I suspect if the Romans managed to conquer Germania, it would have incentivized other conquests. I can see the Romans completing the conquest of Caledonia and maybe even Hibernia, the conquest of Parthia, and even Rome pushing southward from North Africa toward Ethiopia.
17:18 The simple answer is we don’t know due to a lack of accurate records on the subject, so any answer is a rough approximation at best. But most archaeologists place the range between 3 and 5 million based on assumptions about population density in comparison to contemporary regions we do have more accurate data on.
@@MalikF15 i think that is more harking back to the creation of the HRE or more specifically Otto I's aquisition of the imperial title in 962, rather than to ancient rome. But as we have seen, the roman legacy remained powerfully attractive for others to try to emulate. For good or ill. Mostly for ill.
@@Longshanks1690Rome did not simp for greece lol. They never called themselves greeks as greeks called themselves romans, never claimed to be succesors of greeks, Livy stated the romans would have demolished Alexander, they had a very different origin than greeks (a loup raised Romulus and Remus),etc etc.
@@Longshanks1690and they never claimed to be "descendents" of the trojans only than the forefather of remulus and remus who founded rome, Aeneas, escaped from troy.
Few big things to add 1) Internal problems still exist and the crisis of the third century still happens, it might even be worse due to tensions between Germanic and Balkan generals (BTW in this period and later it is likely a good portion of Emperors would be Germanic) 2) After the crisis I think a tetrarchy-style division is still likely, but with two new capitals Constantinople, and a city in Germania likely Aachen or Cologne. 3) Vandals and Goths would still be outside the borders and be pushed into the empire by Huns, thus overruning Balkans, Italy, Southern Gaul, Hispania and Afrika 4)However I think the position in Northern Gaul and Germania would survive because the Germans that did it would be long integrated. Also, the Kingdom of Soissons did outlive WRE, so there is a bit of precedence. This state would likely occupy a similar area as the Franks did in OTL, to be honest, they would be Romanised Franks) The creation of a second Roman state would be the biggest difference in my opinion. Since they could help Justinian in reconquests (possibly preventing exhaustion and Arab invasions) or not dividing due to Suscesion laws
I think if Rome had conquered Germany they’re military might would have grown enough that they would have expanded the empire slightly more but with the same general outcome in the end. I think this because the extra power would help in the conquest, but the little conquest that came after that wouldn’t make up for the amount of corruption with in the empire.
I would like to add that there were a lot of german auxiliaries and mercenaries fighting for rome throughout the existence of the empire, which increased their military a little bit.
Yes,they would have more peoples for auxiliaries, but also more terrain to occupy. Potential revolts to put down .more expanded border to hold., etc. So I guess it wouldn't have changed that much .( Besides Germany having some cool Roman monuments ;)
@@spiritualanarchist8162 It would change everything, imagine not having to worry about the Germanic tribes and having *three* giant river walls instead of one. Rome never struggled with revolts. They struggle when revolts, plagues, foreign invasions, corruption, incompetency and more happening at the same time. All of western Rome would be indefinitely safe from foreign invasions.
@@theflamingeagle572 Not really. First , that's assuming those tribes wouldn't rebel. One needs legions to occupy the land and guard the new border. But even if rebellion didn't happen , you still had to worry about the tribes that border the newly occupied territory. Every time you move the border ,new lands border it. that's the problem. Also, the farther the empire got stretched , the farther it's legions needed to travel to bring enforcements. And the existing empire was already stretched to the limit.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 That is true and a good point but what I am saying is instead of just having some mercenaries they’d have the might of not only the Roman legion but the additional might of the united German forces. So I believe it would change a lot in a sense of the land they would’ve gain and therefore the power within the empire gained, but in the end the corruption would still kill the empire.
The Romans absolutely could have used Armenians as mercenaries. They did in our timeline. The Armenians were a valued contingent of the Eastern Roman military force.
Think I read/heard somewhere once that there were only like a million germans between the rhine and the elbe at this time. So double-edged sword. Rome would have no problem settling the region after....... making it open for settlement let's just say, but it would take a lot of investment to make it stick. Hence why he focused so much on the amber road and the raw materials present, because without those Rome probably wouldn't deem it worthwhile to hold it. Conquest for the sake conquest was more of a mongol thing imo, Rome only conquered and integrated a region if they felt it would be net-positive, with some persian-shaped exceptions.
I agree with Cody about 90% of the video, especially on his case that plague devastated Rome more than anything else - that really doesn’t get talked about enough. But the notion that after conquering Germania that there would have been no more enemies? That’s absurd. There would always have been someone on the borders of Rome whether it was the Norse, ancient Prussians, proto-Slavs or some other culture butterflied into existence because of this conquest. And because of this, they would have taken the role that the Germans fulfilled in our timeline of the soldiers brought in by Rome after the plague. I don’t see any circumstance where conquering Germania somehow avoids this mindset among the Roman elite. The biggest change is the nature and culture of the post-Roman kingdoms established in Europe thereafter, but that there would have been new kingdoms after the fall of Rome seems inevitable by that point.
Well there is no guarantee that there would have been another group of people to take over the Germans. A few rebellions sure, but I don't see any other group that would pose such a threat as the Germans.
I think the point that it was going, is that the German tribes that once hated rome, forever, would now be their best allies No total hate towards them, means that they are far less likely to try to assault Rome (That and that Rome would be way easier to defend if the border was to the river, and also money would be used to a better military) or they would be pushed back, Rome will always have enemies, but now they would have the strenght to push them back, and dont rely on Mercenaries without loyalty
@@flaggy185 even still roman conquer as we do not forget about nordic balitc eastern slavic tribe or asiastic nomad horde also come into rome for raid
Romans were never Racist. They hated everyone equally. Once Romanized it was not Important what was your Origin, you were Roman. There were no Second Class Romans because of Origin. Thats a Problem of Nationalizm. There was no Nationalizm back then. Roman was not Origin it was Culture and Values not the Race.
I feel like in this scenario you don't have to deal with as many Germanic tribes as you did in our timeline. The ones that still exist could just be settled in germania.
A no Mr .Terry once again compering the Citizen legionare army of the Late Republic and the Principate with the Feoderati based military od the Late Empire of the 5 century
I think the main thing this doesn't address is the instability of the empire due to the immense power of its generals and how easy it is to corrupt/exploit a system that large and unwieldy. I could see Rome faring much better in this timeline, perhaps having a later and/or softer decline, but I think it still at the very least splits into various states/kingdoms. And I'd be shocked if they didn't continue to be plagued by civil wars.
This is a mistake a lot of "History channels" make. They talk about invasions like from the germanic tribes and the Huns as the reason why Roman empire collapsed, but the true problems came from the inside. A lot of curroption and instability due to unhappines from the "lower classes".
I think it would definitely help towards Roman strength and resilience, the way the Romans were incredibly successful in assimilating cultures and making them part of the empire proved itself successful by, when the empire was tumbling on it’s feet, the ones that Rome conquered were the ones who put it back together. It would still fall, due to everything else, but they would revive the dead carcass for a longer time.
'Besides the unpredictable events history is filled with , I doubt taking Germania have changed much . First of all , the South- Eastern parts of the Empire were always regarded as more profitable .So I think the priority would be looting Persia over Germania. Occupying parts of Germania was more about keeping a bufferzone between the existing Empire and the ' 'barbaric North' . Even if Roman empire had managed to occupy the whole of Germania , the Huns would still be banging at the gates.
I don't buy a Rome conqueres Germany scenario for two simple reasons. 1. The terrain remains the same. Whether it is Arminius or someone else. It took litterally centuries to reduce the forsts of Germany during the middle ages. 2. Rome would have hit overextension a lot faster. Rome was already pushing the limits in transportation, communication and effective rulership time. Conquereing Germany would mean needing more soilders that needed to be loyal to the empire as a whole and not to the general commanding and paying them ... Overall I think some very intelligent people realised that the Rhine was a very nice natural barrier that reduced the costs for guarding a hughe flank of the empire. They then used trade, exchange of hostages to effectivley controll a hughe part of Germany economically anyways ...
I have not problem the romans could easily conquer the whole of germania at that point in time. My big question would just be why? It was sparely populated, with very little arable land (compared to say Gaulle), loads of nasty hard to cross forests and no natural boarders in the east at least until the Ural (If you wonder why later Germany always tried to expand east, that is one of the reasons). The is little benefit of conquering it, but load of cost and investment holding it. With the Rhine board Rome already had the natural border that France so badly wanted for centuries, and if not an aweful lot else went south (as it did in actual history), the probably could have hold it even longer.
Sorry, but first of all! There wasn't even a "Germany" at that time! And Rome has already conquered a big chunk of it anyways. It goes from the South side of the Danube River in the South, up to Cologne (which is even a Roman founded city!) to the North-West. So they conquered about 2/3 what we would call "West-Germany", today. And that already has changed something. It brought several things to germany, as well as to any part of europe they have conquered and even to parts of the world they never seen, because other adapted it. Like pretty much every western legal system is based on the roman legal system. Even the american! The other thing thats more annoying, but still a part how our countries operate is the bureaucracy. It's not all 1:1 but enough that you can get a clue where it came from. Roads and floating water for public baths, fountains and even toilets are also something we got from them. And as for germany: Have you have heard of the "Holy Roman Empire"? It's technically a successor of the Roman Empire, at least the idea behind it.
What is it with young guys (such as Cody from AHH) and their belief that _history = war?_ Ok, so that's been a long standing problem in understanding the past, but the attraction that history-Tubers have with the strong men of the past is a reflection on how we think. No matter how evil some guy was in the past, people today will idolize him for what he did if he did it big enough.
Perhaps you should consider that the thinking is War = More Viewership instead of War = History. You can try and make what ever political statement that you wish, but the truth of the matter is warfare is a more approachable topic than something like the roman economy. Those kind of videos are interesting to serious history fans, but not to casuals. I once watched a long video about the Roman love of fish sauce and the significant portion of the productive capacity that went into making it. There is absolutely zero chance that a casual fan would ever watched the video, especially to the end of it. It's just too complex for what they're looking for and they will get bored. On a free platform such as this, you have no choice but to appeal to casuals if you want success. There's just no avoiding it.
True, i have noticed that as well and there is quite frankly a lot of bad history floating around the internet nowadays. Great man history is another aspect that seldom highlights the fact that someones great is usually another ones terrible, depending on the perspective, and how these "great men" often brought a lot of misery with them. The problem with a lof these internet "historians" is that they try to push a simple narrative for the views and history is seldom simple. I wonder if historical video games or strategy games are partly to blame for this lol. They tend to reinforce the idea of centralized homogenous factions competing with one another. On the other hand, video games can also be an impetus and inspiration to learn more.
How would a Roman conquest of Germany change history?
Maybe a more unified Germany.
Very well-built chariots.
The HRE could finally call themselves Rome.
I suspect if the Romans managed to conquer Germania, it would have incentivized other conquests. I can see the Romans completing the conquest of Caledonia and maybe even Hibernia, the conquest of Parthia, and even Rome pushing southward from North Africa toward Ethiopia.
17:18
The simple answer is we don’t know due to a lack of accurate records on the subject, so any answer is a rough approximation at best. But most archaeologists place the range between 3 and 5 million based on assumptions about population density in comparison to contemporary regions we do have more accurate data on.
It’s funny how German dynasties celebrate pushing back Rome. But they loved claiming to rightful successor of Rome. Kaiser title
Rome loved simping for the Greeks at the same time as claiming they were descended from the Trojans. Everyone does it.
@ we love cosplaying as heroes
@@MalikF15 i think that is more harking back to the creation of the HRE or more specifically Otto I's aquisition of the imperial title in 962, rather than to ancient rome. But as we have seen, the roman legacy remained powerfully attractive for others to try to emulate. For good or ill. Mostly for ill.
@@Longshanks1690Rome did not simp for greece lol. They never called themselves greeks as greeks called themselves romans, never claimed to be succesors of greeks, Livy stated the romans would have demolished Alexander, they had a very different origin than greeks (a loup raised Romulus and Remus),etc etc.
@@Longshanks1690and they never claimed to be "descendents" of the trojans only than the forefather of remulus and remus who founded rome, Aeneas, escaped from troy.
Few big things to add
1) Internal problems still exist and the crisis of the third century still happens, it might even be worse due to tensions between Germanic and Balkan generals (BTW in this period and later it is likely a good portion of Emperors would be Germanic)
2) After the crisis I think a tetrarchy-style division is still likely, but with two new capitals Constantinople, and a city in Germania likely Aachen or Cologne.
3) Vandals and Goths would still be outside the borders and be pushed into the empire by Huns, thus overruning Balkans, Italy, Southern Gaul, Hispania and Afrika
4)However I think the position in Northern Gaul and Germania would survive because the Germans that did it would be long integrated. Also, the Kingdom of Soissons did outlive WRE, so there is a bit of precedence. This state would likely occupy a similar area as the Franks did in OTL, to be honest, they would be Romanised Franks)
The creation of a second Roman state would be the biggest difference in my opinion. Since they could help Justinian in reconquests (possibly preventing exhaustion and Arab invasions) or not dividing due to Suscesion laws
I think if Rome had conquered Germany they’re military might would have grown enough that they would have expanded the empire slightly more but with the same general outcome in the end. I think this because the extra power would help in the conquest, but the little conquest that came after that wouldn’t make up for the amount of corruption with in the empire.
I would like to add that there were a lot of german auxiliaries and mercenaries fighting for rome throughout the existence of the empire, which increased their military a little bit.
Yes,they would have more peoples for auxiliaries, but also more terrain to occupy. Potential revolts to put down .more expanded border to hold., etc. So I guess it wouldn't have changed that much .( Besides Germany having some cool Roman monuments ;)
@@spiritualanarchist8162 It would change everything, imagine not having to worry about the Germanic tribes and having *three* giant river walls instead of one. Rome never struggled with revolts. They struggle when revolts, plagues, foreign invasions, corruption, incompetency and more happening at the same time. All of western Rome would be indefinitely safe from foreign invasions.
@@theflamingeagle572 Not really. First , that's assuming those tribes wouldn't rebel. One needs legions to occupy the land and guard the new border.
But even if rebellion didn't happen , you still had to worry about the tribes that border the newly occupied territory.
Every time you move the border ,new lands border it. that's the problem.
Also, the farther the empire got stretched , the farther it's legions needed to travel to bring enforcements. And the existing empire was already stretched to the limit.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 That is true and a good point but what I am saying is instead of just having some mercenaries they’d have the might of not only the Roman legion but the additional might of the united German forces. So I believe it would change a lot in a sense of the land they would’ve gain and therefore the power within the empire gained, but in the end the corruption would still kill the empire.
The Romans absolutely could have used Armenians as mercenaries. They did in our timeline. The Armenians were a valued contingent of the Eastern Roman military force.
Germany is proud of beating back rome
...When their emperor is literally called Caesar... (Kaiser)
No contradiction on the contrary
Think I read/heard somewhere once that there were only like a million germans between the rhine and the elbe at this time. So double-edged sword. Rome would have no problem settling the region after....... making it open for settlement let's just say, but it would take a lot of investment to make it stick. Hence why he focused so much on the amber road and the raw materials present, because without those Rome probably wouldn't deem it worthwhile to hold it. Conquest for the sake conquest was more of a mongol thing imo, Rome only conquered and integrated a region if they felt it would be net-positive, with some persian-shaped exceptions.
Yess I was waiting for this. Mr Terry always brings such interesting points to the conversation + some interesting info I didn't know about
I agree with Cody about 90% of the video, especially on his case that plague devastated Rome more than anything else - that really doesn’t get talked about enough.
But the notion that after conquering Germania that there would have been no more enemies? That’s absurd. There would always have been someone on the borders of Rome whether it was the Norse, ancient Prussians, proto-Slavs or some other culture butterflied into existence because of this conquest. And because of this, they would have taken the role that the Germans fulfilled in our timeline of the soldiers brought in by Rome after the plague. I don’t see any circumstance where conquering Germania somehow avoids this mindset among the Roman elite. The biggest change is the nature and culture of the post-Roman kingdoms established in Europe thereafter, but that there would have been new kingdoms after the fall of Rome seems inevitable by that point.
Well there is no guarantee that there would have been another group of people to take over the Germans. A few rebellions sure, but I don't see any other group that would pose such a threat as the Germans.
I think the point that it was going, is that the German tribes that once hated rome, forever, would now be their best allies
No total hate towards them, means that they are far less likely to try to assault Rome (That and that Rome would be way easier to defend if the border was to the river, and also money would be used to a better military) or they would be pushed back, Rome will always have enemies, but now they would have the strenght to push them back, and dont rely on Mercenaries without loyalty
@@flaggy185 even still roman conquer as we do not forget about nordic balitc eastern slavic tribe or asiastic nomad horde also come into rome for raid
Romans were never Racist. They hated everyone equally. Once Romanized it was not Important what was your Origin, you were Roman. There were no Second Class Romans because of Origin. Thats a Problem of Nationalizm. There was no Nationalizm back then. Roman was not Origin it was Culture and Values not the Race.
And to think that german peoples ended western rome and then they proclaimed themselves succesors of the empire and became romanised hahaha.
I feel like in this scenario you don't have to deal with as many Germanic tribes as you did in our timeline. The ones that still exist could just be settled in germania.
Happy Thanksgiving Mr Terry!
Fun fact: Iceland is deforested for the same reason as Greece. Another history fact I learned from TH-cam Historians. Keep up the good work!
Love that shirt Mr. T! Really works with your complexion.
A no Mr .Terry once again compering the Citizen legionare army of the Late Republic and the Principate with the Feoderati based military od the Late Empire of the 5 century
If Rome conquered Germania up to the Elbe river? Well we'd probably have videos on what if Rome conquered up to the Oder(-Neisse) or even the Vistula.
romans having shotguns i am not surprised to hear about that since they did have a arc reactor
Nice shirt!
I think the main thing this doesn't address is the instability of the empire due to the immense power of its generals and how easy it is to corrupt/exploit a system that large and unwieldy. I could see Rome faring much better in this timeline, perhaps having a later and/or softer decline, but I think it still at the very least splits into various states/kingdoms. And I'd be shocked if they didn't continue to be plagued by civil wars.
This is a mistake a lot of "History channels" make. They talk about invasions like from the germanic tribes and the Huns as the reason why Roman empire collapsed, but the true problems came from the inside. A lot of curroption and instability due to unhappines from the "lower classes".
I think it would definitely help towards Roman strength and resilience, the way the Romans were incredibly successful in assimilating cultures and making them part of the empire proved itself successful by, when the empire was tumbling on it’s feet, the ones that Rome conquered were the ones who put it back together. It would still fall, due to everything else, but they would revive the dead carcass for a longer time.
The Narrator sounds a lot like John Eric Hexum - to me , anyway.
'Besides the unpredictable events history is filled with , I doubt taking Germania have changed much . First of all , the South- Eastern parts of the Empire were always regarded as more profitable .So I think the priority would be looting Persia over Germania. Occupying parts of Germania was more about keeping a bufferzone between the existing Empire and the ' 'barbaric North' . Even if Roman empire had managed to occupy the whole of Germania , the Huns would still be banging at the gates.
You should totally react to Altremer.
I don't buy a Rome conqueres Germany scenario for two simple reasons.
1. The terrain remains the same. Whether it is Arminius or someone else. It took litterally centuries to reduce the forsts of Germany during the middle ages.
2. Rome would have hit overextension a lot faster. Rome was already pushing the limits in transportation, communication and effective rulership time. Conquereing Germany would mean needing more soilders that needed to be loyal to the empire as a whole and not to the general commanding and paying them ...
Overall I think some very intelligent people realised that the Rhine was a very nice natural barrier that reduced the costs for guarding a hughe flank of the empire. They then used trade, exchange of hostages to effectivley controll a hughe part of Germany economically anyways ...
You look fresh today Mr. Terry
Finally something on it
What personal connection bro, this people invade your country now you are forced to serve in invaders army, what connection
shirt is lowkey fire
I love the shirt
Only half Western Germany or ancient Barbarian tribe , Alemanni.
I have not problem the romans could easily conquer the whole of germania at that point in time. My big question would just be why? It was sparely populated, with very little arable land (compared to say Gaulle), loads of nasty hard to cross forests and no natural boarders in the east at least until the Ural (If you wonder why later Germany always tried to expand east, that is one of the reasons). The is little benefit of conquering it, but load of cost and investment holding it. With the Rhine board Rome already had the natural border that France so badly wanted for centuries, and if not an aweful lot else went south (as it did in actual history), the probably could have hold it even longer.
😊
Sorry, but first of all! There wasn't even a "Germany" at that time! And Rome has already conquered a big chunk of it anyways. It goes from the South side of the Danube River in the South, up to Cologne (which is even a Roman founded city!) to the North-West. So they conquered about 2/3 what we would call "West-Germany", today.
And that already has changed something. It brought several things to germany, as well as to any part of europe they have conquered and even to parts of the world they never seen, because other adapted it.
Like pretty much every western legal system is based on the roman legal system. Even the american! The other thing thats more annoying, but still a part how our countries operate is the bureaucracy. It's not all 1:1 but enough that you can get a clue where it came from.
Roads and floating water for public baths, fountains and even toilets are also something we got from them.
And as for germany: Have you have heard of the "Holy Roman Empire"? It's technically a successor of the Roman Empire, at least the idea behind it.
What is it with young guys (such as Cody from AHH) and their belief that _history = war?_ Ok, so that's been a long standing problem in understanding the past, but the attraction that history-Tubers have with the strong men of the past is a reflection on how we think. No matter how evil some guy was in the past, people today will idolize him for what he did if he did it big enough.
Perhaps you should consider that the thinking is War = More Viewership instead of War = History. You can try and make what ever political statement that you wish, but the truth of the matter is warfare is a more approachable topic than something like the roman economy. Those kind of videos are interesting to serious history fans, but not to casuals. I once watched a long video about the Roman love of fish sauce and the significant portion of the productive capacity that went into making it. There is absolutely zero chance that a casual fan would ever watched the video, especially to the end of it. It's just too complex for what they're looking for and they will get bored. On a free platform such as this, you have no choice but to appeal to casuals if you want success. There's just no avoiding it.
True, i have noticed that as well and there is quite frankly a lot of bad history floating around the internet nowadays. Great man history is another aspect that seldom highlights the fact that someones great is usually another ones terrible, depending on the perspective, and how these "great men" often brought a lot of misery with them. The problem with a lof these internet "historians" is that they try to push a simple narrative for the views and history is seldom simple. I wonder if historical video games or strategy games are partly to blame for this lol. They tend to reinforce the idea of centralized homogenous factions competing with one another. On the other hand, video games can also be an impetus and inspiration to learn more.