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 They could have withdrawn easily if the Romans advanced to the Oder.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.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

That's true enough. And he was brutally effective against Spartacus.

Well, you certainly know your Roman history =)

Quote:

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.

A persuasive point.

So, basically, it needed all of its provinces in order to support it, but having this massive empire was ultimately self-defeating?

You don't believe it's possible for it to have lasted another two centuries under a different scenario?

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, it could have lasted longer. But Africa was no expensive province to guard, and brought in a lot of money. Britain on the other hand :uhm: I will never understand why they never tried to conquer the entire island, and Ireland for that matter. Agricola seems to have had that plan, thinking he needed only a legion to conquer it, but it never happened. If they had completly conquered and romanized the island, they would no longer need 3 legions to guard it. Still, it's all easy with hindsight ;).

Returning to my point: the empire could have lasted longer, but without solving the internal problems, it was doomed to fall.

Diocletianus succeeded in reorganising the empire into a state with a totalitarian ruler, and feudal aspects. [Some historians, who divide Roman history into economical times, see this as the start of a new chapter. It was, in some aspects, closer to the Middle Ages than the old Roman economy.] And his reforms did work, for a time. But even he failed to secure inner peace, an end to the civil wars. After his death, Constantine succeeded in becoming the ruler of the entire empire. Pretty ironic really: writers from the 1st century BC (Horatius, Vergillius, Tacitus) had written how Augustus had brought an end to the civil wars...

So the empire would've needed another reform. A reform that handled every aspect that I've mentioned earlier, and others. Than, or with simpel luck, it could have lasted longer. Lets not forget that the eastern empire survived for another 1000 years. Though the eastern part had shorter borders, one real enemy (the Sassanids, at least before the Moslims) with whom they could negotiate and... the east was richer. And the enemies that did reach Constantinopel, were (except in 1204 and 1453) destroyed, or retreated when facing the giant walls.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Damn, you got to my next argument before I did--Britain.
I was pondering that yesterday, why the waste of resources and men to capture the whole thing, or try. Well, it turned out okay...Britain came to be its own Empire and ruled the world for a while; good for me, 'cuz my grandparents were from there and I wouldn't exist of course.

Anyway, yeah, it may have lasted somewhat longer--I figured three centuries max, but that might have been generous--but it was doomed.

Oh well. Now I'm out of arguments :clueless:

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

I think the first to invade Britain was Caesar. Victories were always welcome because it increased his reputation in Rome and his wealth which was necessary for the upkeep of his legions. Britain was at that time at the very edge of the known world. And also on the other side of the channel, which seemed like a large barrier 2000 years ago. So building a fleet and invading Britain must have impressed the Romans.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

trouble on the danube front forced domitian to divert troops away from the britain campaign. instead of wasting resources later on trying to conquer and subdue the northern brits, hadrian decided simply to fortify the border.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Well, that's true. Aside from conquering Brittania and the Battle of Actium, the imperial navy was not used very much, except for logistical purposes and protecting Rome's trade. Maybe it was Caesar who first went in there...can't recall; I know it was Claudius who captured southern Britain. Anyway, it seems the motivation to conquer the Island was due to something other than tactical reasons.

I always thought the navy could have been employed better in northern Europe, though. But I'm not sure to what extent they were used with regards to amphibious assault along the rivers, like the Rhine and Danube.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

caesar made two recon expeditions to britain, but the island had no startegic or economic importance so there was no reason for rome to conquer it. claudius, however, needed britain for political purposes. claudius did not come to power as a strong leader (the assasination of caligula). he needed a military victory boost his image.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Oh okay, right.

Wow, that's kind of a bad turning point right there--that period in which we have Caligula, then the unnecessary campaign in Britain by Claudius, and next the smooth leadership under Nero...

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Dread is indeed correct.

And concerning Claudius and Nero: Claudius was, despite his physical limitations and speech impediment, a capable ruler with a good staff of experienced slaves supporting him. The empire remained stable and peaceful under his rule, the mass was kept happy and Claudius build a new port in Ostia. He wasn't good in leading armies, and choosing wives.

And Nero, despite his - how should I put it - craziness in personal life, was also a capable ruler. In fact, the Romans themselves considered the first ten years of his rule (pre 64, fire in Rome), to be the best... EVER. He had capable people in high posts (Seneca and Burrus), kept taxes low, the provinces (except Britain: Boudica) were stable and the mob happy. And despite his building a giant palace in Rome, he did improve the firesafety of Rome, by forcing people to use stone instead of wood, limiting the height of buildings,... Even his persecutions were only on a very limited scale (region of Rome), and some christians actually wanted (!) to become martyrs.

However, the Julio-Claudians had against them the very capable Tacitus and the gossiper Suetonius. And Nero had a very complicated personal life. Personal things (Clinton and Lewinsky) sometimes influence our perception of rulers.

Edit: ow, and Caligula was a tyrant.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

...and a psychopath.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

I think Caesar constructed the necessary ships for his expeditions in Britain with help of his legions.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

well... let me see. i think they would had still fallen... you see the romen empire was on a path of domination... if they thwarted there enemys then they may be bold enough to take on the world... enventuly colapsing on its own wait. thats what i think

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

the roman empire would never have lasted, even if they managed to conquer western europe. it would collapse on itself and there would not be enough legions to protect all the provinces from external as well as internal threats. the roman society was doomed due to its dependence on slave labour.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Fallen? Yes. But because of their "dependency on slave labour"?

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

All empires eventually fall...Egypt, Greece, the Ottoman Empire (yeah I know it came later), the Persians, just to name a few. The internal problems probably didn't help much either, and the division into two empires. There was also something about the prophecy that supposedly chose Romulus over Remus to be the first emperor, involving birds or something like that, that predicted the fall of the empire remarkably close to when it actually happened.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

And Romulus saw 14 birds (Remus 7), so some concluded that every bird symbolised a century --> 14 centuries. Not that this has anything to do with the subject.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

^Yes, and that's close to how long the Roman Empire lasted, hence my previous post. I forgot the details, I hadn't read it since my 7th grade World History class.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

That should be 12. Dread, visit this thread an answer my question. :)

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

:confused:

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

Why did Rome fall because of their dependency on slave labour?

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

slave labour was both an economic and a social factor in the decline of rome. i'm not saying that the roman empire fell exclusively because ot slavery, but it was an important contributing factor. wealthy romans had slaves work on their farms and as servants in their homes the number of slaves grew dramatically in the later centuries of the empire. a wealthy roman could easily own thousands of slaves. the land owners became dependent on vast amounts of slaves. this heavy use of slave labour forced working class romans out of their jobs. (why pay wages to workers when you can buy slaves who do it for free?). thus working class citizens could not compete on the job market and went without job. this created a large (and growing) group of unemployed lower class citizens who needed to be pacified. this included free food and entertainment. municipal buildings such as baths and theatres had to be maintained and food had to be bought for the 'plebs'. these free services didn't generate a revenue so it was money directly out of the treassury. then, of course, there was the internal security issue. once slaves are employed, they don't just 'forget' about freedom. an estate with, say, 2,000 slaves creates an obvious security issue. you have to have troops stationed around the empire (not just at the frontier) to supress any possible slave uprising (ever seen the film spartacus?)
furthermore, if the mob was unhappy or angry, it could lead to civil unrest which then had to be quelled by troops who could be at better use protecting the borders. during the final years of the empire there were more slaves in the empire than citizens. suffice it to say that that is an unstable situation in the long run.

Re: The Roman Empire?
 

I have, but - more importantly - I have read the sources that mention his rebellion, and several books that discuss it :).

Furthermore, your analyses is correct for the late republic. Funny part is that the rebellion of Spartacus took place in exactly that time :).

This is incorrect for the empire: with the end of most of the offensive wars, slave supply fell low. During the republic Italy, Spain, Africa, Greece, Gaul... were conquered. Conquests under Augustus remained limited (some small wars against tribes in the Alps, Spain and Illyria), limited to Egypt and some small extras. Claudius conquered Britian, Trajan Dacia. There were attempts to conquer other countries, but they failed/were given up (see Hadrian and Mesopotamia). This ended the constant influx of warslaves. Furthermore, the conquest of so many countries meant that influx into the empire from uncivilized areas became more limited. Britain and Gaul had supplied many slaves by trade - traded for, for example, wine. There were areas that supplied them, yes, but peaceful slavetrade didn't bring in 200000 slaves at once. [Figure from Stöver (H.D.) Romeinen. De geschiedenis van een machtig wereldrijk.]

In short, slave supply in the late empire fell low. More slaves by breeding took time. Part of this explains the laws, introduced by several emperors, for a more human treatment of slaves AND the limitation on freeing of slaves (under Augustus it had become a 'fashion' for the rich to free slaves, cf. Suetonius De Vita Caesarum). Apart from that, Caesar and several emperors realised the disadvantages of slave labour, forcing rich landowners to employ free people, apart from slaves (for Caesar: Suetonius).

Part of this has been refuted. Furthermore, there was a mass of unemployed citizens, but this phenomenon was - mostly - limited to the city of Rome. Modern scholars also believe that the mass wasn't the jobless scum they are made out to be by aristocratic writers. [See, for example, Mouritsen (H.) Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic. I think Lintott mentions it too.]

Free food was again - mostly - a phenomenon of the capital. Other cities did have entertainment, but the local elite - that governed the smaller cities - payed for these. Most of the empire's budget went... to the army. [Starr (C.G.) The Roman Empire 27 B.C. – A.D. 476: a study in survival]

Again, correct, for the republic, which had A LOT of rebellions. Many in Sicily (104-101 f.e.), some in Italy. There were rebellions, but less.

I've mentioned this once before, but: there were two cities which caused much unrest: Rome and Alexandria (the two biggest cities). Both had forces stationed within them. [See, Davies (R.W.). “The Daily Life of the Roman soldier under the Principate.”] However, only the troops at Rome (praetorians) were considerable, but they were supposed to be a 'reserve' - Septimus Severus - in case of wanna-be-emperors.

Statistics? Also, the late empire was more of a feudal society. At the borders, you had soldier-peasants, bound to their land. Because of a lack of people, other farmers were bound to land as well, by rich landowners. Other parts of the empire were controlled by the foederati.

[If you want to check the - few - sources I've mentioned, I can look up the pages. That is, if you don't trust me. :p]