WI Marcus Aurelius expands Roman Empire by annexing Bohemia?

[Don_Giorgio]

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius the Romans had conquered much territory on the left side of the Danube, and Marcus Aurelius had the intention to form a new province under governor Aulus Julius Pompilius Piso, commander of Legio I Italica, but the revolt of Avidius Cassius in Syria prevented the formation of the new province and most of Bohemia was eventually abandoned after the death of Marcus Aurelius and Danube was restored as border of the Empire once more...
WI Aurelius had expanded the Empire by annexing Bohemia? Could his successors had used the new province as a start for further expand to the East?
How is this altering History? Any thoughts?

 

[General Zod]

During the reign of Marcus Aurelius the Romans had conquered much territory on the left side of the Danube, and Marcus Aurelius had the intention to form a new province under governor Aulus Julius Pompilius Piso, commander of Legio I Italica, but the revolt of Avidius Cassius in Syria prevented the formation of the new province most of Bohemia was eventually abandoned after the death of Marcus Aurelius and Danube was restored as border of the Empire once more...
WI Aurelius had expanded the Empire by annexing Bohemia? Could his successors had used the new province as a start for further expand to the East?
How is this altering History? Any thoughts?

Hmm, conquering Bohemia by itself won't change history radically, like the conquest of Dacia didn't change the fate of the Roman Empire, apart from making Romanian (and now Czech) a Romance language. If this is but the stepping stone to conquer all Germania and move the border on the Vistula, then things may be very different. However, what's tricky here is that the conquest would happen relatively a short time (50 years) before the onset of the Third Century Crisis. The deciding factor is whether this causes the border to be moved on the Vistula and there is enough time for Germania to be thoroughly Romanized (tricky, but then two generations might be enough). If yes, then the history of the Roman Empire and Europe will be changed radically.

A Romanized Germania with a Vistula-Dniester limes means a way shorter border, an Empire that can rely on the addtional resources of Germania (besides the ones it frees from the shorter border), and much reduced manpower base for the barbarian invasions of the Third-Fifth Centuries (only the Hun breakout remains a really-serious menace). The severity of the Third Century and Fifth Century Crisis would be much reduced.

The most likely outcome of this is that the Roman Empire (now the vast majority of Romanized Europe) escapes the fate of permanent political distintegration in the Western half and enters a Chinese dynastic cycle of periodic breakouts and re-centralizations. Justinian and Charlemagne might be heads of a true Roman Empire stretching from Mesopotamia to Danemark and from Scotland to the Baltic and Kiev. Note: this might butterfly away Islam, or at least leave it contained to Arabia.

We were recently discussing a similar PoD here:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=102588

 

[adrian101a]

hi

part of the problen for rome is their fighting everywhere
and a vast amount of nomadic tribes are all converging on western europe
( from east south and north )
regional variations create power bases that leave rome staggering from 1 civil war to another
in truth the barbarian forces are comparatively weak, they fight each other as much as the romans and are easily bought off
the problem lies in the roman aristocracy

 

[General Zod]

part of the problen for rome is their fighting everywhere

Achieving "natural", shorter borders with Caledonia, the Vistula-Dneister, and the Indus would do a lot to alleviate the problem, not to mention the added manpower and resources from the extra provinces.

and a vast amount of nomadic tribes are all converging on western europe ( from east south and north )

If they move the border to the Vistula-Dneipr (and if they do so, a subsequent move to the Dniepr or even the Volga does not become unfeasible) the remaining manpower base for barbarian invasions from the North and the East becomes trivial: only Hun-style breakouts from Central Asia nomads remain a serious problem, and they were occasional, as they were for the Chinese. The barbarian problem from Caledonia and Sahara was always trivial anyway, and they can easily annex Caledonia if they annex Germania. Incursions from Scandinavia were only a problem for a Europe in the throes of feudal anarchy, and Islamic Arabs only for a Byzantine Empire that had exausted itself against the Persians (and viceversa).

regional variations create power bases that leave rome staggering from 1 civil war to another
in truth the barbari an forces are comparatively weak, they fight each other as much as the romans and are easily bought off
the problem lies in the roman aristocracy

Developing a centralized efficient literate bureacracy can alleviate the problem of balancing miliary despotism. It worked for the Chinese, and for the Byzantine. If the Byzantine did, so can a larger surviving Roman Empire, or its Western-Northern half.

 

[adrian101a]

yes

yes the key for rome is developing a reliable empire wide beaurocracy, this would have helped to stem the development of regonal identities
in the main though roman agriculture based on slavery couldnt expand and was in decline
the collapse of rome is really a social revolution that leads to a new agricultural system

 

[Max Sinister]

@General Zod: Er, the Indus? All the way to India? That's a pretty big territory. Of course, Trajan wanted it, but just made it to the Persian Gulf.

Caledonia could've been conquered - under Domitian, general Agricola could've done it, but the emperor envied him and forced him to commit suicide.

But the problem is: Could Germania, Bohemia and Caledonia really pay that much of taxes? Until better ploughshares were invented, the soil was too heavy for agriculture. These provinces could turn into money sinks.

But generally, if Marcus Aurelius had lived some more years, they could've kept the new provinces of Marcomannia (Bohemia) and Sarmatia (Hungary beyond the Danube and Transsylvania).

 

[adrian101a]

reply to max

germania
yeh essentially they have fundamental structural economic problems
gaul is rich agriculturaly
germania is still very heavily forested
question is could they generate the will to rapidly develop agriculture and encourage local tribes to turn to farming
maybe
but caledonia wouldnt have been such a problem as the relative scale of forcess was much more in romes favour

 

[Typo]

I highly doubt if Rome would have entered the "Chinese cycle".

If you believe Diamond's theory, then Europe has way too many locations where independent power can arise due to geography.

 

[General Zod]

@General Zod: Er, the Indus? All the way to India? That's a pretty big territory. Of course, Trajan wanted it, but just made it to the Persian Gulf.

Yep, it is reasonable to assume that with a Romanized Germania-Bohemia-Dacia and Caledonia, the Empire has the manpower and resources, both the ones spared from the shorter, safer borders, and from the extra provinces, to allow Trajan to subdue Persia, too, which ends the Parthian Empire as an organized force (Alexander and the early Caliphs conquered Persia, Trajan beaten it severely, ancient Persians were not invincibl, it isi reasonable to assume that with more troops and money and less problematic otherborders, he would have finished the job) and turns it to a mid-term anti-guerrilla operation. Something the Romans were rather good at, and by now they dod not have any major border enemy left. If they can deliver Parthia one complete knockdown in thse conditions, they will never leave.

Expanding into India, of course, would be another matter entirely.

Caledonia could've been conquered - under Domitian, general Agricola could've done it, but the emperor envied him and forced him to commit suicide.

If they own Germania, Marcomannia, and Dacia since August-Tiberius, and Britannia since Claudius, conquering Caledonia looks more like an ongoing cycle of gradual expansion, and more of a mop-up operation. It is not unreasonable to butterfly away this event.

But the problem is: Could Germania, Bohemia and Caledonia really pay that much of taxes? Until better ploughshares were invented, the soil was too heavy for agriculture. These provinces could turn into money sinks.

Never money sinks, only less profitable thanks to the shorter border and since some agriculture was always possible even with old ploughshares. Anyway, since better ploughshares were relatively quickly invented during the first true urban-agricoltural settlement of Germany in the Dark Ages, it is quite reasonable to assume they would have been even much more quickly during the first Romanization settlement of Germania. We ought to assume that barring clear contrary evidence, whichever technological advancements did occur in Europe during the Dark Ages collapse, it would have occurred anyway, and much more quickly, had the Roman Empire stayed toghether/expanded further.

 

[General Zod]

germania
question is could they generate the will to rapidly develop agriculture and encourage local tribes to turn to farming

They only need the political will to conquer Germania militarly (PoD or butterfly Teutoburg, and they will). If they do, this will occur naturally in few decades.

 

[General Zod]

I highly doubt if Rome would have entered the "Chinese cycle".

If you believe Diamond's theory, then Europe has way too many locations where independent power can arise due to geography.

Well, a permanent division between the Western and Eastern halves due to economic and cultural factors is not a given, but it is a distinct possibility in different versions of this TL kind.

With a Roman Empire covering all of Europe but Scandinavia and Russia, barbarians are too few, and the long-term cultural appeal of imperial unity far too strong in the elites, to allow long-term political fragmentation beyond two rival Empires.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Well, a permanent division between the Western and Eastern halves due to economic and cultural factors is not a given, but it is a distinct possibility in different versions of this TL kind.

With a Roman Empire covering all of Europe but Scandinavia and Russia, barbarians are too few, and the long-term cultural appeal of imperial unity far too strong in the elites, to allow long-term political fragmentation beyond two rival Empires.

Just imagine the effects of Constitutio Antoniniana (212 AD) in a Roman Empire covering the whole Europe...