So long as we're not straying into the realm of probability here, just possibility, then I'll generally be fine with this as well.
I have claimed nothing else but possibility.
While not outside the realm of possibility, a unified Norseland this early is highly unlikely. The geographical isolation that the fjords are in militate against much of a central authority, though a Celtic-type "High Kingship" is somewhat in order beforehand I guess. That "High King" would be unable to coordinate raids or invasions effectively though.
I suppose it would be better to say something like Ragnar Hairy Breeches led the first attack and then other Jarls joined in to go a Viking. And it just built momentum. Would that do?
This is probably just nitpicking, but it's actually the other way round: Norse longships are designed for shallower waters (their draft isn't very much), while Norse seamanship gets them across the oceans, or in this case the North and Norwegian Seas.
Good point, I will change that reference.
As to the Roman wars in Britannia against the Norse, I am somewhat interested in the tactical details of the battles; why did Rome win at Londinium, lose at Verulamium, and capture the ships at Dubrae?
I have not thought on the land battles and so far have only given passing thought to the capture of the ships. I was going to flesh out the battles once I had the base timeline down.
The slow, slogging fight against the Norse in England does make some sense, although I'm interested in the demographical information (resettlement?), and am also wondering as to the lack of Norse raids on Gaul, which should be much more prosperous and is a highly convenient target given the rivers.
Again, good point. I will add in Norse raids on Gaul.
The original reason for the creation of the NES subforum's alternate history thread series (the first one was, gasp, a poll done by Amenhotep7) was to come up with settings for NESes, so naturally we're sort of biased that way, towards a scenario that retains some historicity and provides a good setting for a NES. So long as there aren't any pretensions towards remaining in the probable as opposed to the merely possible, then I can't honestly say that you ought be met with any sort of hostility.
Never even entered my mind it was probable, only possible.
My argument was aimed primarily at destroying the likelihood that these new provinces would even be seized in the first place, especially in the volume they were (having admittedly only skimmed the TL at first glance). There simply is no reason for the Romans to take over Germania and Scythia other than to safeguard against a possible barbarian attack (assuming massive preplanning by the Romans and a collective strategy over the course of multiple emperors), in which case the only Romans in the new provinces would be military (for there is basically no reason for civilians to settle in the impassable German forest or the open plains of Scythia, until they become somewhat profitable by diffusion, and besides, as I believe Dis has previously pointed out, Scythia can't become anything but pastoral for a few centuries at the least and a millennium at most). If the only Romans in the provinces are military, then they will be sparsely populated, because Rome hasn't got the cash to pay a military large enough to cover Scythia and Germania without a civilian infrastructure and cover the already existing provinces as well. Sparsely populated military indicates that the Goths and their ilk would have a relatively easy time of smashing through the frontier and getting to the Danuvius, Rhodanus, and through the Caucasus, thus leaving us at square one again. Besides, the Roman infantry-based system of warfare just doesn't really work on the steppes all that well, even with guns.
Please read my post on Waldgrimes. The frontier was the Dniester for that section of the froniter, not on the plains of Scythia itself.
Also read my entry on the Roman Army reorganization in 270 and give comment on that.
Because every emperor will use the adoption system.
They tried that in OTL and Marcus Aurelius ignored it to his peril. As long as the emperor has sons, they will attempt to claim legitimacy from the adopted ones, and it's rather unlikely that every single emperor will fail to produce a child. (What's the fun in being emperor if you can't have a harem or at least a mistress?
) The Thirty Tyrants (yes, I know there weren't actually 30 of them) arose as a result of a few years of political instability combined with a few defeats on the battlefield as a result of corruption; if this is all it takes to set the OTL Roman Empire off, being a colossus as it is, then I tend to lean towards the side of inevitability here. The crisis was, in the end, a fairly good thing for Rome, because they were forced to modernize somewhat and establish a more stable system of military dictatorship, and reorganized the administrative and financial aspects of the Empire, which beforehand were becoming something of a shambles.
lol, good point. Any suggestions?
I'm pretty sure Octavian didn't have clairvoyance or influence over the Goths' actions centuries into the future; otherwise, how would he have screwed up so badly?
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gothic assault is far after Octavian passed on.
And, as before, I disagree that this system of succession is inherently stable, because none is, due to that lovely thing called human agency. I suppose you could theoretically have no Emperors with children, and all of them are competent or better because they choose successors who always are, and who never descend into madness or megalomania or anything like that, and who are in fact the superhuman and divine beings that they proclaim in their titles. This, however, lies in the area of possibility, not probability, which is a more fundamental dispute as previously enumerated.
Any suggestions
Yes, and as I have previously noted I believe the argument that Gaul and the Balkan provinces would not be raided to be inherently flawed and thus inadmissible. However, since we aren't dealing with what's probable, merely with what's possible, then we can completely ignore problems like that. Nice how that works as a catch-all to eliminate little things like logic or reason from the enterprise.
I do not see how a shift of the frontier east would not have prevented attacks on Gaul and the Balkans. The civvies were moving in before the Varus Disaster. Now if you turn that into a victory, Waldgrimes and other sites like her would have continued to grow as the Germans were romanized.
As for constructive criticism, I would venture to say that the Romans did have a very reasonable goal in holding Germania as a military province, and that like Gaul it could see limited Romanization by the Crisis of the Third Century (or its analogue). Acting like Dacia as a brake on the incoming barbarians, it could slow down the destruction that they wreak...and thusly weaken Rome's position later on, as necessary reforms are not put in place and the Empire is forced to deal with a new Great Power in Sassanid Persia, along with the renewed barbarian threat when the Huns begin to move. What you postulate, in my opinion, would lead to the earlier collapse of Rome instead of a general expansion, unless we can get a deus ex machina of a few superhuman emperors in a row who can beat back the barbs before they wreak sufficient economic damage on the Empire. Compare the effects of the Crisis on Rome to castor oil: it doesn't taste so good when it goes down, but it's good for you.
That last line was quite humorous.
So any suggestions? Since you do not have the full timeline yet I had planned on a Crisis-like event chain happening in the 400's AD. Since I think an exapnsion of the borders would delay but not entirely do away with internal and external crises turning the Huns into what Cniva and his visigoths were to OTL.
So any suggestions as to events to add to that later Crisis, by all means suggest.
EDIT:
Mmm...not really. Much of the warfare against Carthage was fueled partially by reverse engineering a quinquereme (at least, that's the story Polybius gives us), but it is generally believed that the southern Greek cities such as Tarentum and Neapolis, combined with the not-nonexistent Etruscan navies from the Etrurian leagues to the north of Rome provided much more expertise. Note that southern Italy was conquered almost immediately before the First Punic War and as such is perfectly chronologically placed to be a new exploitation of resources. How else do you think the Romans got over to Messana in the first place? In any event, a more proper First Punic War analogue would be Rome conquering the Jutland peninsula and forcing the Danes to work with them to produce longboats to fight the Norwegians.
Good point and I did have an entry where the Romans push into Cimbria.
Cheers, Thorgrimm
. Put downs are best when they are short - for those of us in the peanut gallery you should have schooled his arse with only a couple of sentances and as little quoting him as possible 
