What if there was no disaster in Teutoburg forest? For those who don't know what it is, Wikipedia has the answer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest) Many historians called it a turning point in history. It effectively stopped Roman expansion beyond the Rhine river.

Now, many scholars suggest that if this hadn't happened, Rome would have been able to stave off threats that it would have faced later on, such as the Goths and Huns, because Rome would have remained expansionist, and the whole Hadrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian) fiasco wouldn't have happened. Hadrian for the most part stopped expansion. Considering how Rome was a slave-based economy, and considering how there was a lack of sufficient expansion due to Hadrian's crackpot theories about "manageable borders" and whatnot, the Romans were unable to get the influx of slaves that it needed to keep it's economy pumping.

Had there been no Teutoburg disaster, Hadrian probably wouldn't have stopped expansion. He would have continued merrily in the footsteps of the great conquering emperors, and Rome in theory would have ultimately continued expansion into Europe.

With a Europe utterly and totally dominated by Rome, would Rome have fallen? Had there been continued expansion, the area around the Black Sea i.e. the Gothic heartland would have long ago been absorbed into the Roman Empire and would have been thoroughly Romanized, it in no way would allow for the rise of Alarich. Probably wouldn't have been named Alarich.

With continued expansion, we have already set up the fact the economy wouldn't have gone to pot. The fact the economy tanked was one of the catalysts that contibuted to the fall of Rome. Almost any scholar will tell you that. There was also the fact that with no expansion, the generals became more involved in politics. This would mean that you had tons of civil wars. Legions and alliances of legions would fight other legions/alliances of legions to see to it that their general would become emperor. In the late Roman Empire, you literally had emperors that lasted for less than a year! With continued border patrols and expansion, the generals wouldn't have had time to think of politics and would have more time to think about the glory of Rome and the best battlefield tactics. This would mean no civil wars.

You would think that, but then there's the whole Diocletian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian) mess. Basically, Diocletian split the empire in four. You would think this would be inevitable, and Constantine would have gone into civil war with Maxentius and begin the splitting of the empire into western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) empires. But Diocletian's reforms were instigated for the express purpose of the fact that there was internal corruption and that Rome's borders were unmanageable. Much of the corruption came from ambitious generals with way too much time on their hands and an increasing feeling of isolationism within the emperors. We've already addressed the issue of ambitious generals with too much time on their hands. They would be too busy with borders and expansion. But we haven't addressed the feeling of isolationism. Or have we? I have already stated that the emperors since Hadrian set up (for the most part) permanent borders. This reluctance to expand is most certainly what caused the feeling of isolationism. With no isolationist Hadrian, we could assume that there would be no future feelings of isolationism.

So with no civil wars to keep Rome occupied, no ceased expansion, the continuing influx of slaves to keep the economy up and running, and with the empire united without the whole Constantine versus Maxentius craziness, it would seem that Rome would last for centuries, perhaps millenia to come.


This is my first article exploring what could have been. Comment, question, etc. The article is subject to change if I see it fit. The real question is: do you like the article?:D

Bump?

Well. What does every body think? This thread has received many views.;)

I thinks it's good, though a little simplistic.

You often assume that if A happened, B would would definitly also happen in a this particular way.
Still it's quite interesting, but I don't think Germany is the right place to conduct Roman warfare. Not easy to command when your view is blocked by trees...

I know, it is slightly oversimplified. I plan to add to it as I go along.:) One thing I plan to add in there is A. How would this have altered the bad leadership and B. The Huns

Rome fell gradually due to many factors.

One of the most important was the civilwars, caused by bad leadership and ambition. The problem with Emperors is that it only takes one, to destroy what ten have created.
This left Rome weak, economy was hurt, expansion was impossible, the "Roman spirit" you know - the nationalism and will to die for Rome disappeared.

Now Rome was weak. And the same time German tribes multiplied and wanted more land to feed them selfes (Their aggriculture was not very develloped, so they needed lot's of land) And finally, the Huns appear. Rome was too weak to deal with these threats and declined.

civil wars caused by ambition I've dealt with, talked about economy, talked about expansion, talked of the german tribes.

You've created many points I should bring up in the next edition.

-Bad leadership
-Nationalism
-Huns

Thank you for your help.:)

Roman Timeline:

9 AD Varus is defeated in Germany
44 Mauretania added
46 Thracia added
43-59 Britannia Superior added
71 Britannia inferior added
83 Germania Superior and Inferior added
98-117 Trajan Rules
106 Arabia added
108 Dacia added
114-117 Armenia, Assyria, Mesopotamia added
117-138 Hadrian rules
284-313 Diocletian rules

You imply a quid pro quo that Varus’ defeat caused Hadrian to stop expanding the empire. Given the actual history of Roman expansion, I would suggest that Varus’ defeat had little impact on near term policy, let alone 100 years later. I do not know why Hadrian stopped expanding the empire, but tagging it to Varus (110 years earlier) is like saying that Union Army Civil War loses determined foreign policy decisions during WW2 (80 years later). Vietnam is 30 years behind us and while still with us, it is fading as real influence on government policy.

Diocletian’s reforms are yet another 150 years after Hadrian. I think they are too far apart to be connected. But your original premise of what would have happened if Rome had continued to expand into Germany is an open question. I agree that had central Germany been Romanized in the 2nd century, the barbarian invasions could have been effected. But so large an empire would have been more unmanageable than the one Diocletian inherited and his decision to divide it up more likely. The Empire was too big and spread across too many natural barriers for it’s infrastructure and could not be run by one person and a central bureaucracy.

Yes, but how come they lost alot of their holding which were gained after the defeat? Barbarians. Where did most barbarians come from? Germania. What about the Huns? They would have been easily defeated if Rome's attention wasn't diverted by other barbs. Also, you seem to be forgetting that even small events in the past can have a big impact in the future. Like I said, this is the battle that stopped Rome. Had this not happened, what would have stopped Rome?

Hadrian was right. Rome at that point could no longer afford expansion.

You're right that the Roman economy was slave-based, and needed a constant influx of slaves, but they simply could not manage an even bigger empire. There was no instant communication back then, an information from Rome would take severall days before reaching the borders of Empire. Distance would also improve corruption and rebellions - nobody accepts beign governed by an authority so distant.

So the romans only had two options to save the Empire:

1-Start to import slaves from other areas, instead of only using captured slaves.
2-Gradually change the base of the economy to reduce the dependency of slave labour.

Option 2 is of course the best, and in the long run the only that would work.

a very interesting thought- and while I agree that, if central germany had been added- and say a new frontire set up along the oder in the west, barbarian invasions would have been greattlly effected- BUT, in my opinion, if two things had gone differentlly-

A)a stanrdard for of imperial succession (IE; only legal emperors would be candidates chosen by the former emperor and ratified by the senate, as it was during the reigns of the "4 good emperors")

B)and if the econoym had stayed atleast in italy in a state it was before the punic wars (basically private small farm ownership in which the owners, hired help, and a minimum of slaves worked the land, instead of the great farming estates)

those alone would have greatlly staved off any barbarian threats- as generals would not have any legal power if the marched on Rome and seized the emperor ship (unless they had the support of virtually all the legions, an impossible task until you bacame and ruled as emperor for a time and proved your worth) the generals who would be king, so to speake, would be busy out campaigning, trying to gain the eye of the current emperor for imperial succession...

Rome had paved roads, remember? Plus, the Mongols had the largest land empire on earth, and still had a fast message system even without roads. Ultimately, I think Hadrian was responsible for the fall of Rome. Ultimately, anyways. But that's stretching it a bit.

and as for size of the empire- I think it could have gotten bigger actually- yes, there were many natural barries- but the Roman engineers were adeptd at taming those barriers were they not? and after initial rebellions in area were quelled after a conqouest you rarelly have any more rebellions- unles smotivated by a want to be emperor- look at gaul and britain- after an initial period of instability and rebellion, they both became model Roman provinces

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Yes, but how come they lost alot of their holding which were gained after the defeat? Barbarians. Where did most barbarians come from? Germania. What about the Huns? They would have been easily defeated if Rome's attention wasn't diverted by other barbs. Also, you seem to be forgetting that even small events in the past can have a big impact in the future. Like I said, this is the battle that stopped Rome. Had this not happened, what would have stopped Rome?

Rome stabilized its border with Germany along the Rhine during the 1st Century AD. As others have said, the forests of northern Germany are not suited for Roman style warfare. Trajan expanded the Empire on the eastern borders where the benefits of conquest were both obvious and easier to achieve. Remember that no one anticipated the barbarian invasions to come. Those invasion didn't happen until 400 years after Varus' defeat and 300 years after Hadrian.

Many of the barbarian invasions of the 5th Century came through Germania, but they didn't originate there. If Rome had conquered central Germany, I expect that the invasions would have been mitigated and less destructive to Gaul and Spain etc. Other factors, mentioned above, all would play a part in this.

Diocletian divided the Empire because he couldn't manage it. Yes it could have been larger, but that wouldn't change the need to develop a new system to govern it. The mongol empire did not survive the death of Mongke; it was divided into four states after his death (1259) barely 50 years after it was founded.

Originally posted by dnaquin
Rome stabilized its border with Germany along the Rhine during the 1st Century AD. As others have said, the forests of northern Germany are not suited for Roman style warfare.

t isnt suited ot Legionary combat- but its perfectlly suited to Auxilliary foot type combat- as it is terrain liek the foressts of germany that promptend the creation fo such troops in the first place

Were there battles prior to 300 AD where the Romans abandoned legionary style warfare for a less "formal" style using only lightly armored troops? I thought that Roman auxillary troops were primarily cavalry and missle units, neither of which would do well in heavy forests.

the romans didnt have to abandon any style fo warfare- they had specialized until to take on different roles in different terrian- hence why one army could expand fromt eh forests fo britian to the deserts of Syria and back again.

as for cavalry notbeing effective- i suggest you tell that to the ancient germans, who were renown for thier ferocious, if disorganized cavarly.

IMO Rome under Hadrian was as large and only as large as it could go, for the following (main) reasons:

Communication
Rome was dependent on the Mediterranean Sea for quick communication. Beyond Hadrian's borders, Rome was faced with dense forests, impassable deserts and huge mountains. There could be no fast, effective means of communicating between the various parts of the empire. And also, the Mongol system of effective communication could not work - the Mongols spent many centuries perfecting their system before Genghis Khan came around.

Lack of Adaptive Warfare
As mentioned above, the Roman system of warfare could not work beyond their borders. The Romans were too slow in adapting, and any change also would have upset the legions and some generals. Rome would still have had to rely on the untrustworthy foederati, so Germans would still have entered Rome's borders regardless.

Lack of Worthwhile Conquests
By the time of Hadrian, the only region worth conquering was Iran. So on the rest of Rome's extensive borders, there was no long-term economic incentive (slave raiding does not last long) to expand. Meanwhile, every foregin nation on their border had every reason to attack Rome - it was rich.

As others have said, the forests of northern Germany are not suited for Roman style warfare.

Julius Caesar went to conquer the Chatii (in Germania) with legionaries and kicked some Germanic butt!:p

@ Mongoloid Cow

Communication- The Romans had just about ANY type of terrain in their empire, and had next to no problems communicating. Somehow I don't think communication is a problem. (Besides, terrain counts for little when you've got mighty Roman roads!:cool: )

Lack of Adaptive Warfare - Why do you say that? The Romans fought in just about any type of terrain. Wouldn't this naturally mean they'd NEED to adapt?

Lack of Worthwhile conquests- Africa had ivory and diamonds, the north had furs and silver, the east had unimaginable wealth... And YOU'RE saying there were no worthwhile conquests?:lol:

Xen, I agree with you that Roman light troops where well suited for forrestcombat, but you have to remember that they would be in vastly inferior numbers to the Germans.
Rome could usually count on the superiority of their soldiers to win against a bigger foe, but this superiority is reduced in forrests, and Rome lacked enough light troops to effectively beat the Germans at their own game.

Rome could usually count on the superiority of their soldiers to win against a bigger foe, but this superiority is reduced in forrests, and Rome lacked enough light troops to effectively beat the Germans at their own game.

You're saying there was no way Rome could have conquered Germania, but they did.:hmm:

yep, that would eb the problem really numbers, if a second thoeretical Roman conquest had been launched, U think Rome would have had to make due with a lot f germanic allies helping to even out the numbers if for no real tactical use during the battles

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
You're saying there was no way Rome could have conquered Germania, but they did.:hmm:

alomst did, the wipeing out fo three legions put Romes forcues at too smalle a number to hols the area, which is why it was let go

Well the article of this thread is what if it occured differently, now isn't it?:p;)

Communications is an important issue (it allows for the all important co-ordination of legions and reinforcement of troops). Sure the Roman roads were a sweet novelty, but they would only have increased the speed and distance of communication by so much before they too lose effectiveness and eventually become useless. The Mongols technique for quick communication where they could send word from the Rus to Qaraqorum in three days is not something the Romans could ever had done, and to expand further, the Romans would need to have adopted a revolutionary new technique.

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
You're saying there was no way Rome could have conquered Germania, but they did.:hmm:
No Im not. Im saying that the Romans could not completely beat the Germans at their own game, which the did NOT.

Please read what I write.

The Mongols technique for quick communication where they could send word from the Rus to Qaraqorum in three days is not something the Romans could ever had done

Why so?

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Julius Caesar went to conquer the Chatii (in Germania) with legionaries and kicked some Germanic butt!:p



Caesar defeated Ariovistus in a quick campaign along the Rhine. It was a set piece battle on a plain between a German wagon barricade camp and two Roman camps. Current scholarship puts the German army as smaller than the Roman six legions. Caesar won handily, but he was fighting on his terms on the field of his choosing.

Managing an empire is more than quick communications from the capital to the frontier. It involves military logistics, tax collection, trade regulation, collecting goods destined for Rome, managing local/regional governments to minimize corruption, appointing new bureaucrats and officials, tracking news and events, disseminating edits and laws, etc etc. China faced the same problem and had a huge bureacracy that survived from dynasty to dynasty.

Rome was too big as empire to survive even Germany was in total part of this empire. Too few soldiers to defend such an empire. That´s why Rome was doomed.
Rome was not able to fight in Germania and being successfull. The German tribes were not so evolved like the gauls. There were no cities nor roads. So the Romans had to fight mainly in forrests a guerilla war. This lead to very few victories but many big catastrophies. It was too costly to maintain fighting there if you loose legions of legions there with nearly no success. So they occupied only the most westen and southern part of Germany. Rome wasn´t able to be victorious. Even though they would never have survived the Hun attack very long.

Adler

Managing an empire is more than quick communications from the capital to the frontier. It involves military logistics, tax collection, trade regulation, collecting goods destined for Rome, managing local/regional governments to minimize corruption, appointing new bureaucrats and officials, tracking news and events, disseminating edits and laws, etc etc. China faced the same problem and had a huge bureacracy that survived from dynasty to dynasty.

Yes I know, but the point was communication.

@Adler Rome had conquered Germania for the most part, but it was that disaster at Teutoburg that ruined it. To the extent of my knowledge that was the only thing that ruined the full annexation of Germania. Had Teutoburg not happened, the economic burden would have been alleviated (sp?) due to the fact that there would be an influx of slaves. Mostly, anyway. Any other would be fixed up through trade.

Suppose you're right, and Rome could conquer all of Germania after victory at Teutoburg, this would only postpone the slave problem, not solve it.

Amenhotep Teutoburg was only the beginning of a long war. In this guerilla war, Rome´s Vietnam, the German tribes were able to beat them. In 16 AD the Romans had another terrible defeat: over 2 legions were lost in a similar battle to Teutoburg. When the Romans retreated to their ships, in which they came through on the Elbe river, these ships were destroyed in a big storm flood. Then the enperor only counted the losses and said it was not worth to keep the garrisons in Central Germany and retreated. Only Marc Aurel made attemps to invade in Germany but also he was pushed back. So Teutoburg was only a start and not the end. But it was the beginning of the end of the Roman rule over central Germany.

Adler

Yes, Adler. But what if they had not lost? They would be able to continue adding garrison forces and continue supplying their troops. By 16 AD, I'm sure they would have enough say over the region to repel any attacks. The emperor of the time (will have to look up) could not have been incompetent enough to realize only five legions would be enough to control such hostile territory.

storealex, you bring up a good point. Had Rome survived, my theory is that slavery would have died MUCH earlier, because some Roman economist would have come along and say "Hey! We use slaves too much, man!"

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Communications is an important issue (it allows for the all important co-ordination of legions and reinforcement of troops). Sure the Roman roads were a sweet novelty, but they would only have increased the speed and distance of communication by so much before they too lose effectiveness and eventually become useless. The Mongols technique for quick communication where they could send word from the Rus to Qaraqorum in three days is not something the Romans could ever had done, and to expand further, the Romans would need to have adopted a revolutionary new technique.

the Roman road system allowed for, in a forced march to travel roughlly 75 (modern) miles in a single day- this weiged down with about 30-40 pounds of rations and work equipment, and not counting armaments.

it is this fact which leads me to belive that there was no problem in communication along military lines in the roman empire, merelly a corrupt burachracy which tended to bog things down.

Originally posted by Adler17
Rome was too big as empire to survive even Germany was in total part of this empire. Too few soldiers to defend such an empire. That´s why Rome was doomed.
Rome was not able to fight in Germania and being successfull. The German tribes were not so evolved like the gauls. There were no cities nor roads. So the Romans had to fight mainly in forrests a guerilla war. This lead to very few victories but many big catastrophies. It was too costly to maintain fighting there if you loose legions of legions there with nearly no success. So they occupied only the most westen and southern part of Germany. Rome wasn´t able to be victorious. Even though they would never have survived the Hun attack very long.


please go forth and tell this to germanicus, who proceeded to make quite a few victoires agaisnt the germans in the same time period you speak of the destruction of two legions,I'm sure he'll be very interested to know that what he achieved shoudlnt have happend, and that he needs to go back, and correct his mistake by dyeing.

while you at it, you shoudl also go tell the assorted forces agaisnt the huns that they should not have achived thier bloody, and hard won victory over the huns either, and that they shoudl all be dead as well, at least according to your reasoning.

my 2 cents:crazyeye:

pushing the boarders across germany would of brought rome to the boundries of the goths,vandals,ect...and others who were currently in the eastern germany/polish boarder area. these tribes were more numberous and more of a threat than the rhine tribes. on the flip side rome would of been in much better shape to face them in 50ad than 250ad. in the end none of this matters because romes achilles heel wasn't its boarders but its civil wars. they would of still ripped the empire apart whither they ruled all of germany or part.

Originally posted by pawpaw
my 2 cents:crazyeye:

. in the end none of this matters because romes achilles heel wasn't its boarders but its civil wars. they would of still ripped the empire apart whither they ruled all of germany or part.

exacatley- which why, IMHO, that the best way to have had a surviving Roman empire would lay in establish a single method for Imperial succession- such as the adoption of the candidate, and ratifacation fo the candidate by the current emperor (oh yes, and the economy issue, but if Rome never suffer suiffered from bad rulers, its entirelly possible the econoym would not have become an issue in the first place)

better a bad emperor than 3 at one time

nah, only one is the real emperor- the other two are pretenders to the throne! (of course, who is the real emperor and who are th pretenders are hard to figure out somtimes ;))

Originally posted by Xen
the Roman road system allowed for, in a forced march to travel roughlly 75 (modern) miles in a single day- this weiged down with about 30-40 pounds of rations and work equipment, and not counting armaments.


Xen, what's your source for this totally outrageous claim. Adjusting hours and MPH along a sliding scale gives you a range of results:

25 hours of marching at 3 mph (fast walk)
15 hours of marching at 5 mph
12 hours of marching at 6.25 mph
10 hours of marching at 7.5 mph
8 hours of marching at 9.3 mph

Modern marathon runner: 26 miles in just over 2 hours, or about 13 mph no packs or equipment. 6.25 mph equals a 4 hour marathon. So you are claiming that fully equiped Roman legionaires could do 3, four hour marathons in a single day! Not possible.

Military historians Peter Connolly and Hans Delbruck both put a typical days march for a Roman Legion at 25-30 km or about 18 miles. They also claim recorded forced marches of 50 km (30 miles) in a day. Less than half of your 75 miles.

Now we have 10 hours at 3 mph for a 30 mile day. this is very doable if you push yourself. In my youth I did it in the rockies with a 50 lb pack. Ask the soldiers on this forum what is possible and what is not.

actually your right, I have no idea why i wrote 75 miles to be honest, it should be 50 miles, with no roads, this is what is recorded by Caesar (and more then likelly reliable, as it would not have been an extrodinary claim to have given the ever skepticle populace of Rome, or in paticuler, the senate)

Now the real question is: How fast could a messenger go on horseback refreshing horses whenevr that one gets tired?

About as fast as the Pony Express in mid 19th C America.

dont forget! Rome would have then benift of clear roads and routs to destinations,a nd wouldnt have to worry about Apache warrior braves neither ;)

Going back to the argument on the previous page...

To me, the issue isn't whether the Roman armies could beat the Germans or not -- they could, as proven by several [narrow] Roman victories by Tiberius (or was it his brother?) in the years right before Teutoburg. The issue is that Germania had no large settlements. Gaul was primarily a region of large cities (>3-4000 residents). By capturing and controlling these cities, Caesar was able to effectively rule Gaul. Germania, on the other hand, had no such cities. Instead, there were hundreds and hundreds of small settlements - ~30-50 people each. The only way to win victory in such a setting is the annihilation of the opposing army, and that would have been very difficult, given the forrested terrain, unsuitable to typical legion warfare. Like America in Vietnam, the Romans could have won all the battles and still lost the war......

Originally posted by wildWolverine
Going back to the argument on the previous page...

To me, the issue isn't whether the Roman armies could beat the Germans or not -- they could, as proven by several [narrow] Roman victories by Tiberius (or was it his brother?) in the years right before Teutoburg. The issue is that Germania had no large settlements. Gaul was primarily a region of large cities (>3-4000 residents). By capturing and controlling these cities, Caesar was able to effectively rule Gaul. Germania, on the other hand, had no such cities. Instead, there were hundreds and hundreds of small settlements - ~30-50 people each. The only way to win victory in such a setting is the annihilation of the opposing army, and that would have been very difficult, given the forrested terrain, unsuitable to typical legion warfare. Like America in Vietnam, the Romans could have won all the battles and still lost the war......

this is similar to an earlier thread " what if rome conquerored germania instead of gaul" germania was forest and marshes, no cities or commerce, it was a longer boarder with large hostile tribes on the fringes. augustus cut the legions from 60 to 28. to take germania would need to increase them upward, meaning more armies with more ambitous generals--something the empire had enough of

Ah! But pawpaw, the article discusses the ambitious generals thing, remember?;)

Originally posted by pawpaw
this is similar to an earlier thread " what if rome conquerored germania instead of gaul" germania was forest and marshes, no cities or commerce, it was a longer boarder with large hostile tribes on the fringes. augustus cut the legions from 60 to 28. to take germania would need to increase them upward, meaning more armies with more ambitous generals--something the empire had enough of

excepth that through the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, all the generals were loyal...

Originally posted by Xen
excepth that through the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, all the generals were loyal...

70ad--year of 4 emperors:rolleyes:

Rebellious Generals??

Could such a thing be added to Civ 4? Once your empire reaches some critical size and you have X armies, maybe one or more armies would/might change sides and ally with another civ? They could take some of your treasury with them. Bribes?

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Ah! But pawpaw, the article discusses the ambitious generals thing, remember?;)

yes, was just saying the problem would be worst

Originally posted by pawpaw
70ad--year of 4 emperors:rolleyes:

*ahem* none of them were the Julio-Claudian dynasty, were they? no, that kicked off the Flavian Dynasty

Nero, last of Augustus' line killed himself in June 68 AD.
he was followed by:
Galba June 68 to Jan 69)
Otho (Jan 69 to Apr)
and Vitellius ( Apr to Dec 69 AD)

Vespasian then took power and rulled until 79 AD

Originally posted by Xen
excepth that through the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, all the generals were loyal...

the julio-claudian lined ENDED because the generals were not loyal, galba revolted against nero.:p

Yes it was Nero's lack of leadership and attention to the duties of being emperor that prevoked the revolt. But he also did not have any male heirs to assume the throne. His lack of offspring created the opportunity for a new family to assume power. The army was very loyal to the Julio-claudian line and might have supported a male heir if there had been one.

Thread status: Jacked.

Originally posted by wildWolverine
Thread status: Jacked.

why, amenhotep7's questions was what if roman didn't lose in 9ad, how would it grow, expand, evolve,ect... romes problem with sucession of emperors, civil wars are a big part of how it would of evolved

I plan to expand the article this weekend.:)