WI: Arminius Takes the Offensive?

[hasdrubal barca]

What if Arminius Takes the Offensive?

It came up in my readings that Augustus briefly panicked, in the aftermath of the Teutoberg Forest disaster, thinking Arminius was going to next invade Gaul or Italy. This didn't happen and the Roman's retook the offensive against them a few years later under Germanicus. So what if instead Arminius lets say in spring of 10 AD leads his men in an invasion of the Roman heartland. What is the result? Implications? What forces would Rome have available to counter the threat?

 

[Arkenfolm]

The result is that Arminius fails. I'd find it hard to believe he'd have the same luck twice, unless Rome sent some truly incompetent leaders against him. Perhaps Arminius won on more than luck (he certainly lost quite a bit against Germanicus), but there's no way you could place him among the great generals of Antiquity, and for that reason, I find it hard to believe he would not be defeated and his army scattered.

Now would the Romans attempt to complete the subjugation of Germany? I can't see why. The main enemy has been defeated in Roman territory, and no one else is arising to take his mantle. They didn't do it after Germanicus defeated the Germans repeatedly, so I don't see why a one-time aggressive posture by Arminius would make them do it. If Arminius lives, he's going back to Germania and probably will die as undistinguished of a death he did OTL.

 

[Agricola]

Augustus did not panick because of Arminius and his germans may invade Gaul, Augustus panicked because these still not pacified Gauls may join the party and revolt again (actually they did a few decades later). And now with Arminius german federation, and the gaulish tribes you got a decent force steamrolling at least Gallia. No roman army in Gallia can stop them.

Arminius sent the head of Varus to Marobodus in order to convince him to join the party. He did not. But with Marobodus support at his flank, Arminius might have seen a chance to invade Gaul and convince the gaulish tribes to join. And afterwards invade Italy together with Marobodus' Marcomanns in a classic pincer movement. I doubt the battle-steeled pannonian legions would have had a chance against this storm. Expect Rome to be plundered the 2nd time after 387 BC.

This was perhaps the scenario Augustus panicked about. Not just Arminius and a bunch of revolting barbarian germans. The entire angry North coming over Italy was the worst case.

PS: And this scenario failed because Marobodus was too selfish or had no balls. What a shame! I would like to see Rome enslaved, burned down, and salted by the germans and start to think from there in 10 AD.

Don't get me wrong: this would not become a better Europe than OTL. It would become way worse. The Roman Empire cannot fall in 10 AD with or without a city of Rome. The empire will and is able to strike back. And at this point of time Arminius is better back home in the darkest forest he can find.

 

[Agricola]

I am conviced such a desaster is a great start for a TL:

1. The principate failed. This gives a lot of room to invent something better. Even if this is hard to achieve considering the limited political opportunities in ancient times.

2. After Rome was enslaved, burned down and salted, the romans regognize, that the northern border is DANGEROUS AND IMPORTANT. This might lead to a different Grand Strategy of the romans, which is more focussed towards the North than the East.

And this would change everything in the next 400 years!

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I was just thinking Augustus might die if the crisis gets bad enough. He is pretty old at this point and his health always worsened when stressed.

 

[Agricola]

I was just thinking Augustus might die if the crisis gets bad enough. He is pretty old at this point and his health always worsened when stressed.

There are others. First and foremost you need experienced military leaders like Tiberius, Saturninus and others in order to strike back and get these barbarians out of Italy. But politically, this dramatic fail of the principate is an irreversible desaster.

It does not matter, if Augustus dies 4 years earlier or later. But in this TL he and his system fully failed from a roman point of view. Nobody can forecast seriously, where the roman political system develops from there. Almost everything is possible after such a fail and desaster. Well, there are some limitations and probabilities.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

I am conviced such a desaster is a great start for a TL:

1. The principate failed. This gives a lot of room to invent something better. Even if this is hard to achieve considering the limited political opportunities in ancient times.

2. After Rome was enslaved, burned down and salted, the romans regognize, that the northern border is DANGEROUS AND IMPORTANT. This might lead to a different Grand Strategy of the romans, which is more focussed towards the North than the East.

And this would change everything in the next 400 years!

You ought to combine your ideas about fixing Rome into a TL, or a discussion thread. I would be interested in seeing your interpretation.

 

[Agricola]

You ought to combine your ideas about fixing Rome into a TL, or a discussion thread. I would be interested in seeing your interpretation.

Actually, I am thinking and researching since years about a plausible TL to change the roman world. My prefered point of change was a bit later or way way earlier. But I like this idea of a burned and salted Rome. It has that many options and gives soo much more opportunities to the author of an TL.

However, I am far from publishing my TL. I am afraid I am a perfectionist.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Actually, I am thinking and researching since years about a plausible TL to change the roman world. My prefered point of change was a bit later or way way earlier. But I like this idea of a burned and salted Rome. It has that many options and gives soo much more opportunities to the author of an TL.

However, I am far from publishing my TL. I am afraid I am a perfectionist.

What's the way way earlier POD?

 

[Agricola]

The end of the 1st punic war. The romans avoid one of the worst constitutional mistakes they ever made: the introduction of the promagistrate. They decide for one of the already discussed alternatives in the senate to govern Sicilia and Sardinia.

And the roman republic, and the roman world at all would be fully different.

PS: and of course this very detriemental Lex Claudia de nave senatorum which blocked a possible development of capitalism and industrialization is never gonna happen

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

The end of the 1st punic war. The romans avoid one of the worst constitutional mistakes they ever made: the introduction of the promagistrate. They decide for one of the already discussed alternatives in the senate to govern Sicilia and Sardinia.

And the roman republic, and the roman world at all would be fully different.

PS: and of course this very detriemental Lex Claudia de nave senatorum will never happen

Interesting. Would the intent be to decrease the concentration of power into individual patricians that created the chaos and corruption of the Late Republic?

 

[Agricola]

Interesting. Would the intent be to decrease the concentration of power into individual patricians that created the chaos and corruption of the Late Republic?

Yes, the fully uncontrolled and undivided power of a roman promagistrate is as unrepubublican as you can get from a roman point of view. Even if it is easy to understand, why the roman aristocracy went this "easy way".

I would prefer a province managment WITH the usual roman way of division of powers (foremost collegiality). This and other measures might avoid, that single romans can align entire roman armies to themselves. Divison of powers, also in the provinces is the key. And it all started with the wrong decision about the first province Sicilia. Which was copied from now on. We know, that the romans discussed alternatives (socii system, client kings) and implemented them later elsewhere (e.g Illyria, Cisalpina). However finally, the promagistrate became the rule.

Well, this would lead to a republic which has the time to develop and solve its issues before they become crucial. Do I believe that a roman republic is able to govern such an huge empire better than a monarch? Not really, but perhaps we get a much better principate? And less civil wars?

 

[Karolus Rex]

I am conviced such a desaster is a great start for a TL:

1. The principate failed. This gives a lot of room to invent something better. Even if this is hard to achieve considering the limited political opportunities in ancient times.

2. After Rome was enslaved, burned down and salted, the romans regognize, that the northern border is DANGEROUS AND IMPORTANT. This might lead to a different Grand Strategy of the romans, which is more focussed towards the North than the East.

And this would change everything in the next 400 years!

This actually raises a really good question.

The Monarchy failed, the Republic failed and now the Principate (the Autocracy) as failed. What will the Romans do now?

I imagine that the Eastern border would suffer, Armenia might fall to Parthia (OTL Parthia subdued them in 37 and it took the Romans 10 years to get it back), Syria will most definitely be raided but I don't see the Parthians capturing Antioch and Judea might be a powder barrel having only been added to the Empire recently.

The client states in Mauritania might break free but Thracia is too close to Damaltia so those will be kept in check.

The Lusitanian tribes might give it another go at rebellion. They were finally defeated in 24BC so that's years to recover from the losses and with Rome burned and with the Empire in confusion I can see them another war. Most likely the northern iberian tribes would also try to revolt.

But in the end it all goes to who is in command in Illyria. Paterculus says that command of Dalmatia, in 9AD, went to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, with Tiberius in Pannonia, but Dio says that Germanicus commanded in Pannonia and Tiberius in Dalmatia.

The only consistency is that both agree that Tiberius was in Illyria in 9AD.

Now this matters.

Germanicus, while popular by both the people and the army, doesn't strikes me as the ambitious type, if he was he would had fought Augustus in elevating Tiberius to heir.

Marcus Lepidus was by all account smart and a good soldier, managing the feat that his legions in Iberia didn't riot after Augustus death while the ones in Germania and Pannonia did, but most important he could play politics.

Tiberius is a bit of a wild card. He has only returned to power 5 years ago and given the way he ruled he never had any real love for the office of Principes and he never showed any liking for politics, but given that he is in command of the greatest Roman force in the area does he have a choice?

Independently of who is in Illyria with Tiberius he will have to either kill him and take command of the army or join forces with him. Either way the Romans need the army out of there and into Northern Italy as fast as possible.

But even if Rome gets back what will they do?

Monarchy was distasteful for them, the Republic is dead and buried and the Autocracy failed in the most spectacular way.

Maybe some kind of camouflaged Monarchy mixed with old Republican tradition?

Two men elected by the Senate to act as life Consuls but with the administration being kept in the hands of the Senate and the Consuls being glorified life long Generals?

Anyway one thing is certain. When Rome gets back on his feat, and it will they are still too powerful and ambitious at this point, the Germans and the Gauls are getting the full Lusitanian/Illyrian treatment. Prepare for massacres, mass enslaving and brutal tactics.

When Romans felt threaten, and in this case was threatened and in a Roman sense violated, its when they are they are the most dangerous. When they finish their revenge, and it doesn't matters how much time it takes (they really know how to hold gruges with Carthage being the best example), Germania and Gaul will be the greatest salt fields of Europe.