I got into a debate with someone (in another forum). The debate was: "Would the life of the Roman Empire be prolonged or shortened had Rome been able to hold on to and Romanize Germania?"

I contended that the life of the empire would have been prolonged, because they would have had a more or less completely secure northern frontier. I mean, beyond the Rhine there were tons of barbarian nations, which ended up invading Rome in the late 3rd century and throughout the 4th century. Had these tribes and nations not existed, there was little beyond the Elbe that could have even possibly posed a threat. And the length of the borders they would have had to guard were relatively the same. The Elbe and Rhine are somewhat the same length. And any effects of an extended empire would have been mitigated by the extra population from which one can recruit.

My opponent contended that the life of the empire would have been shorter, because that would have been just extra land that the empire needed to manage, and thusly the bueraucracy would have become too much to bear.

So I come to this forum, asking classical/alternate history buffs the very same question.

"Would the life of the Roman Empire be prolonged or shortened had Rome been able to hold on to and Romanize Germania?"

I contended that the life of the empire would have been prolonged, because they would have had a more or less completely secure northern frontier. I mean, beyond the Rhine there were tons of barbarian nations, which ended up invading Rome in the late 3rd century and throughout the 4th century. Had these tribes and nations not existed, there was little beyond the Elbe that could have even possibly posed a threat. And the length of the borders they would have had to guard were relatively the same. The Elbe and Rhine are somewhat the same length. And any effects of an extended empire would have been mitigated by the extra population from which one can recruit.

My opponent contended that the life of the empire would have been shorter, because that would have been just extra land that the empire needed to manage, and thusly the bueraucracy would have become too much to bear.



well lets look at the facts or options

augustus reduced the legions from 60 to 28 after the civil wars to reduce the strain on the economy--couldn't of done this if required to hold germania.

the rhine germans were basicly "small" tribes of several thousand warriors, it took several gathering together under a leader [ like arminus ] to threaten rome. pushing the empire across germania would of brought into contact with the goths,vandals, suivi, all who were in bohemia and poland at this time.

germania was woods,swamps and bogs--nothing to " hold ", its only tribuinte was slaves. so romans would be spending $ and lives for nothing in return.

you state that if rome had defeated these tribes in the 1st century there would be no one to threaten in the 4th. not true, there cannot be a power vacuum, ex.- when rome ground up the rhine tribes, the franks/burgundians/ect absorb the suviviors and moved to the rhine, this left no one in central germania, so the suivi/vandals goths/ect moved to central germania. weak or vacate lands invited others to move in and grow larger and more powerful. destroyed germans in east german meant the peoples of eastern poland/ukraine at that time--slav's? would of moved in and became powerful--just a differant threat to rome instead.

lastly this doesn't solve the basic rome problem of the 2nd-4th century sucession to the throne, more land and bigger armies means bigger civil wars

The Roman Empire was only threatened by Germans because the threat of Roman violence and the attraction of Roman plunder encouraged the growth of larger and larger tribal confederations along the Rhine and Danube. Having an Elbe frontier instead of a Rhine frontier wouldn't have made any difference, except reducing the efficiency of Roman provincial defence and government. The way it turned out, it was Germans who happened to benefit; but an Elbe frontier would have dragged Rome, as was the case of Gaul and Brittania, into interferences in Scandinavia and modern eastern Germany. This would have made the frontier untenable. In the end, the Baltic, Finnic and Slavic (and of course, the other Germanic tribes) tribes along the frontier would have had an easier job of it than our Germanic tribes ever had.

Also, in the end, it was the Germans who fought Romes other enemies as mercenaries.

It should have hurt the Empire a lot.

1) What would they have gained from those new provincies? Nothing. No natural resources, no cities, no treasures. The Romans already considered the Gauls/Celts as Barbarians, but those were urbanized, skilled artisans (on some areas, like cart making, even superior to Rome!), knew mining, were age-old traders (Salt!); it's no exaggeration to say the cultural distance between Rome and Celts was smaller than between Celts and the Germanic tribes...
And, the Roman agriculture technics wouldn't have worked in Northern Germany; almost nothing the Romans were used to grows that far N (okay, that applies to Britain as well)
2) There are no favorable natural borders there; the Rhine/Main/Danube was way better to defend, especially since those rivers were the main supply routes. It's no surprise the Romans didn't expand further than the smaller rivers East flowing into the Rhine (the Lippe at foremost). The Rhine springs are in the S, the Elbe or Weser comes from the SE.
3) The Germanic tribes settling there were the Chattes (in Hassia), and a number of Saxonian and Frankish tribes - none of those were comparibly devastating to the Roman Empire some centuries later than the Vandals or Goths; in fact, Rome would have weakened future allii instead.

So, expanding towards the Elbe/Weser would have caused only lots of casualties, and financial efforts, without any payback.

And, minor nitpick ;) - there was no 'Battle at the Teutoburger Forest'; the historical site is at Kalkriese near Osnabrück.

Nothing to add, Doc. Oh only one: The battle of Kalkriese is now questioned by some historicians who say there was the battle of the three bridges around 15 AD, where also Rome suffered a big defeat. Rome also made after the Teutoburg battle some tries to retake the land but after suffering big defeats while gaining nothing they at last retreated totally in 16 AD.

Adler

No benefits to Rome, but extremely bad for the Germans later. They wouldn't have grown up to be so different from Roman civilizations, and thus would have never became the greatest power in the world.

NOTE: It's great to have my name out there! :lol:

To Arminius: Greets to Thusnelda. ;)

Adler

No benefits to Rome, but extremely bad for the Germans later. They wouldn't have grown up to be so different from Roman civilizations, and thus would have never became the greatest power in the world.

NOTE: It's great to have my name out there! :lol:

they never were the greatest power in the world- the only time it could possible be claimed would be Nazi germany, and its well known how all that turned out ;)

Nothing to add, Doc. Oh only one: The battle of Kalkriese is now questioned by some historicians who say there was the battle of the three bridges around 15 AD, where also Rome suffered a big defeat. Rome also made after the Teutoburg battle some tries to retake the land but after suffering big defeats while gaining nothing they at last retreated totally in 16 AD.

Adler

as clearlly shown by Marcus Aurelius, whom in the 170's began yet a new campaign to quash the germanic tribes of the Rhine-Elbe area, the Romans harldey "retreated" from Germany- rather Germany became, for most fo the higher imperial area staging ground to trian troops in combat- and even to recover from larger wars- yes, the same frontir that caused so much trouble later is clearlly known as an area where legions involved in wars along the danube (which, dont be fooled, was actually Romes hardest border to defedn, becaus eo fthe sheer numbers of peoples in the area), and in Britian came to recover, and trian thier forces agiasnt an enemy whom Rome knew how to snuff out- which is why when, in the 170's, when Aurelius started his little campaign of conquest in return for a germnic allaince having the audacity to venture into Italy, Russel Crow and his dog easilly crushed them, and expanded a border all the way back to the Elbe river, and this time, it distictivlly lacked a Teutoburg incident.

Varus was an idiot snobbish flop that failed Emperor Augustus. Emperor Augustus said many times in his very last years, Varus, give me my legions back.

Commanding 30 000 men and baggage is a very demanding task, and Varus did not have the human material needed to render such a service. Varus was even worse than Crassus in many respects as a field commander, did not have the brains, courage (he killed himself) training and so on. the defeat was so disgraceful, unlike Cannae, that 17-19 Legions were never reestablished. Thanks to Varus, European civilization grew slower, and Varus can be glad he had no grave that could be desecrated and dishonored.

I think a better question is how much different the history of Germany would be if it had been conquered and Latinized. Would the German character have been changed to such a degree that the Thirty Years War or Nazism may never have occurred?

Yes, even Christianity may never have become state religion of Rome.

The battle of Kalkriese is now questioned by some historicians who say there was the battle of the three bridges around 15 AD, where also Rome suffered a big defeat. Rome also made after the Teutoburg battle some tries to retake the land but after suffering big defeats while gaining nothing they at last retreated totally in 16 AD.


Between 9 bs-9ad in germania up to the elbe WAS a roman province in all but name. Roman armies moved at will, census were taken, merchants moved from village to village. In 14ad germanicus defeated the marsi tribe and sacked 4 of their towns/villages. on the return to the rhine he defeated a bructeri/turbantes/usipetes army planning to ambush him. In 15ad he crossed the rhine again crushing the chatti and their tribal center at mattium burned to the ground he passed through the lands of the bructeri laying waste. They stopped at teutoberg wald and burried varus's army and built an altar. They moved in cherusci lands where arminius did sucessfully ambush the roman auxiliary cavalry advance guard. It was winter and the romans moved into winter quarters. The romans splitt into 2 forces, germanicus went along the sea coast and caecina towards the "long bridges" a bridge across the swamps. arminius chased caecina and caught him at the bridges. The battle initially went against the romans who fell back to their fortified camp. The german attack on the camp was a disaster and the germans retreated. In 16ad germanicus again invaded germania and in a battle on the weser river arminius was routed. another defeat was inflicted on the angrivarii on the march back to the rhine. Punitive attacks on the chatti and marsi regained one of varus's lost eagle standards.
In 17ad germanius was recalled by emperor tiberius [ his uncle]who was jealous of his popularity and sucess and soon died of poisoning. Germania did not keep roman out of germania, it was rome's fear of itself. No emperor would keep enough troops under a good commander long enough to do the job. rome's fear defined the boundaries of the empire.

Pawpaw

You are perfectly correct about the doctrine that prevented Romes further expansion. Imperial distance from decision.making center to periphery is a strong determinant, which also limited Imperial Chinas growth. Travel times and communication distances are key here. The reason we got imperialism is the increased means of communication and transportation. For example, Dzhengis Khan created the first real imperial postal service, in a pony express manner, with stations of rested horses with regular intervals. Imperial Rome had semaphore machines and so on. The Incas used knots.
Waht made Rome great was its road system, and the topograhy of heavily forested Germany at that time did not open for a defensible road structure as in other parts of the Empire. Forests of that time was more dangerous, more wild animals, stronger weather impacts and so on. Not only fear, but rational engineering and administration concerns held Rome back, and rather fortify the Empire till more technology was available.

Pawpaw

You are perfectly correct about the doctrine that prevented Romes further expansion.

i believe the quote used during the empire was " TOO many legions, TOO close to rome, breeds TOO much temptation "