What if the Romans Conquered Germania?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лют 2019
- Link to my video on what if the Romans never conquered Britain • What if the Romans Nev...
Link to what if the Greek Gods never died out • What if the Greek Gods...
For fun here are some other ethnic groups that hate each other and also pretty genetically close.
-Jews and Palestinians
-English and French
-English and Irish
-Koreans and Japanese
Roses are red
Italy has many regions
QUINCTILIUS VARUS, GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!
🤣🤣🤣
Is that a Crassus quote
@@motivationallizard6644 no that quote came from the Emperor Augustus Rome's first and probably the best. Varus was unfortunately an arrogant and foolish general who totally underestimated his Germanic enemies.
I knew who said but Crassus lost so 7 legions in a disaster campaign so I think it would fit better with Crassus
@@motivationallizard6644 Fair enough mate.
"And so the Germans sprawled deep into Poland, Belorussia, Western Ukraine, alongside the Scandinavian countries"
They did it in 1941 too. xd
History repeats itself
@ Collton Righem with history lasting 1000s of years stuff Is bound to repeat.
@@colltonrighem History doesn't repeat itself. Human behaviour does.
@@israel.s.garcia I am fully aware of that but it was a joke
and in 1945 to argentina
Or the conquest of Magna Germania would have stabilized the empire.
1) The border of the Elbe would be shorter than the Rhine & Danube border
2) Forests and swamps of Germania were not wastelands, just waiting to be cultivated by Roman settlers.
3) Roman colonies would have relieved the urban poor and land-less farmers, thus preventing social tensions, while producing wealth and growth of ethnic Italian populations (= more Legions).
4) Construction wood and fuel were increasingly scarce resources in the Roman Empire.
@tom lu It's all about binding troops at the the most outward part of the empire removed from any other threat instead of having them central where they can control all of the North and the East. The limes has to be defended either way.
Raiding is not a sustainable economic practice. You just drive the producing side into poverty and eventualy extinction or force them to migrate away. Regular trade is far more efficient as it attracts work force, investments in infrastructure, production methods, innovation etc.
As to the unused land. Unused does not mean free to take. Most of the land unused was part of the large estates by rich senetorial elites and their inefficiencient and careless attitude towards the economy.
Also unused land tends to be unused for a reason. Probably it's inferior soil or flooded half of the year etc.
@tom lu You have to think about the population size and urbanisation. In antiguity Europe had between 23-45 mio. inhabitants only, while most of them were slaves working on farms. You could not send free, urban poor to a new colony in sufficient numbers. Every man counts. The Romans needed the conquered populations to populate the lands. They could not sustain a whole province with people from Italy (7-14 mio.) or Gaul (5-20 mio.). Any other province in Europe would not even be suitable because of how low their populations were. A colonisation in this way as you describe would be extremely slow, taking several generations before becoming self-sufficient or even profitable.
I exclude migration from Egypt and Asia Minor since it would be a serious downgrade for anybody from there to go to Germany/Britain at that time. Even for the poor.
The main reason for the expansion is to pay the army veterans with land instead of devalue te coinage as they did in real life (what brought down the Roman economy). But those veterans still needed work force. You won't have a 40 y/o man working several acres all on his own.
Romans tried to reform land ownership a lot since the Republic. Never happened. Because the land owners were the state. They were the ones ruling the country. They determined who could become emperor or whould be removed from that office.
The Romans could landscape. But they also destroyed the enviroment like noboy else. You can look up the rate of deforestation during that time. Deforestation leads to erosion, erosion leads to soil degradation and drought.
The army were construction workers only during peace times. Their strength was to be professional soldiers not levyed troops/farmers with swords. I think you underestimate the workload required for all those projects your speaking of.
Lastly spread out troops are in a dangerous situation. Have you heard of defeat in detail? Any large force could take out each cohort one by one until they have taken out the legion without even a proper fight.
The strategic value of Germania is without doubt. We KNOW it's where the Roman empire fell. Britain is not. It's just some island. That's why it's important to secure provinces in Germania. Conquer to the next large river, pacify, build up, secure, repeat. It has several advantages. Your conquest secures the previously conquered land, it's basically repeatable until you reach the Pacific Ocean, and you secure the heartland by several defencive layers of river systems and limes type defence infra-structure on each of them.
@tom lu right
@tom lu I'm sceptical about those calculations. Probably because I don't know from wich variables you started. But on the question why there is unused land. It's not a problem exclusive to the Romans, we have it today too. Take all of South America, Russia etc. where there are huge land owners. They all have this problem of unused land and rural poor/landless farmers who would want to have it but can't. They all try to reform land. It lead to several civil wars, communist ot facist dictatorships and seldom had the desired effect. Even in the US and in the EU there is unused land. The latter had a law that subsidises farmers for leaving over-used land regenerate until 2009.
Why is land unused? Because it's poor land. The effort of working it, is lower than the profit it yields. Especially when higher yields reduce overall market prices. Rich land owners can afford to dismiss this land in favor of higher market prices, so that their prime estates become worth more.
That's why population growth, even if it means conquering foreign peoples, is vital to the economy. It is the prerequisition for land usage by rising demand.
The Roman army before the Marian reform was made up of levied farmers. It didn't work since a military campaign takes as long as it takes. The Gaullic war took 7 years. You can't have a war for 3/4 year and than go home after that time. You need to occupy the land, put down rebellions etc. The pre-Marian soldiers became extremly poor, because they couldn't bring their harvests in time. They became debt slaves. It lead to civil war.
It is somehow anachronistic if you say they should have taken measures to prevent erosion. Have you been to the Mediterrenean? Look at the landscape. See how much is barren. It was all a forest once.
Even we today know all about erosion and how we could prevent it (aside of other ecological damage) but does that mean we care? Do we prevent it? Erosion, over-use etc. are still problems even in the most enviromenalist countries.
Why would Germania not be a proper province? Without infrastructure to induce trade and prosperity and administrations to get taxes, it's basically worthless for the Romans. They can't defend it without roads to get everywhere and they won't build roads and bridges if it's not worth anything.
Is Germania worth it? The region of the HRE/Germany was the major mining area in Europe during the middle ages and the renaissance. It had huge rock salt and silver mines. Modern mineralogy and mining science started there by Georgius Agricola (father of mineralogy) and founder of scientific geology and mining engineering. The oldest academy for mining is in Freiberg, Saxony.
It's vital for the Roman economy to have enough silver. Because in real history at some point the mines in the Rio Tinto area of Spain depleted. The Romans diluted their coinage until they got deflation (because people kept good coins and nobody would take bad coins). People reverted to barter. Trade and taxes plommeted. It was one major reason for the downfall of Rome.
Also Germany has "islands" of chernozem soil (the best soil) that becomes more frequent and thicker the more you go east until from Ukraine to Central Siberia you have the world's second most productive agricultural area. Second to the American mid-west also chernozem soil.) It's an extremely valuable region for an agricultural society.
Another big factor of why their currency died are the huge expenses on the army. Especially the pensions for veterans. 12000 sestercii for the regular legionaire under Augustus and 20000 under Caracalla.
Those a huge numbers when a regular legionaire earned one sestercius per day. It's comparable to 32/54 years worth of income. That's why land conquest is sooo important. It is, to speak in meme, free real estate. The legionaire pays for himself. He conquers his own pension. It's brilliant. Also don't understimate the amount of work needed for a farm without any machines. Farms back even in the 1920's had up to 10 employed workers and a lot more in day-men during harvest.
When I said they could conquer until they reach the Pacific, it's hyperbole. It means this system works for a very long time. But why couldn't the Romans do what the Russians could?
BTW the Romans (Greek sailers from Coptos, Egypt) had known the sea route to India via the Red Sea and traded as far as Calcutta and even to Kenia and Mosambique.
Lastly we know from history that the Romans had those problems with securing their borders and fighting off enemies on all fronts and internally and while their legions were off to one place the next one rebelled or was attacked because they were spread too thin. They had defensive militias, like you suggested, made from consripts. They fell nontheless. They need to expand and keep their enemies defencive.
@tom lu tom lu I think it's time to end this discussion as I see no sense in debating someone who is, sorry for saying it so clearly, not willing to look up basic facts and instead assumes his gut feelings and biases as facts.
Just look up the largest grain producers in the world. Which are #4 Russia, #8 Ukraine, #11 France, #13 Germany, #16 Turkey, #19 Poland, #24 Egypt, #25 UK, #26 Romania, #27 Spain, #28 Kasakstan, #29 Italy.
Even in medieval times Russia and Poland-Lithuania were large grain exporters.
The grain is produced in Southern Siberia, which is cold in winter, but hot in summer (>40° C) and has large cities like Nowosibirsk (pop. 2,6 mio.), Omsk (pop. 1,9 mio.) and Krasnojarsk (pop. 900k) with population densities of above 10 people/km^2 which is a normal value.
Europe rejuventated during the black death. But in the Mediterrenean you have landscapes called macchia/maquis. If you would research something before talking about it then you might have found in the wikipedia Article about these scrublands:
"Mediterranean ecoregions are some of the most endangered and vulnerable on the planet. As such, many have suffered tremendous degradation and habitat loss through logging, overgrazing, conversion to agriculture, urbanization, fire suppression, and introduction of exotic and invasive species. The ecoregions around the Mediterranean basin and in California have been particularly affected by degradation due to human activity, suffering extensive loss of forests and soil erosion, and many native plants and animals have become extinct or endangered"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_forests,_woodlands,_and_scrub
Problem with foreign trade for the Romans: It was silver drain.
Again: "The exact reason that Roman coinage sustained constant debasement is not known, but the most common theories involve inflation, trade with India, which drained silver from the Mediterranean world, and inadequacies in state finances.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency#Debasement
But you might be onto something here. They could just befriend the Persians. It's genius, you should mail that to the Nobel Peace Prize Comitee. Just befriend your enemies. It's a classic, simple solution like: When homeless buy a house, when unemployed, get a job etc.
I just went along with it previously as it is minor point, but since you keep bringing it up. Framers don't work just 3 month a year. Especially not when they are trying to produce a surplus. It's true that you can't compare it to modern wars because there are no rail roads. People have to send word to everybody by a mounted mail man, then they have to walk to their local base, then walk to the front line and back. That worked when Archaic Rome fought their Italian neighbours, but not when you have an empire stretching from Egypt to Scotland and from Iraq to Morocco.
Plus military campaings were on stand by during winter so you would have less than 6 months service per year (Plowing/Seeding: March; April to late July: Campaign; August: Harvest). But let's say it's 6 month for the sake of the argument.
A very famous pilgramage site is Santiago de Compostela (NW Spain), if you walk from there to Cologne it's a three months walk. Maybe legionaires take two month. So from 6 months they have only two months per year for fighting and 4 for walking. If they live further away they don't even have to bother coming.
What if Rome invested in studying steam power and thus the industrial revolution began two thousand years ago.
I love the "Roman Stean Engine." It looks cool as hell and, frankly, shouldn't have been too much of an intuitive leap from the spinning ball to a radial steam engine.
Imagine Romanesque trains and airships everywhere.
he has a video on it
Maybe Karen wouldn’t have taken the kids
For this to happen there would have to be a need compelling the development of steam power as more than just a novelty. As it was, cheap and readily available slave labor made a Roman steam driven industrial revolution a no go, sadly.
A great analysis, buuuut I have to disagree with you on something that you barely touched on, WHY the goal of the Elbe frontier was so important. Rome's new Elbe (a wide, deep river) frontier, extending to the Alps defenses would have created a considerably shorter border than they had to defend in this region in Our Timeline. A shorter border would have meant fewer legions required to guard it. VERY true, Germania was undeveloped & lightly populated; Julius Caesar cut the number of welfare recipients in Rome from 450,000 to 90,000 from his public works AND colonization programs...Carthage was rebuilt & resettled as part of this effort. Welfare recipient numbers rose again over the next century, but with a larger Germania province badly needing taxpaying farmers & city dwellers, again welfare recipients would make ideal colonists...and Germania begins to generate modest tax revenues. Fast Forward to Marcus Aurelius (assuming he hasn't been Butterflied out of existence,) his campaigns had the goal of pushing the Central European frontier from the vulnerable plains of Dacia into the Carpathians...with fewer legions needed to guard the Elbe frontier, he may have been able to create a frontier from the comparatively short - and deep Eble River to the Alps and to the Carpathians. A Very defendable eastern border requiring far fewer legions than in Our Timeline. This is my two cents on Rome's long-term defense goals.
I love good borders. :)
@@Aries2890 That's a good point. From my perspective, having a Germania frontier might force them into a long-term colonization program, if only to make the new frontier earn revenue...if as you suggest they just had a few fortified settlements & legion castrae, then the place would be a headache of constant forest nomad raids.
There is no doubt that the romans would have tried to bring civilisation to Germany. I do agree the borders along the elbe river would Overall make a shorter border than in our timeline. It would likely have allow more troops to be used elsewhere, prevented raids from hitting more economically profitable areas being hit by the eventual raids. Populations in Germania would have increased. Roman empire after the split would still have gradually fell apart but maybe it might have lasted an extra few decades up to a century longer. At the end of the day the long line of short term leaders plus with the often crappy leaders being put in So removed from reality that ended the empire.
@@norwoodzomboy The Romans were actually pretty good at colonisation programs. Rather than looking at Carthage, which was a bit of a one-off, look at Britannia. The place was so wild that it was one of the few three-legion provinces, and the inhabitants were viewed as being just as terrifying as the Germans (hence why Suetonius was willing to strip the province of troops for a while to try to deal with the druids on Mona). But the Romans established towns of retired soldiers around both Briton tribal centres and legionary bases - places like Colchester, London, Chester and York. Linked by an effective road system, they became centres of Romanised civilisation, whiuch spread out from them as local chieftains saw the benefits of "civilisation" and adopted Roman ways.
It is often forgotten that the nearer parts of Germania was already quite a long way down the same path, which is one reason why Arminius' revolt was such a shock. Arminius had already served the Romans as an ally, and the Cherusci were regarded by the Romans as a client state. If Varus hadn't been so heavy-handed as governor, and the Romans hadn't had to strip the place of legions to deal with the Great Illyrian Revolt, there's a good chance the province wouldn't have risen, and the 3-legion camp on the Weser would have become a colonia in the same way as York or Chester. Yes, it would have taken time to clear the forests, but that's exactly what the Romans had to do in large parts of Britannia.
Once they found some mineral wealth to exploit, it would have given them an incentive to really develop the province. There is plentiful iron ore in the West, and it's only a short hop over the Elbe to the Harz Mountains with their plentiful and easily accessible copper, silver and lead resources, which might have encouraged the Romans to push a little further to the East, maybe even as far as the Oder.
I know it would be the ultimate risk of over-extension, but pushing the borders all the way to the Vistula, which runs close to the Dnister and the Carpathian mountains would have made Rome's borders that much prettier. ;) Not to mention it would be a shorter overall border to guard than the Rhine-Danube of our timeline.
If Roman settlements were founded in the low population areas of Germany, then it would have been easier to hold onto. Also, even if Claudius didn't invade England, someone would have. The Roman emperors were always trying to prove their worth. It was inevitable that someone would have tried to attack the British Isles.
What if Austria won the Austro-Prussian war and lead German Unification
The Franco Prussian war was the one that unified Germany.
@@rrightbraeden1161 yeah but it was the Austro-prussian war that decided who had German hegemony. Which directly led to the unification.
What if Krusty the Klown had had a happy childhood?
Austria wanted to keep Germany UNunified. They could have done it for centuries beforehand while controlling the Holy Roman Imperial seat, but kept it ununified. If they won, I somehow suspect that Austria might have reasserted their claim to the Holy Roman Empire that Napoleon disbanded
@@user-on6ol8eh5w yeah I would be inclined to agree with you here.
The western empire fell because it was less powerful than the Eastern empire. A German province would have given it more money, better defenses and a buffer zone for its richer provinces(IE Gaul). It could have very well meant that the Western empire would not collapse, having more resources to fight off invaders.
More money? Germany? I dont think so. A better defense against barbaric invasions? May be, but the Rhine was a good natural defense too... And didnt work that well.
Which resources does Germania have that would have enriched the Romans?
@@miguelpereira9859 Prosperous kingdoms, large warrior population, wood, peat, coal.
@@regertz Yep, I don't know why many people underestimate Germania. At that time it was filled with forest, and that also mean a potential farmland. If the roman captured germania, the empire would have another mass grain producer and it doesn't even require a shipment and also its more cheaper to distribute it than from carthage or egypt.
@@miguelpereira9859, well, Germany had potential. It simply needed a sedentary population to pick up some axes and go to work. Romans knew how to clear forests, but they didn’t feel confident doing it in hostile territory. If they had conquered the land, they could have colonized it and move colonialists in to farm the land, and perhaps even used the timber to build a North Sea fleet, which would have tapped them into the mineral riches of Scandinavia. It could have really changed the whole ballgame for Rome.
What if Greece won the Greco-Turkish war? ( 1919-1923)
No armenian genocide? Constantinople again?
@@shorewall Armenian genocide happened during WW1 so it wouldn't change that.
Turkey wouldn't have Izmir, European side of Turkey an other 2 islands. This regions would have insane amount of ethnic tension and wouldnt be stabil.
The problem is they would have conquered more turks than there were greeks.
@@gulgunsatr4589 aremnian genocide was a real thing. google. (if its not outlawed by erdogan..)
U forgot one huge butterfly. Germanicus was named heir of Augustus iut because of the defeat at teuterburg he was assassinated and Tiberius became emperor. In this timeline without teutenburg and varus still alive germanicus would have became emperor and changing the Julio Claudian dynasty. Which probably means no Nero (who bankrupt the empire and started the first civil war on his death)
On the crisis of the second century, much of that was caused by the frontier legions naming there generals emperors. In this timeline The fronteir doesn’t need the garrason that was needed in our timeline so probably no crisis of second century (maby civil wars but those are common in Roman history)
Lastly on the spread of Christianity. Even the fall of the empire wouldn’t impact the spread of Christanity (though it would happen a lot slower in this timeline ) as disease and famine was common many people saw refugee from Christianity that there pagan religions didn’t offer so it’s questionable that the empire falling sooner would make the religion Dissapear (also many Germanic tribes during the 350s started practicing aryanism a other form of Christianity)
What if Italy was united by Cesare Borgia?
Or what if Cesare borgia never installed pope Julius? Or what if he never got sick?
What if Ezio was killed by Cesare?
Cesare Borgia wasnt SHIT. He owed everything to his father Pope Alexander, Without his influence he was a nobody.
Like Machiavelli warned "dangers of acquiring a principality by virtue of another",
His unification would not have lasted long.
You have not looked at his campaigns then very different from the computer game one
An earlier Italy ? Cool . Maybe there would have been a kind of an earlier and bigger colonial empire too .
What if the March revolution succeeded and a greater Germany was established in 1849
A Roman Germania definitely could have happened and might have made modern Germany a nation with more Latin influences like France.
And they would have surrendered very quickly.
@@ilmarvaim317, surrendered to whom?
Thank you for using the Han experience as an example. I find that the histories of Persia and China are very illustrative in general, but sadly unknown in the West.
By the way it is called Teutoburger Wald not Teutoberger. Not a big difference but in german “burg“ means castle and “berg“ means mountain ✌😂
so a burger is castle.... hamburg.... hamborger
@@darksteiner631 it also doubles as a ham castle, neat!
@@ETB3341 well hamburger comes from the german city of hamburg
Iceberg is ice mountain. Makes sence
"The Czech Republic" refers to an abstract political entity. "Czechia" refers to a nation state, one inhabited by the Czech people. It implies that there are ties to the land greater than just the political.
Marcus Aurelius wanted to form new provinces to the south up to the Carpathians. Imagine Germania Romanus allows him to succeed and link up to Trajan's Dacia on a shorter and mountainous frontier in the Carpathians.
You did not take into account the large amounts of auxiliary manpower the Romans would get from conquering Germania. Warrior culture extend very deeply into the life of iron age Germany. Just like in Gaul the Romans most likely would have gotten large amounts of auxiliary troops from this. Which would in turn lead to a very large and loyal warrior cast inside the Roman empire. Also with the greater half of the Germania on the Roman side the Germanic invasions would most likely be on a smaller scale and not nearly as deadly. Therefore extending the life of the Empire most likely. Also not having to have 1/8th of the Roman army Garrisoning isolated Britian would make for an easier defense of the frontier regions. The elbe-danube frontier is also shorter than the rhine-danube frontier making defense even easier. You should do a little more research before making such big assumptions and glossing over big aspects before making another video.
Chill its just a video
Large? Maybe. Loyal? Unless the Empire can Romanize Germania on the scale of Britain, absolutely not. German auxiliaries would cause a slew of internal problems.
@@autokrator_ Auxillaries rarely ever caused problems in the empire. The Romans had an effective system of moving Auxillaries away from there home provinces to Garrison somewhere else. The only time they really ever had problems with Auxillaries were the Batavian and Panionian revolts, but those were more isolated instances and happened because of other reasons. Over all Roman Auxillaries were extremely Loyal to the state and in the process of serving became Romanized and eventually gained Roman citizenship.
Robert Guerrero
You’re talking pre-3rd century. The Late Roman Army was a completely different case, involving barbarian and Roman legionaries slaughtering each other all the time.
@@autokrator_ what are you talking about? The fact that there was a large amount of so called "barbarians" in the later Roman empire did not make them any less loyal. The civil wars of the later Roman empire had nothing to do with the composition of the Roman army. That was all about politics.
"Civilized Barbarian:
I go to Starbucks and quote Sartre.
But I still kill my neighbours in blood feuds and chop wood. "
I'm going to use this some day, I don't know when, but some day...
I undersatnd, me too 😆
0:27: Czechia has always been an alternative name for the Czech Republic. In fact, Cechy is just the Czech name for Bohemia...
0:40: The Varus Battle wasn't in the Teutoburg Forest, it most probably took place at Kalkriese in the Wiehen Hills.
2:56: Saxons only in England? No. They originate from today's Lower Saxony.
@Sam what
@Sam lol nice
alternative title: "What if Quinctilius Varus gave back Augustus his legions?"
These videos are so interesting!!!
i really like your alt history videos. good work and conmtinue
i know that you might have many ideas, and many people give ideas.. but i have an interesting idea.. what if Hungary would win the 1848-49 independence war(because Russia would not help)? i mean if there is no Austria(-Hungary) the German, Italian unification would different, ww1 and ww2 would be different.. i don't know if anybody would be interested in this.. but just an idea..
The main concept you are unintentionally bringing up is Lesser vs Greater Germany.
Prussia and Austria were like a lion and elephant circling around each other until a change permits conflict. Bismarck didn’t want Austria, because I assume a danger to stability. The southern dialects found in the Catholic strongholds of South Germany naturally presented a challenge to integration with the Prussian Protostant dominated north.
The Kingdom of Bavaria proved to be susceptible to change after getting blasted in a war. But Austria will still remain unwavering. With or without Austria as a member of the Second German Reich, it would still be a lot more free to deal with the new German question. As opposed a thousand rebelling ethnic groups.
great vid as always👍👌🏻❤
An extension to the wide, deep river of the Elbe would shorten the border frontier of the empire & take the pressure off of the remaining legions while adding additional resources & manpower for the empire to defend with. If the Romans ever do end up making a play for Dacia, then it'd be even easier for the Romans to defend it by just fortifying the Carpathian mountain passes to replace the Danube as a frontier, and extend that along the Bohemian mountains to the Elbe. As it stands, the Caucasus served as a really good natural fortification for both the Romans & their Parthian/Persian rivals. After that, the Romans could decide to set up a client state in modern Moldova in order to have a buffer state between part of the Carpathians & the Dniester so as to keep any battles against nomads off of Roman territory, & to help their Bosporan Greek Client Kingdom centered around Crimea by setting up a friendly fellow client state on their western borders. Even if the Romans don't decide to extend their conquests all the way to the Vistuala or even the Oder, it'd be easy enough for Jutland to be subjugated as a new territory or client state by building a wall between the Elbe & the Oresund in order to keep more easily defend it from attacks overland from the east.
There's also a benefit to extending the Empire to eventually consist of an Elbe-Carpathian frontier with an assortment of civilized client states at the edges. Once the Huns sweep into the Pontic Steppe & Eastern Europe as the first of the great steppe hoardes to do so, it'd be better for Rome to have a greater depth to it's European frontiers, & less easily dislocated tribes that can be set hurtling into Roman territory. If the empire has a frontier solidly at the Elbe & the Carpathians with the capacity to easily strike into the edges of the Pontic Steppe, & Eastern Europe, then perhaps they could prevent the Gothic Kingdoms & the Sarmatians that lived in that area from being destroyed by the Huns.
what if Rome took hero's steam engine serious and what if Rome had an industrial age?
Sir keep up the good work with these videos
"Weird ass tribes would forme that didnt exist in our time line" epic
An interesting video but I think it missed some important points that make it different from the Chinese example you took inspiration from. Several people already mentioned the shorter and more defensible border at the Elb. A deep river makes a good border, and a shorter border is easier to defend. That starts a butterfly effect by protecting the wealthy interior lands from raids and giving space for surplus population to settle with little risk.
But the real issue is something you briefly mentioned. Population migration and settlement on the German side would include more trade along the border and more population growth. The roman's were never good at dealing with nomadic tribes, but once settlements began to form they always were good at trade and diplomacy. A lot of the early empire was taken peacefully. In this case the roman empire doesn't want more land, it wants stable trade with buffer states it can trade with.
Give it a short defensible frontier and it can hold off raids while encouraging peaceful trade and settlement. . . and peaceful settlement is what many tribes wanted. Later in history we see entire groups entering the empire, settling down, and trying to become saviors of the empire. It's entirely possible that a more prosperous and secure empire would have encouraged germanic trade villages on the other side of the river based on fishing, hunting, farming, and yes trading goods to the Romans. They need furs, wood, minerals . . . It didn't have to be a disaster.
It really depends on the character of those mystery tribes you eventually admitted you couldn't predict. Would they peaceful or violent? Would they settle the land or try to move over the river as nomadic raiders? And I think settling down is more likely given a deep river with a solid series of defensive fortifications on the other side, but it becomes nearly certain if the roman presence also gives them an incentive, profit . . . a carrot to go with the stick you might say.
All the information you need is in the screencap of the video. A Like just for that. Straight to the point, no bs.
Another great video, thanks.
Hey!
Hi, nice to see another of my kind, there rare for me.
@@thomaspaine3394If you'd like you can check out some of the political channels on my channel. There's a lot of people like us there. It's refreshing.
Ok thanks 🙏
You’re at 53,012 subs and it’s a interesting theory that revolves around Europe.
If they had wanted to take and keep Germania, the Romans would have had to play the long game by developing the region through the tribes that already lived there, who I don't think would have minded the extra gold in the slightest, influencing it through Roman-held fortified towns and gobbling it up only after a military victory would have become a near foregone conclusion.
SMH
So many historical inaccuracies.
Taking Germany would have shortened the frontier. This meant less land to defend. This was a better defensive strategy. You can’t predict the Germanic invasions. This is centuries away from the viable points the conquests of Germania. Plus Rome wouldn’t just collapse like you said. Without the constant pressure front the Eastern frontier in Germania inferior the West has time to recover after civil wars like the Crisis of the Third Century.
8:18
Britain was settled by the Belgae?
My southern neighbours from the Netherlands won't like hearing that lol
Why not ?
Setting borders along major rivers would making supplying them pretty trivial.
my disagreements start at 4:22
The Romans knew very little of the areas on their northeast frontier (see strabo's geographia for a map of the roman view of the world in the appropriate time period) but with conquests into germania, there would be scouts and traders going further beyond, and I think the Romans, once it was discovered, would see the Baltic much like a second Mediterranean, and would push at least to the Oder in order to gain control of the Danish Straits, and secure a trade route to bring crops that grow well around the Baltic (turnips, carrots, apples, peas, etc) and other luxury goods (amber) to Rome, with the added benefit of shortening the frontier.
With the objective of maximizing the benefits of this strategic position, I can see Rome pushing for conquests of the southern fjords of Norway (due to pleasant weather, they could host population and some agricultural productivity), and coastal Sweden, Finland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland, with the border in mainland Europe settling around the Vistula. The benefits of this conquest would be small, but given the meager populations of barbarians in the area due to climate, so would the challenges (aside from weather).
I can see crop diversity, Trade links, and the institutional reforms necessary to manage this more varied and larger area possibly benefitting Rome in the long run.
You did acknowledge that Germany is not the western deserts of China, and I agree. Germany, while uncivilized, has huge potential, and with development, could be turned into the Empire's next boomtown region, with deforestation providing abundant housing and food availability increasing as land is turned to agriculture, so I don't think it would be a long run strain on the empire in the way you suppose, but it could perhaps grow to rival Gaul as another productive region through internal population growth and migration from overpopulated regions.
That said, I do agree with your point about england
As well as that, re 8:29, I think roman cultural influence, on this new boomtown could, instead of, as in our timeline, create a technologically matched but hostile germanic horde, would create an internal germano-roman body with technological advantages, and an external german force without the advantages of technology, so it seems like in the video you have likely effects reversed, instead of creating a powerful enemy, rome would create a powerful internal force and a comparatively more weak enemy
Nothing quite says 'I'm a wehraboo who cherry picks my way through history' like referring to iron age Germanic tribes as 'libertarian'
I think he meant "anarchist". But I get what you mean
oh common. Whatifaltist isnt a wehraboo at all. He is an american Patriot. He isnt biased towards germans I mean common.
@@HBKnowItAll ancient egypt was pretty socialist though
What if 1204 never happened?
You mean the sack of Constantinople?
@@jaojao1768 Yes
It would be March 2020 instead of March 2019
@black ops zombies The joke is if 1204 never happened it would skip 1204 and therefore bring us one year forward
Love your videos! What if Austria won the Austro-Prussian war and lead the German Unification instead of Prussia.
I’d love to see a video dealing with the Huns settling in Romania and Hungary after the sacking of northern Italy
What if Heron was allowed to advance his steam powered tech?
What if doggerland still existed
That would be interesting
This would change so much one thing being England remains Anglo-saxon
Knowing a bit more about Caesar's campaign across the Rhine than I did last time I watched this video, I have to wonder what exactly you meant by the region being largely empty. I understand Caesar himself isn't always particularly reliable in his accounting of events, but I'm fairly sure he described abandoned villages and towns in his brief time in Germania, not completely emotional lands. They had just fled in advance of his army, he wandered around for a while then went back over the river.
Please make a video about the Netherlands. What if Holland would have been more of a conquering nation then a trading people in the 17e century.
Or: What would the Englisch industrialisation be like without the woodmills in the Netherlands?
4:03 Gaul wasn't one of the wealthiest and most prosperous provinces, on the contrary, it was one of the less developed after Caesar destroyed the region on the 1st Century BC. Even the map that you are showing clearly presents Greece, Southern Spain, Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, and North Africa with a bigger concentration of cities. Only Cisalpine Gaul was really developed.
What if Henry Clay won the Presidency? (He was pretty powerful and ran four times)
California likely stays with Mexico for a few more decades.
Sean Nolan without Pacific access the united states might not get involved in the Philippines and Hawaii
@@samosmapper9687 I expect someone will run (and win) on a pro-expansion platform before the Spanish-American war, especially if Mexico finds gold. Clay's election would just delay things.
What if I choose to make toast this morning instead of waffles?
The United stages turns communist, Roman Empire reforms, light speed travel discovered by tomorrow
If you're interested, it's called Czechia now because it (for some people) sounds more natural. But you can still use Czech Republic as a name...
5:05 This is the Heuneburg. An ancient Celtic city in the modern German state of Baden-Württemberg. This is proof that there were cities there earlier, but when the Germanics and Romans came they were abandoned. This city was mentioned in the 6th century BC by Herodotus as the city of Pyrene at the start of the Danube river
There were second richest silver mines in Ore Mountains in Czechia (after Spain), and because the Spanish ones (essentially an economic basis of the Roman prosperity) were near exhausted by 200 AD, Czech ones could be a valid substitution, so Roman Empire would have collapsed only about the 8th century
Press F for the world
I'm just wondering, would you do an alternate history of what if Napoleon 3rd had won the Franco Mexican intervention wars and/or the Franco-Prussian war, and what the world would be like today
00:30 Czechia is a much better name than "the czech republic."
T H E
C H E C K
R E P U B L I C
Germany instead of Germany (German//Germanic) is far worse.
it’s better because like what if they weren’t a republic? their nation had no proper name. Czechia is farrrr better in my opinion
It's silly to see Anglophones arguing about the name, whilst most Slavic and Germanic speakers have their own name for the Czech state, which doesn't have to contain the "republic" in it's name.
Agreed
It's called Czechia instead of Czech Republic because we call the other one Slovakia and not Slovak Republic
Czech Republic is the official name, tho. It's just like _America_ and _The United States of America_ or _Russia_ and _Russian Federation._
I heard that it's because the -ia suffix means something like "home of" in slavic languages
for example:
serbia "home of the serbs"
russia "home of the rus"
romania "home of the romans"
@@magikman481 Romanian is a Romance language though.
@@DovahFett That's like saying english is a germanic language.I mean sure i guess you're right but it's also influenced by other language groups.Romanian has slav influences
But if the romans reach the elbe, then a simular situation of Charlemagne and the Vikings would appear... would this trigger a vikingage ca ad 400?
That one time the Germans actuallly did fend off the enemy with far superior numbers and resources XD
at last somebody talks about the fact that greeks and turks look the same
Keyrings Locks try explaining that to my people they have been brainwashed by propoganda both education and media
Keyrings Locks thank you i hope someday we will understand
@Keyrings Locks so they're mostly anatolian(caucasian)?
What if Julius Ceaser lost The Civil War
Et Tu, -Justin- Jefferson Davis ! :P
No Roman Empire
Rome would fall.
No we dont do that around here
I think you discount the effectiveness of Roman assimilation efforts. It was (among many other factors, admittedly) the failure of the late Principate to assimilate Germanic and Slavic tribes into the Empire that ultimately led to it's fall.
Related to the fate of Britain in this scenario, a dedicated “What if the Saxons never conquered Britain” would be an interesting one.
You would have the interplay between a core of Romanized Britons in the wealthy regions of Britain, a layer of civilized-but-tribal celtic Britons in northern/western England, and the wholly-unromanized Picts and Irish around them.
At the same time, much of the urban romanized population fled back to the mainland when Rome withdrew (founding places like Brittany), and there’s evidence that Britainnia’s Romanization was pretty superficial to begin with, so there are a few ways such a scenario could go depending on how the person weaving the scenario interprets things.
I feel like there would be a germanic-latin branch of language if they did
Actually Emperor Aurelius had planned to conquer all of Germany including what is now Poland, western Ukraine and Moldova. The reason being was because the stretch of land from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea was a much shorter frontier than the Rhine and Danube rivers. So this would have been easier to defend against eastern invaders and would have required less manpower, and resources (in theory). His endless war against the Quadi and Marcomani achieved very little of this vision in the end.
As with many other comments, intriguing analysis but I've always felt that had they pushed out to the Elbe they would have still likely struggled during the 3rd-5th Centuries but likely would have held on. Justinian would have still reigned in this timeline and would have solidified things after the tense 5th Century and who knows after that. Whatever would have happened, the rest of history would have been definitely different.
I see many people talking about shorter borders, but the fact is that we hit the antonine wall problem, the border may be shorter but it's harder to supply and has little of value in the area now expanded too.
4:58
Never do red text over green maps, please.
My favorite what if in history, that and the 1912 election scenario.
Also I still think Brittania would have been invaded by Claudius, with German Romans eager to join in as loyal soldiers. Assume they provide the extra punch needed to conquer Scotland. Roman interest in Scandinavia is pushed by Germanic Roman merchants eager to exploit the Baltic fur trade, Denmark is added to the Empire in stages, bases are taken in Scandinavia.
Why is this in the LOGH playlist?
lol... this vid... What if the Romans Conquered Germania?"
"I don't know"
Thanks for the insight >
Please do: what if Rome industrialized?
can you do a video on what if Henry Wallace was kept at VP in 1944 and then became president after truman's death?
Man... can you do a continuation of this video with "what if the Romans conquered territory beyond Germania (up to russia)?".
just not possible. Back then everything east of Roman Empire was endless wilderness. There wouldn’t be anything to conquer. Legions couldn’t have been supplied (no roads). Just no point in doing that.
Tusidex yeah, but what about the river systems on those regions?
Diego Vinicio Mejía Quesada you mean oder then vistula and so on? what about them?
Tusidex the volga and other rivers that the Vikings used centuries later.
@@tusidex5228 The Romans were great engineers, and the legions were a key part of that. It was the legions who built the roads (as well as a marching camp every night, some of which then became permanent fortifications and towns), and they did it rapidly and efficiently. There were no Roman roads in Britannia before the Roman invasion, but within 50 years the place was covered with them.
What if the volcano on Santorini didnt erupt, there by not being one of the factors that ended the Bronze age....
Well Atlantis wouldnt have been a myth for starters.
This man does not like Rome surviving😂. Quick question though if anyone would care to answer. Wasn't the elbe the ideal roman boarder for Augustus. The one that was consider a even better stabilisation factor in the long run? What about no Germanicus and thus no Caligula? Probably a more stable Tiberius as well.
You should do a 'what if Francis II of france didn't die young' video.
Married to Mary queen of Scotland and with his brother Henry III as king in the Polish-lithuanian commonwealth, Europe could have been drastically different.
What if Roman Empire conquer Arabia? Would then Roman Empire (at least the East part) survive assuming Arabia would become an integral province?
one of the reasons Rome didn't go full Steam Power is the lack of a consumer market because of the number of slaves. wouldn't that overstretching be the trigger to a Steampunk Rome? the one your video on Rome using Steam power misses.....
What if this guy gave me perfect ideas for a paradox game campaign
The saxons were also the ancestors of you know the germans, because it was the kings of saxony who became dukes of saxony under the franks and then rebelled and became kings of germany and eventually holy roman emperors. They are by far the most influential Germanic tribe.
Otto the Great founded the kingdom of Germany out of necessity in the 10th century. It was a federation of four large and powerful tribes (anybody can name them) and one smaller tribe (the Thuringians).
@@roodborstkalf9664 Otto the great did not found Germany his father Henry the Fowler did.
interesting my man
What if the Megafauna and horses of the Americas never went extinct?
Roman Britain was not only settled by Saxons but also by the Angles and the Jutes. Hence the name Anglo-Saxons.
and then of course invaded by the French (Normans to be exact with a different culture at the time then France but same language soooo)
anyone else here from the logh playlist?
A note, a legion wasnt just legionaries, it was also bolstered by as many auxilia, and more camp followers/support staff, its more likely that 30000+ roman/allies were killed or captured in that battle.
Maybe that scenario took place in another universe ?
It is easy to say "What if .." But we will of course never know since so many things can alter history
Can you make one video on Rome without bringing up Mithraism?
Where is the source to back up thr claim that Slavs were settled somewhere in Northern Russia at that point?
I love how he just forgets the Basques and Romanians
What if the tetrarchy never fell and maintained a similar statues between emperors as we saw during the reign of Diocletian
What if the Teutonic Order won at a Grunwald?
Scorpion Firesome Lebensraum happens
German Poland?
@@CataciousAmogusevic German Lithuania?
Could we get a completely alt. history map? Like perhaps the Burgundians make a kingdom for themselves in Italy, the Saxons in France? Or entirely new non-arbitrary borders?
Wouldnt change much, your example.
Interesting points. But you ignored some important things:
The Germans of our timeline were "civilized" just the way the east of the Elbe Germans were in your timeline, and yet western Rome lasted quite some time. Furthermore, with the smaller border from the Elbe to the Danube, it would be a more defensible line. It's possible with the conquests of Marcus Aurelius in modern day Czechia, Slovakia, and the Hungarian plain, the border could be moved to the Elbe, Carpathian mountains, and perhaps Moldova. "But the cost of settling this land!" you may say. However, the urban poor of Rome clamored for land. Germania and the other new lands would ideal places for farmers to go. "It's far from the population centers!" Yes, as was the Levant. The Mediterranean made easy transport to there, but the Roman roads were unmatched. Britannia would be invaded as well, purely for the legitimacy it would provide an emperor. Forays were made into Germania in our timeline, and the same would happen. Would the border move to the Oder or even the Vistula? I doubt it. It may be possible, given enough time, but the advancing technology of those tribes would make conquest more difficult.
Tl;Dr: The Romans would have lasted just as long, if not longer, if they took Germania.
YOU SPOKE OF THE POPULATION OF FRANCE, ITALY AND BRITAIN DURING THIS PERIOD,. AND WHAT WAS THE POPULATION OF IBERIA AT THE TIME PLEASE?!!
WTF I'm a little weirded out. In 2016 I took a vacation in Kentucky to a hunting lodge. Remove that shield and that's exactly what I looked like. Apparently I'm a civilized Barbarian? Now I want to know which one of the guys who went with me on that hunting trip thought I would make a good meme?
What if the roman odenthius, conquered the Persians, in the third century, Also great video.
You don't even need him for that, just have trajan or caeser live a couple years longer
@@wewuzvikangz4829 Caesar any wanted to conquer to the Elbe, all of Britain, and the Balkans. He would not be able to conquer persia, he's not stupid in the slightest sense of it. and emperor Trajan wanted to defend and consolidate, not expand the Roman Empire.
@@tntsummers926 caeser was literally getting ready to invade Persia and was only a few days away from leaving rome when he was assassinated, he had made it publicly known that he was about to go campaigning in the east, I have absolutely no doubts that with the entire Roman state at his command the second most brilliant military tactician who ever lived will be able to conquer at least Mesopotamia If not all of persia, caeser is not crassus and he wont make the same kinds of idiotic mistakes that crassus did, caesar will find a solution to Persias horse archers sooner or later. Trajan already did conquer most of Mesopotamia and if he lives for let's say 5 more years I see no reason why he cant get the rest of it, after Mesopotamia fell persia was a broken nation, it fell into 60 years of decline and civil war and with a surviving trajan the romans should have no difficulty conquering them.
Just look it this map, in 117 the Roman's have already broken Persias back, they need only have Trajan stay around a little bit longer to finish them off
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#/media/File%3ARoman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png
@@wewuzvikangz4829 I didn't know that much about trajan, so I will believe you on that issue. But Caesar was going to March on burebeasta the great king of the Balkans (dacia), because he sided with Pompey. And he always was trying to conquer the Balkans , before the Germans invaded Gaul. He was planning on conquering Germany to secure Gaul, and Britain afterwards for propaganda.
@@tntsummers926 he was going to Persia first, see for yourself www.livius.org/sources/content/plutarch/plutarchs-caesar/caesars-last-plans/
"The year is 9AD"
I see what you did there...
Mate can you do one on what if the English also settled South America?
Basially, Christopher Columbus need to be funded by Henry VII Tudor
You mean basically Cecil Rhodes' testament?
It all depends if they still rebel and gain independence on the early 19th century or if they follow the same path as Australia/Canada, maybe the place would be less corrupt, more developed, and the best part, Brazil wouldn't exist.
@@tanostrelok2323 I don't think they would have gained independence. The Spanish colonies gained independence mainly because Great Britain encouraged it. It's likely they would have become a dominion. Also, the native population would probably have experienced a REAL genocide (once the abuses committed immediatly after the conquest had been stopped, the Spanish began to treat the natives much better, and they integrated pretty well as Spanish citiziens, even siding with the Spanish during the independence wars of Latin America, and a large number of their descendants exist even today in Latin America, with their own language - like quechua or guarani - and traditions; instead, the English colonists were far more cruel with the natives, and only a small number of their descendants survive today in reserves in the USA )
About Germanics in Eastern Europe, we have really but a vague idea about the population there back then. Even if Germanics were occupying "most of Ukraine" most of the inhabitants weren't Germanic. We only know for sure that Goths migrated from few places and eventually ended up in Crimea. People have this idea about swarm of Germans sitting in Poland and Belarus while "Slavs were squatting in Northern Russia", but that's only wishful thinking. Everybody forgets about the Veneti, who most likely were Slavic speaking, and lived east of Vistula, and it's possible that some of their settlements were present west of it. Baltic speakers were also more widespread at the time. Most of Poland back then was heavily forested and the only settlement we know for sure that existed there was Kalisia - modern Kalisz, which is the oldest city in Poland (it's etymology appears to be either Celtic or Slavic, but most certainly not Germanic) and Gothiscandza, which may have existed on either mouth of Vistula or even Oder, as speculated by some historians).
but most of the inhabitans likely were germanic, there is not real evidence for anything else :)