significant difference between "barbarian" Europe and "civilized" Mediterranean, the need for development and political assimilation which would be prevalent in either case tend to balance out.
As I said earlier, it's question of different cores. For Rome Germania (or Gaul, best TTL equivalent) was not a core province.
From the 2nd century onwards, the statement that Gallia was not a core province seems to be rather questionable. It was certainly quite important both as a source of money and manpower, quite integrated in the Roman economy and society. With the heavy plough, Germania can certainly progress to reach the same level in a few centuries. Not mention that the heavy plough can also make Britannia more developed and profitable too, as well as parts of Gallia itself.
I think it's safe to say that cultural and demographic landscape would be very different. Here you have significant part of Germanic culture within Rome, steadily being absorbed into roman culture. While their development wasn't high enough to maintain the level of distinctivness greek culture had some changes would happen. OTOH development would be very roman-directedso they would be evermore tightly integrated into Rome. Maybe equivalent of Romano-British culture? Latin dominated but still distinctive Germanic traits?
Hmm, the analogy with Celtic areas seems compelling here. Culturally, we may indeed look up a distinctive regional identity, but one tightly integrated in the Romasphere, so the Romano-British comparison seems apt. Linguistically, Germanic would not have any better reason to resist Roman assimilation than Celtic did, nor there would be any opportunity for a Dark Ages-fueled revival (which was fairly limited anyway for Celtic). I take for granted that Celtic and Germanic languages would only survive in the places that Rome may leave alone, Hibernia, Scandinavia, and Sarmatia, and they would in all likelihood show Roman influences (compare the influence of Chinese on Korean and Japanese).
I guess that depends on development within Rome. If persian border is stabilised in roman favour (likely) then further push just to get more territory is unlikely, at least anytime soon. More likely internal development and integration of vast empire. Improved communications, more efficient taxation etc.
In the medium term, yes. However, internal development and integration is not going to take forever. Eventually, even this larger empire is going to become fairly well done, and these conquests are going to make the 3rd and 5th crises at least rather more harmful to the Empire, so less need to rebuild. Roman culture was fairly expansionistic at its roots, when they thought they had the resources and a plausible excuse. They know that Persia (and eventually, India) is rather profitable by itself and for trade reasons with the East, and it is a traditional expansionistic aim. I do not see this Roman Empire giving up Persia for good, nor this Persia able to resist Roman conquest when Rome remains strong.
As for Scandinavia, Samrantia etc I think more like what happened on OTL hine. realization that further expansion is pointless then development of links, both diplomatic and trade. Those regions are pulled into roman orbit but if they don't pose much of a threat then left to their own devices.
Quite possibly. OTOH, encroachment by Norse/Sarmatians/Huns may easily provide motivation for conquest, and eventually Roman Europe shall get as crowded and ripe for expansion as IOTL, even more so without the Dark Ages manorialist regression. As I said, Persia and India is always going to be the preferential expansion vector, but as much as they are profitable for economic assimilation, they are not really suited for settlement colonization. If Rome doesn't discover the Americas in the meanwhile, the relatively empty spaces of Sarmatia would eventually look like a compelling target for colonization. Compare the German eastern expansion in the Middle Ages, and assume it happens from the Vistula-Dniester onwards instead, supported by Roman resources. Can a Sarmatian entity grow in the meanwhile that would be able to resist Roman expansion ?
