If Rome conqured Germania instead of Gallia...

[Xen]

i know a lot of people dont like "what if threads" but i'm just curious as to what people think would have happend, this post is, more or less, based upon a post by Calgacus, in a thread regrading Celtic decline.

any way what might have happend if, for some reason, any reason at all Rome conquerd Germany instaed of France, what do you think might have happend?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

The Romans needed to conquer Gaul to get to Germany, the only alternative routes were large detours, so not worth their time, or across the Alps, and it took the Romans a while to bring the Alps under control. Honestly, the Romans IMO probably would not have conquered Germany if they didn't have Gaul.

But if they did somehow, then they probably would go ahead and conquer Gaul, crush the resistance whilst they can and then impose their culture on the Germans until they were another people to be practically Roman. There would have been a lot of trouble on all borders, most notably from Scandinavia and to the east, forcing them to further conquer more lands to secure frontiers.

 

[Xen]

So in other words...Rome=Europe eventually if that happend...i thought as much...happend to me whaen i did it in civ3, for them same reasons as my ancestors might have had thaey done it

 

[thedirk]

The northern and eastern frontiers of Germania would have been even harder to defend than those of Gallia. Any such conquest would have been short lived. The Celts in Gallia and in Brittania seemed to work well with the Romans and assimilated into empire reasonably well. I don't think the same would have been true of ther Germanic tribes. Germania would have been their proverbial Vietnam, in fact many would say it was.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Had the Romans managed to do it before 60AD or so, they probably could have been able to keep Germania with relatively secure borders. After then though, the Germans started getting restless and conquest would have been near impossible.

 

[earendil 1]

Yes Mongoloid Cow, and the barbarians began to use new tactics. There was an instance where Gothic (I'm not sure if it was Gothic) knights destoyed 3 legions under a leader I dont remeber. I think that the Romans would have to go way out of their way to secure the borders. They would have had to conquer dnemark and then the rest of scandinavia, which would probably be impossible. Had the Carthaginians not been around, Rome might have lasted much longer, or they might have lasted much shorter, because then they wouldnt have had a chance to test their legions, and the Punic wars may have given the Romans much of the patriotism and nationalism that they had.

 

[Xen]

I fail to why the Carthaginians not being around would help the Empire to survive, after all it was the expansion into carthaginian territorys that got the teritory rolling in(annexation of cathages iberian colonies for example), not to mention my ancestors were already extreamlly patriotic at that time, if any thing it would have taken longer to get a real pan mediterranian empire started if at all(remember Rome would only start a war as a pre-emptive one, which means they felt that they were under immediate danger of attack)

btw it was germans who ambushed 3 legions in teutonburg forest while it was raining heavilly(according to survivor recount, yes there were some, it wasnt a total destruction like some history books say)

also this assumes that Julius Ceaser himself would have led a campaign into germany, as opposed to gaul to gain prestige (and make the Helvietii tribe, the guys who started the whole debacle go onto the defensive in there home lands, as opposed to the offensive war the were wageing in gaul

 

[Xen]

so in other words, they would have been conqured in B.C.E times

 

[earendil 1]

Yes Xen I also mentioned that without Carthage, the Roman empire might not have been as powerful as it was, or maybe vice-versa. If the Romans had instead made a German campaign earlier on, they might have avoided facing the new tactics used by the barbarians.

 

[SanPellegrino]

In fact the romans tried very hard to conquer the germanic lands but failed. they only made it to the rhine and after some defeats they decided to secure this border with the "Limes". So "what if" is the wrong question the if was

 

[pawpaw]

xen, i believe earendil was talking about the defeat in 376a.d. were the goths detroyed a roman army and captured the emperor. and the rhine and danube became the boundries because attempts to go further failed or were not worth the effort.

 

[pawpaw]

thats the battle of adrianople and emperor valens

 

[Xen]

were not talking about emperor valens, or adrianople, I'm talking Ceasar, and the conquest of gaul(or rather choosing to go after the the germans who started the whole thing in there home land)

 

[pawpaw]

excuse me all to h*ll, actual caesar led 2 raids into germany and the germans fled before him and reappeared after he left. one can assume they would of done the same to a real invasion leaving caesar a won lot of empty forest and a long undefencable frontier

 

[Xen]

Why would it be undefenceble?The gauls would not have said a thing, as it was only the helvetii who stirred up trouble, and a conqured germany would mean no more out of them, and the dacians were not yet a major power, i see no reason that Rome could not have held the border

 

[pawpaw]

not the border between gaul and germany but the border between germany and the east. it WAS un defenceable as it was shown over and over the next 400 years. the german tribes in germany 50b.c. -50a.d. were not around in 200 a.d. when the goths, vandels and everybodies brother showed up on the rhine, and the border would not been the rhine but hundreds of miles east. if they could not hold a fortified river position ( the limes) how were they going to hold a couple hundred mile frontier of plains and forest?

 

[SanPellegrino]

pawpaw is right, it was only forest and swamp, no major cities, very hard to hold and not worth it for the romans. the limes was the best decision for them, orienting at the rivers rhine and donau as natural borders.

 

[EdwardTking]

The Gauls tended to be agriculturalists who ploughed the land.
Land with crops growing on it can be pillaged and taxed.

The Germans tended to be herdsmen with cattle and horses;
which can be moved away if the Roman army or the taxman is coming.

So conquering Gaul was simply more profitable than conquering Germany. I don't think it was that the Romans were incapable of conquering Germany (although the Roman army that was strong on infantry, fortifications and siege equipment would have to greatly increase its cavalry to do so); but simply that they could not make a business case to do so because the Germans then were nomadic and did not have any cities or towns to plunder or tax.

 

[Xen]

I said what the mother ****ing IF, i dont need a lecture on why my ancestors didnt, i already know, I just want opinions on what if it did, not why it didnt, but every one hear just cant seem to comprehend anything that did not happen histroriclly

Moderator Action: warned, flaming and vulgarity. Please PM me with your intetion to abide by the rules
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[pawpaw]

actually we did answer what if. if you weren't mother ****ing ranting you would of read they would of encountered the vast germanic hordes on the german-polish borders and had major problems. as for your ancestors when did ormond beach, fla invade germany? the one who can't comprehend is the person who puts up a what if thread then cry's everytime someone doesn't agree with his pt of view.
Moderator Action: warned, flaming and vulgarity. Please PM me with your intetion to abide by the rules
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889