alternatehistory.com

I've seen a number of threads discussing the benefits of a Roman Empire with its western borders on the Elbe and the Carpathian Mountain range, rather than the Rhine and Danube Rivers. The logic is that: 1) the Empire would control most of the Germans (who could then be assimilated or at least not form alliances among themselves or with other tribes over the Elbe); 2) the Empire would gain valuable farmland, at least in the Pannonian Basin; and 3) the Empire could control passes and entry points with fewer troops than policing an entire river.

The counter-arguments seem to be: 1) it's a lot more expensive to maintain troops on a mountain ridge than a river, due to overland and uphill transportation costs; 2) Germany couldn't really be farmed until the heavy plow was invented in like 600AD, so the value of a lot the territories would be minimal; 3) the concentration of troops on the Rhine had a dual purpose of dealing with both Germans and uprisings in Gaul, and moving the border west to the Elbe would remove the ability to help in Gaul if needed; and 4) the river borders worked pretty well through a system of forts and alliances/tributes, and these borders were really only breached due to civil wars and diseases, etc., which no expanded border could help.

I haven't seen all of these arguments in one place, but I think that's a summary of the pros and cons. Please let me know if anything should be added/removed, and whether you think an expanded border would help or hinder the Empire.
Top