The Roman Empire?
 

I've always wondered what might have happened if the Roman Empire had not fallen; say, if it managed to subdue the lands (and tribes) north of the Rhine to the Elbe, or perhaps even to the Oder, by 395 AD.

So, it's Empire would have been extended to the Baltic Sea and only vulnerable to barbarian attacks from Asia, to the east.
This would have left, essentially, the Vandals and Goths as the main barbarian force, the only serious threat.
Perhaps the Romans could have been in a better position to defend their Empire on one front? Or was it inevitably fated to collapse due to corruption, poor leadership, and forces from within?

Anyway, my main question is, in this scenario, would the Roman Empire have lasted longer? And if so, by how much longer in your opinion?

What do you think? Discuss.

Cheers...

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

I think the Romans always had too much internal struggle to ensure something like a lasting world domination. What is more, there was always a risk of some kind of revolt in some province they already occupied and there simply weren't enough Romans to fight a multifront-war AND to keep all provinces secure.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Indeed.

The Roman empire would have lasted longer if its economic system would have been rationalized and reformed, legions kept less independent and wars restricted. The Roman empire could have lasted some tens of years longer, but that's about it: it was just a question of time when such an empire like Rome would collapse.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, the Empire was rotting from the inside, granted; although, Rome's strength was usually determined by its conquests. If it had made some better strategic moves and had extended itself to the Oder river by 395, avoiding splitting in half (Byzantine Empire and Western Roman Empire), it would not have faced a multiple-front attack from the barbarians. Seems that if things had gone better in 260 AD, and the north became a focal point for the military, a lot of territory over the Rhine would have been within their grasp.

Plus, IIRC, the strength of the Vandals was in central (current-day) Germany, wasn't it? Can't recall. Perhaps it didn't matter--not as though they built cities. They could have withdrawn easily if the Romans advanced to the Oder.

Anyway, I tweaked a map to illustrate what this scenario would look like by 395 AD...

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

The strength of Rome was not necessarily determined by conquests. If you speak about regions like Greece or maybe Spain it this is true because of significant economic advantages gained from these regions and because the people there accepted the Romans. The Barbarian triber in todays Germany France and Britain however didn't forget a defeat so quickly and would revolt every once in a while or continuously fight (in case of the Britons). Casesar for example had to travel quickly from one place to another to stop revolts. He even slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians to scare the tribes from fighting him.
I also think that the Roman legions were not ideal for fighting in Germany.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, good point about the legions in Germany--in the thicker forests, they were at a disadvantage.
It may be that the Empire simply was too big for its own good; but I have no idea why they didn't just abandon north Africa and concentrate on strengthening Europe.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

First off: all empires fall. Second: like good historians, I don't really care for "what if" scenario's ;).

Attacks from barbarians are just one thing that plagued the Roman empire.

- Economy - in general - in Roman time was primitive, and low-technological. No real improvements were made on agriculture during the empire. Actually, only a few improvements to anything were made in the empire.
- The taxsystem worked well in peace time, but there were no reserves. Marcus Aurelius was forced to sell his dinnerplates in order to get some extra money.
- Civil wars reaked havoc. When only the praetorians chose emperors, things were still managable. However, once the legions started to interfere, the real trouble began. They left their posts at the borders, to fight eachother.
- The Roman borders were way to long (though, in your scenario, they would be considerably shorter) to defend with only 25 legions, though the number grew in time. The limes could stop small forces, but not a large invasion force. The legions were immobilised in their camps. Later Constantine tried to stop this, by creating mobile units behind the borders. But more legions needed more money, which is precisely why Augustus had limited them as much as possible (after Actium he had 70 legions).

Internal struggle, yes. Most provinces however did remain stable, even with limited occupation. ONE legion defended Africa against nomadtribes, and kept the population in check. Only Judea and the major cities sometimes caused problems (Rome and Alexandria mainly, both had an force of legionairs nearby). Once Gaul, for example, was conquered by Caesar, it gave him no trouble at all in the Civil Wars. Once provinces were proparly "romanized", they made even less of a problem. There are some exception though.

On behaf of the emperors or generals? Late Republican generals and Emperial generals were quite capable, well trained, experienced men. Apart from that, campaigns were well-planed, generals often had maps and scouts to help them. De Blois (Roman army and politics in the first century Before Christ), Smith (Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army) and others can confirm that. Most emperors, excepting some tirants - though not all of them - were quite capable of ruling, and had experienced slaves and senators to guide them. Late Empire rulers were - almost - always schooled in the art of war, which is how they got their position.*

According to Tacitus, in a speech of Germanicus, they had the advantage ;). But yes, the long baggage train (siege weapons! a post-Marian army didn't need a long baggage train) caused the army to be slower, and hard to control in swampy terrains. When the Germans used guerilla tactics, they succeeded.

North Africa was a lot more important than most of Europe. It was a rich, easy to control (one legion) province, which supplied Rome with grain. England, with three legions, produced very little. Most of Western Europe wasn't as rich, especially agriculturally, due to the hard ground, as the eastern and African provinces.

*: Now someone will mention Varus.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Good post Spider.

"
On behaf of the emperors or generals? Late Republican generals and Emperial generals were quite capable, well trained, experienced men. Apart from that, campaigns were well-planed, generals often had maps and scouts to help them. De Blois (Roman army and politics in the first century Before Christ), Smith (Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army) and others can confirm that. Most emperors, excepting some tirants - though not all of them - were quite capable of ruling, and had experienced slaves and senators to guide them. Late Empire rulers were - almost - always schooled in the art of war, which is how they got their position.*"
As you already mentioned Varus, how about Crassus? :)

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

SpiderGoat:

Very good post. Some interesting insight.



Yes, I mean the emperors. For the most part, the general were quite capable.

The leadership during the Severan Dynasty was less than exceptional.



Well, Egypt notwithstanding, the rest of North Africa wasn't very agricultural. It wasn't necessary strategically--after Carthage, the Roman classis in the Mediterranean did virtually nothing but chase pirates (and support legions, move supplies, et cetera). With the exception of Britannia, it was never employed to its full potential.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Ah, I was wondering who would mention him :). First off, Varus was - he proved that in the east - a capable gouvernor, no general. But he seems to have underestimated the Germans, and the measure in which they were already "romanized". Earlier gouvernors had let the Germans life almost like they normally did, Varus introduced Roman laws and order. And once lured into Arminius's ambush, he failed to act appropriately.

Crassus was misled and outclassed. He was led to believe the Parthians were retreating, and then faced a complete cavalry army (the first time the Parthians used only cavalry) in the one place where they held all the advantages. Further, we must note that Crassus did pretty well, when fighting against Spartacus. Still, at the end of the Roman Republic, certain members of the senate "specialized" - if you will - in the art of war. An élite within the elite... Others, like Cicero or Clodius, didn't rely on military task to raise through the ranks. Cicero did have some experience in battle, but became consul thanks to his support of 'tota Italia', the equites and certain senators. Others didn't serve the ten years necessary - according to Polybius - to hold the quastorship. This created a semi-professional group of high officers (Caesar, Pompeius, Labienus), supported by semi-professional tribunes (mostly recruited now from the equites) and professional centurions.

Before Egypt was annexed by Augustus, Africa delivered most of the grain that Rome needed (taking over the job from Sicily, which stayed important though). The image we have now of Northern Afrika is not Roman. Partly - maybe - because of Roman exploitation, partly because of the Sahara spreading evermore, North Afrika now is no longer an important agricultural area. But let us not forget that Mesopotamia was once the most fertile land known to man... Strategically it was not necessary, but it had some rich cities (rebuild Carthage, Leptis Magna) and was a handy trade point.