Varus Dies Before Battle of Teutoburg Forest
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Before we get into the details of the enlarged Roman Empire splitting, we need to see how it's going to enlarge and to what degree.
So, I repeat myself:
What will Varus' replacement do?
So, I repeat myself:
What will Varus' replacement do?
Anaxagoras
Banned
It was the foolish decision of Varus to trust Arminius that led the legions into the trap of Teutoburg Forest- certainly in the running for the greatest disaster in history caused by a single person's bad decision.
No Varus, no disaster. Can we assume that the Romanization of Germania goes forward, as Augustus wished? The Romans had certainly been succeassful pushing their borders up to the Danube during these years.
My two cents: by 25 A.D., Germania is a Roman province and the border is firmly planted on the Elbe. This, needless to say, completely changes the course of history, even if Rome does not expand further.
Anaxagoras
Banned
This would make a very interesting timeline if anyone is up for the challenge...
I've been thinking about it. I haven't tackled a major TL since I finished Rule Britannia and fishing around for something new. But we have a new Rome Survives TL just started (and nice so ar, I think), so it would probably be redundant anyway.
Last edited:
Well, this is more about Rome expanding more, then splintering differently then Rome surviving to the present day. Though I can understand not wanting to tackle a project this massive.
Even if Varus's replacement is less stupid and less trusting, Arminius was no fool himself. He could cause the Romans serious problems--the reason he was able to triumph at TW was because he knew how the Romans would fight and he knew how to figure a way around that.
Its one of those ideas that gets posed in some form or other a lot on here, but I can't remember seeing any detailed or completed TLs dealing with it.
So Rome stops at the Elbe thats pretty much were the European plain starts right? So that is really that last really good defensible border West of the Urals? how far into OTL E. Europe do they go, if it all?
Eurofed
Banned
Oh, no. As I shall always be eager to tell the forum
, there was a much, much better European border for Rome on the Vistula-Carpathian-Dniester line. It was much shorter and more defensible than the Elbe, brought far more potentially valuable land and potentially dangerous peoples under the control of Rome for assimilation and development at the peak of the Empire's strength.This would make a very interesting timeline if anyone is up for the challenge...
I am rather surprised no one has yet.
And speaking of alternative history timelines, is it possible to construct a plausible timeline involving Alexander the Great surviving his illness and conquering the Arabian peninsula, and combining that with the Roman Empire avoiding the Teutoburg Wald disaster (thereby consolidating the Elbe-Danube frontier) and conquering Mesopotamia a century later under Trajan -with all its implications?
Anaxagoras
Banned
Well, the survival of Alexander the Great would obviously create so many butterflies that the Roman Empire wouldn't develop, at least not in anything like its form IOTL. There would be no Battle of Teutoburg Forest, and certainly no Trajan.
Eurofed
Banned
In the very long term, I could well decide to try and do a successful Rome TL, either one where the enlarged Roman Empire remains united or it splits in two/three but endures to the present. It's an idea I've kept on the backburner for some time and a much cherished PoD of mine. But don't hold your breath for it. I've already too much stuff on the pipeline.
I simply can't see how one battle could change the future of the Roman Empire as drastically as some people suggest. Whilst it did, in fact, made the option and desire to colonize the "savage" Germanic not very appealing for the Romans, halting their expansion north, it did not mean the end of the empire.
In fact, I dare claim that if the Romans were succesful in colonizing the north, the true problem of the Empire, politics, would become even worse. After all, more land and claims, more riches for whoever is emperor, right?
So, alright, let's presume they actually manage to colonize most of the Germanic lands. Then what? They've still got a very large piece of land filled by a somewhat resistant civilization, filled with "barbarians".
Secondly, for many years, I believe the Germanic lands would cost the Romans more than it would earn them riches and such.
Finally, the aforementioned dreadful politics. A bigger empire is much more vulnerable to civil wars than a small empire (Though of course both can have civil wars from time to time). So will the Roman Empire meet more Germanic usurpers? Things like that.
In fact, I dare claim that if the Romans were succesful in colonizing the north, the true problem of the Empire, politics, would become even worse. After all, more land and claims, more riches for whoever is emperor, right?
So, alright, let's presume they actually manage to colonize most of the Germanic lands. Then what? They've still got a very large piece of land filled by a somewhat resistant civilization, filled with "barbarians".
Secondly, for many years, I believe the Germanic lands would cost the Romans more than it would earn them riches and such.
Finally, the aforementioned dreadful politics. A bigger empire is much more vulnerable to civil wars than a small empire (Though of course both can have civil wars from time to time
). So will the Roman Empire meet more Germanic usurpers? Things like that.Eurofed
Banned
Those "barbarians" would not stay defiant and unRomanized for very long. Take a comparison with pre-Roman Britannia, Dacia, Iberia, and Gallia. All went peaceful, Romanized, and loyal to the Empire within less than a century.
At the start, sure, but it won't stay that way forever. Germania had some valuable resources (amber, iron) and plenty of valuable land to develop, especially if (as I fully expect) conquest of Northern Europe causes Rome to quickly develop the technology (heavy plough, horse collar) to develop it in full. As a picture of how much valuable Romanized Germania would turn for the Empire, you need to look to High/Late Middle Age Germany-Bohemia. Far, far from being a resource drain, it would turn into another European demographic and economic stronghold for the Empire, like Gallia and Hiberia.
Finally, the aforementioned dreadful politics. A bigger empire is much more vulnerable to civil wars than a small empire (Though of course both can have civil wars from time to time
True, but looking at this Empire borders, the overwhelming majority of its legions are going to be concentrated on the steppe and Persian borders, which are fairly narrow, and some in Africa. Usurpers only arose from strong military concentrations, and the Senate/Pretorian Guard. So I expect civil wars to boil down to recurring West-East splits, with the occasional African one. Quite possibly one too many occurs and becomes a permanent division.
Varus actually caused the battle. While Tiberius was in charge, Arminius was a well-off ally Rome didn't want to offend because it had taken a lot of effort to win him over. Varus, however, assumed there was no danger, as otherwise, his wife's beloved uncle woudn't have sent an administrator rather than a general, took Arminius and his tribes for easily gained slaves, and installed massive taxes to make things more profitable.
So anyone other than Varus would not have provoked the Germanic tribes to war and the assimilation process would have continued?
Thing is, I would imagine at some point the Romans would levy taxes.
As I have pointed out previously, and will do so again, the notion of Teutoberg as the dramatic battle that halted the progress of Roman imperialism into Germania 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 Teutoberg Wald 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 Agri Decumates and against the Chatti, Marcus Aurelius campaigned extensively in the massive Marcomannic Wars, and planned the annexation of Sarmatia and Marcomannia as imperial provinces. As late the early third century Caracalla conducted a massive campaign in the Agri Decumates and in Germania Magna against the Alammani, and 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 235 AD, when it is known that Maximinus Thrax conducted his German campaign. 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 Gaul, and that consequently, the Germanic tribes were able to conduct lengthy guerrilla conflicts without substantial harm to the infrastructure. Although the annexation of Germania is clearly sensible in 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 method 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.
What the battle of Teutoberg Wald 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 Agri Decumates and against the Chatti, Marcus Aurelius campaigned extensively in the massive Marcomannic Wars, and planned the annexation of Sarmatia and Marcomannia as imperial provinces. As late the early third century Caracalla conducted a massive campaign in the Agri Decumates and in Germania Magna against the Alammani, and 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 235 AD, when it is known that Maximinus Thrax conducted his German campaign. 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 Gaul, and that consequently, the Germanic tribes were able to conduct lengthy guerrilla conflicts without substantial harm to the infrastructure. Although the annexation of Germania is clearly sensible in 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 method 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.
Even though the Romans campaigned in those areas after Teutoberg, did they plan to annex them and colonize them or were these punitive expeditions against raiders and the like?
Eurofed
Banned
Nonetheless, that drive and momentum was halted. And if that hasn't happened, it would easily casued the annexation of whole Germania and the Danune basin, eventually. There is a huge difference in the degree of development and Romanization that Germania would have got in a few generations as a full part of the empire, and what it got in four centuries of indirect influence.
Oh, heck, not again this tiresome and faulty argument.
Roman sailors were perfectly able to navigate the "hazardous" North Sea quite well, as they did for centuries to trade with and supply garrisons in northern-central Britannia. They would have no trouble to make coastal navigation alongside northern Europe to supply garrisons on the Vistula and alongside the Black Sea coast to supply garrisons on the Dniester. And in due time cities and roads would get built and Germania devleoped. Britannia and Dacia got Romanized fine in relatively little time. Britannia and Dacia were in no real better shape and got along fine.