A Roman Germania

Sebbywafers

Banned
I'm sure this question's been asked before, but I'm going to ask it again- how do we get the Romans to take and keep Germania? I'm going to assume that taking Arminius out of the equation by tragically killing him somehow prevents the ambush at Teutoburg Forest, which in turn prevents the Roman tactical retreat from Germania shortly after. However, you have some problems with the Romans keeping Germania-
a) Germania has very little infrastructure (roads, large towns, ect) to allow the Romans to establish themselves
b) Germania was seen as worthless by the Romans for the above reason.
c) as Arminius and later the Batavi in 69 AD had shown, the Germans were very willing to rebel against the Romans.

However, I have a solution- why doesn't Rome keep the Germanic tribes it manages to subjugate as client states? By doing this it prevents the tribes from harassing its border and attempting to make problematic settlements in the Rhine (which arguably caused most of the campaigns against the Germanic tribes in this era), and through the process of Romanisation the Germanics might even adopt Roman ways over time and give themselves some infrastructure. Latin settlement in the area, when the time for it arrives, could also provide the Germanics with workers and settlers.

However, you have a problem- retaining Germania is hard in this era. After the death of Augustus, the Roman Empire goes through several civil wars and the royal family is thinned considerably (a choice like Claudius, who was slightly deaf and had a limp from illness, is a sign of desperation among the Julio-Claudians if you ask me). Both Drusus and Nero Julius Caesar were exiled and died due to Prefect Sejanus's purges of "treason" shortly after the attempted conquest of Germania in our TL. How do we make it so that the Julio-Claudian herd isn't sufficiently thinned and the empire is able to remain stable? With a stable enough Roman Empire in this TL, I can see the Romans holding their ground up to the Weser in Germania.

So, does anyone have a POD that allows the Romans to retain Germania? Is Teutoberg Forest's victory/nonexistence enough, or must Sejanus be taken care of somehow as well? Does simply allowing Teutoberg Forest to be gone allow Germanicus, heir of Tiberius, to stay in Germania commanding armies and not die of suspicious circumstances in Antioch?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Rome officially becomes Christian earlier, giving it the incentive to go fourth and proselytize the otherwise unsavory lands of Germania.

I admit to having a barbarian bias.
 

moxn

Is it possible we're going about it the wrong way? Instead of Rome conquering the region, perhaps a Germanic figure could unite the tribes in the area and conquer a longer lasting Rome with a more stable administrative infrastructure and over time Germania would be assimilated into the greater Roman identity, or at least flooded with immigrants from further south once the area becomes an agricultural center.

Could the comparisons to what the Manchu did with China work in this scenario, or are they simply too different?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The thing that made Germania unique is that while Rome could have conquered it, and likely held it, there was little reason to, at least not for a while.

I'd say the earliest that a conquest was feasible would be after Vespasian put down the Revolt of Julius Civilis that coincided with the Civil War. By this point, Rome had a very strong army, relative political stability, and had been in constant mercantile and political, not to mention social, contact with Germania for over a hundred years when Caesar pushed the frontier to the Rhine.

The thing about Germania was that it did not have existing social structures that Roman administration could successfully latch onto and Romanize for quite a while. It could be militarily defeated, as Germanicus and countless others proved (I see Teutoberg more as a fluke than anything; when Romans and Germans fought, it usually went Rome's way, and often quite decisively; Teutoberg has been dramatized more than anything by German Nationalists in the 19th century), but not politically subjugated without facing a constant stream of revolts that would make the province more burden than anything for the Romans to take. It would have been rather like a bigger conquest of Dacia for Trajan, with an easier enemy to defeat but a harder logistical situation.

Imperial Rome could not pull off a huge conquest when it was in political turmoil, but there were many points when they could have done so. Vespasian could have made it happen, I believe, as could Trajan. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, who had to deal with rebellion and unrest despite actually being one of the few emperors to take the fight to the Danubian Germans, a conquest of Germania up to the Elbe was indeed possible due to the slowly Romanizing polities in Germania that were more susceptible to conquest, and the still formidable Roman Army.

The last Emperor I believe who could have pulled off such a conquest would be either Septimius Severus or Alexander Severus. The Roman Army at that point was as powerful as it had ever been, and Germania was at this point as Romanized as it would be before Rome's decline started.

This, I believe, in addition to the time of Trajan, would have been the best possible moment to start a conquest of Germania. Once the 3rd Century Crisis started, it was too late.

Essentially, the key point boils down to this. The more time goes on, the easier it is for Rome to politically manage administering Germania and maybe even making it profitable at some point. By the same token, for a conquest to happen, it needs to be at a time of political stability with good military leaders capable of carrying out such a conquest. And this NEEDS to happen before Rome's military collapse, which the Crisis of the 3rd Century starts. At various points between 69 AD to 235 AD, you could have indeed seen this happen.
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

Sebbywafers said:
However, I have a solution- why doesn't Rome keep the Germanic tribes it manages to subjugate as client states?
Click to expand...
It's more or less what existed IOTL, except that the Roman presence at the border made reshuffle of tribal entities making these a bit too instable (as hinted by the decline of southern German urban centers) to be really lasting.

But regularly you had de jure clientelisation (often in addition of deportation of peoples in Gaul, as laeti) and even more de facto (trough dependence on trade or stable relationship).

Remember that client states doesn't imply at all immigration (Roman settlement is often tied up to military needs, especially recruitment), and that Barbarians did get romanized IOTL (I don't know why people keep thinking that in spite of living next to Rome resulted in no cultural/political influence for whatever reason).

As for immigration, there was simply no incitative doing so in Germany for Roman or Romanized people, when you had an historical important Germanic immigration in Gaul, Raetia or even Italy (institutionalized, as laeti, or spontaneous).

Does simply allowing Teutoberg Forest to be gone allow Germanicus, heir of Tiberius, to stay in Germania commanding armies and not die of suspicious circumstances in Antioch?
Click to expand...
I don't think avoiding one battle would butterfly away the general situation (as avoiding Stalingrad doesn't mean Nazi defeat is in any way butterflied away). Hold on German tribes was going thin for several of them, and a general revolt is still likely to happen with not that much possibility for Romans to undergo a relatively long and costly campaign (series of campaign) in face of other needs.

Maybe not a general retreat up to the Rhine, but even less a total control.
Weser/Main series of vall up to Bohemia (As in Ad Moesia/Dacia in the Ist century/IInd century) may be more likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top