Saving Rome - is Germania enough?

[IMP CAES AVG]

As I have pointed out previously, and will do so again, the notion of Teutoberger Wald as the dramatic battle that halted the progress of Roman imperialism into Germania and ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Roman imperial structure in the west is largely erroneous -- the product of the mythology of 19th century German nationalism and romanticism. Rather like Carrhae in the popular conception, it has mistakenly come to be seen as a decisive break in Roman expansionism, and rather like Carrhae, it is a largely erroneous conception.

What the battle of Teutoberger Wald indeed did do was halt the drive of Augustan expansionism into Germania and the Danube basin, and possibly lead to a temporary halt of expansionist momentum across the entire Empire. Yet a mere couple of years later, Germanicus Iulius Cæsar conducted large-scale punitive expeditions in the area, Titus Flavius Domitianus conducted operations in the salient of the Agri Decumates and against the Chatti during the 80’s A.D., Marcus Aurelius campaigned extensively in the massive Marcomannic Wars during the 160’s-170’s A.D., and planned the annexation of Sarmatia and Marcomannia as imperial provinces. As late as the early third century Caracalla conducted a massive campaign in the Agri Decumates and in Germania Magna against the Alammani that involved a large-scale concentration of troops, and was accompanied by widespread construction of colonial outposts, and by a major extension of Roman garrisons and fortifications across the Rhine and Danube rivers. Maximinus Thrax also conducted large scale operations in Germany, and even planned the annexation of the entirety of Magna Germania. The recent archeological findings at Kalefeld, in fact quite close to the Teutoberg Wald, display an extensive battlefield with over 1,000 Roman soldiers, including archers, cavalry, and a large quantity of artillery pieces, and seem to posit a date between 230 to 250 AD, when it is known that Maximinus Thrax conducted his German campaign. Significantly, evidence found on the Kalefeld battlefield indicates the Roman forces were marching from a north-eastern direction, indicating even deeper advances. Fundamentally, Teutoberg did not have such a massive impact on the advance of Roman imperialism in Germania.

It should also noted that although the Elbe, or even the much touted Vistula-Carpathian-Dniester border line might appear superior on paper, the armies and legionary garrisons on the Rhine could be more easily and rapidly supplied from the Mediterranean via the Rhône and Moselle rivers, with only a brief stretch of portages. Armies on the Elbe would have to be supplied from the hazardous North Sea, or by extensive overland routes. Economically, the Rhine basin was already supporting towns and sizeable villages at the time of the Gaius Iulius Cæsar’s conquest of Gaul. Magna Germania and the Elbe basin, however, was far less developed, possessed few villages, and had little food surplus. Thus the Rhine was both significantly more accessible from Rome and better equipped to supply sizeable garrisons than the regions beyond. This is extremely significant, in that prior to the mid-third century, Germania was far more poor and underdeveloped in comparison to the Mediterranean basin and Gallia, and that consequently, the Germanic tribes were able to conduct lengthy guerrilla conflicts without substantial harm to their primitive infrastructure. Although the annexation of Germania might seem plausible a retrospective “grand strategy” sense, it was quite clearly not worthwhile in the first to third centuries.

It should also be noted that although Germania Magna was never annexed and provincialized, the Romans still exercised substantial control over the region through the cheaper methods of protectorates, loyal client-kings, and forward legionary garrisons. Germania in the first through early third centuries should not be regarded as a barbarian wasteland entirely divorced from the Roman Empire, but something rather like the north-western frontier of the British Indian Empire. Rather like the Raj, the Roman Empire exercised light control over Germania through frequent punitive expeditions, military garrisons, and loyal client-states.

Simply put, the question should not be “is Germania enough?”, but rather “is Germania necessary at all?” The repeated insistence on Teutoberg Wald as the only plausible PoD, and an insistence of an massive and rapid drive to the Vistula-Dniestr line, along with extensive and entirely unrealistic reforms to the Roman constitution and the imperial state structure is a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical situation, the product of a unrealistic misapplication of the benefits of hindsight. A successful conquest of Mesopotamia under Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Lucius Septimius Severus or Caracalla, a minor drive across the Tigris or a campaign that weakens the loose Parthian imperial structure and ensures the political collapse and fragmentation of the Iranian plateau, or the emasculation of any major power (i.e. a Sassanid-analogue state) to arise there would probably do far more to ensure the a Europe-spanning imperium then the conquest of miles upon useless miles of under-developed, under-populated and primitive barbarian tribes. Likewise, slower but more measured expansion into Germania and the Danube basin under Marcus Aurelius following the Marcomannic wars, or the continuation of the expansionist imperial drive under Caracalla or Maximinus Thrax would probably be more realistic, both due to the fact that Germania was far more well-developed, urbanized and Romanized in these later centuries, and that the barbarian populations would soon require urgent subjugation, thus providing a legitimate and necessary reason for expansion then a “drive to nowhere” under Cæsar Augustus.

It appears to be that simply because it was the vast migration of the barbarian tribal federations across the Rhine in 406 A.D. that finally put paid to the remnants of the vastly weakened western Roman Empire that a successful Roman. The notion that a strategic imbalance between the Roman Empire and ‘barbarian’ Europe can be traced back to the failure and Teutoberg, or some similarly early PoD is largely mistaken, and appears to ignore the fact that, simply in regards to solely military manpower the Roman imperial state possessed a substantial superiority over all its enemies combined until the late 3rd/early 4th century. During the Severan age -- the numerical height of the Roman military establishment -- the Roman army possessed an estimated 442,000 legionaries and auxilia, which combined with the naval forces and irregular numerii yielded an estimated half a million troops in the Roman military establishment. The Roman problem was never (until the late 4th/ early 5th century) a fundamental numerical imbalance between its population and available military manpower vis-à-vis that of its enemies, but the issues in coordinating military movements and defenses along all the frontiers, and in the structural problems that this issue entailed. The notion that one requires such an early PoD to ensure the survival of the Roman imperial state, followed by a string of entirely implausible further massive conquests and reforms is entirely erroneous

 

[aktarian]

I agree with most of what you wrote and have raised some issues myself. However I think you ignore the effects cross-border diplomacy had on Germanics. While you are correct in the fact that Rome pursued active policy across Rhine this had substantial effects on Germanics. Increased wealth (be it subsidies to friendly tribes or trade) ment that they could afford better and more troops (professional warriors cost and you need agricultural surplus to free part of population to sustain them). Surplus was achieved by difussion of ideas across the border (production did go up). In addition presence of unified state across the border forced these tribes to evolve into bigger, more coherent formations. To resist Roman intrusions, to be strong enough to warrant Roman subsidies and to fend of rivals trying to get close to the border themselves, thus replacing tribes enjoying these benefits.

You are also correct that Rome was able to resist pressure when faced with individual tribes. However as crisis of late 4th-early 5th century showed this was seldom the case. Gothic incursion happened while Romans were busy dealing with Persia and in 5th century they were faced with attacks from multiple tribes at once. Though uncoordinated (except Goths who likely used Roman diversion in Persia) taken together it was simply to much to take at once.

While I agreee that conquest in 1st century is possible later it becomes harder and harder. Simply because Germanics grow, develop better tribal cohesion and become more military capable. And remember tribes that did cross the border didn't do it to tear down Rome, they did it to get a pice of action. Aven Goths in their 5th century trek wanted piece of land where they could settle (which they eventually got) within more developed Roman territory. Same held true for every tribe practically until fall of western Rome.

And I'm well aware of problems Rome would face if they took Germania up to Vistula, which is why I'm saying push to Elbe/Oder is more realistic, then when that territory is developed push to Vistula. and as I repetedly said, Germania would be black hole for a long time until it would break even, let alone turn profit.

 

[Mikestone8]

Although the annexation of Germania might seem plausible a retrospective “grand strategy” sense, it was quite clearly not worthwhile in the first to third centuries.

It is surely significant that Trajan never bothered, though he was a sexpansionist as they came.

It appears to be that simply because it was the vast migration of the barbarian tribal federations across the Rhine in 406 A.D. that finally put paid to the remnants of the vastly weakened western Roman Empire that a successful Roman. The notion that a strategic imbalance between the Roman Empire and ‘barbarian’ Europe can be traced back to the failure and Teutoberg, or some similarly early PoD is largely mistaken, and appears to ignore the fact that, simply in regards to solely military manpower the Roman imperial state possessed a substantial superiority over all its enemies combined until the late 3rd/early 4th century.

And of course that invasion was only a secondary one anyway. The "big daddy" was when the Goths crossed the Danube, which was done with the Emperor's consent, hence was not due to any inadequacy of the Roman borders. The Danube frontier was given away, not overwhelmed.

 

[aktarian]

And of course that invasion was only a secondary one anyway. The "big daddy" was when the Goths crossed the Danube, which was done with the Emperor's consent, hence was not due to any inadequacy of the Roman borders. The Danube frontier was given away, not overwhelmed.

They didn't cross with Emperor's consent. Do you think Adrianople was fought because people had nothing better to do on a warm august day? They settled as they did because they could force Rome to accept unfavourable conditions. While barbarians did settle on roman territory in the past it was under roman terms and not en bloc. Goths forced Rome to accept their terms. And while Rome was willing to let in some Goths they certanly didn't want all of them.

 

[Eurofed]

Just to make it clear, where do you see border in TTL? Elbe, Oder, Vistula? IMO vistula is too optimistic, atleast in first leap. I see Elbe or Oder as relasitic with potential expansion later, when conquered Germania is (more or less) integrated.

If we talk of "integrated" as meaning basic pacification, a task that typically required 2-3 decades to the Romans, I may agree. Say conquest up to the Oder under Augustus, expansion to the Vistula under Tiberius or Claudius. If we talk of "integration" meaning the centuries-long task of developing it to match the levels of the rest of Roman Europe, no, that's far too much time.

Again, that is dependant on heavy plough. I agree on ther resources, amber route falls within Rome in TTL. There would be money to be made but still drain on resources overall. Just because profits can be made from extracting some resources you still have to factor in cost of developing overall territory.

Well, we may use the suggested butterfly and have the heavy plough be spread to northern Europe by deported Jewish colonists. Again, the difference in agricultural yield is such that once the other colonists and settled locals notice it, the innovation shall spread fairly quickly.

Haven't read it but wouldn't that mean taking Gaul, Germania and Persia within a few decades? In OTL it took some 50 years to go from Gaul to Germania. Granted there were civil war diversions.

It is truly a best-case scenario. But indeed if you butterfly away all the civil wars after Caesar, Rome shall have some substantial spare resources for external conquest. It is a dramatic expansion, but no bigger in comparison than the one in the Mediterranean after the Second Punic War. Rome in that case went overextended for a while, but it eventually managed to "digest" its conquests.

The question is would these new territories increase or reduce internal instability? OOH you can say that there is less threat of external pressure so there is less need for huge army and hence less chance of rebels/usurpers to gain control of part of it and make a bid for power. Plus without external threats emperor can focuson rebels alone and not have to deal with Persian border flaring up while barbariansmass on opposite side of Empire and some general using this imperial distraction to try to seize power. OTOH Rome is richer and as such more tempting target. but then againstability could mean romedevelops into something resembling modern democratic state where people try to gain more power by working inside the system, rather than trying to remake it with force in direct opposition to existing structure.

My expectation is that overall stronger, more secure borders would significantly, but not drastically by themselves, reduce political instability. And I agree that eventually a surviving Rome would invent counterbalances to its instability.

As this is centuries from POD saying how things would develop isreally hrd to say. combined butterflies couldmean it could go anyway. and that doesn't even cover immediate challenges, like steppe nomads moving west (Huns and/or their equivalents), possible christianity (chronologicaly close to POD but still geographicaly far away to make it possible that starts as per OTL), or without christianity still stong Jewish community in Judea...

A substantial component of Christianity's success was due to the troubles of the late Empire, people seeking spiritual solace and welfare relief in the social network of the Church. In a successful Empire, it is most likely that Christianity never reaches critical mass, even if the butterflies don't snuff it out in the bud, and it remains a crackpot minor cult in the complex religious landscape of the Empire, like many other contemporary mystery cults.

When contact with china is made I see soemthing similar to Rome/Persia. both too strong and their centres too far apart to take each other on directly but series of buffer/vassal states develop and they fight each other while big boys back them and dictate tempo (or maybe OTL Cold War is better equivalent?)

The comparison with the Cold War is apt IMO.

Also depending on extentof conquest. Vistula line? 2 centuries to break even. Elbe/Oder? Half that

Two centuries to break even with the heavy plough seems frankly excessive to me. Britannia got radically different in much less time.

Not sure about there being no significant differences. In civilised areas you remove existing elites (or bring them to your side) and take economic centres (cities). This is often enough to bring it to heel. In barbarianareas you can't do that. sure you kill off tribal leaders and burn their villages and crops butthen you have to repeat the process 50 km further away.

OTOH, it is easier to assimilate barbarian areas to Roman civilization once you pacify them since locals will be eager to adopt your superior culture. In more civilized areas, local culture has to merged with Roman one, which may take longer.

It was integrated into empire but core was still Italy. When you wanted to make romans scream you squeezed Italy (to paraphrase Khruschev). Goths were allowed to settlein gaul in the end but not italy, even though they rampaged through it. For Franks and sucessors centre lay further north (and west) so Germania was closer to their core, if not even core itself.

Goths were "allowed" to settle in Gaul at thier own terms under duress, because by then the late empire was too weak to say no.

Sarmantians are a good point. As such they would be hard pressed to resist rome, however time lag between POD's expansion and thus speculative later one could allow them to develop simialr to OTL Rhine people.The big question is what happens on the Steppe. If something big (Huns?) bursts from there they could smash Sarmantians, push to the roman border and be repelled and forced to retreat East. Sarmantians could seek shelter in Rome, as per Goths OTL but without Roman distraction with Persia. So if allowed in it would be under Roman terms. OTOH "Huns" could do what Germanics did in OTL, push to the border to reap benefits of roman cross-border diplomacy, simply replacing Sarmantians. Or "Huns" could absorb Sarmantians (or vice versa!) thus creating still barbarian "state" but one that would be somewhat developed (thanks to roman money and ideas), big and with some sort of internal cohesion. Even if you have federation of master/subject people if people accept it they would be a tough nut to crack (people may accept subordinate position in such federation becasue it would give them more benefits, specially ability to resist Rome, than being alone but independant).

All good ideas on how a Sarmatian "Russia" could arise ITTL to resist Roman expansion, especially if Rome is focused on expansion in the Middle East.

 

[Eurofed]

I repost this information in this thread.

I found this on the Internet. If the heavy plough suggested in this text is pre-3rd Century, it raises the question if it hypothetically would have been possible to use it on the Germanic soil after a conquest...

"The drought crust plays an important role for agriculture. It was found extending up to 30 cm deep, while drought fissures carried sherds up to 1,50 m deep. The fields are usually ploughed before the first rains at the end of October, but the simple wooden plough, reported by Schumacher (1889) for the traditional Arabs, is hardly able to break the crust. Such a plough only opens the surface of the soil, breaking capillarity and storing moisture in the underground. In general it was thought that this ancient plough design is of advantage in semi-arid areas. But if the drought crust is not fully broken, it dissolves only slowly under the first rains and most of the water runs off (Lucke 2002). Long fields observed in ancient land use systems in Israel could point to the usage of the heavy plough, which is usually expected only in the northern part of the Roman empire (Kuhnen 1989). If the heavy plough was in use in he Decapolis, this would explain why there are no field divisions in the Decapolis region which refer to the classical rectangular system of the simple wooden plough (Lucke 2002, 2003a)."
http://atlas-conferences.com/cgi-bin/abstract/camu-06http://atlas-conferences.com/cgi-bin/abstract/camu-06http://atlas-conferences.com/cgi-bin/abstract/camu-06

I had an idea about how heavy plough could be invented other than "because it would be cool if it were".

After Jewish revolt of 66AD (still possible, butterflies from conquest of Germania have not yet reached Judea) somebody in Rome has a bright idea. "Hey", he exclaims, "in Judea we have a bunch of people that are causing us troubles. In Germania we have a lot of land that needs to be colonized. Why not move Jews there?" So Jews are deported there rather than scattered. Rome is preparing for showdown with Persia so they will be more willing to remove potentially troublesome people away and prevent them from making troubles in region that will soon become very important. They are not kept together but rather spread out between emerging cities, Latin colonists and friendly Germanics. Germania is closer to Rome than Judea so Rome can keep an eye on them, least they start troubles. Germanics would see them as another batch of Latin colonists so they would be viewed same, so no support for their potential rebellion. And this means that suddenly population of Germania went up by significant ammount, population that has to be fed and has increased beyond numbers that we would see had it grown simply due to increased agricultural output. So people start tinkering around to increase production even further. Ploughs seem like a good way to start, rather than some exotic and radically new approach that might backfire badly.

What do you think?

Excellnt idea to bring the heavy plough to northern Europe in early Imperial Rome, both of you.

 

[Eurofed]

It should also noted that although the Elbe, or even the much touted Vistula-Carpathian-Dniester border line might appear superior on paper, the armies and legionary garrisons on the Rhine could be more easily and rapidly supplied from the Mediterranean via the Rhône and Moselle rivers, with only a brief stretch of portages. Armies on the Elbe would have to be supplied from the hazardous North Sea, or by extensive overland routes. Economically, the Rhine basin was already supporting towns and sizeable villages at the time of the Gaius Iulius Cæsar’s conquest of Gaul. Magna Germania and the Elbe basin, however, was far less developed, possessed few villages, and had little food surplus. Thus the Rhine was both significantly more accessible from Rome and better equipped to supply sizeable garrisons than the regions beyond. This is extremely significant, in that prior to the mid-third century, Germania was far more poor and underdeveloped in comparison to the Mediterranean basin and Gallia, and that consequently, the Germanic tribes were able to conduct lengthy guerrilla conflicts without substantial harm to their primitive infrastructure.

The fact does not change that if the expansion drive under Augustus and Tiberius is not broken, we are going to see the provincializtion of Germania in the first century CE. As others have pointed out, the earlier it is done, the more Rome shall be stronger in comparison to the Germanic tribes, and their assimilation easier and smoother. There other examples of Rome annexing and holding underdeveloped areas, see Britannia. Your argument on the supposed logistical superiority of the Rhine border again merrily ignores that the Vistula border could be supplied in the first decades after conquest (because eventually roads and cities would be built) through *coastal* navigation along the coasts of Gaul and Germania. Coastal navigation was nowhere so hazardous as open sea one in the North Sea, and Romans did it for centuries in order to trade with and supply the garrisons in northeastern Britannia. Roman Britannia is proof that it was done in routine conditions, so your argument about the impossible hazards of the North Sea is wrong. Moreover, Britannia was fairly quickly subjugated, there was no centuries-spanning resistance, as there would be none in Germania.

Simply put, the question should not be “is Germania enough?”, but rather “is Germania necessary at all?” The repeated insistence on Teutoberg Wald as the only plausible PoD, and an insistence of an massive and rapid drive to the Vistula-Dniestr line, along with extensive and entirely unrealistic reforms to the Roman constitution and the imperial state structure is a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical situation, the product of a unrealistic misapplication of the benefits of hindsight. A successful conquest of Mesopotamia under Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Lucius Septimius Severus or Caracalla, a minor drive across the Tigris or a campaign that weakens the loose Parthian imperial structure and ensures the political collapse and fragmentation of the Iranian plateau, or the emasculation of any major power (i.e. a Sassanid-analogue state) to arise there would probably do far more to ensure the a Europe-spanning imperium then the conquest of miles upon useless miles of under-developed, under-populated and primitive barbarian tribes.

As a matter of fact, the current debate has long since recognized that conquest of Germania AND Mesopotamia would be necessary to save Rome. We have just argued that for Rome it would be easier to conquer the former before the latter.

Likewise, slower but more measured expansion into Germania and the Danube basin under Marcus Aurelius following the Marcomannic wars, or the continuation of the expansionist imperial drive under Caracalla or Maximinus Thrax would probably be more realistic, both due to the fact that Germania was far more well-developed, urbanized and Romanized in these later centuries, and that the barbarian populations would soon require urgent subjugation, thus providing a legitimate and necessary reason for expansion then a “drive to nowhere” under Cæsar Augustus.

It is much better for Rome if such development of Germania happens after the provincialization of the region. If cultural spread and trade could push this devleopment, it would happen much faster after direct integration in the Empire, even more so if the heavy plough is transplanted from the Levant, without need for later more risky military campaigns.

 

[aktarian]

If we talk of "integrated" as meaning basic pacification, a task that typically required 2-3 decades to the Romans, I may agree. Say conquest up to the Oder under Augustus, expansion to the Vistula under Tiberius or Claudius. If we talk of "integration" meaning the centuries-long task of developing it to match the levels of the rest of Roman Europe, no, that's far too much time.

I ment pacification to a degree that large scale rebellions don't happen and what troubles do happen local garisson can handle

I'm thinking along push to the Oder then depending on local conditions border is set up either there on the Elbewith interest up to the Oder. Upper Vistula is integrated as a border. Then later push up the Vistula, turning east to take land east of it.

Well, we may use the suggested butterfly and have the heavy plough be spread to northern Europe by deported Jewish colonists. Again, the difference in agricultural yield is such that once the other colonists and settled locals notice it, the innovation shall spread fairly quickly.

True. once heavy plough is invented and introduced production and profits will go up. Never claimed otherwise, I was just sceptical about how soon can it be invented

A substantial component of Christianity's success was due to the troubles of the late Empire, people seeking spiritual solace and welfare relief in the social network of the Church. In a successful Empire, it is most likely that Christianity never reaches critical mass, even if the butterflies don't snuff it out in the bud, and it remains a crackpot minor cult in the complex religious landscape of the Empire, like many other contemporary mystery cults.

Could be. If overall quality of life increases (and with more stable borders and absence of usurpers it would) christianity looses its target audience. it could be fairly limited and romans might see it as Jewish sect (read possible ticket to Germanian colonies)

Two centuries to break even with the heavy plough seems frankly excessive to me. Britannia got radically different in much less time.

Well, I wasn't thinking in terms of heavy plough agriculture. and Britannia was more developed than Germania so less improvement was needed

OTOH, it is easier to assimilate barbarian areas to Roman civilization once you pacify them since locals will be eager to adopt your superior culture. In more civilized areas, local culture has to merged with Roman one, which may take longer.

The pacification is the key. In Gaul, Dacia... it was easy as you confronted one enemy. In Germania it was truckloads of tribes with no real centres you could target

Goths were "allowed" to settle in Gaul at thier own terms under duress, because by then the late empire was too weak to say no.

However it was in Gaul, not italy. And Goths held Italy at some point. and Roman empire wasn't as powerless as you seem to think, Alaric held long negotiations and steadily decreased his demands to the minimum. The fact that he was given finger each time and screwed over many times as well indicates that Rome held some cards and Goths were aware of them. Goths were not able to dictate terms, otherwise they could simply settle at either point of their trek, be it Balkans or Italy

All good ideas on how a Sarmatian "Russia" could arise ITTL to resist Roman expansion, especially if Rome is focused on expansion in the Middle East.

Well, whatever happens it would be vastly different as we have just removed or emasculated both principal people from its formation. The question remains how exactlly would Sarmantians/north Black Sea develop and how would they deal with people that Steppe regulary threw up and who hurled themselves at Europe.

 

[Eurofed]

I ment pacification to a degree that large scale rebellions don't happen and what troubles do happen local garisson can handle.

Again, more or less a generation. Except the Jewish, no culture whatsoever resisted Roman assimilation in a major way loger than that.

I'm thinking along push to the Oder then depending on local conditions border is set up either there on the Elbe with interest up to the Oder. Upper Vistula is integrated as a border. Then later push up the Vistula, turning east to take land east of it.

Well, the Oder border makes it rather easier than the Elbe line to establish a fairly continuous and much shorter border with the Dniester. I expect that TTL Rome would plan to conquer Bohemia and Dacia in combination or soon after the first wave of conquest in Germania. That's one reason why I rather prefer Oder to Elbe as the provisional border.

Could be. If overall quality of life increases (and with more stable borders and absence of usurpers it would) christianity looses its target audience. it could be fairly limited and romans might see it as Jewish sect (read possible ticket to Germanian colonies).

Deportation of Jews to Germanian colonies in all likelihood happens under such conditions that they are not allowed to survive as a cohesive cultural unit, however.

ITTL Christianity might die out, or remain as a fringe sect within the Jewish minority.

The pacification is the key. In Gaul, Dacia... it was easy as you confronted one enemy. In Germania it was truckloads of tribes with no real centres you could target.

I would not emphasize the political cohesion of the Gaulish tribes, however. Caesar would have had it much more difficult if they had been able to make anything like a true united front. And again, Britannia was not really different.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

I think that the debate as of late has become about Rome finding Europe's 'natural borders' and, because of any competition from outsiders, becoming like China, as many have already made the comparison.

What is being missed, I believe, is three things: European geography, Roman imperialism and the nature of the Roman Empire when compared to China.
But first to define what I meant in my first paragraph. When I mention Europe's natural boundaries in the context of the Roman Empire, I mean the much-touted Dniester frontier. Many have said that this gives the Empire control of Europe's demographic, industrial, agricultural and geographic heartland; beyond is steppe and wilderness which, at the time, sustained no civilisaion comparable to Rome.
Then, my second statement, of Rome becoming 'like China'. This has been raised several times, and it seems that what is meant is a large, insular body that, despite some internal fractures, will always somehow reunite with or without some satellite provinces (Tibet, Xianjian etc.)
I aim to show through my three points that Rome can fulfil neither of those two definitions.

1. Geography. It is fairly self evident that, if Rome were to control most of central Europe by the 3rd century, then the crises of the 5th and 6th could be avoided. The Germanic and Slavic tribes would be interrupted in their migration patterns, thereby butterflying away the Gothic and Slavic migrations. However, to look at how Rome would get to the Dniester, we have to ask 'is Rome up up the task of ruling a large land empire?'
At first this may be patently ridiculous: the Roman Empire, at its height, covered about one eighth of the globe, surely, you say, Rome is the epitome of a great land empire.

However, where do these lands lie? All of the key privinces; Italy, Africa, Egypt, Syria etc., lie on the Mediterranean. Like the Greeks around the Aegean, the Romans clustered around their 'Mare Nostrum' like frogs. That was where the trade was, in corn especially, and it was where all the wealth was. Places like Britain were only there because some limping stammerer needed to prove how tough he was (no offence Claudius).

However, the Romans held places like Gaul and Thrace, Anatolia and even Armenia. Well, how were these resupplied? A previous poster commented that resupply from the Rhone (from the Mediterranean) was crucial and would be, and I agree with them totally. Does Rome have the resources to move goods thousands of miles by road to and from the frontier? Even if the legions could build enough roads to do so, would things like maintainence be taken care of all the way, and furthermore, is the technology advanced enough? I'm no expert, and so it may well be that building a vast highway from the Rhine to the Dniester is very different from building a road from Albania to Turkey.

2. Roman Imperialism. Why did Rome conquer provinces? Well, two reasons. The first was that her leaders, especially in the period of the late Republic when most expansion took place, were almost universally driven to an almost psychotic need to prove their worth within the social and political order and to show his greatness by glorifying the state. There's that, and they just wanted more stuff, things like gold mines, slaves or valuable luxuries. Now, does Central Europe qualify either of those criteria?
Well, if we're using a POD before 14 Ad then maybe, perhaps the frontier becomes a rite of passage for young officers and for new generals to prove their mettle before being sent to fight the big boy sin the east. This could well be the case, however there is one problem with this and that is the legion. I'll come back to the army in my next point, but legions had a nasty tendency to mutiny when there wasn't any good swag to be had while on campaign far away from home, especially if the general's a big crap.
But then there's valuable resources. Now, in our post-industrial world (at least here in Europe) we can look at the industrial heartlands of Silesia or the Ruhr and say that surely these areas are some of the most economically active in Europe, worth far more, objectively, than Bulgaria or Albania. However, the Romans had a very different way of judging the value of their possessions, and the thing that attracted people to those areas of Europe in the first place wasn't silk or incence, but lots of good land. Now, did the Romans value good land? Yes, they did, they liked food. But who owned the land? Very rich men with thousands of slaves tending to latifundia in southern Italy, Africa or Egypt. Did these men have an incentive to go looking for land up north? Not really, they had enough and if they wanted more then they'd buy some of the really good stuff in Egypt.
The people attracted to the kind of open land available in Central Europe are small-holding, independent farmers who were entreprenuerial and, in other centuries, would no doubt 'head west' or go to town to seek their fortunes. Now, where do these people exist in Roman society? The army; 20 years of service and you get a few acres all to yourself. But does the army provide enough impetus to expansion? Can military expansion fuel itself? Well in the early 1st century maybe, when soldiers were generally poorer, more rustic types who weren't used to the rich donatives given off by later Emperors. Basically, a POD would be required before the average soldier became more interested in his bonus than his retirement settlement.

3. The nature of Rome itself. I've mentioned the army, and so this will concern them the most. The Roman army was, even in the good old days, not very effective. Highly disciplined and efficient, yes, but loyal to their generals rather than their government and concerned more with pay than with security. I've said that maybe this new frontier could be a kind of 'old west' thing for the Romans, but there's a problem: the Roman leaders wouldn't want to go west, there was no demand for going west (or east); being consigned to some garrison duty was more of a burden than anything, it effectively froze your career for several years wile you did nothing but be cold and fight savages. There was little incentive for expansion for generals because those who did try and expand and be vigorous were liquidated or ultiamtely made themselves Emperor, and once they had the Purple, they didn't want to go back to fighting for a patch of dirt, because they had Rome, and Rome was all that mattered.

Of course, we've all been assuming that the Germans would be a pushover; Teutoberger Wald and the Marcomannic wars probed that they had fight in them when they united, which they probably would once they see Romans coming to tear down their sacred groves. Then we're confronted with: if the Germans are going to fight, and there's little incentive for the Romans to attack anyway, why would they mount an offensive?'

However this point isn't about that, it's about the after-effects of such a campaign. Say the Romans do push east, they found thousands of settler colonies across the Rhine and reach the Oder; they clear forests and put the land under heavy cultivation; they spread civilisation and establish proper provinces with nive Roman-esque cities.
This, of course, has been accomplished by the Roman army, which has become more important as it's effectively become a sipher, moving the Empire's underclasses from the cities to the north by way of two decades of gruelling hard work. Swollen by these new recruits (and because of all the extra fighting they'll be doing) more generals get cocky and so Imperial rule becomes more unstable; these frontier generals, with multiple legiosn under their command, leave their posts to try and take Rome every now and again, and soon the lines of communication to the frontier are so long at that generals are moving their forces back permanently to be closer to Rome, so that once the current emperor is killed, they can have a say in who succeeds him.
This therefore means that, as always, Roman self interest causes the frontiers to contract and the system to fall apart. Rome can't be like China because Chinese civilisation and culture developed a civil bureaucracy very quickly; a kind of separation of powers existed between the martial aristocracy and the civil service. Furthermore, the status of Emperor had been around forever, from the time of the Yellow Emperor. The Mandate of Heaven was very real, and so the Emperor as centre not only of China but of the cosmos was crucial. Rome had no such office or any such history, the title of Emperor was late coming; before that it had been dressed up in republcian clothing. Therefore, Rome was more a military dictatorship than an empire, and so could not hope to have the stability and homogenity of China.

Thank you for trudging through that.

 

[Monty Burns]

Thank you for trudging through that.

Very good points, and I agree with all of them.

Nevertheless, there's always the point of "fait accompli" and catching up with new situations.

As I frequently read, the battle at Teutoburg came rather surprising to the Romans, which seemed to have thought that Germania Magna is already quite done. So let's assume the Romans get tipps, kill certain Germanic leaders, make new alliances,... all that stuff the Romans were actually quite good at. Now if they succeed in taking Germania only up to the Elbe, as you said, supplying the new frontier is significantly different to anything the Romans had to do elsewhere. A whole new problem geographically. In later centuries, the Romans would likely know that which could prevent further expansionism - and maybe in some cases actually had. Now if Germania is Roman in the first century, nobody would think about giving up a province, even if it's costly. So the Romans would hold on Germania and therefore will have to develop new means of long-range supplying, better navigational skills in the North sea which therefore increase Roman power around the North Sea and into the Baltic Sea as well as increasing trade there, maybe producing the return on holding on Germania which they otherwise lacked (think of ember or dried fish). Overall, the necessity to hold on Germania should be helpful in other regions as well. If the Romans can supply say 4 legions on the Elbe, the organisational skills required should be helpful in supplying 4 legions on the Tigris as well.

 

[Mikestone8]

Now if Germania is Roman in the first century, nobody would think about giving up a province, even if it's costly.

Dicia had been Roman for about 150 years when it was abandoned, and the Rhine-Danube angle for nearly 200. having been held for a long time didn't make an outlying province indispensible.

 

[aktarian]

Again, more or less a generation. Except the Jewish, no culture whatsoever resisted Roman assimilation in a major way loger than that.

sounds about right

Well, the Oder border makes it rather easier than the Elbe line to establish a fairly continuous and much shorter border with the Dniester. I expect that TTL Rome would plan to conquer Bohemia and Dacia in combination or soon after the first wave of conquest in Germania. That's one reason why I rather prefer Oder to Elbe as the provisional border.

I would say extent of initial conquest depends on how those lands are pacified and knowledge of geography. todaywe canlook at even the most basic map and easily see where rivers lie and where it would be a good idea to draw a border. but how much of that did Romans knew.Which is why 'm advocating slow push at first, then when more knowledge is gathered (both geography and demographics) push again into better known space

Deportation of Jews to Germanian colonies in all likelihood happens under such conditions that they are not allowed to survive as a cohesive cultural unit, however.

ITTL Christianity might die out, or remain as a fringe sect within the Jewish minority.

That wasmy idea for jewish deportation in the first place. Spread them through entire colony, disperse them among Roman colonist. you break their cohesion but still gain benefits oflrgenumber of colonists

IMO Christianity wouldn't die out, but would be limited. Depending on how first converts fare (ignored, treated as Jews, dispersed together with rebellious Jews....)

I would not emphasize the political cohesion of the Gaulish tribes, however. Caesar would have had it much more difficult if they had been able to make anything like a true united front. And again, Britannia was not really different.

But Ceasar didn't have to deal with new tribe again and again either.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Very good points, and I agree with all of them.

Nevertheless, there's always the point of "fait accompli" and catching up with new situations.

As I frequently read, the battle at Teutoburg came rather surprising to the Romans, which seemed to have thought that Germania Magna is already quite done. So let's assume the Romans get tipps, kill certain Germanic leaders, make new alliances,... all that stuff the Romans were actually quite good at. Now if they succeed in taking Germania only up to the Elbe, as you said, supplying the new frontier is significantly different to anything the Romans had to do elsewhere. A whole new problem geographically. In later centuries, the Romans would likely know that which could prevent further expansionism - and maybe in some cases actually had. Now if Germania is Roman in the first century, nobody would think about giving up a province, even if it's costly. So the Romans would hold on Germania and therefore will have to develop new means of long-range supplying, better navigational skills in the North sea which therefore increase Roman power around the North Sea and into the Baltic Sea as well as increasing trade there, maybe producing the return on holding on Germania which they otherwise lacked (think of ember or dried fish). Overall, the necessity to hold on Germania should be helpful in other regions as well. If the Romans can supply say 4 legions on the Elbe, the organisational skills required should be helpful in supplying 4 legions on the Tigris as well.

Germania Magna had almost been conquered numerous times in Roman history, as no doubt ha salready been pointed out before. However, that area was already heavily Romanised and many tribes had relations with Rome-remember, Hermann was actually a Roman knight who was educated and spoke latin. The elite was thoroughly un-German and so conquest would be easier.
Romanisation was facilitated by Gaul, and so therefore it became easier for the Roman cultural influence to seep across the Rhine; the Rhine had been less of a barrier than an artery of trade and ideas in the pre-Caesar world, German tribes would cros all the time either to raid or to trade. In the Gallic Wars, one of the reason the Suebi crossed the Rhine was to help their Gallic allies, so there had always been relation between the peopels on either side, and the Romans merely took over the communications between them and made them all speak latin. The idea that there was some great dividing line is realy just a Frano-Germanic nationalist myth.

However, that wasn't your point. However, I'm saying that conquering Germanic Magna and conquering east Germany are two very different things. For one, the people there have far less experience in daeling with Rome; the natives of Gaul or Germania Magna had traded with and been culturally influenced by Roem for centuries; not so further east. This makes it less likely that they'll accept the Romans, so there'll be more solidarity among the tribes who would resist the Romans more fiercely (unlike in Gaul or Britain where there's always someone who will side with the Romans to make themselvse rich; Togidubnus, for example).

You also mentioned resupply via the North Sea and here I think we run afoul of technology. The Romans, like the Greeks, were very good at building galleys. They could fight big battles and have big trading ships on the Mediterranean, that was, after all, where most of their trade was. The North Sea, however, is completely different. Much rougher waters and stronger winds make galleys almost helpless against the waters, and so they'd have to build something more like a Medieval Holk;a great lumbering vessel with high gunwales. I don't think the Romans would want to do this when they could build a nice road, although admitedly where there's a will, there is a way, especially with Romans involved. So I'm not saying resupply or trade by sea is impossible, but I'm sayign it would be very hard.

Oh, and as for the Baltic amber trade, the Romans already had full access to it; not directly, but they did trade with the Germans. If they were to reach the Elba then they'd have easier access, but really it isn't necessary for them to conquer all of Germany just to have access to it. That and, the Romans weren't so fussed; I've said that a key motivation for expansion was natural resources, well if those natural resources ar thousands of miles away and surrounded by hostile tribesmen, the Romans would probably say it isn't worth it. That's why they knew about the enormous treasures of India, but didn't bother to conquer it-too far away and too strong to take down if you got there.

 

[Monty Burns]

However, that wasn't your point. However, I'm saying that conquering Germanic Magna and conquering east Germany are two very different things. For one, the people there have far less experience in daeling with Rome; the natives of Gaul or Germania Magna had traded with and been culturally influenced by Roem for centuries; not so further east. This makes it less likely that they'll accept the Romans, so there'll be more solidarity among the tribes who would resist the Romans more fiercely (unlike in Gaul or Britain where there's always someone who will side with the Romans to make themselvse rich; Togidubnus, for example).

True. But I only discussed conquering Germania Magna. Now if the Romans achieve this up to the Elbe under Augustus, then say under Nero or shortly after, the Germans east of the Elbe are as romanized and exposed to Roman influence as those Germans east of the Rhine were under Augustus.

You also mentioned resupply via the North Sea and here I think we run afoul of technology. The Romans, like the Greeks, were very good at building galleys. They could fight big battles and have big trading ships on the Mediterranean, that was, after all, where most of their trade was. The North Sea, however, is completely different. Much rougher waters and stronger winds make galleys almost helpless against the waters, and so they'd have to build something more like a Medieval Holk;a great lumbering vessel with high gunwales. I don't think the Romans would want to do this when they could build a nice road, although admitedly where there's a will, there is a way, especially with Romans involved. So I'm not saying resupply or trade by sea is impossible, but I'm sayign it would be very hard.

I know it's hard. But it could be worth it. As you say, the Romans mastered galleys. Not fit for Atlantic and North-Sea trade. I'm no expert, but I assume that anything that allows for year-round supply of Romans on the Elbe by sea should facilitate North Sea and Atlantic trade significantly. And those ships shpould also be able to go around Denmark and trade ember directly. Those ships should also be able to sail south to Guinea. The technology the Romans would have to develop could therefore increase trade in all those areas which were not profitable IOTL. And they should link the western parts of the Imperium closer to Rome. At the same time, those ships might also facilitate trade with India and China.

My point was that holding and supplying Germania Magna would be quite a challenge - as stated repeatedly. From a rational point of view in later times, many Romans would say it isn't worth it. Under Augustus, they wouldn'T think in those lines, they would take the challenge and I say they would succeed, providing them valuable tools for usage throughout the Empire from shipping, organization of long-range supplies via road, pacifying eastern Germans, spreading trade and civilzation further into Northern Europe, securing the Rhine valley...

Oh, and as for the Baltic amber trade, the Romans already had full access to it; not directly, but they did trade with the Germans. If they were to reach the Elba then they'd have easier access, but really it isn't necessary for them to conquer all of Germany just to have access to it. That and, the Romans weren't so fussed; I've said that a key motivation for expansion was natural resources, well if those natural resources ar thousands of miles away and surrounded by hostile tribesmen, the Romans would probably say it isn't worth it. That's why they knew about the enormous treasures of India, but didn't bother to conquer it-too far away and too strong to take down if you got there.

True, but that's where, as I said previously, the new ships come into play. Any ship that can sail from Londinium to Hamburg safely can also sail around Denmark and into the Baltic, taking over ember trade directly. Those ships therefore would alter the relation of costs and utility of far-away conquests and international trade significantly.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

I know it's hard. But it could be worth it. As you say, the Romans mastered galleys. Not fit for Atlantic and North-Sea trade. I'm no expert, but I assume that anything that allows for year-round supply of Romans on the Elbe by sea should facilitate North Sea and Atlantic trade significantly. And those ships shpould also be able to go around Denmark and trade ember directly. Those ships should also be able to sail south to Guinea. The technology the Romans would have to develop could therefore increase trade in all those areas which were not profitable IOTL. And they should link the western parts of the Imperium closer to Rome. At the same time, those ships might also facilitate trade with India and China.

--------------------------------------------------------------


True, but that's where, as I said previously, the new ships come into play. Any ship that can sail from Londinium to Hamburg safely can also sail around Denmark and into the Baltic, taking over ember trade directly. Those ships therefore would alter the relation of costs and utility of far-away conquests and international trade significantly.

Do you know how seaworthy the Roman merchant ships were (because I don't)? I got the impression that there was sea trade from Britannia to the Iberian peninsula for centuries, hence the lighthouse 'Tower of Hercules'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hercules

If the Roman (or Gallo-Roman) merchant ships were able to do this, wouldn't it be plausible that they could sail close to the Friesian coast and close to the Danish Coast to reach the Baltic Sea without risking too many shipwrecks?
www.swan.ac.uk/grst/student%20papers/CLH292%20asterix.doc

Just a thought.

 

[Eurofed]

However, where do these lands lie? All of the key privinces; Italy, Africa, Egypt, Syria etc., lie on the Mediterranean. Like the Greeks around the Aegean, the Romans clustered around their 'Mare Nostrum' like frogs.

This is false. Rome conquered, held, and assimilated several areas that were outside the logistical reach of Mediterranean navigation, such as western Iberia, northern Gaul, Britannia, Dacia, eastern Anatolia.

However, the Romans held places like Gaul and Thrace, Anatolia and even Armenia. Well, how were these resupplied? A previous poster commented that resupply from the Rhone (from the Mediterranean) was crucial and would be, and I agree with them totally. Does Rome have the resources to move goods thousands of miles by road to and from the frontier? Even if the legions could build enough roads to do so, would things like maintainence be taken care of all the way, and furthermore, is the technology advanced enough?

Both you and the other poster merrily ignore that the Greco-Romans made naval trade and shipping in the western Atlantic and the North Sea, from Iberia and Gaul to Britannia, for centuries, as a routine task. Shipping from Gaul to Germania is no different. The sterotype that the Greco-Romans were unwilling and unable to ship beyond the mediterranean is false.

I'm no expert, and so it may well be that building a vast highway from the Rhine to the Dniester is very different from building a road from Albania to Turkey.

This is insane. There is no valid reason why building a Roman road in northern Europe would be any different from doing it in the Balkans and Anatolia.

2. Roman Imperialism. Why did Rome conquer provinces? Well, two reasons. The first was that her leaders, especially in the period of the late Republic when most expansion took place, were almost universally driven to an almost psychotic need to prove their worth within the social and political order and to show his greatness by glorifying the state. There's that, and they just wanted more stuff, things like gold mines, slaves or valuable luxuries. Now, does Central Europe qualify either of those criteria?

Germania does have some resources that can be exploited by Romans: amber, iron, slaves come to mind.

But then there's valuable resources. Now, in our post-industrial world (at least here in Europe) we can look at the industrial heartlands of Silesia or the Ruhr and say that surely these areas are some of the most economically active in Europe, worth far more, objectively, than Bulgaria or Albania. However, the Romans had a very different way of judging the value of their possessions, and the thing that attracted people to those areas of Europe in the first place wasn't silk or incence, but lots of good land. Now, did the Romans value good land? Yes, they did, they liked food. But who owned the land? Very rich men with thousands of slaves tending to latifundia in southern Italy, Africa or Egypt. Did these men have an incentive to go looking for land up north? Not really, they had enough and if they wanted more then they'd buy some of the really good stuff in Egypt.

We have been discussing ways by which the heavy plough would spread to Roman Germania, which makes land in Northern Europe as valuable as the one around the Mediterranean. Do you wish to argue that land in Middle Age Germany was not worth owning and fighting over ? If so, there are several centuries of German nobles that would wish to have a word with you.

The people attracted to the kind of open land available in Central Europe are small-holding, independent farmers who were entreprenuerial and, in other centuries, would no doubt 'head west' or go to town to seek their fortunes. Now, where do these people exist in Roman society? The army; 20 years of service and you get a few acres all to yourself. But does the army provide enough impetus to expansion? Can military expansion fuel itself? Well in the early 1st century maybe, when soldiers were generally poorer, more rustic types who weren't used to the rich donatives given off by later Emperors.

Since we are arguing that Germania would be conquered in the early-mid 1st century, you have indeed answered your own argument.

Of course, we've all been assuming that the Germans would be a pushover; Teutoberger Wald and the Marcomannic wars probed that they had fight in them when they united, which they probably would once they see Romans coming to tear down their sacred groves. Then we're confronted with: if the Germans are going to fight, and there's little incentive for the Romans to attack anyway, why would they mount an offensive?'

Rome won the Marcomannic wars, and we have been arguing that changing the course of things in the early 1st century, Rome would eventually vanquish the Germanics like it did with all the other peoples of Europe. Hiberians, Gauls, Marcomanni, Cimbri, Dacians, were no pushovers, either. But Rome vanquished them all.

these frontier generals, with multiple legiosn under their command, leave their posts to try and take Rome every now and again, and soon the lines of communication to the frontier are so long at that generals are moving their forces back permanently to be closer to Rome, so that once the current emperor is killed, they can have a say in who succeeds him.

This is utterly ridiculous. Roman generals in the early empire never gave up provinces to barbarians for the sake of getting a better shot at civil wars. It only started to happen very late in Roman hustory, when the general state of the Empire had greatly deteriorated.

Rome can't be like China because Chinese civilisation and culture developed a civil bureaucracy very quickly; a kind of separation of powers existed between the martial aristocracy and the civil service. Furthermore, the status of Emperor had been around forever, from the time of the Yellow Emperor. The Mandate of Heaven was very real, and so the Emperor as centre not only of China but of the cosmos was crucial. Rome had no such office or any such history, the title of Emperor was late coming; before that it had been dressed up in republcian clothing. Therefore, Rome was more a military dictatorship than an empire, and so could not hope to have the stability and homogenity of China.

Are you saying that a Rome that skips or weathers the 3rd and 5th-6th century crises thanks to the assimilation of Germania and Mesopotamia had no capability whatsoever for evolving their political system, creating a professional civil service, giving the Imperial office religious veneration, and so on ? The Byzantines would like to have a word with you.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

Germania does have some resources that can be exploited by Romans: amber, iron, slaves come to mind.

Maybe also horses, timber and fur.

 

[Eurofed]

Maybe also horses, timber and fur.

Quite true.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

This is false. Rome conquered, held, and assimilated several areas that were outside the logistical reach of Mediterranean navigation, such as western Iberia, northern Gaul, Britannia, Dacia, eastern Anatolia.



Both you and the other poster merrily ignore that the Greco-Romans made naval trade and shipping in the western Atlantic and the North Sea, from Iberia and Gaul to Britannia, for centuries, as a routine task. Shipping from Gaul to Germania is no different. The sterotype that the Greco-Romans were unwilling and unable to ship beyond the mediterranean is false.



This is insane. There is no valid reason why building a Roman road in northern Europe would be any different from doing it in the Balkans and Anatolia.



Germania does have some resources that can be exploited by Romans: amber, iron, slaves come to mind.



We have been discussing ways by which the heavy plough would spread to Roman Germania, which makes land in Northern Europe as valuable as the one around the Mediterranean. Do you wish to argue that land in Middle Age Germany was not worth owning and fighting over ? If so, there are several centuries of German nobles that would wish to have a word with you.



Since we are arguing that Germania would be conquered in the early-mid 1st century, you have indeed answered your own argument.



Rome won the Marcomannic wars, and we have been arguing that changing the course of things in the early 1st century, Rome would eventually vanquish the Germanics like it did with all the other peoples of Europe. Hiberians, Gauls, Marcomanni, Cimbri, Dacians, were no pushovers, either. But Rome vanquished them all.



This is utterly ridiculous. Roman generals in the early empire never gave up provinces to barbarians for the sake of getting a better shot at civil wars. It only started to happen very late in Roman hustory, when the general state of the Empire had greatly deteriorated.



Are you saying that a Rome that skips or weathers the 3rd and 5th-6th century crises thanks to the assimilation of Germania and Mesopotamia had no capability whatsoever for evolving their political system, creating a professional civil service, giving the Imperial office religious veneration, and so on ? The Byzantines would like to have a word with you.

Ok, to answer your points in order:
1. Yes, they had trade with Ireland and other non-Mediterranean sea lanes. However, that does not entail conquest. On this board, the quickest way to show yourself to be a fool is to suggest the Romans could and would conqur Ireland, and so why would the Romans go to the bother of changing their trade patterns extensively just for Germany? It's not that valuable.

2. As for building roads; perhaps I was a little hyperbolic when I suggested building the roads would be harder, but it would take longer, would requrie the movements of large bodies of material thousands of miles by cart or some equivalent means of non-waterborne transport, and would eat up the legions' time when they're supposed to be, well, legions. Between building roads, cities, camps and anything else needed, they'd have no time to pacify the countryside. I'm saying that the legions would need to expend so much time and resources on maintaining fragile lines of communication that they would be unable to effectively counter Germanic insurgencies or resistance.

3. Yes, Germania does have iron, slaves and amber, but would the Romans bother? The Germans were renowned for their fighting prowess, and their land was inhospitable and alien to the Romans. Now, would they fight a war of conquest for iron and slavse? No! They wouldn't; iron was plentiful elsewhere and anyway, Rome's industry was nowhere near developed enough to require any kind of concerted effort to obtain iron-it wasn't economical to move iron around in those days for any significant distance.
So no, Germany's resources don't qualify it for conquest; too much effort for far too little.

4. My point wasn't that the land isn't worth anything, it's that the land isn't worth anything to the established patricians who control the Roman army and Roman agriculture. If you've got vast latifundia estates in Southern Italy, North Africa and Egypt, worked by thousands of slaves and earning you huge amounts of money which you use to bribe your way into high office, and the oppurtunity arises for you to conquer some new lands which you could own (which would be useless because it was uneconomical to shift grain from Germany to Rome, unlike from Egypt or Africa) then you wouldn't be too interested.
As I've said, the landed gentry don't go colonising. How many viscounts or earls do you think went from England to America? None, because they had their land and their wealth and were happy with what they had, and so were the Roman elites.
The reason the German warlords of the middle ages valued their land was because distribution networks were poor and so grain always had to be produced locally by smallholding peasants, unlike the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the feudal system lniked their power and influence to the amount of peasants they 'owned' and how much land they could tax. Such a concept did not and does not exist in Roman Italy, where the elites directly owned large estates managed by slaves, rather than leasing out land to smallholders.

5. You say that the army would drive its own expansion in the first century. The army in the first century under Augustus had far less influence than in the 3rd or 4th centuries. If Augustus wanted to conquer Germany, he could, and would, but he didn't want to. The soldiers, happy with increased pay and peace, didn't want wars and if they did, wanted plunder not land. My argument was that if the army did move east and became the main redistributer of land to retired soldiers, then the army would become more and more important making Rome a military dictatorship and then precipitating a crisis similar to that of the 3rd century but far worse and far more long lasting.

6. Rome barely won the Marcomannic wars, and gained virtually nothing. I'm saying that the Germans would arlly together in the face of the Romans and that, although they probably wouldn't win (although I don't fancy Rome's chances east of the Elba, different terrain, different peoples, fiercer, with better local knowledge. Not good for an imperialist power-ask LBJ) they could make it so difficult and so costly for the Romans that their conquests wouldn't be worth the farm land. If the only reason for expansion is for soldiers to get land, and the soldiers say' forget it, this isn't worth it, I just want some money please' then the cassus belli collapses and the expansion halts, if not falling apart entirely because of plummeting morale. More than once have tired and war weary soldiers turned back an over enthusiastic general.

7. I'm not arguing about the early empire here. I'm saying that, as the theoretical army I've postulated has become more powerful and more dominant in politics, then the generals who inevitably fancy themselves Caesar will move closer to Rome with their soldiers (who will support only them because they'll have been stuck on some frontier together for decades) and thereby abandon the already fragile lines of communcation. Given that OTL Rome did this fairly regularly, the rhythms of Imperial decay and then re-creation would be slower, as it would take longer for the legiosn to re-establish themselves, and meanwhile, with more pushy generals and less and less imperial power, the empire would become overstretched and would begin to contract as instability means that individual generals move their troops closer to Roem so that they can secure power for themselves.

8. Yes, I am saying that Rome can't create a civil bureaucracy. The Roman political elite had, for centuries, if not a millennium at that point, been both military and civil-Consuls led armies and military tribunes were elected. With no division between the army and the government, military dictatorship came about and would only worsen in this alternate Rome. A civil bureaucracy requires a non-military Emperor who rules through law and his own family's dignity and prestige; his dynastic prerogative for them to thereby becoem the doormen to Imperial power-the gatekeepers etc. etc. Rome could not have this as any expansion fo the Empire entails an expansion in the army's power and a decline in the civilians. Furthermore, Rome lacked any real Imperial Dynasties. Sure, we can point to the Julio-Claudians or the Flavians, but they didn't last long and were all founded and maintaiend by military men; military power was crucial-Augustus rose to power via the army, but even bookish Claudius needed to invade Britain to prove himself. Nero was toppled because he was, well, mad, but also because he was week and treated the army poorly, as did Caligula. The first two Flavians were both soldiers but Domitian, who could have founded a proper Imperial Dynasty, was murdered because he tried to do just that. The most Imperial Roman Emperor was assassinated because he was too, well, imperial. The Romans didn't want Emperors, at least not in their period of vitality in the 1st anc 2nd centuries; they wanted military men who could bring about stability but also cloak themselves in Republican terminology. The Emperors derived their authority through their honorary titles of Censor, Tribune or Pontif, and through their command of the armies, not through their own dynasty. Augustus tried to say he was descended from Venus and no one took him seriously, nor did anyone take Caligula deriously.

As for the Byzantines, they only became properly Imperial because of the infusion of Christianity. Christianity made the Emperor equal of the apostles, and conferred upon him almost theocratic rule. This gave him a veneer of respectability which was unprecedented in Rome. That's why they opposed Constantine so harshy, not only because he was imposing a subversive cult upon the empire, but also because he was the cult leader and, at least until the ascendency of the Papacy, could exert considerable influence upon the Church, thereby rinforcing his own autocratic rule.

So therefore, Rome cannot become anything like China because of its own internal anachronisms; it used to be a Republic, and even until the late periods of the Empire, there was still a spark of this republicanism which many still held on to, and although it was rarely if ever taken seriously, it was usually seen as fairly arrogant and barbaric to ignore it, and thereby the city's heritage.

That of course is another reason why it can't become a proper Empire-it was Rome. Rome was far too central, as was Constantinople. If we're using a POD in the 1st century when the city was still the centre of the world, then it would be very hard for generals to stomach very long stints abroad on some god-forsaken damp plain when the great city was thousands of miles away. But my reasons above are more important.