[Joona]

What would happen if the Roman Emperor Trajan lived longer and decided to conquer all of Germania? Then he continued on to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and parts of Finland and Russia. What if he then wanted to conquer the so called "Hyperborea" to the north. Hyperborea would be Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, Novaya Zemlya, Franz Josef Land, and the New Siberian Islands. Let's say almost everyone there liked Trajan and let him annex them peacefully. They would provide him with the soldiers he needed. Let's also assume he was prepared for the long winters of the north. Let's say that he then built a large northern fleet and split his armies into two parts and sent one west where it discovered America and brought the Canadian Arctic Islands and Greenland into the vast Empire. The 2nd half of his army went west to the present day USA to establish colonies that remained in effective contact with the rest of the empire. Let's say then that Trajan died after 10 years of all this happening and it all fell apart and the Roman Empire went back to normal.

What would happen next? How would human history be changed as a result?

[Potemkin]

Let's say that he then built a large fleet in the north and split his armies into two parts and sent one west where it discovered America and brought the Canadian Arctic Islands and Greenland into the vast Empire.

What if he built a fleet of space rockets and colonised the Moon? What then, huh? Huh?!

[JohnRawls]

^

Oh i had a lot of laugh about the upper things .

Then Attila , Gangis Khan and Tamerlan would just gang up on the Roman empire and smack it with a chair from behind .

Would be the same dead roman empire .

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I'm guessing there would have been a lot of Native American cave paintings saying "Romanes eunt domus".

[Doomhammer]

Romani ite domum.

[Imperatrix_Iuliana]

That is funny!!! As much as I love the Romans I don't see that happening. Even if Trajan lived longer he probably would be occupied consolidating the frontiers which began to crumble. Augustus was clear before he died, roman territory was already too big and the bigger it got the more difficult to rule. The problem was that most emperors wanted to be remembered as conquerors and they simply ignored his advice. But conquer Germania... Kind of far fetched. Remember the Varian disaster!! Rome never forgot that.

[pugsville]

I disagree strongly many emperors might want to be remebered as conquorers but almost none did much bout it, the roman empire remianed pretty much defensive throughout the imperial period. And the frontiers were hardly crumbling in Trajans time. I think Germania was quite conquorable but it would have not have changed matters long term. The Varian diastaiter was 3 legions, the empire was running something like 28, a mere blip compared to a lot of the civil conflicts. The problems of the roman empire were about getting the elites to work together to find way to govern over distances with poor communiction (how did guys who dont see each other years miantian trust , co-operation and common purpose) how in the long term elites are able to put their own interests ahead of the common good. In the lte empire the elites had cost shifted everything down to the less well off which left the tax gathers trying to screw too much out of the poor basicly, which robbed the empire of its vitality as more and more identified less with the empire.

[Imperatrix_Iuliana]

Well you can disagree but that was a fact. Of course generally speaking many of the emperors did wanted to be seen as conquerors (mostly on the first dinasty). As for the empire being governable... I strongly disagree with you. Augustus was pretty clear in what he said and he was right. Germania was conquerable? The problem is one can't see things independently. The Varian disaster that you mention as "only" 3 legions had an impact not only in the army (it wasn't that easy to create 3 legions to substitute the ones lost concerning their experience and also the recruiting of new soldiers was a very problematic thing in short notice)but also in the roman Psyche (see Augustus reaction not only to losing his men but also the eagles). Even with 28 legions how it was just a "blip"? Check your facts. The territory was always in need of legions in several frontiers so losing that quantity of soldiers was a real problem despite what you said. The frontier began to crumble after Trajanus, that's true but I still maintain what I said. I agree with you about the elites and the communication problems. The Empire began to crumble from the inside (a very sad thing really) because the elites were to preoccupied with their own interests and rivalities to be doing thigs for the good of the empire as a whole. But that's the problem with most of the big empires even today. The tax problems were old. Remeber even in the time of Christ the hate people had of the tax gatherers? The cost of maintaining not only the elites and their luxuries but also the gigantic machine that was Rome, was too much. So not only because of taxes people from the provinces rebelled against roman administration but also because they were being bled dry from their money, natural resources and also human resorces. Of course romanization eventually compensated some of these problems in some provices and a period of PAX (efemeral and delicate as it was) became a reality. But to be able to talk about all these circumstances and facts one need a book of 3000000 pages! Good Discussion though!

[Varilion]

@Germania: Romans try to conquest it in order to move the border to the river Elba, making it shorter and less expensive to maintain. When they saw that it would need a long (and expensive) military campaign they dropped the idea.. of course 2000 years after we could say that conquest germany would be a nice job...

Trajan goal was to be remember as Alexander the Great, so to conquest all Persia until India. He launched an huge offensive with 100k men (20 legions ?). He conquested Mesopotamia and Babylon before die. However it was quiet complicated to keep those lands, too far from Rome. So his successor prefer to give them back to persian.

Until the plauge of 160 a.c. the economy of the Empire was almost stable...

[starman2003]

I think Trajan might've conquered Germania. Look what Aurelius finally did by the end of his reign. After throwing back the barbarian Marcomanni, Quadi and Iazyges, he went north into what is now Bohemia IIRC and was about to crush the barbarians once and for all. But Commodus abandoned the project as he preferred the pleasures of Rome. If Aurelius could make such headway by 180 CE, after Rome had been weakened by plague, Trajan could've done even better, had he wished (evidently he didn't since he campaigned for two years against tHe Germans (98-100 CE) but attempted nothing really ambitious AFAIK.

The frontier began to crumble after Trajanus, that's true...

With the exception of the revolts in Mesopotamia, and abandonment of that area, the frontiers were stable under Trajan's first two successors, Hadrian and Pius. There was no "crumbling" until the incursions across the Danube during the reign of Aurelius, but even then, there was no loss of territory. Even Dacia was held until the time of Aurelian in the 3rd century.

[Rich]

I would have thought that communications across the Mediterranean would be relatively quick. I could never understand how splitting the Empire into East and West made it more governable. Mesopotamia would seem like an obvious problem. As to Germany don't some argue that it was too barbarian, so it was difficult to feed and supply the legions in Germany.

[Potemkin]

I would have thought that communications across the Mediterranean would be relatively quick. I could never understand how splitting the Empire into East and West made it more governable.

It's to do with the various military pressure points on the borders of the Empire - the Emperor would find himself having to chase back and forth across the entire width of the Empire, putting down incursions. It made more sense to divide the military and civil responsibilities between two Emperors. Some historians have even suggested that the Empire should have been split into three parts, since there were actually three main military pressure points on the borders during the late Empire.

Mesopotamia would seem like an obvious problem.

Indeed, which is why it was probably a strategic error to try to seize it. Augustus advised his successors not to expand the borders of the Empire, and it turned out to have been wise advice.

As to Germany don't some argue that it was too barbarian, so it was difficult to feed and supply the legions in Germany.

The thick forests and the lack of roads made it extremely dangerous and difficult for the Roman legions to move through that territory. They usually had to rely on local allied tribes to act as guides and to give protection, and look how that ended.

[starman2003]

I could never understand how splitting the Empire into East and West made it more governable.

Sharing of responsibility became an absolute necessity in the late Empire, when invaders threatened or struck along the Danube, Euphrates and Rhine simultaneously. In fact, absence of imperial authority in the west was a factor in the breaking away of Gaul and Britain late in the 3rd century. If the emperor couldn't come, they'd declare their own.
I think that, notwithstanding his failure, Valerian had the best solution. Don't formerly divide the Empire, but let others one can trust--his son in his case--take responsibility for one front while the emperor is focused on another. After the formal division of the Empire in 395, the West was often unable to manage on its own resources, and crumbled away. There have been suggestions that its capital should've been moved from Ravenna to Arles to get the East to assume more responsibility for its defense.

Indeed, which is why it was probably a strategic error to try to seize it.

I don't know.....Revolts broke out following Trajan's conquest, but what else was new?--a number of previous conquests took time to consolidate fully. Even before he died, Trajan succceded to some extent in restoring order (much of the problem was due to the jewish uprisings, which for a time diverted Roman forces ). Had he lived several more years, Rome might've "digested" the new territory. That might've eliminated Parthia, and preempted Sassanid Persia.

Augustus advised his successors not to expand the borders of the Empire, and it turned out to have been wise advice.

IMO Britain may not have been worthwhile, but the conquest of Dacia yielded nice booty, and eliminated a threat to the Danube front.

[Zinome]

The romans were horrible administrators. If they had only learned and used the satrapy... Anyway, they didn't have compasses or anything, so I highly doubt that they would have made it too far past the sea. They weren't particularly bright compared to preceding civilizations.

[starman2003]

The romans were horrible administrators.

That might've been true during the republic but not the Empire. Mommsen called Domitian one of the best civil administrators. He chose honest and able men to govern the provinces.

They weren't particularly bright compared to preceding civilizations.

Succeeding should be substituted for "preceding" and even they were only inferior technologically. The Roman Empire sure was big, and lasting, compared to earlier ones. Those who "weren't particularly bright" must've done something right.

[mordechaj]

They weren't particularly bright compared to preceding civilizations.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Pont du Gard in France is a Roman aqueduct built in ca. 19 BC.
Mercury gilded statue - Marcus AureliusRoman technology is the engineering practice which supported Roman civilization and made the expansion of Roman commerce and Roman military possible over nearly a thousand years.

The Roman Empire had the most advanced set of technologies of its time, some of which was lost during the turbulent eras of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Gradually, some of the technological feats of the Romans were rediscovered and/or improved upon, while others went ahead of what the Romans had done during the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Era. Several Roman technological feats in different areas like civil engineering, construction materials, transport technology, and some inventions such as the mechanical reaper, were surprising achievements until the 19th century, and some, such as the arch, have remained untouched to this day.

[Thunderhawk]

such as the arch, have remained untouched to this day.

Actually, the type and understanding of arches that are used in civil engineering has changed dramatically. The Romans were great with what they knew, but their understanding of arches was rudimentry at best.

Wikipedia's very simplistic comment about the arches leads me to believe the rest of the commentary is also very simplistic.

[starman2003]

Wikipedia's very simplistic comment about the arches leads me to believe the rest of the commentary is also very simplistic.

Generally, technology wasn't a forte of the Romans or the ancients generally. Even medieval men surpassed them in a number of areas.

[Potemkin]

Generally, technology wasn't a forte of the Romans or the ancients generally. Even medieval men surpassed them in a number of areas.

They had too much slave labour at their disposal. Technological innovation only tends to happen if labour power is expensive or if people are just plain lazy.

[Cookie Monster]

They had too much slave labour at their disposal. Technological innovation only tends to happen if labour power is expensive or if people are just plain lazy.

Apparently this doesn't always apply when taking into account the example of present day China (rapid innovation despite cheap labour).