WI the Romans expanded into Germania.

[General Zod]

Would'nt it be better to extend it into the Vistula and Deniper?

Most definitely about the Vistula. About the latter, I take you mean the Dniester (as in, the river all but defining the eastern border of modern Moldova) as opposed to Dnieper (as in, the river cutting modern Ukraine in rough halves). The latter would lenghten the Roman border a lot.

 

[Rasputin]

This is a subject I'm somewhat interested in as it holds a fascinating prospect for continued Roman survival...albeit in a markedly different form. I agree that the European borders Augustus settled with in the First Century were unwieldy and nigh-indefensible as soon as a legitimate threat erupted in Northern Europe. I'm guessing that's part of the reason Augustus tried to lengthen them in the first place. Victory in the Teutoburge Wald sounds like a natural POD, since this would have maintained Augustus' momentum towards the Vistula and settled the Roman Empire's 'natural' borders before opportunistic successors spoilt the party.

In the long-run, it offers an interesting way to parallel Chinese history. While the Rhine-Alps-Danube border was insidiously colossal, the Vistula-Dniester border being proposed actually looks like a worthwhile thing to build a wall across (with rivers down much of its length, it would be an easy matter of bottling gaps). In the meantime, with Rome occupying a much more central position in regards to the rest of Romanised Europe, and no Germanic tribes to shunt into France by Hun advances, this opens up the possibility of 'Rome' surviving as a cohesive entity over many centuries, punctuated by occupation and dynastic collapses perhaps but not splintering into a thousand pieces like OTL Rome did.

 

[sebeck]

In the Battle of Teutoburg Forest saw the Roman Empire lose three legions to Germanic tribesmen. OTL this led to Augustus abandoning Roman Germania. In this TL he is instead outraged by this attack and launches a heavy offensive on the Germanic people, subduing them and making them Roman subjects. This expansion is taken to a far off frontier.

\

Orange- Roman Empire at death of Augustus OTL

Yellow-Green- Roman Empire at death of Augustus ITTL

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

POD:

Roman could survive Hun invasion because the Germanic people including the Saxons were Romanized and ready to defend Roman Empire. I would presume also that German language is a Romance language if Germania were conquered by the Roman.

 

[General Zod]

Excellent map, Sebeck.

I heartily agree with pretty much all the points Rasputin makes, inculding the fact that early conquest of Germania and Dacia, and permanent settlement of the Vistula-Dniester border, makes a Chinese-like dynasty cycle, with recurring collapses/invasions, and recoveries, a rather plausible outcome, rather than permanent unity or fragementation. Certainly inclusion of the Germanic element in the Roman culture would have forged a much stronger and earlier feeling of European unity.

I wonder, if we assume an early PoD for the conquest of Germania under Augustus, what further successful permanent expansion the Roman Empire would have pursued, before meeting the unavoidable limit to expansion from its pre-industrial base. After Germania is successfully Romanized in 1-2 generations, like Gallia, this frees up substantial additional resources from the shorter border and the new provinces. I assume they would have most likely still got Britannia in mid-late 1st Century. What else ? Quite possibly Meroe and Aksum, and they could also have successfully wrestled Mesopotamia and Armenia for good from the Parthian Empire. Is complete permanent conquest of the Parthians feasible, without an overlong Germanic border to guard ? I assume the Empire would have met the natural limits to its expansion in India (without an early Industrial Revolution, that is).

 

[Dutchie]

Baby-steps

A quick and dirty look at how the Empire might have expanded into Germania and beyond, using the 'natural borders' of rivers and mountains.

Blue lines are river frontiers, red are land borders. Light blue is the Rhine/Danube:
1. Trans-Rhine
2. Trans-Weser
3. Trans-Danube Inferior
4. Trans-Elbe/Trans-Danube Superior
5. Trans-Oder
6. Trans-Vistula Inferior
7. Trans-Carpathia
8. Trans-Vistula Superior/Trans Dniester Superior
9. Trans-Dniester Inferior
10. Trans-Neman
11. Trans-Dvina
12. Trans-Dnieper Inferior
13. Armenia
14. Trans-Dneiper
15. Trans-Dneiper Superior
16. Kura

*Names are not what I think the provinces would really be called, nor eventhe names the rivers would actually have, but are for indicative purposes only.

 

[General Zod]

Well, the Vistula-Dniester border is still the one where successful Roman advance in Germania and Dacia after a victory in the Teutoburg Forest would stabilize in the early-mid First Century. After that, it is more likely that the Roman Empire would expand into Britannia, Meroe-Aksum, and Parthia for the rest of the Century and the first part of the Second Century (the equivalent of Trajan's conquests). Both held more resources for the Romans to gain than Western Sarmatia.

Depending on how much successful the Romans are against Parthia (with the resources gained and freed from a Romanized Germania and Dacia, it is quite feasible for the Romans to keep Armenia and Mesopotamia, and maybe to conquer Persia as well), they might just pursue the conquest of Western Sarmatia in the late Second Century (the equivalent of the campaigns of Marcus Aurelius) and move the border on the Dvina-Dneiper frontier. Definitely longer than the Vistula-Dneister, but still marginally more feasible than Rhine-Danube IF Germania and Dacia have been assimilated (as they will, in a century).

The Dvina-Dneiper frontier, or possibly at the very most the Volga, and the Indus one, are probably the natural limit to the expansion of a pre-industrial Roman Empire, albeit they might make a successful grab for Ireland.

In this scenario, the Roman Empire has assimilated enough of Europe's landmass, resources, and population base that a permanent fragmentation from civil wars or barbarian invasions (except for the Huns, and other similar breakouts from the trans-Urals, not really feasible anymore beyond minor skirmishes if they advance the border to the Dneipr or Volga, there would not be enough barbarians left) becomes unlikely.

Rather a Chinese-like dynastic cycle of recurrent collapses from civil wars and Hunnish invasions becomes likely.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Well, the Vistula-Dniester border is still the one where successful Roman advance in Germania and Dacia after a victory in the Teutoburg Forest would stabilize in the early-mid First Century. After that, it is more likely that the Roman Empire would expand into Britannia, Meroe-Aksum, and Parthia for the rest of the Century and the first part of the Second Century (the equivalent of Trajan's conquests). Both held more resources for the Romans to gain than Western Sarmatia.

Depending on how much successful the Romans are against Parthia (with the resources gained and freed from a Romanized Germania and Dacia, it is quite feasible for the Romans to keep Armenia and Mesopotamia, and maybe to conquer Persia as well), they might just pursue the conquest of Western Sarmatia in the late Second Century (the equivalent of the campaigns of Marc Aurelius) and move the border on the Dvina-Dneiper frontier. Definitely longer than the Vistula-Dneister, but still marginally more feasible than Rhine-Danube IF Germania and Dacia have been assimilated (as they will, in a century).

The Dvina-Dneister frontier, or at the very most the Volga, and the Indus one, are probably the natural limit to the expansion of a pre-industrial Roman Empire, albeit they might make a successful grab for Ireland.

In this scenario, the Roman Empire has assimilated enough of Europe's landmass, resources, and population base that a permanent fragmentation from civil wars or barbarian invasions (except for the Huns, and other similar breakouts from the trans-Urals, not really feasible anymore beyond minor skirmishes if they advance the border to the Dneipr or Volga, there would not be enough barbarians left) becomes unlikely.

Rather a Chinese-like dynastic cycle of recurrent collapses from civil wars and Hunnish invasions becomes likely.

Which poses all sorts of interesting questions about an *Age of Colonization analogue....

 

[Umbric Man]

Does anyone have any clue what the provinces Marcus Aurelius was planning to make would look like on the map?

I've heard Marcomannia was roughly analogous to Czechia, but Sarmatia I have no clue...that chunk of land that corresponds to Hungary jutting into the empire between Dacia and Austria on most maps showing Rome at its height?

 

[General Zod]

Which poses all sorts of interesting questions about an *Age of Colonization analogue....

As well as an *Industrial Revolution analogue.

For one, TTL surely will not see anything analogue to the Dark Ages. If you expand Roman socio-economic urban market model up to European Russia, and integrate all the barbarians there in it, you have removed the possibility of a permanent collapse into feudalism, the social and economic base for the Empire would be far too strong. The possibility remains, just like the Chinese, of recurrent dynastic collapses and breakups from civil wars, economic slumps, and big Hunnish invasions from Central Asia, at least as long as the Empire remains pre-industrial, but the Empire is sufficiently big and strong to recover and/or integrate any invaders. According to the Chinese model, any such collapse would not last any more than 1-2 Centuries.

Which means that, assuming the Super Roman Empire would still have the equivalent of the Third Century Crisis, from civil wars, and the equivalent of the Fifth Century Crisis from the Hun invasion, we can likely see to a recovery in the Sixth-Seventh Century (the equivalent of Justinian's reforms). Another crisis or two can be expected (e.g. from the Mongol invasions _if they haven't already discovered gunpowder_ and the Black Death).

Assuming that the continuation of the SRE does nothing to stop the technological progress OTL Europe had in the Middle Ages (hard to see why), and that it proceeds even more swiftly with the lack of the Dark Ages and better contacts with India and China, and the integration of Parthia and Germania-Sarmatia, the SRE could have the technology base to launch its own *Age of Exploration as soon as 800-900 CE. What it all takes is some Emperor willing to found it. Celts and Germans had legends about lands to the West... Anyway, circumnavigation of Africa, and building of sea routes to India and China will be a given, even if, with full Roman control of land routes up to the Indus, they will not be so vital.

Of course, Rome would need a political structure somewhat sturdier to keep control of the whole Europe-North Africa-Middle East landmass. The Tetrarch experiment was a recipe for recurring civil wars and breakups. Either they develop the equivalent of the Chinese bureaucratic elite (a definite possibility, Roman Cursus Honorum was not so different), or a federal senate with representation from cities and landowners all over the Empire. Slavery will be most likely more and more marginalized in the core Empire by the economic changes that the *Renaissance will bring, but it may see a nasty comeback when the Empire colonizes the Americas.

The burning question is whether the condition of Europe as a unitary super-state, instead of a Balkanized mess of city-states and absolutist nation-states, will do anything to hamper the transition to the Industrial Revolution. ITTL, the race is open between two comparable Empires, SRE and China, for the Industrial Revolution. The first one to achieve that will break the dynastic cycle and grasp the bases for a worldwide expansion.

 

[General Zod]

If you believe Toynbee's theory, then the Roman empire signed it's own death warrant when it did not reach it's "natural" frontier.

I couldn't agree more.

Toynbee proposed that the Romans have only reached one of their "natural" frontiers: that of the Atlantic to the west, he proposed that the Romans needed to completely occupy Britain,

Even more so than Germania, the permanent occupation if Caledonia and Hiberia was mostly a question of political will in the first two centuries, albeit that frontier was not so critical as the Eastern and Asian ones. If the Empire conquers Germania and Parthia, it will surely have the extra resources to finish the conquest of the British Isles, which by then will lok like the obvious next conquest. India is too big. Of course, there's also Sarmatia, but that will require to finish the assimilation of Germania and Dacia.

and set their borders in the east in Iranian plateau.

And the Indus.

In Eastern Europe, he thought the best frontier was roughly the same one the Prussians had with imperial Russia.

So very true, albeit a strong, united Empire can have the resources to move on the Dneipr or even the Volga once Germania, Dacia, and Parthia are assimilated. The Baltic and Ukraine regions can become quite profitable if Romanized.

Due to the shorter nature of those lines, he believed that the Romans would have decisively strengthened it's defense against the barbarians. He argued that incorporating those territories would have strengthened rather than weakened the empire. Remember that emperors like Diocletian and Marcus Aurelius were Illyrian and Spanish respectively. With new additions you would see great emperors of German and Arab origins, not to mention the manpower those regions would bring.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[General Zod]

Assuming an ATL Crisis of the 3rd Century still results would this lead to a successful Gallic Empire?

As a temporary (some years or decades) splinter, quite possibly, albeit it would be a Gallic-Germanic Empire. But it is most likely this would be the result of a temporary split, reunification to follow, according to the Chinese model.

Could successful partitions a la Tetrarchy be maintained?

Possibly, albeit as I said before, they would be most likely temporary divisions in a breakup and recentralization cycle. In a Roman Empire that would have culturally and politcally assimilated all of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, the cultural lure of the unitary Empire would be overwhelming. Notice how strong it was OTL from a smaller Empire.

By itself, Tetrarchy-style partitions did and would do squat to ensure a more manageable Empire. Partitions only reproduce a slightly smaller scale the problems of a unwieldy hybrid between military despotism and a Senatorial elite and add fuel for recurrent civil wars. To stabilize it you need either to balance the military arm with an efficient widespread educated bureaucracy (which the Chinese did, and the Byzantine eventually did, so it is a reasonable evolution for the Super-Roman Empire) and/or to give the provinces a true voice by giving extensive federal representation in the Senate, beyond what Roman cursus honorum may allow (to a degree, the Second Century Empire started this course, but the Third-Century Crisis and the Diocletian Reforms stillborn it).

I'd like to think a *Gallic or *Northern Roman Empire based in northern Gaul or Britannia may survive to rival the *Eastern Roman one.

Well, if you really have to have a permanent division of the SRE in two halves, I suppose this may be a reasonable outcome, too, but both halves will have to undergo the evolution process I described above. But for the *Northern Empire, Britannia would be too peripheral a capital. Far better someplace along the Rein (Aachen, anyone) ? Of course, the burning issue becomes who holds Rome and Italy, and may claim a superior legitimacy. What kind of borders do you envisage between the two halves ?

 

[adrian101a]

hi

the main problem for rome was the infighting of the aristocracy, the empire had grown apart and salavery could not develop the productive rescources any further.
some of romes problems come from sheer career minded jealousy
Julius Agricola could easily have completed the romanisation of N Britain and Ireland had a jealous Domitian not recalled him
the conquest of germany was not a military problem, although varius is massacred the germans are never a homegenic force and fight each other more than they do the romans
there easily bought off and are childishly vulnerable to skillful roman diplomats using rumour and fear to get them to fight each other
the woodlnad of germania would have been far better for fighting the later tribes of horsemen huns etc than the cultivated land of gaul
part of the problem for rome was they were rome, they were forced to do deals with germanic tribes, their success deprived them of their earlier pragmatism as when they conquered gaul a few centuries earlier
supposse rome occupies germany up to the elbe and has a more pragmatic approach to the germans
settling some tribes in the empire in a more organised way
then theres no reason why the real thermidor of the western roman empire the horse born tribes couldnt have been held back
its the chaos the horse born tribes cause that leads to disntegration in the west, the initial german tribes are settlers and handled correctly aernt gong to rush through the west collapsing local government structures
the following terryfying horse born tribes get bogged down in the heavily forrested area of the elbe - turn back maybe
as it turned out these horse born tribes met no opposition in germany
ideal territory for breaking them up

if gaul and spain and britain survive ( all feasible ) then the knock on weffect is that n africa doesnt collapse

the easten empire area holds together

 

[The Professor]

Well, if you really have to have a permanent division of the SRE in two halves, I suppose this may be a reasonable outcome, too, but both halves will have to undergo the evolution process I described above. But for the *Northern Empire, Britannia would be too peripheral a capital. Far better someplace along the Rein (Aachen, anyone) ? Of course, the burning issue becomes who holds Rome and Italy, and may claim a superior legitimacy. What kind of borders do you envisage between the two halves ?

To be honest I saw the middle states from mid Gaul to the Danube in a "dark ages" analogue ie The centre falls but East Rome and North Rome survive - both having to evolve a response to the succession crises and military-political issues.
Hmm Aachen is a possible capital.

And yes there will be attempts by both to regain italy, spain etc.

 

[Ferdinand Koenig]

pre-Industrial civilizations could only grow so large without killing themselves and had limited lifespans.

All civilizations have limited lifespans.

 

[Snake Featherston]

All civilizations have limited lifespans.

Yes, but industrialization extends those lifespans.

 

[General Zod]

the main problem for rome was the infighting of the aristocracy,

Rather the infigthing of the generals. Hence the need to develop a balancing arm in the ruling elite, such an empire-wide professional bureacucracy, which the Romans did to a remarkable success in the Eastern half. Conquest of Germania would give them the breathing space to do so in the Western half as well.

the empire had grown apart and salavery could not develop the productive rescources any further.

Since the second century they were beginning to move past slavery.

some of romes problems come from sheer career minded jealousy
Julius Agricola could easily have completed the romanisation of N Britain and Ireland had a jealous Domitian not recalled him

And these kinds of events are quite liable to divergence and butterflies.

the woodlnad of germania would have been far better for fighting the later tribes of horsemen huns etc than the cultivated land of gaul
part of the problem for rome was they were rome, they were forced to do deals with germanic tribes, their success deprived them of their earlier pragmatism as when they conquered gaul a few centuries earlier
supposse rome occupies germany up to the elbe and has a more pragmatic approach to the germans
settling some tribes in the empire in a more organised way
then theres no reason why the real thermidor of the western roman empire the horse born tribes couldnt have been held back
its the chaos the horse born tribes cause that leads to disntegration in the west, the initial german tribes are settlers and handled correctly aernt gong to rush through the west collapsing local government structures
the following terryfying horse born tribes get bogged down in the heavily forrested area of the elbe - turn back maybe
as it turned out these horse born tribes met no opposition in germany
ideal territory for breaking them up

Well, if Germania gets conquered it will quickly become almost as cultivated as Gaul. But those horseback Central Asian barbarians were not an unstoppable force. They were delivered a clear defeat in Gaul and turned back by a Western Empire on his death throes. It is reasonable to assume that a still strong Empire, with the additional manpower and resources it can draw from Romanized Germania, could inflict the Huns the same kind of defeat in German fields (some forests would remain, however) or residual forests the same defeat they suffered in Gaul, and deny them a clear stretegic breakout in the Empire.

Plus, once they have a border on the Vistula (not the Elbe, if they make the move to get Germania, no point to get half of it, and relinqhish the best border), which unRomanized barbarians remain to break in the Empire, and create a permanent political disintegration ? The Sarmatians ? The Scandinavians ? Withe the Romanization of Germania the manpower of Rome increases and barbarian one decreases consdierably. Beside, this does not take into account that if they Romanize Germania in the First Century, they are well poised and likely to advance to the Dneipr in the Second Century, which would increase their manpower advantage even more.

 

[General Zod]

To be honest I saw the middle states from mid Gaul to the Danube in a "dark ages" analogue ie The centre falls but East Rome and North Rome survive - both having to evolve a response to the succession crises and military-political issues.
Hmm Aachen is a possible capital.

And yes there will be attempts by both to regain italy, spain etc.

Hmm, to what Italy should fall, but neither Aachen nor Byzantium ? It looks rather bizarre. ITTL, the barbarians are a trivial nuisance, besides the Huns of course. Rather I could see a somewhat long-lasting division between the North-Western Empire (Britannia, Germania, Gaul, Hispania) and the South-Eastern one (Grecia, Anatolia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia), with Italy and North Africa as the contested area (for resources and political legitimacy both) and the Balkans as the buffer zone. The cultural Latin-Greek latent cultural division becoming a political one.

 

[alt_historian]

Plus, once they have a border on the Vistula (not the Elbe, if they make the move to get Germania, no point to get half of it, and relinquish the best border)...

The Romans just didn't think in terms of "the best borders".

To start with, they had a very poor (compared to today) idea of the overall shape of Europe. True, on a tactical or mid-level scale they might have good maps. But they weren't usually quite sure how all these areas lined up with each other... this was not just the Romans, of course.

Secondly, as long as they had a relatively clear border, they don't seem to have cared much where it was. Their empire was about as stretched out as you could make it in the East: all around the eastern rim of the Med.

 

[General Zod]

Secondly, as long as they had a relatively clear border, they don't seem to have cared much where it was. Their empire was about as stretched out as you could make it in the East: all around the eastern rim of the Med.

They still wanted to duplicate Alexander's feat (at least until Adrian) and conquer Parthia and to conquer all of Germania (at least until Teutoburg). Which means they aimed for the Vsitual and the Indus border, roughly speaking of course. Those rivers would be the obvious natural best natural borders had them accomplished what they wanted.