Varus Dies Before Battle of Teutoburg Forest

[rcduggan]

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.

Please don't. We already have timelines that further this POD to its (il)logical conclusion.

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.

Did you even read the post you quoted? The Roman "drive" to expansion was halted for only a few years, and then it resumed largely as it had before. Or were the five years bewteen Teutoburger Wald and Germanicus's raids the only time the Romans could have conquered Germania.

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.

The crucial difference is that Britain was just across the Channel and in close proximity to the mouth of the Rhine. Dacia was just across the Danube, and for what it's worth it was only Roman for less than two centuries. Germania is larger, more difficult to defend, less well-developed, more expensive to maintain, etc than Dacia or Britannia.

Britannia and Dacia were in no real better shape and got along fine.

Britannia was a short trip across the Channel, so it was easy to access from Gaul and the Roman heartland. Dacia was Roman for less than 200 years before it was abandoned during the Crisis. Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

 

[IMP CAES AVG]

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.

It most certainly was not. Does not the fact the Maximinus Thrax conducted large-scale operations deep in Magna Germania, and planned for the eventual annexation of the entire region somewhat invalidate the notion that Teutoberg Wald halted the momentum of Roman expansionism?
　

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 was situated substantially closer to the European mainland, and consequently to the well-developed and populated provinces of Gaul, as well as near the transportation hub of the mouth of the Rhine, and several ports along the Gallic coast. The Vistula estuary is situated far along Baltic Sea, past the Jutland peninsula.

Britannia and Dacia were in no real better shape and got along fine.

They most certainly did not. Britannia required a lengthy and costly military occupation, and extensive campaign of around fifty years before the region was fully pacified. Britannia remained a sinkhole of imperial finances, as the occupation was far more costly then the benefits, and its massive garrison remained entirely out of proportion to its strategic value to the Roman imperial state. Four hundred years after the Roman conquest, Britannia remained largely lightly Romanized when compared to other, non-Mediterranean provinces such as the Pannonia’s and Rhaetia, and, following the withdrawal of the Roman legionary garrison under Constantinus III, it collapsed remarkably quickly into an under-developed, infrastructure-poor tribal society. Dacia was substantially closer to the Roman imperial heartland, enjoyed easy direct lines of communication along the Danube, was closer to the Mediterranean and the highly developed and populated provinces of Macedonia and Dalmatia, and was also a substantially advanced Hellenized kingdom prior to its conquest. Even so, the province was abandoned by Aurelianus in the 270s.

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?

Some of them were quite clearly minor punitive expeditions, but several attempted annexations were made. To name only one, Caracalla’s German campaign in 213 involved a massive concentration of forces, and was accompanied by large scale building of colonial cities and by a major extension of the Roman garrisons and fortifications. Operations under Marcus Aurelius on the Danube, and under Maximinus Thrax in Germania were also of a massive scale, with eventual annexation most likely in mind.
　
　

 

[Shogun]

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.

Would it really make that much of a difference (as far as Rome is concerned) if Alexander lives a little longer than he actually did? Let's say he survives his illness, recovers enough to undertake his next mission of conquering the Arabian peninsula, suffers numerous wounds while doing so, and eventually dies from both his wounds and his heavy drinking shortly after the conquest -a few years after he historically dies.

 

[machine3589]

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.

I purposefully left out the rest of your post because this part is the key. So expansionism in Germania exsisted afterwards. But what your saying here that it stopped Augustan expansionism. Wouldnt this mean that without the Battle of Teutoberg, or with a Roman victory, that Roman expansionism in Germania wouldnt have been halted and that its integration into the Empire would have been complete sometime during or shortly after Octavians rule? Its seems like a very logical conclusion to me.

 

[Eurofed]

I purposefully left out the rest of your post because this part is the key. So expansionism in Germania exsisted afterwards. But what your saying here that it stopped Augustan expansionism. Wouldnt this mean that without the Battle of Teutoberg, or with a Roman victory, that Roman expansionism in Germania wouldnt have been halted and that its integration into the Empire would have been complete somethime during or shortly after Octavians rule? Its seems like a very logical conclusion to me.

There is an exceeding amount of hostility on this forum for an Europe-wide successful enlarged Roman Empire, with people crawling out of the woodwork to pile upon bogus difficulties, such as Roman sailors getting shy of carrying supplies through seas they navigated for centuries. I guess it is because they want to get their Balkanized map of Europe.

I won't deny real difficulties, of course, such as the political instability of the Empire causing the 3rd Century crisis. But all this talk of Romans being unwilling or unable to run a coastal navigation supply chain beyond the Rhine is farcical.

 

[ctesiphon]

There is an exceeding amount of hostility on this forum for an Europe-wide successful enlarged Roman Empire, with people crawling out of the woodwork to pile upon bogus difficulties, such as Roman sailors getting shy of carrying supplies through seas they navigated for centuries. I guess it is because they want to get their Balkanized map of Europe.

I would very much want to see a united Europe, Roman or else. Well, unless it's a Nazi/Stalinist Europe, but this is wishful thinking IMHO. Sure the Romans could supply their armies on the Vistula, but it would be a lot more costly. For a nearly useless province, they are sending their men into a wilderness, with so low production that even more supplies than OTL need to be sent from the Med, while the route is way more dangerous. And you're making Rome even bigger, which was one of it's weaknesses - when there was a mutiny/uprising, what followed was not suppression of those peoples, but reconquest of lost land. East of the Vistula there are still going to be barbarians. And same thing that happened with the Germanic tribes will happen to whoever lives there, Slavs, Finns, or some sort of Scythians. Maybe Goths. Over time they will develop, and from annoying natives they will become dangerous barbarian kingdoms. Against a frontier even further east, with all those supply difficulties. Like I said, I'd love to see a united Europe, but I don't think Rome conquering Germania is the way, not to mention what IMP CAES AVG said. He should know.

Oh and about the TL, how about "Rome conquers Germania, is even more overstretched, in 3rd century Sassanids, or *Sassanids come and it collapses"? That could be somewhat original at least.

 

[IMP CAES AVG]

I purposefully left out the rest of your post because this part is the key. So expansionism in Germania exsisted afterwards. But what your saying here that it stopped Augustan expansionism. Wouldnt this mean that without the Battle of Teutoberg, or with a Roman victory, that Roman expansionism in Germania wouldnt have been halted and that its integration into the Empire would have been complete sometime during or shortly after Octavians rule? Its seems like a very logical conclusion to me.

Quite right. You will note that I do not claim the Magna Germania up to the Elbe line was unconquerable by Romans, merely that the battle of Teutoberg Wald did not have a decisive role in halting Roman attempts at conquest and Roman operations in Germania. It is entirely possible that the region could have been entirely subjugated by Publius Quinctilius Varus and other legati, although in comparing with the very similar situation in Britannia and the Illyricum, the full conquest of Germania would have taken far longer, and required much more effort then envisioned in the Augustan strategic plan for Germany and the Danube.

There is an exceeding amount of hostility on this forum for an Europe-wide successful enlarged Roman Empire, with people crawling out of the woodwork to pile upon bogus difficulties, such as Roman sailors getting shy of carrying supplies through seas they navigated for centuries. I guess it is because they want to get their Balkanized map of Europe.

I won't deny real difficulties, of course, such as the political instability of the Empire causing the 3rd Century crisis. But all this talk of Romans being unwilling or unable to run a coastal navigation supply chain beyond the Rhine is farcical.

Perhaps I miss-stated my point. The problem is not that the conquest of Magna Germania would have been impossible for the Romans -- it most certainly was not -- but the insistence on Teutoberg Wald as the only plausible PoD, and an insistence of an massive and rapid drive to the Vistula-Dniestr line is indeed a patent misunderstanding of the historical situation. A successful conquest of Mesopotamia under M. Ulpius Traianus, L. Septimius Severus or Caracalla, and the consequent weakening of any power to arise on the Iranian plateau would probably do far more to ensure the a Europe-spanning Imperium Romanum then the conquest of miles upon useless miles of under-developed 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.
　
　

 

[Anaxagoras]

Would it really make that much of a difference (as far as Rome is concerned) if Alexander lives a little longer than he actually did?

Yes, it would make a massive difference.

Let's say he survives his illness, recovers enough to undertake his next mission of conquering the Arabian peninsula, suffers numerous wounds while doing so, and eventually dies from both his wounds and his heavy drinking shortly after the conquest -a few years after he historically dies.

Then the world is a completely different place, with different people being born. Why do you think the Italian peninsula would be the same when the rest of the world would be so completely different?

 

[Sam]

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.

What would it take to push that mid-third century date back three hundred years, in your opinion?

 

[Aspiring Author]

I can't believe this died.
Anyway: how about a timeline where another general was promoted, conquered Germany, this increased the population of Northern Europe as well as caused refugees to flee the Roman Empire bringing civilization with them, so that the Greenland colony had more people, which made the Vinland colony get off the ground...

 

[Atamolos]

I can't believe this died.
Anyway: how about a timeline where another general was promoted, conquered Germany, this increased the population of Northern Europe as well as caused refugees to flee the Roman Empire bringing civilization with them, so that the Greenland colony had more people, which made the Vinland colony get off the ground...

You’re new here so the admins will prolly let you off with a warning, but just FYI, you’re not really supposed to revive old threads like this. Just make a new one of your own if you wanna discuss the topic

 

[Alex Zetsu]

You’re new here so the admins will prolly let you off with a warning, but just FYI, you’re not really supposed to revive old threads like this. Just make a new one of your own if you wanna discuss the topic

The odd thing here is that "old" is 3 months instead of years.

But I agree with the OP losing interest there is no point in bringing this thread back. If the author is even on the site and tried to talk with @Aspiring Author , he would have difficulty remembering his own train of thought.

 

[Aspiring Author]

The odd thing here is that "old" is 3 months instead of years.

But I agree with the OP losing interest there is no point in bringing this thread back. If the author is even on the site and tried to talk with @Aspiring Author , he would have difficulty remembering his own train of thought.

But can't we, have a general discussion of: what some of the butterflies of a Teutoberg forest might've been.

 

[Atamolos]

But can't we, have a general discussion of: what some of the butterflies of a Teutoberg forest might've been.

Make a new thread