reply
look its completely fanciful to suggest rome could have advanced into the
ukraine, they couldnt even hold dacia
look its completely fanciful to suggest rome could have advanced into the
ukraine, they couldnt even hold dacia
WI the Romans expanded into Germania.
- Thread starter sebeck
- Start date
General Zod
Banned
Oh yeah, they could not hold Dacia so much that they don't have a Romance language nowadays.
They held it two centuries. That qualifies as long-term possession by any count that matters.
Besides the outlandish claims, the more Rome expanded towards their natural borders (Atlantic, Vistula-Dneister, Sahara, Indus), the stronger they became: shorter borders, more manpower and resources, less enemies, given they were very reliable able to turn enemies in loyal productive subjects given a few decades' occupation. They were weaker in the late Empire precisely because they hadn't done so.
Further expansion in Ukraine pushed them slightly but not truly radically beyond their optimal natural borders and would require they have thoroughly Romanized Germania, Dacia, Marcomannia, and Parthia first. Not a sure sequence, but not outlandish as long as one assumes the PoD of Germania, Dacia, Marcomannia, conquest in the First Century. For the Romans, thanks to efficient assimilation, strength breeds on expansion, and they would not have been truly overextended until they had expanded beyond the Indus or the Volga.
It goes this way: Augustus conquers Germania and Marcomannia; Tiberius conquers Dacia; Claudius conquers Britannia; Domitian conquers Caledonia; Trajan conquers Parthia; Marcus Aurelius conquers Western Sarmatia.
Last edited:
Hrmm.
One argument that's been made is that the Roman Empire promoted state-formation in Germany, leading to the tribes that were so deadly OTL. So why wouldn't that happen here, but further east?
Who was living in Poland, at the time?
It's also not entirely clear to me how a shorter border really helps the Romans.
Either East Germanic people (Goths, Vandals, or their ancestors), or possibly Baltic/Slavic people. Possibly a mix of those.
Yes, I have read that argument from Peter Heather, it seems plausible. He argues that Germany was never worth conquering, but then proximity to Rome made it prosperous and more politically developed (in which case why didn't the Romans conquer it one wonders.)
Isn't Poland inhabited by more Germans? And then Germans mixed with Slavs (if there is really a difference between the two.)
If the conquests were secured the area behind the new border would form a large hinterland giving a considerable resource base.
They weren't so much "stretched around the Med" as the Med allowed them to easily conquer all the littoral zones. Since the East Med lands were the richest politically, culturally and in wealth of the Empire, they were obvious areas of conquest, which the Roman Sea allowed them to easily do.
The Romans didn't need a complete view of the geography of Europe to figure out where the best borders would be. The problem with the Rhine-Danube border is that Roman forces were on the 'outside of the curve', forcing troops to travel much greater distances to get on from one area to the other, while the Germanics could cut the corner quite easily. This is where the Romans were stretched. This stratgic weakness was recognized, and was the main reason for entering Germania in the first place, to shorten the border length, allowing forces on the frontier to be more concentrated. And since there is a convienient series of N/S rivers running in parallel as you move west to east across the region, each one would be the next 'natural border'. First the Weser, then the Elbe, then the Oder and so on and so on as they moved into new areas and discovered what the geography was over the frontier [see the map I submitted on pg 2].
One thing I would add that seems to get overlooked in this discussion is the Carpathias as a border. Mountain ranges make just as good a fence as a river, and there would be a point when these would be the frontier along with the Oder, before expanding further to the Vistula/Dnieper.
General Zod
Banned
This argument looks indeed rather faulty. If trans-border contact with the Romans made the region prosperous and developed, then inclusion in the Empire itself would only have made it even more prosperous and developed, and so worthy to be conquered.
General Zod
Banned
Yep, your map is very worthwhile, and yes, the Carpathian Mountains would be any bit as worthy as a natural border for the Roman Empire. As a matter of fact, they would have been good both to prolong the border from the Order or from the Vistula. About going from border to border, yes, they could have been good provisional borders as one campaign was completed, and the tribes of one area subdued and settled, before going on to next area.
As a matter of fact, they could have done so as subsequent steps in campaign of several years' duration, similar to the way they subdued Gallia or Britannia.
By the 3rd and 4th centuries, it's pretty clear the Empire didn't have the ability for conquest, no?
This is going on the assumption that Rome could have conquered the territory once it was worthwhile. The problem with that is that the Principate system was rigged against any such endeavour unless an emperor wanted it, and such decisions were based more on domestic considerations than any cohesive foreign policy.
Also, 'prosperous' is a very relative term. Germania in Roman times shows a good deal more material weealth in the excavations than it did before, but compared to the Empire it's still a pretty bleak picture.
This is a problem... the brief growing season in northern Europe required some innovations to make it sustainable for larger urban populations than the tribal hunters were producing. Timber and furs wouldn't be enough of a reason for conquest.
Alos, the influx of slaves might have further damaged the economy of Rome sufficiently to make it less stable and further weaken the empire, rather than strengthen it with more army recruits as has been stated here. Large numbers of slaves undercut the productivity of free-men, by substituting paid labour for coerced. This means more people dependent on the state to keep civil unrest subdued, which means more burdens on the state coffers. It may require a much slower expansion of territories and capturing of peoples than has been proposed to keep this from happening, and actually hastening the decline of the Empire from the inside out.
General Zod
Banned
It stands to reason that whatever economic improvements did occur in tribal Germania from being close to the Empire, they would have been much more dramatic if the area had been included in the Empire and thoroughly integrated into Roman urban-market economy and culture.
It also stands to reason that whatever technology advancements did occurred in Eureop during the Dark Ages, they would have occurred far earlier had not the Roman Empire collapsed, including those improved ploughshares that did make agricolture in Northen Europe much more productive.
Tellus
Banned
I believe the Oder would make a formidable border for the Empire, notably in terms of preventing, or more likely delaying, the eventual Hun invasion. It's also most likely as far as Rome could have pushed without seriously overextending herself...
In the end, I believe the lack of a Roman presence in Germania was mainly the result of well, not winning the key battles that would have allowed them to take and hold the area. If they can pull off the required military victories, I don't see why they would NOT wish to use the Oder and bohemian mountains as the effective natural borders of the empire.
In the end, I believe the lack of a Roman presence in Germania was mainly the result of well, not winning the key battles that would have allowed them to take and hold the area. If they can pull off the required military victories, I don't see why they would NOT wish to use the Oder and bohemian mountains as the effective natural borders of the empire.
I like the idea of a Roman border on the Vistula-Dnieper, with walls covering choke points and etcetera, as the final product of Roman expansion. I see assimilation as taking at least as long as northern Gaul (Which, at the fall of the Empire may still have had speakers of Gallic, which was then wiped out by Breton and Frankish.), probably even longer. Romans were more accustomed to the warmer Mediterranean climate. Getting colonists to the frozen north would have been quite the challenge, and even more so if the natives aren't pacified well and quickly.
I wonder how this might affect Roman religion. They adopted Epona, a horse and fertility goddess from the hated Gauls. Perhaps one or two Germanic gods become absorbed into the Roman pantheon? Or Dacian, if we're assuming expansion to the Dnieper, but I know little about them.
I think Rome might have to abandon Britainnia in order to make gains in Germania, at least at first. Or maybe that's just my preference clouding the actualities.
Anyway, fast forward into the industrial era. Presuming Rome survives that long, well with the coal and iron of France, Belgium and Germany, as well as the resources and manpower of the rest of its Empire... Rome eats the world.
Scary thought.
Anyway, there's my two copper denarii, or whatever currency they used at that point.
I wonder how this might affect Roman religion. They adopted Epona, a horse and fertility goddess from the hated Gauls. Perhaps one or two Germanic gods become absorbed into the Roman pantheon? Or Dacian, if we're assuming expansion to the Dnieper, but I know little about them.
I think Rome might have to abandon Britainnia in order to make gains in Germania, at least at first. Or maybe that's just my preference clouding the actualities.
Anyway, fast forward into the industrial era. Presuming Rome survives that long, well with the coal and iron of France, Belgium and Germany, as well as the resources and manpower of the rest of its Empire... Rome eats the world.
Scary thought.
Anyway, there's my two copper denarii, or whatever currency they used at that point.
Nonsense. Stagnant, united Europe falls behind Warring States China. Song explores colonize the Americas, and All falls under Heaven.
General Zod
Banned
And why, I ask, the Roman conquest of Germania, which according to most reasonable PoDs occurs most likely in 1st or maybe 2nd Century CE, should retroactively butterfly away the Qin unification of China, which occurred in 3rd Century BCE ???
Of course, this is a possible TL, too, but would require a second wholly independent PoD (and a pretty big one) in Chinese history to prevent long-term unuification of China.
Also it is very questionable (albeit admittedly not impossible) that the Roman culture of unified Europe and Middle East, which never experiences the Dark Ages, ought to be more stagnant than Chinese culture of unified East Asia.
Susano
Banned
Goths. East Germanic tribes in general, who anyways tended rather to the king model instead of the Thing model. Instead, if it didnt have cdompletlky pothe rsoures, the formtion of germanic supertribes led by kings raised by the warriors in the migration period couldve been said to be taking over teh eats germanic model...