Expansion to the River Oder.

[Anonymous]

Have always thought about a 'what if' the Romans had not lost the legions in Germany in the early 1st century AD. If the Romans had moved to the Oder in say the late 1st century AD, that would give them atleast 75 years before the first barbarian incursion by the Goths in 251 AD. Have read that they had actually intended to make the N/E borders as the River Oder and the at the major river(can't remember its name) just east of current day Romania. That would have a few major advantages for the Romans.<br>
<br>
- A major shorting of the border they had to guard. As it was they had to guard a line all the way from current day Belguim, the Rhine, The Danube to the Black sea. A very long and exsposed border. By using the Oder down to the Black sea, they would have shorted their lines by at least a half.<br>
<br>
-Moving the border east would have lessoned the chance that Rome could be sacked and taken by Barbarians. It may have added several months warning to any advancing invasions if they had to First cross the Oder, then move across the German plains, then try the Danube, then the Alps. This may have allowed Rome to recall, build Legions to help them in time of need.<br>
<br>
- By moving east, the Romans would have hopefully gained a massive population/economic increase that would allow them to combat any future attacks. As part of this move east, as German Tribes became more used to the benefits of Romanisation, they hopefully would be less likely to revolt, and hopefully would resist any attempts to invade remove the Romans Legions.<br>
<br>
- Whilst in the short term Rome may have suffered through having to fight/subjegate the Germans, long term these negatives would be countered by the postives i meantioned.<br>
<br>
-Could the Huns, Goths etc succesfully troubled a greatly increased/populated/ economicaly stronge Roman Empire like they historicaly did?<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=1jasonoz>1jasonoz</A> at: 7/3/04 11:55 am<br></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>If the Romans had moved to the Oder in say the late 1st century AD, that would give them atleast 75 years before the first barbarian incursion by the Goths in 251 AD.<hr><br>
Actually, that would have given them at least 151 years before that event.<br>
But if the Romans would have pushed on beyond the Elbe to the Oder, the Gothic incursion would never have happened, because the totality of the German/Slav/Hun tribes would have been totally different. maybe there would have been trouble earlier, maybe the Empire would have split into several parts, etc.<br>
<br>
Your view only takes into account that incursions were to blame for the Empire's downfall. However, these days scholars appreciate the fact that the Roman Empire was its own worst enemy. Had the Empire been at peace over the totality of its existence, most external enemies would never been such a threat.<br>
Economics aside, the Roman Empire was always vulnerable during the frequent periods of inner strife.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, a lot larger Empire would have been a lot more dangerous to that inner stability. Usurpers would have had it a lot easier with larger areas under their control. Apart from the 'natural' East-West division which we have seen in history, there would have been a third, northern, region which would have been able to go it alone. So maybe the Empire would have fallen even earlier!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
<p></p><i></i>