heraclius
Well-known member
- Location
- New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK
If the first Roman Emperor Augustus had not lost several competent and trusted senior younger generals from his own family, eg his younger stepson Drusus the Elder (brother of Tiberius) in 9 BC (riding accident/fever) and his own grandson Caius Caesar in AD 4 (wounds from skirmish), he would have had a capable not a politically reliable but incompetent 'entitled' aristocratic general, Quinctilius Varus, in charge of his invasion of Germany to annex the lands between the Rhine and the Elbe in AD 9. The useless Varus took no heed of warnings of impending ambush or his desertion by scouts, and his huge army of three legions was cut to pieces by Arminius' German tribal coalition in the Teutoberg Forest. Augustus had to pull back to the Rhine and was seriously short of troops thereafter; Germany survived unconquered and the final limit to Rome's Western expansion was reached. The independent tribes were raided and punished later, but survived beyond Roman rule, and in the long term their menfolk were able to join in the later successful German attacks on the Empire in the C3rd to C5th; if they had been annexed to the Empire by Augustus as planned they would have been fighting for, not against Rome and so increasing its chances of surviving its other threats later (especially on the Danube).
Of course the Empire could have withdrawn from an annexed Germany to cut costs later, given that it had less productive agricultural land than other local provinces and was expensive to maintain - and a larger garrison to Romanise it would run risks of its leaders starting a civil war if there was a power vacuum in Rome. (Eg in the civil war after Nero died in 68.) But a defeat of the Germans in 9 by a surviving Drusus or Caius Caesar would probably have led to annexation and a larger Roman army including local tribes, and atomisation of the power-structure of tribes that later threatened and invaded the Empire. Also no heroic C19th myth of the Arminius coalition as forerunners of imperial German nationalism.
Also, fewer early deaths in Augustus' family would have radically altered the politics of the early Empire for the better - no Emperor Caligula for a start. A's intention after his grandson Caius died in AD 4 was for his stepson Tiberius (Emperor in 14-37) , Drusus' brother, to be succeeded by Drusus' son Germanicus, married to Caius' sister Agrippina the Elder, but Germanicus died early too. He died in Syria,reputedly of poison, in AD 19, aged 34 - had he lived he would have succeeded Tiberius and as he had fought successfully in Germany (but been ordered not to annex it by Tiberius) he might have invaded Germany again as Emperor after 37. In that case, would Rome have been too busy to invade Britain in 43? Other early deaths included Tiberius' own son the Younger Drusus, who was lined up to succeed Germanicus but was also supposedly poisoned (23), and G's elder two sons Nero (not the Emperor), killed for a supposed plot, and a third Drusus (killed by Tiberius). Only then did G's third son Caius 'Caligula' ('Little Boots') become Tiberius' heir.
Had Augustus ' plans been followed and no early deaths (most of them suspicious) occurred, Rome would have had two competent Emperors after Tiberius - Germanicus, then either T's son Drusus or G's elder son Nero. No mad Emperor Caligula means no Emperor Claudius (G's younger brother) either, less of a dodgy reputation for the early Emperors as showing that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', and no lurid stories for Robert Graves to write up in 'I, Claudius' and the BBC to put on TV in 1976. A different career trajectory for Derek Jacobi, John Hurt, Brian Blessed, and Sian Phillips?
Of course the Empire could have withdrawn from an annexed Germany to cut costs later, given that it had less productive agricultural land than other local provinces and was expensive to maintain - and a larger garrison to Romanise it would run risks of its leaders starting a civil war if there was a power vacuum in Rome. (Eg in the civil war after Nero died in 68.) But a defeat of the Germans in 9 by a surviving Drusus or Caius Caesar would probably have led to annexation and a larger Roman army including local tribes, and atomisation of the power-structure of tribes that later threatened and invaded the Empire. Also no heroic C19th myth of the Arminius coalition as forerunners of imperial German nationalism.
Also, fewer early deaths in Augustus' family would have radically altered the politics of the early Empire for the better - no Emperor Caligula for a start. A's intention after his grandson Caius died in AD 4 was for his stepson Tiberius (Emperor in 14-37) , Drusus' brother, to be succeeded by Drusus' son Germanicus, married to Caius' sister Agrippina the Elder, but Germanicus died early too. He died in Syria,reputedly of poison, in AD 19, aged 34 - had he lived he would have succeeded Tiberius and as he had fought successfully in Germany (but been ordered not to annex it by Tiberius) he might have invaded Germany again as Emperor after 37. In that case, would Rome have been too busy to invade Britain in 43? Other early deaths included Tiberius' own son the Younger Drusus, who was lined up to succeed Germanicus but was also supposedly poisoned (23), and G's elder two sons Nero (not the Emperor), killed for a supposed plot, and a third Drusus (killed by Tiberius). Only then did G's third son Caius 'Caligula' ('Little Boots') become Tiberius' heir.
Had Augustus ' plans been followed and no early deaths (most of them suspicious) occurred, Rome would have had two competent Emperors after Tiberius - Germanicus, then either T's son Drusus or G's elder son Nero. No mad Emperor Caligula means no Emperor Claudius (G's younger brother) either, less of a dodgy reputation for the early Emperors as showing that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', and no lurid stories for Robert Graves to write up in 'I, Claudius' and the BBC to put on TV in 1976. A different career trajectory for Derek Jacobi, John Hurt, Brian Blessed, and Sian Phillips?